RAND study - terrorism is law enforcement issue

O

Onceler

New member
As if I needed another "told ya so" in my pocket; all of this "being right" stuff is actually getting tiresome:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041.html

There is no "war on terror." It's a law enforcement issue, and not a military one. Bush was dead wrong, as were Dixie, bravo, Hannity, the conservative media and everyone else who called lefties "traitors" for telling it like it is.

Maybe now we can have an HONEST national discussion about terrorism? Maybe the surreal Bush years, when logic & reason took a long holiday, are finally coming to a close?
 
Oh wasn't this amazing? My bf and I were watching it last night on Olbermann, and it is just so infuriating, because some people have been saying this all along! Think of the lives that might have been saved. And it just seems like common sense.
 
Darla said:
Oh wasn't this amazing? My bf and I were watching it last night on Olbermann, and it is just so infuriating, because some people have been saying this all along! Think of the lives that might have been saved. And it just seems like common sense.
Click to expand...

That's where I saw it, too. I can't count how many times I've been lectured about the Bush "military" strategy being the only way, and it "taking the fight" to terrorism. Like everyone else, I've been ridiculed for saying it has much more to do w/ law enforcement; I remember Kerry hinted at that for a little bit in '04, and got abused by conservatives until he came around to toe the line more.
 
There is some fascinating stuff on Google from '04 when you search:

""Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."
- Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS' "Face the Nation"

Bush also ran an ad right after Kerry's "law enforcement" remark: "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"
 
Onceler said:
As if I needed another "told ya so" in my pocket; all of this "being right" stuff is actually getting tiresome:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902041.html

There is no "war on terror." It's a law enforcement issue, and not a military one. Bush was dead wrong, as were Dixie, bravo, Hannity, the conservative media and everyone else who called lefties "traitors" for telling it like it is.

Maybe now we can have an HONEST national discussion about terrorism? Maybe the surreal Bush years, when logic & reason took a long holiday, are finally coming to a close?
Click to expand...

Good catch.

I was tired of getting dog piled for saying that occupying afghanistan was not the only possible way to deal with the threat from al qaeda. :)
 
Onceler said:
There is some fascinating stuff on Google from '04 when you search:

""Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."
- Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS' "Face the Nation"

Bush also ran an ad right after Kerry's "law enforcement" remark: "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"
Click to expand...

Yeah I remember where he said a lot of that stuff. It was in a very thoughtful and long profile done of him in the NY Times magazine. After reading it, I remember being very hopeful that he would become President because he made so much sense. Then on Monday morning, they started attacking him for saying the things that I had been so impressed with.
 
Onceler said:
There is some fascinating stuff on Google from '04 when you search:

""Terrorism is not a law enforcement matter, as John Kerry repeatedly says. Terrorist activities are not like gambling. Terrorist activities are not like prostitution. And this demonstrates a disconcerting pre-September 11 mindset that will not make our country safer. And that is what we see relative to winning the war on terror and relative to Iraq."
- Republican Party Chairman Ed Gillespie, on CBS' "Face the Nation"

Bush also ran an ad right after Kerry's "law enforcement" remark: "How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"
Click to expand...

Yup.
I think bush and his minions understood, they could not sell their Iraq war any other way though.
Lies and deception, pure lies and deception.

Or the only other option was that they used 911 to grow and maintain power thru fear.
 
This should come as no suprise to ANYONE. I have said for a long time now that the clusterfuckery in Iraq has NOTHING to do with the fact that we have not been hit again on US soil. Our inteligence services revamped after 9-11 and after they discovered all the shortfalls in their methods. The Brits have done the same and subsequent attempts at attacks on their soil have been foiled because of it. This report re-inforces the fact that a "war" is not the way to go after terrorists. But it is from that bastion of liberalism at Rand.

Here is a really good quote from the article. Something lots of us have been saying for a while.

In Muslim countries in particular, there should be a "light U.S. military footprint or none at all," the report contends.

"The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity," it said, "but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim societies, since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment."
Click to expand...

Now all of you sit back and wait for the "pinhead" comments from the peanut gallery.
 
"since its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment."

Seriously; you could NOT point this out in past years without at least one & usually many more Bushies telling you that you were "blaming America first." If it was SR telling you that, he'd usually follow with "why do you hate America?" O'Reilly is one of the true kings of this line of reasoning.

It's been criminal, because the defensive, patriotism-questioning posture that the right has assumed since this thing started has prevented an open, honest discussion on terrorism in this country, much to the detriment of our national security.
 
Watermark said:
I think the last person we should execute before we abolish capital punishment should be George Bush.
Click to expand...

Naah, he should be stripped of all money and forced to work in a minimum wage job for until eligable for SS and then forced to live on that alone.
No govt health ins either.
 
uscitizen said:
Naah, he should be stripped of all money and forced to work in a minimum wage job for until eligable for SS and then forced to live on that alone.
No govt health ins either.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't make it; he'd wilt.

Before he gets a chance at that, he really should be shipped off to Afghanistan. He told the troops he thought it would be "romantic" to be fighting there, and that he would if he didn't already have a job. Come January, he'll have his opportunity.
 
uscitizen said:
Yup.
I think bush and his minions understood, they could not sell their Iraq war any other way though.
Lies and deception, pure lies and deception.

Or the only other option was that they used 911 to grow and maintain power thru fear.
Click to expand...

Are you implying we never should have listened to you democrats?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
 
bravo said:
Are you implying we never should have listened to you democrats?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Click to expand...

Hmmmm....let's see. 1998. "Necessary actions, including IF APPROPRIATE". Air & missile strikes on "SUSPECT IRAQI SITES."

What about any of that says "let's invade Iraq and engage in a full-scale war & occupation?"

Ah.....the smell of desperation. The jig is up, bravo. It's OVAH.
 
bravo said:
Are you implying we never should have listened to you democrats?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Click to expand...

Can you point out the part that says “including invading and occupying” them? Also, can you expound on anything that might have occurred between 1998 and 2003, when we actually invaded, that might have changed the scenario? Oh, I don’t know, anything like weapons inspectors saying “we got gotz”?

Are you ever going to be anything more than a pimple on the ass of dick cheney that Addington trained to type?
 
Was that it? When confronted with a pretty definitive study from a conservative group that basically shatters his raison d'etre for the past 5+ years, the best bravo can do is muster up an old quote from '98 that mentions limited airstrikes if necessary and says nothing about war or invasion?

I wonder if he's having a breakdown? I'm worried about some of these guys...
 
Onceler said:
Was that it? When confronted with a pretty definitive study from a conservative group that basically shatters his raison d'etre for the past 5+ years, the best bravo can do is muster up an old quote from '98 that mentions limited airstrikes if necessary and says nothing about war or invasion?

I wonder if he's having a breakdown? I'm worried about some of these guys...
Click to expand...

I am too, because it’s obvious most of them aren’t smart enough to hold jobs. That means any breakdown is going to have to be picked up by Darla the Taxpaying Liberal.
 
bravo said:
Are you implying we never should have listened to you democrats?

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." Letter to President Clinton, signed by Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998
Click to expand...


Does anyone even bother to consider the opinion of this two time voting Bush hack?

hey dumbass, missle strikes are not an invasion and occupation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top