Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 36
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #1  
    This should be fun to watch.


    Source: Baltimore Sun

    Bush is bracing for new scrutiny
    White House hiring lawyers in expectation of Democratic probes

    By Julie Hirschfeld Davis
    Sun reporter
    Originally published December 26, 2006

    WASHINGTON // President Bush is bracing for what could be an onslaught of investigations by the new Democratic-led Congress by hiring lawyers to fill key White House posts and preparing to play defense on countless document requests and possible subpoenas.

    Bush is moving quickly to fill vacancies within his stable of lawyers, though White House officials say there are no plans to drastically expand the legal staff to deal with a flood of oversight.

    -snip-

    Still, in the days after the elections, the White House announced that Bush had hired two replacements to plug holes in his counsel's office, including one lawyer, Christopher G. Oprison, who is a specialist in handling white-collar investigations. A third hire was securities law specialist Paul R. Eckert, whose duties include dealing with the Office of the Special Counsel. Bush is in the process of hiring a fourth associate counsel, said Emily A. Lawrimore, a White House spokeswoman.

    -snip-

    Bush will need "people who have experience in responding to subpoenas, overseeing document production and preparing witnesses," said Amy R. Sabrin, who defended several Clinton administration officials during the investigations of the 1990s.

    -snip-
  2. #2  
    will be fun starting 2007.
    Technological superiority has never won a product battle. If that were the case we would all be flying in supersonic Concordes and using Apple computers.

    The key to winning the battle is a combination of price, convenience, marketing, sound business model and a bit of luck.
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG View Post
    This should be fun to watch.
    Be sure to bring enough popcorn to share with the terrorists that will rejoice with you.
  4. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
       #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Be sure to bring enough popcorn to share with the terrorists that will rejoice with you.
    Merry Christmas 1911. Glad to see you are still as inflammatory as ever.

    BTW, were you able to make it stateside for the holidays?
  5. #5  
    That NRG!

    Inflammatory, or truthful? Both? Do you really think that these guys are not going delight in seeing their nemesis tied up with litigation?

    My rotation ends on 11 Jan...I'll be CONUS on 13 Jan.

    Kerry was here a week or so ago. I ran over to the mess hall to meet him, but he was gone. I wanted to ask him which he found more satisfying...his treason of 40 years ago or his more recent efforts. There were pictures of him at another mess hall, though. MAN! Did he get the cold shoulder.
  6. #6  
    Oh, and Merry Christmas to you, NRG!
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Inflammatory, or truthful? Both? Do you really think that these guys are not going delight in seeing their nemesis tied up with litigation?
    Why would GWB be the nemesis of Islamistic terrorists? After all, it was he who gave them the opportunity of showing their power and capabilities in Iraq, he provided them with an ideal training ground for urban warfare, including the possibility of killing Americans, he created the situation in which US soldiers were showed torturing, humiliating, raping and killing Muslim civilians, thus providing the ideal basis for recruiting new terrorists, he cannot catch Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders, etc.

    All things considered, Bush causes more terrorism, not less. Bush certainly isn't the nemesis of Islamistic terrorism, he is a cosponsor.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #8  
    Yes. Bush caused Islamic terrorists to strike in 1983 (Beirut Marine Barracks bombing.) 1993 (WTC #1). Khobar Towers. USS Cole. African Embassy bombings. Beslan. The Moscow theater. 9/11. Yes, Bush's bumbling caused all of these to happen. There would be no Islamic terrorism at all if only we hadn't liberated Iraq from the clutches of the recently departed madman. (Ever think about who would have succeeded Saddam? Uday or Qusay. The genius maniac or the totally evil maniac.)

    Their "power and capabilities" in Iraq revolve pretty much around blowing up civilians in marketplaces with massive car bombs. The odd shooting. The Iranian backed Shia have the roadside bomb down to a science, certainly. Do you think they would have been less emboldened by a massive US retaliation for Islamic terrorists or more emboldened? How many would have flocked to bin Laden regardless what we did?

    In a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't, I choose action over treating the Jihad as a criminal problem to be managed.

    Tell us...what would you do if you were the president? Please don't belabor the point of what you wouldn't have done...what would you do?
    Last edited by 1911sforever; 01/03/2007 at 03:41 AM. Reason: hiccup upon posting.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Yes. Bush caused Islamic terrorists to strike in 1983 (Beirut Marine Barracks bombing.) 1993 (WTC #1). Khobar Towers. USS Cole. African Embassy bombings. Beslan. The Moscow theater. 9/11. Yes, Bush's bumbling caused all of these to happen.
    I know Bush had nothing to do with the earlier Islamistic terrorism. He was an alcoholic bankrupting his company or heading a baseball team back then. I never claimed Bush is the sole source of Islamistic terrorism. As we all know by now (should know...), Saddam's Iraq was a negligible factor in Islamistic terrorism.
    Do you think they would have been less emboldened by a massive US retaliation for Islamic terrorists or more emboldened? How many would have flocked to bin Laden regardless what we did?
    Fewer would be in favour of Al Qaeda than are now, with all those images and reports of torturing, raping, killing US soldiers (a small, but extremely damaging minority), the US lowering itself down to lawless levels in Guantanamo, etc. Al Qaeda would also be less popular without the possibility of manoeuvring the US into a total no-win situation, which is as bad as actually losing. Al Qaeda can show its power on a daily basis in Iraq now, thanks to Bush. This is the result of the Bush administration's mix of ignorance and arrogance (the failed "Rumsfeld doctrine" comes to mind, resulting in the Iraq disaster).
    In a case of damned if we do and damned if we don't, I choose action over treating the Jihad as a criminal problem to be managed.
    Meaning you are willing to sacrifice many hundreds of soldiers and hundreds of billions in US taxpayer's money only to be damned anyway? Doesn't sound like a good strategy to me.
    Tell us...what would you do if you were the president? Please don't belabor the point of what you wouldn't have done...what would you do?
    When discussing Bush (the topic of this thread), Iraq is the main point. As we all know, Iraq never had anything significant to do with Jihad, Al Qaeda. 9/11 or other forms of Islamistic terrorism (even if you still seem to confuse this).

    Iraq is exactly about what not to do: Don't trick yourself or others into believing in in-existent WMDs, in-existent or massively exaggerated links to terrorism, don't naively believe you can turn three hostile ethnic groups into a flourishing democracy after decades of dictatorship, in a region where democracy is unknown, don't start a war with not enough troops, etc.

    Are YOU surprised that Iran sponsors the Shiite insurgency, that the Kurds don't want to share power again after being independent, that the Sunnites don't want to be cut off from the oil, that Syria does nothing to prevent inflow of foreign fighters, etc.? If you are not surprised, then why is Bush/the Bush admin?

    Saddam was contained before the war, Iraq was not a major threat and not a sponsor of terrorism. Now Saddam is gone (which is good), but Iraq has become a source of instability for the Middle East of grandiose proportions and will continue to be that for a long time. The US military is stretched to its limits or beyond, without any options for other conflicts, thus greatly increasing the options of states like Iran.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  10. #10  
    I'll write more of a reply when I have time...I'm wrapping my tour in Baghdad up and surfing time is minimal.

    Maybe when I come back you'll have answered my question...how would YOU have responded to a history of Islamic terror attacks, culminating with 9/11?
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    I'll write more of a reply when I have time...I'm wrapping my tour in Baghdad up and surfing time is minimal.
    Looking forward to it. Safe return!
    Maybe when I come back you'll have answered my question...how would YOU have responded to a history of Islamic terror attacks, culminating with 9/11?
    I will gladly do that, if you also tell how attacking a country without meaningful or significant ties to Islamistic terror can reduce Islamistic terror?

    So, back to the question: How would I have responded to a history of Islamic terror attacks, culminating with 9/11?

    • Pushing Al Qaeda out of Afghanistan was a good thing (not disputed by anybody, actively supported e.g. by France and Germany).
    • Fighting terrorism is, first and foremost, a job for intelligence, police, etc., not for an army (with very few exceptions, e.g. the above). Do everything legally acceptable in this field, but don't lower yourself down towards the standard of the bad guys.
    • Do things which support the moderate Muslims, not the opposite (Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Iraq).
    • Don't behave like Israel's pet dog, don't blindly support everything Israel does, work towards a fair solution.


    These points will not make the world better instantly regarding Islamistic terrorism, but also not worse, like the war in Iraq does.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  12. #12  
    I extended my stay a week so I have a few minutes.

    I'm afraid this thread has veered off topic, but I'll stay the course and reiterate what I have written many times on this forum.

    Your plan sucks

    1. The law enforcement response to Islamic terrorism was perceived as weakness on the part of the terrorists. Our lame response, from 1979 to
    2000, is what precipitated that attack. Sending FBI agents to dust for fingerprints was at best impotent folly. UBL himself said as much.

    2. Abu G was not a government sanctioned act. As far as Gitmo...most of those guys are hardened terrorist fighters that were engaged in active combat operations. I won't rule out that the rough nature of war hasn't led to some innocent guys being rolled up, but hey, they're putting on weight. (Maybe that is our long term plan? Kill them with heart attacks!)

    3. Iraq under Saddam did, in fact, support Islamic terrorism. $20,000 payments to Palestinian suicide bombers. Google up "Salman Pak". Do you think that was a fun camp? You can still find the overheads from that time...railroad cars and airplane fuselages next to the barracks and obstacle courses. Of course, you can believe like DA does that SP was for training Iraqi counter terror units......

    4. Yes. Supporting the moderate muslims by feeding them (Somalia). Saving them from genocide (Kosovo). Liberating them from a sadistic dictator at the cost of 3,000+ US servicemen and untold billions. Tell me, when are the moderate muslims going to speak out against 9/11? Or are they too busy burning cars nearly every night in France? (Have you read any Mark Steyn? Interesting perspective on the future of Europe.)

    5. A "fair solution" regarding Palestine from the Arab view involves firing up Auschwitz. A person would have to be delusional to think otherwise.

    As far as the war in Iraq goes, well, I'm just a small bit participant. I'm here because I believe the hate this region engenders will one day consume my nation...and possibly western civilization. I think the geography of Iraq lent itself as the best possible battleground for a fight that had to happen...that was being incrementally forced upon us. The world is better off now that Saddam has swung and his cronies will be frog-marched up the gallows behind him. He was an evil man in the middle of a dysfunctional region. His nation had to be wrested from him by force of arms, and that fight will continue for some time.

    It may take a generation of effort to accomplish the goal of a liberated, and liberalized Iraq...but when it happens it will have happened right in the center of the region.

    The mullocracy to the east no doubt took note of Saddam's fate, and even now contemplate the youth of their nation, yearning to determine their own fate. I think much of what comes from Iran's "leaders" are the result of that squeeze...time moves against them.

    Like I said, it will be 20 years at least before we realize the security benefits of our actions here. That is if the Arab mind comes to grips with the reality that we will not knuckle under. "More rubble, less trouble" is another approach. I think our actions here have been pretty tame in comparison to WWII. I wonder if those on the Left who have complained about how long this war has taken would object if we finished this war the way we finished that war?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Like I said, it will be 20 years at least before we realize the security benefits of our actions here.
    If that is true, one day the situation in Iraq will have to start getting better instead of worse. When, and even more importantly, how is this going to happen?

    Will it get better because your president has decided to send 20'000 more troops to Iraq, reaching troop levels still lower than a year ago, when the situation was out of control regardless of higher troop numbers?

    If not that, then what else? Draft, 100'000 soldiers more? Enlighten us, when/how will the situation in Iraq start getting better?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Iraq under Saddam did, in fact, support Islamic terrorism. $20,000 payments to Palestinian suicide bombers.
    Palestinian suicide bombers fight for a Palestinian state and against Israel, not against the US.
    Google up "Salman Pak".
    I did: "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."p. 108 The CIA and DIA both told the Committee that their postwar exploitation of the facility "has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there. In June 2006, the DIA told the Committee that it has 'no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." (p. 108)" (see Wikipedia for links to the original Senate Committee report)
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    If that is true, one day the situation in Iraq will have to start getting better instead of worse. When, and even more importantly, how is this going to happen?

    Will it get better because your president has decided to send 20'000 more troops to Iraq, reaching troop levels still lower than a year ago, when the situation was out of control regardless of higher troop numbers?

    If not that, then what else? Draft, 100'000 soldiers more? Enlighten us, when/how will the situation in Iraq start getting better?
    Iraq is simply the most active battlefield in the global war against terrorism. It will get better when the Iranians quit interfering and we've killed enough terrorists. It may take a generation.

    How about enlightening us on your plan to stop radical islam? You mentioned police work earlier...I pointed out how that sort of failed when those airplanes smacked the WTC. You see, the police generally show up just in time to take a report and draw a white chalk outline around a body. Are you going to rebut that, or do you concede the point?
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Palestinian suicide bombers fight for a Palestinian state and against Israel, not against the US. I did: "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that "Postwar findings support the April 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) assessment that there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq. There have been no credible reports since the war that Iraq trained al-Qa'ida operatives at Salman Pak to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations."p. 108 The CIA and DIA both told the Committee that their postwar exploitation of the facility "has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida linked individuals took place there. In June 2006, the DIA told the Committee that it has 'no credible reports that non-Iraqis were trained to conduct or support transnational terrorist operations at Salman Pak after 1991." (p. 108)" (see Wikipedia for links to the original Senate Committee report)

    "No non-Iraqis" were trained at Salman Pak. As far as Al-Q...why are you differentiating? Lebanese Hizbollah, Al-Q, Ansar Salam...what's the difference?

    I also congratulate you on your very selective quoting from the Wikipedia piece.

    "Other U.S. officials and journalists have concluded that Salman Pak was used to train foreign (non-Iraqi) fighters for counterterrorism. Douglas Jehl of the "New York Times" reported that Charles A. Duelfer, chief weapons inspector in Iraq, reported that as recently as three months before the March 2003 invasion, "a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service known as M14, the directorate for special operations, oversaw a highly secretive enterprise known as the Challenge Project, involving explosives ... [that] trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship and foreign operations at its facilities at Salman Pak, near Baghdad." [7]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup View Post
    Palestinian suicide bombers fight for a Palestinian state and against Israel, not against the US.
    One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter?

    How much land should Israel give up to establish this state? Do you really think that LH's Iranian masters, who have sworn to end Israel, will deem that enough?

    What is your solution to the Israeli question?
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Iraq is simply the most active battlefield in the global war against terrorism.
    Even if this would be the case, it would only be that because a strategically and operationally challenged US president made it that.
    It will get better when the Iranians quit interfering and we've killed enough terrorists. It may take a generation.
    1. It is not (only) the Iranians fault. Much of it is also Sunni violence. And the Kurds only stay quiet because they have their own region under control. Also, Iraq is not about Islamistic terrorism mainly, it is Sunni and Shiite militia fighting for influence, oil, etc. Al Qaeda and Islamistic terror is only a minor part in the problem.

    2. The more "terrorists" (or Sunni/Shiite fighters) you kill, the more will follow the example of their older brothers, cousins, fathers, uncles, etc. The Iraqis will only hate the US more and more until you lose any remaining support. What you seem to fail to understand is that the number of "terrorists" is not a given, new ones are constantly added.
    How about enlightening us on your plan to stop radical islam? You mentioned police work earlier...I pointed out how that sort of failed when those airplanes smacked the WTC.
    The US have five times the homicide rate of most EU countries, why don't you close all police departments and use the army to take care of the problem? In the past years, many terrorist plots have failed and were stopped in time thanks to police and intelligence work. You may be the only person left who thinks the mess in Iraq speaks in favour of fighting "terrorism" by occupying a country (specifically a country with little or no ties to radical Islam).

    I am quite sure that deep down (or also not so deep down outside of the context of this board) you know that Bush is a loser, that his errors and those of Rumsfeld and the rest of the administration have led to a disaster, with little or no advantage in exchange, a no-win situation in Iraq, loss of options regarding Iraq and their quest for "nuclear power", etc.

    I am also quite sure that you are aware of the fact that the majority of the people in the US (I don't mean Democrats) will not support the mess in Iraq for much longer (and I am not saying this is a good thing), so that in the end, the Iraq war was nothing more than a useless disaster, caused by Bush and his neo-con dreamers. Did you read the article quoted in the "neo culpa" thread? Any comments?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    "No non-Iraqis" were trained at Salman Pak. As far as Al-Q...why are you differentiating? Lebanese Hizbollah, Al-Q, Ansar Salam...what's the difference?

    I also congratulate you on your very selective quoting from the Wikipedia piece.

    "Other U.S. officials and journalists have concluded that Salman Pak was used to train foreign (non-Iraqi) fighters for counterterrorism. Douglas Jehl of the "New York Times" reported that Charles A. Duelfer, chief weapons inspector in Iraq, reported that as recently as three months before the March 2003 invasion, "a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service known as M14, the directorate for special operations, oversaw a highly secretive enterprise known as the Challenge Project, involving explosives ... [that] trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship and foreign operations at its facilities at Salman Pak, near Baghdad." [7]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility
    I don't think that counterterrorism training speaks in favour of you statement.

    Besides, there is no group called Ansar Salam (Salam means peace in Arabic), you mean Ansar al-Islam, a group formerly operating in the Kurdish controlled region of Iraq and fighting Kurdish groups. Saddam may (or may not) have supported them because they had a common enemy, the Kurds.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    What is your solution to the Israeli question?
    Totally off topic. Or are you suggesting that Bush or the war in Iraq have facilitated a solution for Israel?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions