Homeland Security...?

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=183682>Failing Grades: America's Security Three Years After 9/11</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>Three years after the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration is failing the test of protecting the American people from the terrorist threat at home and abroad.

Although some progress has been made on limited fronts, the record is clear: the administration's disastrous war of choice in Iraq; its decision to ignore and shortchange real terrorist threats; its half-hearted attempts to secure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and its weakening of our military have left the American people facing greater risks than we did on September 12, 2001.

A comprehensive examination of the record of the Bush administration yields a sobering conclusion: far from improving our security, the Bush administration has managed to squander a historic opportunity to bring together the citizens of the United States and the people of the world in a unified fight against terror.

Instead, the administration has emboldened the world's most dangerous regimes and escalated the potential of nuclear conflict. The president's policies have alienated governments and peoples around the globe, and have helped terrorist groups in their recruiting efforts. The administration has failed to set priorities or follow up on crucial early successes.

Any attempt to grade the Bush administration record in the war on terrorism must begin in Iraq – now nothing short of a catastrophic diversion that has weakened our security. The war has claimed nearly 1,000 American lives, left close to 7,000 wounded, and stretched our military to the breaking point. The occupation continues to drain billions of taxpayer dollars every month – and there is no end in sight. The administration's assertion that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terror has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the Bush administration's willful manipulation of the facts to lead the country into war has done enormous damage to the presidency and eroded our international credibility.</blockquote>

As a result of Dubbyuh's catastrophic success in Iraq, and the resources it siphoned off, America is ill-prepared to fend off another terrorist attack. Homeland security is a myth, which the Administration perpetuates for its own ends.

 

[MtnBiker]

How many attacks have there been since 9/11 in our country?

Better yet how many have been prevented?

Let me give you a hint. You can't fully answer that question. We will not know of every thwarted attack, because doing so would expose sensitive information.

 

[Bullypulpit]

How many attacks have there been since 9/11 in our country?

Better yet how many have been prevented?

Let me give you a hint. You can't fully answer that question. We will not know of every thwarted attack, because doing so would expose sensitive information.

But did you actually READ the report?

Dubbyuh's administration has consistently failed to take the neccessary steps to secure our nation from further terrorist attack. As for "thwarted attacks", given this adminstrations penchant for puffery and demagoguery, I'm certain we would have heard about it. Dubbyuh and his handlers will leave no stone unturned in their search for political advantage. That there have been no further attacks is a tribute, not to the psychotic in the Oval Office, but to the men and women of the our intelligence and law enforcement agencies as well as the military.

 

[dilloduck]

But did you actually READ the report?

Dubbyuh's administration has consistently failed to take the neccessary steps to secure our nation from further terrorist attack. As for "thwarted attacks", given this adminstrations penchant for puffery and demagoguery, I'm certain we would have heard about it. Dubbyuh and his handlers will leave no stone unturned in their search for political advantage. That there have been no further attacks is a tribute, not to the psychotic in the Oval Office, but to the men and women of the our intelligence and law enforcement agencies as well as the military.

Bully, the Dems are already complaining about how much money Bush is spending. We are talking about x amount of money here. More spending equals a larger deficit which the democrats also complain about. Spending it on security would possibly lead to loss of certain freedoms which the democrats ALSO complain about. When everything Bush does is wrong according to the Dems,I can see why he doesn't spend a hell of a lot of time pleasing them.

 

[Mr. P]

From the web site...

Our policy and communications efforts are organized around four major objectives
developing a long term vision of a progressive America,

providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals,

responding effectively and rapidly to conservative proposals and rhetoric with a thoughtful critique and clear alternatives, and

communicating progressive messages to the American public.

We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that is "of all the people, by all the people, and for all the people." We believe in honoring work, building strong communities, fostering effective government and encouraging free and fair markets. :

That last part smells of socialism to me.

About John:

John Podesta "is considered one of the [Democrat] party's sharpest and toughest operatives. Podesta is a 54-year-old marathon runner with an intense, angular face that seems to suggest he is always calculating something you would never be able to grasp. He is also the leader and architect of a new liberal think tank in Washington known as the Center for American Progress . His goal is to build an organization to rethink the very idea of liberalism, a reproduction in mirror image of the conservative think tanks that have dominated the country's political dialogue for a generation."[2]

Well, all that makes this so called "Report" no more than the same ole liberal spew as far as I'm concerned...

Gee Bully...at least you could find a non-bias site to cite from.

 

[MtnBiker]

But did you actually READ the report?

Yeah I did read that lame article and I challenged it!

 

[Comrade]

But did you actually READ the report?

Dubbyuh's administration has consistently failed to take the neccessary steps to secure our nation from further terrorist attack.

According to what standard? No attacks to point to, certainly. To me the article is just a left wing rant about Iraq to me.

As for "thwarted attacks", given this adminstrations penchant for puffery and demagoguery, I'm certain we would have heard about it.

So no attacks or even 'thwarted' ones. We're not being attacked, that's what you are saying them.

Dubbyuh and his handlers will leave no stone unturned in their search for political advantage. That there have been no further attacks is a tribute, not to the psychotic in the Oval Office, but to the men and women of the our intelligence and law enforcement agencies as well as the military.

But if you didn't here of thrwarted ones then no attacks are actually being made on America, there aren't any, right? Despite angering terrorists by invading Iraq no one is trying! Something must be working to keep them away from America! Hmm... Iraq?

 

[Comrade]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=183682>Failing Grades: America's Security Three Years After 9/11</a></h2></center>

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Center_for_American_Progress

According to an article by Matt Bai in the New York Times Podesta's "goal is to build an organization to rethink the very idea of liberalism, a reproduction in mirror image of the conservative think tanks that have dominated the country's political dialogue for a generation.

"Many such left-leaning ventures have been tried over the years and have failed to wield much influence, but Podesta's effort seems different, not only because of his considerable personal stature within the party but also because rage at the Bush administration has galvanized Democrats.

"Podesta laid out his plan for what he likes to call a think tank on steroids. Emulating those conservative institutions, he said, a message-oriented war room will send out a daily briefing to refute the positions and arguments of the right. An aggressive media department will book liberal thinkers on cable TV. There will be an edgy Web site and a policy shop to formulate strong positions on foreign and domestic issues. In addition, Podesta explained how he would recruit hundreds of fellows and scholars -- some in residence and others spread around the country -- to research and promote new progressive policy ideas. American Progress is slated to operate with a $10 million budget next year, raised from big donors like the financier George Soros.
:teeth:

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><IMG src=http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/09/images/15_terrorindex_450.gif>

 

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/16/politics/16intel.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=>U.S. Intelligence Paints a Darker Picture Than Dubbyuh Would Have Us Believe</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.</blockquote>

The NIE, pooh-poohed by Mark McClellan as being "pessimistic" gives lie to the Administration's rosy picture of Iraq and its future. The best case scenario is one of a future little different from the present in Iraq. THe Worst case is outright civil war between the Sunnis, Sh'ias and Kurds. It should be pointed out that the word "pessimist" was created by optimists to describe realists.

 

[jimnyc]

Sorry, Bully, but I think the worst case scenario would have been leaving Iraq alone and allowing hundreds of thousands more citizens to be killed/oppressed, and allowing them to further their desire in the world of WMD.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Sorry, Bully, but I think the worst case scenario would have been leaving Iraq alone and allowing hundreds of thousands more citizens to be killed/oppressed, and allowing them to further their desire in the world of WMD.

You just don't get it...Do you? Dubbyuh could give a shit about the "...hundreds of thousands more citizens to be killed/oppressed...", he's more concerned with the oil under Iraq's sand than human lives...That and the profits being siphoned out of Iraq by Hallburton, KBR, et al. Wake up!

 

[jimnyc]

You just don't get it...Do you? Dubbyuh could give a shit about the "...hundreds of thousands more citizens to be killed/oppressed...", he's more concerned with the oil under Iraq's sand than human lives...That and the profits being siphoned out of Iraq by Hallburton, KBR, et al. Wake up!

Any direct evidence to support your claim on Bush's thoughts on the Iraqi citizens?
Any direct evidence to support your claim that he is more concerned with oil?
Any direct evidence to show Bush profiting off of the contractors working in Iraq?

All rhetoric and zero substance. Are you sure you aren't Kerry in disguise?

 

[Bullypulpit]

How soon you forget...

The reason Dubbyuh gave for invading Iraq had nothing to do with the citizens of that country. Initially, the reason for invading Iraq and toplling Saddam was "the grave and urgent threat" posed by Saddam and Iraq's WMD. Or, as Ari Fleischer put it before he got sick of lying, the "imminent threat" Saddam and his WMD's posed to America nad the world.

As it became more and more apparent that no WMD's would be found, beyond a few rounds left over from Gulf I, and UXO, the reasons for invading Iraq morphed...29 times. Dubbyuh misled America into a war founded on a tissue of misstatement, exagerration, and wishful thinking. He led America into a war because he wanted to...not because he needed to. He has bought, and paid for, his place in whatever hell may await him when he shuffles off this mortal coil.

 

[NATO AIR]

i'll give bush this on the "changing rationale" for the war. initally, he had to pick the most effective reason for getting rid of saddam and liberating the iraqis, which was the fact saddam was a dangerous threat. his rationale changed over time due to different factors, but also, at different times, he was speaking and trying to work with a vast number of nations and organizations that all had their own viewpoints on why saddam should go.

for example, humanitarians felt he was a genocidal dictator. bush takes this line with them when seeking their support, assistance or intelligence.

european nations that allied with us worried about his WMD and missile programs. bush takes this line with them.

americans and a few other countries primarily worry about future state-sponsored or assisted terrorism. bush takes this line with them.

what is wrong with that? its focusing and honing your message for the group you're dealing with at the time. i'm sure kerry doesn't focus on racial profiling in front of swing voters in ohio, just as bush wouldn't focus on his opposition to gay marriage in front of moderate washington or minnesota voters.

 

[Bullypulpit]

i'll give bush this on the "changing rationale" for the war. initally, he had to pick the most effective reason for getting rid of saddam and liberating the iraqis, which was the fact saddam was a dangerous threat. his rationale changed over time due to different factors, but also, at different times, he was speaking and trying to work with a vast number of nations and organizations that all had their own viewpoints on why saddam should go.

for example, humanitarians felt he was a genocidal dictator. bush takes this line with them when seeking their support, assistance or intelligence.

european nations that allied with us worried about his WMD and missile programs. bush takes this line with them.

americans and a few other countries primarily worry about future state-sponsored or assisted terrorism. bush takes this line with them.

what is wrong with that? its focusing and honing your message for the group you're dealing with at the time. i'm sure kerry doesn't focus on racial profiling in front of swing voters in ohio, just as bush wouldn't focus on his opposition to gay marriage in front of moderate washington or minnesota voters.

Then he needs to remain consistent and remove other genocidal dictators from power...You know, the government of Sudan, the military junta in Burma, Kim Jung Il in North Korea. It was never about liberating the Iraqi people. Deal with it.

 

[Mr. P]

Then he needs to remain consistent and remove other genocidal dictators from power...You know, the government of Sudan, the military junta in Burma, Kim Jung Il in North Korea. It was never about liberating the Iraqi people. Deal with it.

He has remained consistent? But..what you suggest is that he be "rote" not consistent, that doesn't work Bully. Ya can't deal with everyone the same way and you sure as hell can't deal with every Country
the same way..that's just the way it is...Deal with it.

 

[Comrade]

Then he needs to remain consistent and remove other genocidal dictators from power...You know, the government of Sudan, the military junta in Burma, Kim Jung Il in North Korea. It was never about liberating the Iraqi people. Deal with it.

Impossible standard indeed!

If you don't give money to feed and house every beggar you see, obviously an impossible standard you could set by comparison, what you're saying is we have no right to go around giving money to a few seriously needy people without bankrupting ourselves in the process, because that would be insincere. Instead we should be like Europe who doesn't give a flying f*ck about any of them.

Is that the gist of this argument?

 

[wolvie20m]

Yes


I agree with NATO on this he was simply dealing with a threat. Yea WMD's weren't found. That doesn't make the war there any less important. What was our options continue and let one his sons take over and them to attack us before we do anything about it? I belive it to be a well needed strike, I only wish Bush's father had done it back in 91'. Would of saved us time and perhaps lives, Abu al-Zarqawi the Terrorist now running aroud Iraq is directly linked to Saddam. Abu al-Zarqawi is also now linked to Osama bin Laden directly. Now tell me Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Here's a link read about it: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...ment/index.html

 

[sealybobo]

<center><h2><a href=http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=183682>Failing Grades: America's Security Three Years After 9/11</a></h2></center>

<blockquote>Three years after the tragic attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration is failing the test of protecting the American people from the terrorist threat at home and abroad.

Although some progress has been made on limited fronts, the record is clear: the administration's disastrous war of choice in Iraq; its decision to ignore and shortchange real terrorist threats; its half-hearted attempts to secure nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; and its weakening of our military have left the American people facing greater risks than we did on September 12, 2001.

A comprehensive examination of the record of the Bush administration yields a sobering conclusion: far from improving our security, the Bush administration has managed to squander a historic opportunity to bring together the citizens of the United States and the people of the world in a unified fight against terror.

Instead, the administration has emboldened the world's most dangerous regimes and escalated the potential of nuclear conflict. The president's policies have alienated governments and peoples around the globe, and have helped terrorist groups in their recruiting efforts. The administration has failed to set priorities or follow up on crucial early successes.

Any attempt to grade the Bush administration record in the war on terrorism must begin in Iraq – now nothing short of a catastrophic diversion that has weakened our security. The war has claimed nearly 1,000 American lives, left close to 7,000 wounded, and stretched our military to the breaking point. The occupation continues to drain billions of taxpayer dollars every month – and there is no end in sight. The administration's assertion that Iraq is the "central front" in the war on terror has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. And the Bush administration's willful manipulation of the facts to lead the country into war has done enormous damage to the presidency and eroded our international credibility.</blockquote>

As a result of Dubbyuh's catastrophic success in Iraq, and the resources it siphoned off, America is ill-prepared to fend off another terrorist attack. Homeland security is a myth, which the Administration perpetuates for its own ends.

How about when we have idiots in charge of homeland security?

Kirstjen Nielsen: 'I Haven't Seen Evidence' Russia Tried To Help Trump Win | HuffPost

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen on Thursday denied having “seen evidence” that Russia intended to swing the 2016 election in President Donald Trump’s favor, as U.S. intelligence agencies have determined.

“I haven’t seen any evidence that the attempt to interfere in our election infrastructure was to favor a particular political party,” Nielson responded when asked about Russia’s intentions Thursday during the Aspen Security Forum.

“What we’ve seen on the foreign influence side is they were attempting to intervene and cause chaos on both sides,” she continued.

It's hard to not be scared when you know you have idiots like this woman, Rick Perry, Ben Carson and DeVos running our government. People who deny facts.