Ask Me Help Desk - It's Sept 10th in America again?

Barack "change we can believe in" Obama wants to take us back to a Sept 10th mentality:

Quote:

What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks — for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated.

And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”

So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.

Is that how you want to handle terrorism, run it through the criminal justice system? Andrew C. McCarthy has some reminders you should read before deciding. I agree with McCarthy, Obama would bring us back to September 10th America. And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th . Do you agree?

More nonsensical idiocy from the Republican Noise and Propaganda Machine. McBush is too *confused* to put out his own talking points.

Guess what, most Americans aren't as stupid as you think they are. :)

Guess what Steve? You know where Obama said the bit about how your credibility on the rule of law has been destroyed. He's right. That's what the world IS thinking. But I know you are comfortable with that! Maybe other people in the US aren't. I guess we'll find out in November. Nice fear mongering article though!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Choux

More nonsensical idiocy from the Republican Noise and Propaganda Machine. McBush is too *confused* to put out his own talking points.

Guess what, most Americans aren't as stupid as you think they are. :)

Agreed. And by the way, what is wrong with the criminal justice system? They have executed more terrorist than the feds have.

Criminal justice system-1, Timothy Mcvey

Fed-0, Unless of course you count everyone killed in Afganistan and Iraq but we're not sure how many were terrorist. Oh yea, don't forget Waco or Ruby ridge either. That lady sniped by the FBI while holding her baby was a real terrorist... I hear.

Only good terrorist is a dead terrorist, in my view. You take up arms against the U.S. you sign your own death warrant. I have no problem with the fact that there are many dead terrorists, over there.

So now anyone who takes up arm against the US is a terrorist?

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM) is the uncle of the 1993 attack on the twin towers mastermind Ramzi Yousef . Emad Salem ,an undercover agent of the FBI has said that the FBI knew about the plot to attack the twin towers and told him that they were going to thwart it by substituting a harmless powder for the explosives. However, an FBI supervisor called off this plan, and the bombing was not stopped.

KSM and Yousef were also involved in a plot called the Bojinka plot . They were going to plant explosives in 11 airliners enroute to the US from Asia .The detonations would've resulted in over 4000 passangers deaths. That plot was thwarted only because Yousef mixing a batch of the explosives set a fire. He fled to Pakistan and was eventually extradited . Head of the FBI NY division Bill Gavin took Yousef by helicopter over the WTC to brag that they were still standing .Yousef said that if he had the right explosives they would not be. After the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, investigators discovered that co-conspirator Nidal Ayyad had left behind a computer message: "Next time, it will be very precise."

KSM of course later was the mastermind of the 9-11 attacks . So our law enforcement worked splendidly didn't it?

Read this CNN interview with "1,000 Years of Revenge: International Terrorism and The FBI." author Peter Lance and judge for yourself

CNN.com - Transcripts

Quote:

ZAHN: You believe 9/11 2001 could have been prevented?

LANCE: Well, we drew a direct link between Ramzi Yousef, the first World Trade Center bomber and 9/11. We went to the Philippines. We talked to the chief interrogator of Abdul Marad (ph) who was Yousef's partner. And he told us he confessed to a plot in 1994, 1995 where he had six targets. Ten men were training in U.S. flight schools at the time and this information was given to the FBI. So then I went well if Yousef was the architect of 9/11, which by the way his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed executed, could we have stopped him in 1992? Could the FBI have stopped him.

Then I brought the story back then as far as 1989 in my opinion the FBI dropped the ball not just once but dozens of times and could have stopped Ramsey Yousef before he set the World Trade Center bomb in 1993. (UNINTELLIGIBLE) and since he was the architect of 9/11, it could have been prevented.

ZAHN: But the defense you often hear about people from the FBI is that you couldn't connect the dots that point. You're saying the FBI bungled this completely?

LANCE: I'm saying we did a timeline in my book which is 160 sections so that the average person could look at this and judge for themselves. And there are dozens of opportunities. In 1989, Paula, they had number of Middle Eastern men under surveillance. They were at a shooting range in Long Island, in 1989. Of those men surveillance, three were convicted in the Trade Center bombing, one killed a Rabbi, two were connected to the plot to blow up the bridges and tunnels around Manhattan. And one nine years later planned the African embassy bombings which 234 people died.

All one has to do is read the 9-11 Commission report to find the flaw in Obama's thinking [From sec 3:1] :

Quote:

An unfortunate consequence of this superb investigative and prosecutorial effort was that it created an impression that the law enforcement system was well-equipped to cope with terrorism. Neither President Clinton, his principal advisers, the Congress, nor the news media felt prompted, until later, to press the question of whether the procedures that put the Blind Sheikh and Ramzi Yousef behind bars would really protect Americans against the new virus of which these individuals were just the first symptoms...

The law enforcement process is concerned with proving the guilt of persons apprehended and charged. Investigators and prosecutors could not present all the evidence of possible involvement of individuals other than those charged, although they continued to pursue such investigations, planning or hoping for later prosecutions. The process was meant, by its nature, to mark for the public the events as finished-case solved, justice done. It was not designed to ask if the events might be harbingers of worse to come. Nor did it allow for aggregating and analyzing facts to see if they could provide clues to terrorist tactics more generally-methods of entry and finance, and mode of operation inside the United States. Fourth, although the bombing heightened awareness of a new terrorist danger, successful prosecutions contributed to widespread underestimation of the threat.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Back then of course we did not even use the beloved criminal justice system. Remember more than once bin Laden was offered up to the First Philanderer and he refused to take custody of OBL because there was no "standing"
YouTube - Clinton Admits He Refused To Take Bin Laden

Then after the twin embassy bombing Clinton made executive orders that would make the left go into epilepsy if Bush had done them. He ordered the execution of OBL . He launched a missile attack against OBL on 8/20/98.(military action I fully agree with even though he was accused of wagging the dog and bombing aspirin factories... both false conclusions ) But then 3 times after that the CIA had OBL in their cross hairs and Clinton and Sandy stuffed pants Berger refused to pull the trigger .

The bombing of the USS Cole was of course a blatant act of war ;But still the Clintonoids refused to act ;instead treating it like a criminal investigation.Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was concerned about the precious world opinion and Attorney General Janet Reno thought retaliation might violate international law . To his credit Richard Clarke did argue for a military response. Michael Sheehan, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator asked Clarke "What's it going to take to get them to hit al Qaeda in Afghanistan? Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon?"
Turns out that is exactly what it took. But now ,even though the country roundly supported military action in the wake of the 9-11 attacks (even the vast majority of Americans supported the Iraq war) ; now they have become complacent and have forgotten. McCarthy is right . This election is a referendum on a return to a Sept 10 America . No thank you.

Steve

From a political standpoint there is a possibility that this line of attack by McCain does the Democrats a service. The one thing that the Clintonistas have guarded zealously is their so called vaunted handling of terrorism during their reign.Nothing angers the Clintonoids more than any criticism of his record ;especially on terrorism. By pointing out the obvious flaws in their strategy; McCain ,in his attack on Obama's approach ,may be creating the environment for an Obama /Clinton rapprochement .

On September 10 there was a fast food commercial playing on TV showing the air traffic controllers asleep at the wheel after eating a chicken sandwich. Makes me think of that signal, "one if by land, two if by sea". The signs were all there. We were babes in the woods then. Our major highways were neatly outlined by little blaze orange barrels, flying would have been as easy as connect the dots. We would have given an airline ticket to anybody who had money in his hand, that just how our free enterprise system works. We had all our nuclear facilities brightly lit up at night like we wanted them hit, like the planes were wingtip to wingtip at Pearl Harbor. There is no going back there now. We really have passed into a new world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by George_1950

...You take up arms against the U.S., you sign your own death warrant....

That makes sense to me.
Most countries, heck, most individuals, kind of think that same stuff.
Wherever you live, whomever you may be, if your repeatedly slugged in the stomach, wouldn't you rather that stopped? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Steve

From a political standpoint there is a possibilty that this line of attack by McCain does the Democrats a service. The one thing that the Clintonistas have guarded zealously is their so called vaunted handling of terrorism during their reign.Nothing angers the Clintonoids more than any criticism of his record ;especially on terrorism. By pointing out the obvious flaws in their strategy; McCain ,in his attack on Obama's approach ,may be creating the environment for an Obama /Clinton rapprochement .

Tom,

I'm beginning to think basically anything McCain says does the Dems a service since the media is in the tank for Obama, the Dems are experts at triangulation and manipulation and the GOP has no spine.

When McCain realizes that the modern-day SAMS are from the Dems and the media, he may figure out whether to fish or cut bait; I believe he will. There's plenty of time. Of course, he may be satisfied being NY Times' lap puppy. All these Bozo's should have to resign their public positions before running for president.