PDA

View Full Version : Internment Camps, Power Grab,WTF?



Wallyg
05-30-2007, 07:43 PM
Bush's detention facilities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 30, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern



Houston-based KBR, formerly the engineering and construction subsidiary of Halliburton Co., has a contingency contract in place with the Department of Homeland Security to construct detention facilities in the event of a national emergency.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, spokeswoman Jamie Zuieback confirmed yesterday in a telephone interview that the KBR contract for $385 million was awarded initially in January 2006 for a one-year base period with four one-year options. It has been extended into 2007. KBR held a previous emergency detention contract with ICE from 2000 to 2005.

Zuieback told this writer the primary intent of the KBR contract was to build temporary detention facilities that could be used in the event of a mass migration across the border that required ICE to respond on a quick basis to an illegal-immigration crisis.

"The idea of the KBR contract is to support the Army Corp of Engineers," Zuieback explained, "in case we experienced a sudden mass immigration and we had to respond quickly. We would need immediate detention facilities in the form of temporary housing that would enable us to determine if the large numbers of illegal immigrants were political or economically motivated, or if they were criminals or terrorists."

Zuieback confirmed that the KBR contract for detention facilities could apply to national emergencies, including natural disasters.

Several times, Zuieback insisted in the telephone interview that the KBR contract was a "contingency contract," specifying that detention facilities were to be built only when an immigration emergency or a national emergency, including a natural disaster, had been declared.

Heather Browne, spokeswoman for KBR, also sent me an e-mail yesterday confirming KBR built a temporary facility in New Orleans that provided cantonment for up to 500 federal detention officers who were tasked with maintaining law and order during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Last week, WND reported President Bush had signed May 9 a little-reported National Security and Homeland Security Directive (NSPD-51 and NSPD-20) that granted extraordinary powers to the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.

NSPD-51/HSPD-20, published on the White House website, rescinds Presidential Decision Directive 67 signed by Bill Clinton Oct. 21, 1998, and establishes a new White House office of the National Continuity Coordinator, a position now occupied by Frances Fragos Townsend, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Terrorism.

The new directive concentrates an unprecedented amount of emergency authority in the office of the president, specifying that the president now has the authority to direct "National Essential Functions" of all federal state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

The KBR contingency contract appears to give ICE the ability to have detention facilities constructed under the president's direction in response to a national emergency as declared under NSPD-51/HSPD-20.

The initial White House press release announcing the presidential directive included no background explanation of the directive or statement by the president. The press release merely posted NSPD-51/HSPD-20 on the White House website.

Sections 23 and 24 of NSPD-51/HSPD-20 specify that Annex A and the classified Continuity Annexes are incorporated into the directive, even though they remain secret and are not available for examination as part of the published document.

Still, Zuieback said she was not familiar with NSPD-51/HSPD-20. At her request, this writer e-mailed to her the White House website link to the directive posting.

The White House declined comment on the initial WND story and has not yet responded to the story or to my previous column on the subject.
-------------------------------------------------
President Bush, without so much as issuing a press statement, on May 9 signed a directive that granted near dictatorial powers to the office of the president in the event of a national emergency declared by the president.

The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive," with the dual designation of NSPD-51, as a National Security Presidential Directive, and HSPD-20, as a Homeland Security Presidential Directive, establishes under the office of president a new National Continuity Coordinator...

When the president determines a catastrophic emergency has occurred, the president can take over all government functions and direct all private sector activities to ensure we will emerge from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."

Translated into layman's terms, when the president determines a national emergency has occurred, the president can declare to the office of the presidency powers usually assumed by dictators to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over.

That job, as the document describes, is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.

The directive loosely defines "catastrophic emergency" as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."

FORD
05-30-2007, 07:55 PM
Let's hear the Busheep try to justify this before I say another word....... ;)

sadaist
05-30-2007, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by FORD
Let's hear the Busheep try to justify this before I say another word....... ;)

So if no one tries to justify this, we'll never hear another word from you again? I'm on board with that plan.

FORD
05-30-2007, 08:22 PM
No, I was just alluding to the fact that I told the Busheep this was coming way back in 2002. Long before you were here.

Sgt Schultz
05-30-2007, 08:37 PM
No I'll just rant and scream "What's the source, HUH!?!? A Monnie rag or FAUX Newwz?!?"

ELVIS
05-30-2007, 10:05 PM
Read this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) !!


:elvis:

FORD
05-30-2007, 10:08 PM
Shame on you Elvis. You know that some "American hating Commie librul" deliberately planted that document on Chimpy's offical website just to confuse everyone.

Nothing to see here ...

ELVIS
05-30-2007, 11:22 PM
Hmmm...

matt19
05-30-2007, 11:27 PM
Wait, wtf is going on?

DEMON CUNT
05-31-2007, 03:04 AM
The government can come and put anyone of us into one of those places.

It has happened here before.

Do you think that you might feel like killing yourself after five or six years in a place like that?

DEMON CUNT
05-31-2007, 03:05 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Read this (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html) !!

Thanks for the link!


Originally posted by Sgt Schultz
No I'll just rant and scream "What's the source, HUH!?!? A Monnie rag or FAUX Newwz?!?"

Good enough for you?

Wallyg
05-31-2007, 09:54 AM
From further reading, they are prepping for a simultaneous nuclear attack. Houston, LA, New York, Chicago, hit at the same time. The country would be divided into regions and people moved to the camps for whatever reason - possible danger to society, nowhere to live, etc. It looks like the government sees this not as possible but probable. It is a when not if situation.
Great reason to leave the border open dont ya' think??????
Louis Armstrong..."What a wonderful world......."

Wallyg
05-31-2007, 11:56 AM
Interesting book review from right wing site. Quotes former FBI director and adds several cities to my list above.

http://w3.newsmax.com/a/dayofislam/?PROMO_CODE=34BF-1

hideyoursheep
05-31-2007, 02:08 PM
So many detainees, so little time....


Not like they're GOING anywhwere anytime soon...

Not like we KNOW they're there...

Operation Ignore II- The terrrists.

Who cares, right?

Maybe the FUTURE terrists do.:mad:

Praise Allah and pass the IED's...

Brilliant...Another martyr for the anti-west.:rolleyes:

Get any info from him before you decided to forget he was there?

FORD
05-31-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Wallyg
From further reading, they are prepping for a simultaneous nuclear attack. Houston, LA, New York, Chicago, hit at the same time. The country would be divided into regions and people moved to the camps for whatever reason - possible danger to society, nowhere to live, etc. It looks like the government sees this not as possible but probable. It is a when not if situation.
Great reason to leave the border open dont ya' think??????
Louis Armstrong..."What a wonderful world......."

And if anyone believes that a mostly fictional band of cave dwelling imbeciles has the capability of such a nuclear attack, then you'll believe the lie they use to justify the concentration camps as well.

If we don't get these fucking criminals out of our government, this WILL happen, and the attack WILL be from within these borders, by people who were born here, and grew up in Kennebunkport, not Tehran.

Lqskdiver
05-31-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by FORD
And if anyone believes that a mostly fictional band of cave dwelling imbeciles has the capability of such a nuclear attack, then you'll believe the lie they use to justify the concentration camps as well.




I guess we should ignore them, maybe they'll just leave us alone.
Ignore the one's training to fly planes.
Ignore the millions in wire transfers.
Ignore the missing plutonium or enrichment programs.

We don't want to cause a panic and upset the Civil liberties of honest working citizens such as yourself.

Isn't that was said before 911?

FORD
05-31-2007, 03:26 PM
You must be referring to the 52 warnings the BCE ignored in 2001, right?

Or perhaps the recommendations that Vice President Gore made in 1996 which were IGNORED by the Republican congress?

Or maybe the BCE firing FBI agent John O'Neill when he was investigating ties between the Saudi government and a "charity" operated by two of Osama's brothers??

Of course he's not talking much these days either. I wonder who told him about that job opening? :(

Lqskdiver
05-31-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by FORD
You must be referring to the 52 warnings the BCE ignored in 2001, right?

Or perhaps the recommendations that Vice President Gore made in 1996 which were IGNORED by the Republican congress?

Or maybe the BCE firing FBI agent John O'Neill when he was investigating ties between the Saudi government and a "charity" operated by two of Osama's brothers??

Of course he's not talking much these days either. I wonder who told him about that job opening? :(

That's right. HOOK. LINE. SINKER.

You've just made my point.

Before 911 they were called warnings. Now, they are tools of the administration to incite fear.

You can spin all you want, my friend, but most can see through your line of bs. Save it for the uninformed.

ELVIS
05-31-2007, 05:32 PM
FORD yearns for the pre-internet days...

Nickdfresh
05-31-2007, 05:48 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
I guess we should ignore them, maybe they'll just leave us alone.
Ignore the one's training to fly planes.
Ignore the millions in wire transfers.
Ignore the missing plutonium or enrichment programs.

We don't want to cause a panic and upset the Civil liberties of honest working citizens such as yourself.

Isn't that was said before 911?

Yeah, let's all become a fascist police state after a nice terrorist Reichstag burning!

BTW, you keep saying "ignore." No one is ignoring anything.

In fact, tell me how many people have actually been prosecuted on the ACTUAL "terrorist" charges they were brought in with.

I reckon it's almost nil...

Hitlerific!!

http://screwyou.thezeroboss.com/archives/pictures/hitler1.jpg

Remember kids, dressing like Hitler, and enacting legislation eerily reminiscent of his policies, isn't cool!

Nickdfresh
05-31-2007, 06:08 PM
Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy
John Mueller
From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006

Summary: Despite all the ominous warnings of wily terrorists and imminent attacks, there has been neither a successful strike nor a close call in the United States since 9/11. The reasonable -- but rarely heard -- explanation is that there are no terrorists within the United States, and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad.

...

On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, "Today's terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon."

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?

One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

...

Intelligence estimates in 2002 held that there were as many as 5,000 al Qaeda terrorists and supporters in the United States. However, a secret FBI report in 2005 wistfully noted that although the bureau had managed to arrest a few bad guys here and there after more than three years of intense and well-funded hunting, it had been unable to identify a single true al Qaeda sleeper cell anywhere in the country. Thousands of people in the United States have had their overseas communications monitored under a controversial warrantless surveillance program. Of these, fewer than ten U.S. citizens or residents per year have aroused enough suspicion to impel the agencies spying on them to seek warrants authorizing surveillance of their domestic communications as well; none of this activity, it appears, has led to an indictment on any charge whatever.

In addition to massive eavesdropping and detention programs, every year some 30,000 "national security letters" are issued without judicial review, forcing businesses and other institutions to disclose confidential information about their customers without telling anyone they have done so. That process has generated thousands of leads that, when pursued, have led nowhere. Some 80,000 Arab and Muslim immigrants have been subjected to fingerprinting and registration, another 8,000 have been called in for interviews with the FBI, and over 5,000 foreign nationals have been imprisoned in initiatives designed to prevent terrorism. This activity, notes the Georgetown University law professor David Cole, has not resulted in a single conviction for a terrorist crime. In fact, only a small number of people picked up on terrorism charges -- always to great official fanfare -- have been convicted at all, and almost all of these convictions have been for other infractions, particularly immigration violations. Some of those convicted have clearly been mental cases or simply flaunting jihadist bravado -- rattling on about taking down the Brooklyn Bridge with a blowtorch, blowing up the Sears Tower if only they could get to Chicago, beheading the prime minister of Canada, or flooding lower Manhattan by somehow doing something terrible to one of those tunnels.
...

But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda_like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.

The full article is here. (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501-p20/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat-the-myth-of-the-omnipresent-enemy.html)

DEMON CUNT
05-31-2007, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Ignore the one's training to fly planes.
Ignore the millions in wire transfers.
Ignore the missing plutonium or enrichment programs.


A fine synopsis of the Bush Administration's agenda for their first 9 months in office.

Three cheers for LittleQueenSuckdiver!

Lqskdiver
06-01-2007, 12:02 AM
Glad to be back on your radar, DC.

I'll be sure to stay away from the gay references. I've noticed it's kind of a touchy subject around you.

DEMON CUNT
06-01-2007, 01:01 AM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Glad to be back on your radar, DC.

I'll be sure to stay away from the gay references. I've noticed it's kind of a touchy subject around you.

I got no problem with your gay shit. Your latent homosexuality is quite amusing. Suck away, yo!

I again point you to your comments and compare them to the Bush Administration's early days. I can see why you would rather go gay than discuss that.

Lqskdiver
06-01-2007, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Your latent homosexuality is quite amusing. Suck away, yo!
that.

I figured you'd come back with a quirky response involving penile manipulation. You can't seem to leave it out of the discussion.

Anyway, my point to FORD was his hypocrisy in pointing out the warnings given before 911 compared to the "terror tactics" being implemented now. These detention centers being discussed is just that...discussions. But the opposition is quick to point out Hitler similiarities and offer colorful commentary on how we are headed down the Nazi path.

I guess what I'm trying to say is most feel safe when "THEIR" party is in office. It's what it boils down to isn't.

DEMON CUNT
06-01-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
I figured you'd come back with a quirky response involving penile manipulation. You can't seem to leave it out of the discussion.

I guess what I'm trying to say is most feel safe when "THEIR" party is in office. It's what it boils down to isn't.

You brought it up, sweet cheeks. I called you out on your bizzare descriptions of gay sex and now you just cannot leave it alone. Ha ha!

There is a difference between feeling safer and actually being safe.


Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Ignore the one's training to fly planes.
Ignore the millions in wire transfers.
Ignore the missing plutonium or enrichment programs.

The Bush Admin are gulty of all of the above. Your first two items, of course, apply to 911. The second to the so-called axis of evil.

Remember 911 happened on Bush's watch.

Ellyllions
06-01-2007, 11:11 AM
All of you who are thinking this is more Bush tyranny, ponder this...

Will the idea of all of this happening bother you when there is a Democrat in the Presidency?

If you answered "no" to that question, I have another for you...
What are you worried about? This is only a contingency strategy at this point. By the time any of it gets acted upon there will be someone else in the high seat.

If you answered "yes" to the first question...
Is it really Bush that's got you concerned, or were you worried when the media announced that stores of supplies for a nuclear attack were being put under the Brooklyn Bridge in the '80's. (they're still there btw)

My feelings...the threat of a nuclear attack (or even an accident like Chernobyl) grows every year. As long as nuclear is being used, there is a need for a plan in the event of a catastrophe. There wasn't a rock solid plan for what happened in NO with Katrina and the levees and look how it turned out.

I dunno, I'm a planning kinda person so I have no real issues with knowing that our government is taking some action to plan for the worst possible scenerio. I've worked bombing raid practice runs in a spit of a town in the middle of the Appalchain mountains...I know it's necessary and that anything can happen.

FORD
06-01-2007, 11:23 AM
Chimpy seizing dictatorial powers and locking up American citizens in concentration camps isn't my definition of "emergency planning".

And what makes this part of Chimp tyranny, is that no other President ever came up with such a fascist plan and then tried to justifiy it under "emergency response".

Clinton may have had his faults (and I don't mean Monica) but at least FEMA worked when he was in office. The response to Hurricane Andrew (which was considered the worst hurricane disaster before Katrina) is a perfect example.

Bottom line is that helping people is not the BCE's concern. Consolidating power is.

Ellyllions
06-01-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by FORD
And if anyone believes that a mostly fictional band of cave dwelling imbeciles has the capability of such a nuclear attack, then you'll believe the lie they use to justify the concentration camps as well.


Right there is the arrogance that keeps me from changing my voter registration card to Democrat. You think we're better, smarter, and more powerful than them. I DON'T. It shows how much in posts like this one, and the Democratic party is supposed to be the "people's party"? Are you fucking kidding with this shit?

Lemme tell you something, those savage, naked indians kicked the SHIT out of the hoyty toyty, well-dressed British soldiers. They use primitive yet effective tactics to even make a whole colony disappear. And just like you, the British thought the Indians were a lower form of life that couldn't possibly be intelligent enough to take them out.

So you and your croonies better jump down off that evolutionary, societal high horse and take a good look around. Cause those "cave-dwelling-imbeciles" will cut your head off faster than you can piss your pants. Cause face to face with one of them.... you would.

Ellyllions
06-01-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by FORD
Chimpy seizing dictatorial powers and locking up American citizens in concentration camps isn't my definition of "emergency planning".

And what makes this part of Chimp tyranny, is that no other President ever came up with such a fascist plan and then tried to justifiy it under "emergency response".

Clinton may have had his faults (and I don't mean Monica) but at least FEMA worked when he was in office. The response to Hurricane Andrew (which was considered the worst hurricane disaster before Katrina) is a perfect example.

Bottom line is that helping people is not the BCE's concern. Consolidating power is.

FORD, by the time this were to get enacted BCE won't be in the President's seat anymore!!! Unless you can show proof that it's happening now, today.

I'd hate to ship your ass back to WWII and see how you'd react to Japanese-Americans getting put into camps. Cause they did, it has happened before.....do you think that was a good reason?

What will you complain about then? You didn't answer my question from yesterday!

FORD
06-01-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
FORD, by the time this were to get enacted BCE won't be in the President's seat anymore!!! Unless you can show proof that it's happening now, today.

I'd hate to ship your ass back to WWII and see how you'd react to Japanese-Americans getting put into camps. Cause they did, it has happened before.....do you think that was a good reason?

What will you complain about then? You didn't answer my question from yesterday!

The internment of Japanese Americans was wrong as well. Unless they were flying the Japanese flag outside their house or chanting "Hirohito ROOLS!!" in the streets, their loyalty shouldn't have been questioned. Many of them even had family members serving in the military. The US military, that is. And yes, it was blatantly racist. Because it's easier to pick a Japanese American out of a crowd than a German American. On the other hand, if they HAD locked up German Americans, my dad would have spent half his childhood in a concentration camp, despite the fact that part of my family had been in this country since the 1830's.

Again, the problem with the BCE is that they are shredding the Constitution in ways that no other President would have ever considered doing. And they aren't doing it as a housewarming present for Al Gore, or John Edwards, or Barack Obama, or ..... god help us all.....Hillary. They're setting this up because they PLAN on using it.

Just like they PLANNED to invade Iraq, even before they chose Chimpy to be their frontman.

FORD
06-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Right there is the arrogance that keeps me from changing my voter registration card to Democrat. You think we're better, smarter, and more powerful than them. I DON'T. It shows how much in posts like this one, and the Democratic party is supposed to be the "people's party"? Are you fucking kidding with this shit?

Lemme tell you something, those savage, naked indians kicked the SHIT out of the hoyty toyty, well-dressed British soldiers. They use primitive yet effective tactics to even make a whole colony disappear. And just like you, the British thought the Indians were a lower form of life that couldn't possibly be intelligent enough to take them out.

So you and your croonies better jump down off that evolutionary, societal high horse and take a good look around. Cause those "cave-dwelling-imbeciles" will cut your head off faster than you can piss your pants. Cause face to face with one of them.... you would.

Hey, I'd be rooting for the Indians myself. But you missed the point.

Indians were very effective with bows & arrows. Or tomahawks. Or knives. And the cave dwellers are effective with what they have.

However....

1) There is NO SUCH THING as a worldwide terrorist network.

2) These guys in caves have no more nuclear capabilities than Crazy Horse or Geronimo did.

Would I want a late night visit from an Apache raiding party? Probably not. Would I be worried that they were going to nuke Tucson? Hell no, they don't have the capability to do so.

Lqskdiver
06-01-2007, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

The Bush Admin are gulty of all of the above. Your first two items, of course, apply to 911. The second to the so-called axis of evil.

Remember 911 happened on Bush's watch.

Listen, buttercup, this is typical scripted response by the left to justify their feelings for the president. It doesn't matter who's watch it happened on, it happened.

Now do we sit back or do we let the shit fly?

I think history will tell a different story. We finally decided to go after them instead of waiting around for them to come to us as had been the policy. And it's making alot of people nervous. I can't blame them and you for being scared...we are walking on uncharted territory. But the sooner we place a policy fo zero tolerance for terrorism, the sooner we'd make them think twice about pulling another stunt like that on OUR soil.

Ellyllions
06-01-2007, 12:00 PM
Don't even say the word racism. What you posted by calling them "cave dwelling imbeciles" is BLATANT discrimination. You wouldn't be rooting for the indians! You'd be calling them nasty savages, just as you have with another group that YOU consider to be backward and ignorant.

Lemme tell you something dear. Don't go into a fistfight with a poor person. You'll try to be all honorable with your fists in clear site, while the poor person WILL have a knife to cut your throat. In a battle, put me on the side of the people who know how to use their resources in their environment without all the fancy equipment and prideful attitude.

You're so much better than they are, won't you go take a nice early summer vacation to Tehran, Israel, or even Nigeria. I hear they're all nice this time of year. No terrorists networks? Well, if you're so sure, you can tell us all about it when you get back. Make sure when you're meeting folk that you talk your good old "lofty" American accent loudly telling them that there's no such thing as a terrorist network.

But you won't and I wouldn't really want you to...because even though you (a Democrat supposedly considerate and thoughtful to all man-kind) make remarks about people the way you JUST did; this reigistered REPUBLICAN would be concerned for your safety. Imagine that shit!

Lqskdiver
06-01-2007, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by FORD

1) There is NO SUCH THING as a worldwide terrorist network.

2) These guys in caves have no more nuclear capabilities than Crazy Horse or Geronimo did.



Since FORD, in his endless wisdom, has decided to enlighten us on his counter-surveillance and declassify this sensitive information, I can truly now sleep better at night.

:rolleyes:

We'll can go back to just IGNORING them.

Ellyllions
06-01-2007, 12:11 PM
Lq, the two reasons you quoted from Ford is exactly why 9-11 happened in the first place.

No one believed that those "cave-dwelling imbeciles" could touch us.

Nitro Express
06-01-2007, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by Wallyg
From further reading, they are prepping for a simultaneous nuclear attack. Houston, LA, New York, Chicago, hit at the same time. The country would be divided into regions and people moved to the camps for whatever reason - possible danger to society, nowhere to live, etc. It looks like the government sees this not as possible but probable. It is a when not if situation.
Great reason to leave the border open dont ya' think??????
Louis Armstrong..."What a wonderful world......."

Shit. The govt. can't even handle one crises in New Orleans let alone sevral at the same time. There will be caos and the govt. will be stuck with it's head up it's collective ass.

DEMON CUNT
06-02-2007, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
Listen, buttercup, this is typical scripted response by the left to justify their feelings for the president. It doesn't matter who's watch it happened on, it happened.

Now do we sit back or do we let the shit fly?

I think history will tell a different story. We finally decided to go after them instead of waiting around for them to come to us as had been the policy. And it's making alot of people nervous. I can't blame them and you for being scared...we are walking on uncharted territory. But the sooner we place a policy fo zero tolerance for terrorism, the sooner we'd make them think twice about pulling another stunt like that on OUR soil.

So, because your guy was in the White House he gets a pass. Clinton Lies about a blowjob and... well you know.

No, I don't believe that we should just let them be. On the other hand I do not approve of kicking the hornet's nest.

Zero tolerance is a naive and stupid notion. These people are willing to die for their cause. How do you plan on making them "think twice"?

You really need to think through the talking points before you repeat them.

Does Zero tolerance for drinking and driving stop it? No, the police can simply enforce the law if they catch you drinking and driving.

They would have never done that on our soil unless we allowed it. How long did it take for our defence in the air to engage the hijacked aircraft? Do you know? Do you know what the official protocol is for such an event? Not unless Hannity told you.

You "think history will tell a different story." Are you psychic? Or simply speaking in cliches?

This man does not look surprised to me...

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/bush-911.jpg

Ellyllions
06-02-2007, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT

This man does not look surprised to me...

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/bush-911.jpg

You're right, he doesn't look surprised in that photo, he looks pissed off.

DEMON CUNT
06-02-2007, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
You're right, he doesn't look surprised in that photo, he looks pissed off.

Yeah, the "Decider" was so pissed off that he sat there and read a story with children for another 7 - 18 minutes while America was under attack.

Here's where you tell me that he didn't want to upset the children by excusing himself for some Presidential business. The President gave no orders to scramble fighter jets, etc. He made no attempts to get additional information. Just a nice story about a goat.

Bush's visit to the school was of public record.

Watch the footage. That's fear.

Nickdfresh
06-02-2007, 10:37 AM
http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/bush-911.jpg

Actually, he looks dumbfounded over all of those polysyllabic words in "My Pet Goat."

That was the most reading of anything he'd done since he plagiarised that paper in college...

Ellyllions
06-02-2007, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Yeah, the "Decider" was so pissed off that he sat there and read a story with children for another 7 - 18 minutes while America was under attack.

Here's where you tell me that he didn't want to upset the children by excusing himself for some Presidential business. The President gave no orders to scramble fighter jets, etc. He made no attempts to get additional information. Just a nice story about a goat.

Bush's visit to the school was of public record.

Watch the footage. That's fear.

I'm not going to get into this with you and Nick. When it comes to talking about most anything that's happened in the passed 8 years you two always manage to bring out the same old Bush bashing and you behave like Hyena's. Putting the "info" out there like bait and anyone who takes the bait, you two tag-team.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to either of you, but half of what others complain about on this board with the two of you is absolutely true.

I don't think Bush knew WHAT to do when he got the news that it had happened. I can only think about what I would've done in the same situation and I can't think of one way to handle it that would've been effective. Not one. That man was supposed to be having a visit with some kids and he gets news that people on American soil were being attacked and either dead or in mid-air. He knew that he had a staff of hundreds that should be working in unison to do what was necessary. I couldn't imagine the fear of what was going to happen next. Were the planes the only attack? Were all these kids sitting in front of me going to be dead soon? Is my staff handling things? Do I rush out of the room? If I do, where do I go? I'm the ultimate target! Do I get shuffled into a bunker while some enemy tears my country apart?

Personally, I don't think there was an appropriate response from him that wouldn't have been scrutinized and I think he knew it. I think he sat there after getting the news didn't hear another word of what was going on in that school. I believe the man was stunned, taken aback, and didn't have a clue as to what to do next.

I don't understand what it's ok for the rest of the world to be shocked at what happened but not for George Bush.

I sometimes wonder when this subject comes up, how any of us think we know exactly how he should've reacted when we have the luxury of never having it happen to us.

DEMON CUNT
06-02-2007, 12:53 PM
The President of the United States didn't know what to do when he got the news of the attack? This is the guy you want in charge of the war on terror?

So he sat there considering how he should react and the scrutiny that he would be under for it? Really? So securing the country was not his top priority. It was his legacy.

You really go out of your way to justify and make excuses for the inaction taken that morning.

FORD
06-02-2007, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/bush-911.jpg

Actually, he looks dumbfounded over all of those polysyllabic words in "My Pet Goat."

That was the most reading of anything he'd done since he plagiarised that paper in college...

Well now you know plagerizin' was hard work back when I was in college. You couldn't just download a paper from the uh.... internets, cuz Al gore hadn't invented 'em yet. I had to do my papers the old fashioned way.... have daddy buy one from some nerdy freshman. I tell ya it was hard work! It's hard......

FORD
06-02-2007, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
I'm not going to get into this with you and Nick. When it comes to talking about most anything that's happened in the passed 8 years you two always manage to bring out the same old Bush bashing and you behave like Hyena's. Putting the "info" out there like bait and anyone who takes the bait, you two tag-team.

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to either of you, but half of what others complain about on this board with the two of you is absolutely true.

I don't think Bush knew WHAT to do when he got the news that it had happened. I can only think about what I would've done in the same situation and I can't think of one way to handle it that would've been effective. Not one. That man was supposed to be having a visit with some kids and he gets news that people on American soil were being attacked and either dead or in mid-air. He knew that he had a staff of hundreds that should be working in unison to do what was necessary. I couldn't imagine the fear of what was going to happen next. Were the planes the only attack? Were all these kids sitting in front of me going to be dead soon? Is my staff handling things? Do I rush out of the room? If I do, where do I go? I'm the ultimate target! Do I get shuffled into a bunker while some enemy tears my country apart?

Personally, I don't think there was an appropriate response from him that wouldn't have been scrutinized and I think he knew it. I think he sat there after getting the news didn't hear another word of what was going on in that school. I believe the man was stunned, taken aback, and didn't have a clue as to what to do next.

I don't understand what it's ok for the rest of the world to be shocked at what happened but not for George Bush.

I sometimes wonder when this subject comes up, how any of us think we know exactly how he should've reacted when we have the luxury of never having it happen to us.

If Chimpy was so "surprised" by the attacks, why did he have armed snipers and surface to air missile batteries on the roof of the resort in Florida where he slept the night before?

Why did Jeb sign a law which gave him the ability to deploy the National Guard under martial law, on Sept. 7, 2001?

The BCE was not surprised by the attack. They were fully expecting it. And you gotta wonder what Andy Card really whispered in monkey boy's ear that day.

"Mission Accomplished", maybe??

Ellyllions
06-03-2007, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
The President of the United States didn't know what to do when he got the news of the attack? This is the guy you want in charge of the war on terror?

So he sat there considering how he should react and the scrutiny that he would be under for it? Really? So securing the country was not his top priority. It was his legacy.

You really go out of your way to justify and make excuses for the inaction taken that morning.

It's not the CEO's job to talk to the customer threatening to call an attorney over the amount of their bill. There is a whole STAFF of people in specified jobs that was supposed to be "people" at the ready of an attack...AT ALL TIMES! Not just that day.

Which do you expect President to be? A dictator who controls everything (micro-managing) or do you want your tax dollars paying the salaries of a whole slew of officials who head up their particular branches to do what's neccessary at a moment's notice?

I don't think ANY person elected into that office would've jumped up and started ordering people around knowing EXACTLY how to react. NOT ONE! I can't imagine how any of us expect the myriad of human emotion to be instantly squealched when he/she is told that the country that they're supposed to be in charge of is under attack.

DC, it doesn't work for me this notion that it's just ALL Bush's fault. Too many hands in the collective pie (no matter who's sitting in that seat) that has responsibility in the event of any situation ever.

One aspect people tend to forget is that the President (in the event of a National Security issue) immediately becomes the property of his/her team of security and secret service agents. Andy Card probably told the President what was happening and to sit still while they secured the building. Protecting the President is the security personnel's number one priority and he/she is to do as told in such an event.

But no, it's Bush....had it been Clinton.....well, actually it WAS Clinton once and at the WTC....how did he respond?
Well, we don't know because he's Clinton. No one's pouring over his actions when the WTC garages were bombed during his Presidency...

Forget political sides for a second guys and think like rational adults.

Nickdfresh
06-03-2007, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by FORD
If Chimpy was so "surprised" by the attacks, why did he have armed snipers and surface to air missile batteries on the roof of the resort in Florida where he slept the night before?

Why did Jeb sign a law which gave him the ability to deploy the National Guard under martial law, on Sept. 7, 2001?

The BCE was not surprised by the attack. They were fully expecting it. And you gotta wonder what Andy Card really whispered in monkey boy's ear that day.

"Mission Accomplished", maybe??

I don't know that they were expecting it that day. But I'm pretty sure they had been waiting for something...

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35457

DEMON CUNT
06-03-2007, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Which do you expect President to be? A dictator who controls everything (micro-managing) or do you want your tax dollars paying the salaries of a whole slew of officials who head up their particular branches to do what's neccessary at a moment's notice?

No, I expect the President to sit in a classroom full of children and grimace as he waits for his instructions while the country is attacked and it's citizens slaughtered.

Don't you think, at the very least, he should have made some phone calls? Make sure shit was getting done? By your logic the President has nothing to do in the midst of a crisis.


I don't think ANY person elected into that office would've jumped up and started ordering people around knowing EXACTLY how to react. NOT ONE! I can't imagine how any of us expect the myriad of human emotion to be instantly squealched when he/she is told that the country that they're supposed to be in charge of is under attack.

This sort of speculation is silly and not that of a 'rational adult'. What if Rambo was President?


DC, it doesn't work for me this notion that it's just ALL Bush's fault. Too many hands in the collective pie (no matter who's sitting in that seat) that has responsibility in the event of any situation ever.

Yes, imagine us crazy people expecting some accountability from the highest office. You are aware the kinds of people that Bush has appointed to various important positions. The government's reaction to Katrina showed us that the Administration learned very little about crisis management. This is because they do not care about crisis management.

Barbara Bush gave us a glimpse into the Bush mentality when she said "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this [she chuckles slightly] is working very well for them." of the Katrina refugees.

You want to spread the blame so thin so that nobody is held accountable. Especially Bush, who you fall all over yourself to protect. By this logic the President can be held accountable for nothing.


One aspect people tend to forget is that the President (in the event of a National Security issue) immediately becomes the property of his/her team of security and secret service agents. Andy Card probably told the President what was happening and to sit still while they secured the building. Protecting the President is the security personnel's number one priority and he/she is to do as told in such an event.

Does this mean that his Presidential powers are suspended while he is "the property" of his team? "Sit there and read your book, Georgie. You belong to us now!"

On what do you base your knowledge of Presidential protocol? The second season of "24"?


But no, it's Bush....had it been Clinton.....well, actually it WAS Clinton once and at the WTC....how did he respond?
Well, we don't know because he's Clinton. No one's pouring over his actions when the WTC garages were bombed during his Presidency...

If you knew anything about the 1993 WTC attack you would know that they started arresting suspects within a week and four convictions within a year. No one is pouring over this attack because there is nothing to pour over. At the time this was the largest crime scene in the history of NY.

Feel free to actually research the 1993 attack, then we can discuss the details of that event and evaluate the government's reaction and can compare it to the reaction of the Bush White house.

Clinton gave us convictions. Bush gave us legislation. We do not need to remove our shoes when we rent a moving truck.

The mastermind of 911, who is still at large, is the brother of one of Bush's former business partners.


Forget political sides for a second guys and think like rational adults.

You are right, I think sitting there looking as though you have to take a big shit is the only way a President should react to a crisis.

Ellyllions
06-03-2007, 01:28 PM
Enlighten me, muffin....what should he have done?
Then let me know why you're not running for President since you have all the answers. By all means, run. If you do have the answers you pretend to have, I'll vote for you too!

Then, tell me why you feel it's ok to de-humanize him above anyone else?

I have no problem with calling Bush's faults, but I'm not making him the diety of blame that most everyone else who oppose him. CAUSE IT'S USELESS. Running straight to the top with blame just means that you're not really willing to have the problems solved. You JUST wanna complain and you want to pretend that you have the high seat ear.

My Criminal Justice instructor served as Secret Service for Jimmy Carter for 5 years. That's all I'm going to say about what happens to the President in the event of a National Security crisis. I know a little bit about how he's "quarantined". As well as you do I'm certain.

He does NOT appoint the highest ranking military officials. Which you already know would've been the ones that would've ordered any kind of action. They ANSWER to the President with their decisions. If they fuck up, it's their ass.

The fact remains that sure, there was things that could've been done but when the company fucks up, it's the whole company's fault.

Blame Bush for what Bush has control.

-High energy prices
-The state of healthcare
-The stupid immigration policy he's pushing
-Even the war in Iraq

But....BUT you're side-stepping my question about Clinton's reactions. We're not discussing how much time lapsed before Bush sent troops or special forces to Afghanistan to seek and destroy Al-queda. We're supposed to be analyzing what Bush should've done within the 18 minutes after the attack, remember?


What was Clinton's first response to the WTC attack that happened on his watch? Where was he, what was his facial expressions, how long did he sit still before going anywhere or making calls? What was his frist response to the attack on the USS Cole? You've got the first 18 minutes after those attacks to judge his entire 8 years of effectiveness.

On a personal basis? Bush is nothing more than a man. What happened that day wasn't expected because the intelligence agencies were playing jurisdiction wars. It's feasible to assume that there was enough chatter to justify taking some security measures but our lovely failing Pentagon suits wanted the glory for themselves and never EVER expected passengers on an airplant to take those planes and plant them into buildings in target locations in the US. We're the fucking US afterall attacks don't happen here.

Here's the kicker for me though...Cheney was the one who was squirrelled away after the attack. Conspiracy theorists be damned, but we had to save one of the Execs in the event that Bush was taken out. It's what we do...ya'll protect the eagle above all else.

FORD
06-03-2007, 03:11 PM
The question has been raised "What would a REAL President have done under the situation?"

Any logical President would have realized two things immediately....

1) If he was a target, then anyone around him is a target. Therefore being in a school is NOT a great idea.

2) Get back to Washington DC immediately as a show of strength.

Chimpy did just the opposite. He essentially used children as human shields, and then played a national game of hide and seek on a day when the American People desperately needed to believe that someone - even this goddamned idiot - was in charge, and that the country still existed.

He failed miserably on that count, and has continued to do so ever since.

Dr. Love
06-03-2007, 09:47 PM
Nice, a competition to see who can make more "no you made the first gay comment!!!" posts. You both should get awards for your efforts.

DEMON CUNT
06-04-2007, 03:11 PM
Hey, I am going to turn down my snark in our discussions. I feel that it gets in the way and I enjoy discussing this with you.


Originally posted by Ellyllions
He does NOT appoint the highest ranking military officials. Which you already know would've been the ones that would've ordered any kind of action. They ANSWER to the President with their decisions. If they fuck up, it's their ass.

Rumsfeld?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XjAzaqjBCZs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XjAzaqjBCZs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Can you name any of the highest ranking military officials who have been held accountable for any mistakes in the "war on terror"? By your logic these officials cannot be held accountable either because they all have people working below them.


The fact remains that sure, there was things that could've been done but when the company fucks up, it's the whole company's fault.

Are you sure that you want to set this standard for the discussions that we enjoy here?

Do you blame the entire Clinton administration for the blowjob related dishonesty?



Blame Bush for what Bush has control.

-High energy prices
-The state of healthcare
-The stupid immigration policy he's pushing
-Even the war in Iraq


So, Bush has control over those things, but not the defence of our country?



But....BUT you're side-stepping my question about Clinton's reactions. We're not discussing how much time lapsed before Bush sent troops or special forces to Afghanistan to seek and destroy Al-queda.

Fair enough. I haven't been able to track down any info on Clinton's initial reaction to the attack. It happened around noon, so he was probably having lunch. Also, the attack took place just over a month after Clinton was inaugurated into his first term.

The Bush Pet Goat footage speaks for itself. I would love to see any footage of Clinton with a mouthful of pork sandwich as he is imformed of the attack. Did he finish that bite or spit it out to immediately issue his orders?



On a personal basis? Bush is nothing more than a man. We're the fucking US afterall attacks don't happen here.

Again, do you plan on applying this standard to all you criticize?

Attacks do and have happened here.

Ellyllions
06-04-2007, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by DEMON CUNT
Hey, I am going to turn down my snark in our discussions. I feel that it gets in the way and I enjoy discussing this with you.


Okie dokie...but now I'm really scared.:D



Rumsfeld?

Can you name any of the highest ranking military officials who have been held accountable for any mistakes in the "war on terror"? By your logic these officials cannot be held accountable either because they all have people working below them.?

I can't name one person that was held accountable in the days prior to the attacks of 9/11. Why that's so, I don't know. I don't know what protocol was for such an event.

I'm not stretching this beyond 9/11.

Maybe I should've added that, "those who give the orders" are the ones who are held accountable if they fuck up. And yes, shit does flow down stream.

But honestly, DC I can't think of one thing that should've been done that wasn't done. All planes were ordered to be gounded and held. How do you order military action against communter planes when you have no idea what the fuck is going on yet? The way I see it, (and it might just be me) if the intelligence agencies knew this was coming (I believe they knew something was up but wasn't aware of scope or details) it's pretty obvious that the military did not.



Are you sure that you want to set this standard for the discussions that we enjoy here? Now I know you're setting me up. Go ahead, do your worst.


Do you blame the entire Clinton administration for the blowjob related dishonesty?
No, I do not and I never have.


So, Bush has control over those things, but not the defence of our country?
The President is advised in military and defense issues. And yes he is responsible for the defense of our country to a point. Do you think that Clinton was military savvy by trade? No, he was an attorney by trade. But when a sudden attack like 9/11, WTC, and Pearl Harbor the President has to rely on the people sitting in their respective places to do their jobs at a moment's notice. But moreover, the President (no matter who he/she is) is a figurehead for the entire government and defense as a whole. I've found that people who blame Bush for 9/11 give the office of President way more authority and power than he/she is awarded in the Constitution. But I believe that you know that...you're just trying to find a way to pick me apart at this point. If you're not, then I wholeheartedly apologize but you can't blame me for being unsure.



Again, do you plan on applying this standard to all you criticize?
Out of all the Republicans posting on this board, am I the most unfair? Am I the most stubborn? ....or am I just the soup du jour?


Attacks do and have happened here.
That was sarcasm on my part. I meant that we had become secure. There hadn't been an attack of that magnitude since Pearl Harbor. (Not to disrespect any attacks between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor) But I think everyone here can agree that 9/11 rocked us on our heels. For hours we were stunned and in a state of denial that it had even happened. And that's not because we didn't see it coming, it was partly because the majority of us have never experienced war right on our home soil.

One question for you....what should've been done? Details if you can.

Lqskdiver
06-04-2007, 06:12 PM
Back from my weekend. I see you guys were busy and Elly was holding her own pretty good.

Alright, DC, just a little clarification. I don't watch Hannity...can't stand the greaseball. This "Great American" shit is really over the top and used for entertainment purposes. For that matter, I don't watch Fox news either. They became too biased after sometime and I don't see the point of getting informed through that venue.

I get my news off the web and via drudge. After all Drudge consists of links to all news agency, liberal and conservative alike. ;)

So you can leave the talking points out of our "debates".

My conclusion and opinion, as is my entitlement along with every schmoe here, is Bush was flabbergasted at what he has just been told. To sit there while camera's are rolling and kids are reading and ponder what he has just been told is beyond anyone's comprehension.

And again, there was no precedence before this attack. I don't give anyone a free pass. My opinion is what I would have felt if I saw one of our F-16's shoot down one of our commercial airplanes on live tv. I think I would have been in total shock if that would have occurred.

No one knew what was going on and what was going to happen. There were warnings and our government, current and past alike, chose to not take them seriously.

Zero tolerance is really a policy....one that IS difficult but must be enforced. If not, the next time we are caught asleep at the wheel...well, you know what can happen.

DEMON CUNT
06-05-2007, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Ellyllions
Now I know you're setting me up. Go ahead, do your worst.

Calm down, dear. I have decided to try and be kinder with some of the more articulate people that I disagree with. I am here to discuss these issues with people just like you.

That being said, I will still challenge you on some your positions and expect I the same from you.

I enjoy being challenged. It's how I check my opinions. Sometimes I find that I am wrong.

That is why I am here.

My thoughts on abortion have changed because of conversations like these.


Out of all the Republicans posting on this board, am I the most unfair? Am I the most stubborn? ....or am I just the soup du jour?

Nope, just one of the smart ones.


One question for you....what should've been done? Details if you can.

Now you are setting me up!

That's a tough and loaded question. I'll get back to you on that one.

Peace,
DC

DEMON CUNT
06-06-2007, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by Lqskdiver
I get my news off the web and via drudge. After all Drudge consists of links to all news agency, liberal and conservative alike. ;)

I read Drudge daily. He is the center of the conservative talking point universe. If you don't see the slant in that shit... wait a minute, of course you don't see the slant in that shit.

Do you go there for your Barbara Streisand updates?

I even listen to Drudge's radio show.

You know he's gay, right? Ha ha, you get your news from a fag!


So you can leave the talking points out of our "debates".

If you see them, feel free to point them out and refernce the source, if you please.


My conclusion and opinion, as is my entitlement along with every schmoe here, is Bush was flabbergasted

Yes, the Dummy President (aka "The Decider") looked flabbergasted. "Was it the brother of a former business partner?" He thought to himself. No wonder you support him, you obviously have low expectations of the highest office.


And again, there was no precedence before this attack. I don't give anyone a free pass. My opinion is what I would have felt if I saw one of our F-16's shoot down one of our commercial airplanes on live tv. I think I would have been in total shock if that would have occurred.

No precedence? If that makes you feel better, then sure.

You would have experienced "total shock" if the planes were shot down? Are you that concerned with how you would have felt to see that? Because shooting those planes down could have saved thousands, but if shooting 'em down would have ruined your day, fuck 'em. We wouldn't want that upsetting such a fragile little princess!


No one knew what was going on and what was going to happen. There were warnings and our government, current and past alike, chose to not take them seriously.

No one? Bullshit. You are giving everyone a free pass.


Zero tolerance is really a policy....one that IS difficult but must be enforced. If not, the next time we are caught asleep at the wheel...well, you know what can happen.

So we were "asleep at the wheel"? We are still "asleep at the wheel", dummy. Are the borders secure? Where is Osama and what is he planning next? Got Katrina?