Enough is an Effing-nough

[Scriptor Ignotus]

Pay attention DU, I'm only going to say this once.

Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. We should have been going after these guys without hesitation since Sept. 12, 2001 (at the least).

Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are MOST LIKELY in the mountains of Afghanistan or Pakistan. Obviously we don't know for sure.

Hillary, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Giulani, Thompson, McCain would ALL LAUNCH ATTACKS ON PAKISTAN IF THEY THOUGHT BIN LADEN WAS THERE. Yes, they would ask Musharraf first. But if he says no or can't do the job then what?

The pile-on Obama for stating the obvious is unbelievable. I haven't seen such cognitive dissonance from Democrats since I joined this board.

Do you even know why you oppose the war in Iraq? I oppose it because it is the wrong war. We were supposed to go after Al Qaeda. We can largely fight these extremists using intelligence and good old fashioned police work, as John Kerry said. However, there are training camps that need to be attacked and there are individuals who must be brought to justice (Bin Laden and co.). It will take boots on the ground in some instances to get the job done. Sorry folks, but bringing all the troops home won't catch Bin Laden. It won't stop Al Qaeda. We should get our troops out of Iraq, but we do need to send some after Al Qaeda.

Going after Al Qaeda is NOT EXPANDING THE WAR ON TERROR. It's fighting the war the way it was supposed to have been fought five years ago. It's correcting Bush's mistakes.

Bush has done considerable damage to our reputation overseas, our military, and our economy. But I hope to dear God whoever takes the White House in 2008 will finish the job Bush never could and catch or kill Osama Bin Laden.

I live in Brooklyn and work in Manhattan. In Times Square. The War on Terror may be a big fucking joke to you, but it's something me, my friends, and family all worry about. When that pipe burst a week or two ago, the entire city held its breath. We will probably get hit again and I work in an area that has a huge fucking bullseye on it. I want Bin Laden caught. I don't care if he has marginal influence with Al Qaeda now. I don't care if you think Bush ordered the towers to be demolished. I want this man caught, convicted or killed.

I can't fault you for hearing Al Qaeda and equating it to the bogeyman. But just because Bush has exploited them, doesn't mean they don't exist or wish to do us harm. Or did Bush order the attacks in Spain and London? There is a real threat out there that we must fight. Diplomacy and respecting other countries sovereignty is vital to that effort, I think we all agree. But at some point we have to do what we have to do.

But if you think for one second Hillary or Edwards wouldn't do EXACTLY what Obama said (assuming you actually read the speech and know what he really said), then you are the one being naive.

[Buzz Clik]

1. You're not paying attention: Iran.

nuff said.

[CJCRANE]

7. No - you're diverting attention.

Al-Qaeda and Iran can both be dealt with - but in different ways.

[Buzz Clik]

10. sigh

(it is really necessary to always insert :sarcasm: to make sure one's point is understood?)

[CJCRANE]

20. That'll teach me to jump in

with a kneejerk reaction!

I'll be over there in the corner wearing this hat :dunce:

[Buzz Clik]

22. No problem. After listening to Jeb Babbin last night on The Daily Show...

... babble on about how dangerous Iran is, I couldn't help but interject.

btw, I agree with you completely.

[chieftain]

2. Excellent post.

[Posteritatis]

3. Insert kneejerk, unfounded accusations of freeperdom in 5... 4... 3...

Seriously, amen. If there was a problem with Obama's statement there I don't see it. ;P

[BushOut06]

4. And who exactly are you?

Pardon me, if some of us aren't quite keen on the idea of INVADING countries just because we say there are terrorists there. You seem to have no qualms whatsoever about sending troops into an unstable Islamic country that possesses nuclear weapons.

Did Bill Clinton invade Libya after the Pan Am bombing, when we knew that they were harboring the suspects? Quite the contrary - we used diplomatic and economic pressure, and it WORKED. Libya eventually handed over the suspects and cooperated with us.

I'm sorry, but I simply refuse to go along with this whole gung-ho "let's bomb the shit out of them" or "let's send troops" attitude just because the Rethugs are doing it. Who in the hell says that we need to try to out-tough the rethugs?

[Clintonista2]

If I could recommend your reply, I would

You summed it up completely.

[BushOut06]

14. Thanks - it seems like people are trying to prove who has the biggest dick

Maybe that should be the format for the next presidential debate. Just have all the candidates just whip 'em out.

[Zensea]

18. Well that's who people tend to vote for in America

As Gil Scott Heron so eloquently put it clear back in the early 80s.

B-Movie
Well, the first thing I want to say is…”Mandate my ass!”

Because it seems as though we've been convinced that 26% of the registered voters, not even 26% of the American people, but 26% of the registered voters form a mandate – or a landslide. 21% voted for Skippy and 3, 4% voted for somebody else who might have been running.

But, oh yeah, I remember. In this year that we have now declared the year from Shogun to Reagan, I remember what I said about Reagan…meant it. Acted like an actor…Hollyweird. Acted like a liberal. Acted like General Franco when he acted like governor of California, then he acted like a republican. Then he acted like somebody was going to vote for him for president. And now we act like 26% of the registered voters is actually a mandate. We're all actors in this I suppose.

What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune…the consumer has got to dance. That's the way it is. We used to be a producer – very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources will control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now. They don't know if they want to be Matt Dillon or Bob Dylan. They don't know if they want to be diplomats or continue the same policy - of nuclear nightmare diplomacy. John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now.

The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can – even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment – someone always came to save America at the last moment – especially in “B” movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan – and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at – like a “B” movie.

Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous “B” movie. The producer underwritten by all the millionaires necessary will be Casper “The Defensive” Weinberger – no more animated choice is available. The director will be Attila the Haig, running around frantically declaring himself in control and in charge. The ultimate realization of the inmates taking over at the asylum. The screenplay will be adapted from the book called “Voodoo Economics” by George “Papa Doc” Bush. Music by the “Village People” the very military "Macho Man."

“Company!!!”
“Macho, macho man!”
“ Two-three-four.”
“ He likes to be – well, you get the point.”
“Huuut! Your left! Your left! Your left…right, left, right, left, right…!”

A theme song for saber-rallying and selling wars door-to-door. Remember, we're looking for the closest thing we can find to John Wayne. Clichés abound like kangaroos – courtesy of some spaced out Marlin Perkins, a Reagan contemporary. Clichés like, “itchy trigger finger” and “tall in the saddle” and “riding off or on into the sunset.” Clichés like, “Get off of my planet by sundown!” More so than clichés like, “he died with his boots on.” Marine tough the man is. Bogart tough the man is. Cagney tough the man is. Hollywood tough the man is. Cheap stick tough. And Bonzo's substantial. The ultimate in synthetic selling: A Madison Avenue masterpiece – a miracle – a cotton-candy politician…Presto! Macho!

“Macho, macho man!”

Put your orders in America. And quick as Kodak your leaders duplicate with the accent being on the dupes - cause all of a sudden we have fallen prey to selective amnesia - remembering what we want to remember and forgetting what we choose to forget. All of a sudden, the man who called for a blood bath on our college campuses is supposed to be Dudley “God-damn” Do-Right?

“You go give them liberals hell Ronnie.” That was the mandate. To the new “Captain Bly” on the new ship of fools. It was doubtlessly based on his chameleon performance of the past - as a liberal democrat – as the head of the Studio Actor's Guild. When other celluloid saviors were cringing in terror from McCarthy – Ron stood tall. It goes all the way back from Hollywood to hillbilly. From liberal to libelous, from “Bonzo” to Birch idol…born again. Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights…it's all wrong. Call in the cavalry to disrupt this perception of freedom gone wild. God damn it…first one wants freedom, then the whole damn world wants freedom.

Nostalgia, that's what we want…the good ol' days…when we gave'em hell. When the buck stopped somewhere and you could still buy something with it. To a time when movies were in black and white – and so was everything else. Even if we go back to the campaign trail, before six-gun Ron shot off his face and developed hoof-in-mouth. Before the free press went down before full-court press. And were reluctant to review the menu because they knew the only thing available was – Crow.

Lon Chaney, our man of a thousand faces - no match for Ron. Doug Henning does the make-up - special effects from Grecian Formula 16 and Crazy Glue. Transportation furnished by the David Rockefeller of Remote Control Company. Their slogan is, “Why wait for 1984? You can panic now...and avoid the rush.”

So much for the good news…

As Wall Street goes, so goes the nation. And here's a look at the closing numbers – racism's up, human rights are down, peace is shaky, war items are hot - the House claims all ties. Jobs are down, money is scarce – and common sense is at an all-time low on heavy trading. Movies were looking better than ever and now no one is looking because, we're starring in a “B” movie. And we would rather had John Wayne…we would rather had John Wayne.

"You don't need to be in no hurry.
You ain't never really got to worry.
And you don't need to check on how you feel.
Just keep repeating that none of this is real.
And if you're sensing, that something's wrong,
Well just remember, that it won't be too long
Before the director cuts the scene…yea."

“This ain't really your life,
Ain't really your life,
Ain't really ain't nothing but a movie.”

[Maven]

12. Thank you. Apparently some have been so affected by the Bush-era

"bomb first and ask questions later" mentality they forgot there were other considerations and other means to accomplish one's goals.

[bvar22]

17. Recommending Post #4 by "BushOut06".

:patriot:

[Scriptor Ignotus]

23. Obama isn't keen on invading Pakistan

which is probably why he never uttered those words. Do you understand the difference between sending special forces or missiles on target-specific missions and sending 50,000-100,000 troops over the border?

FYI - as I said in my OP, all the other candidates with a few exceptions would do what he advocated.

And this has nothing to do with "saying there are terrorists there" and then going in. Obama has been clear about having a transparent administration, as much as can be done without harming national security. Obama would strike with actionable intelligence, as would virtually every candidate currently running.

[BushOut06]

26. I don't fucking care

Do you really think that Pakistan is going to say "Oh, well since you only bombed a portion of my country without authorization, I suppose it's okay"?

Invading, sending special forces, or bombing - it's all semantics for MILITARY ACTION against a country that is trying to help us while being caught in a very delicate situation.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

27. well there's no convincing you

but just keep in mind every contender for Prez would do the same thing.

If Musharraf refuses or is unable to catch high-value targets like Bin Laden they will strike, same as Obama would.

[OwnedByFerrets]

34. Thank you *ushOUT. Perfect

reply. I am sick and tired of war, war and more war. There are other, more successful means of dealing with those who would do us harm.

[dionysus]

37. you might want to revisit history.

Pan Am bombing was in 88, when poppy bush was in office.

And I think we sent a cruise missle over there that ending up killing ghadafi's daughter.

[BushOut06]

39. Actually...

Reagan bombed Libya in response to a bombing of a discotheque in Germany that killed a couple of American servicemen. I knew the Pan Am bombing occurred in the late 80's, but Clinton still maintained pressure on Libya to surrender the terrorists.

[CJCRANE]

5. Bush-Republicans need al-Qaeda.

That's the dirty truth and that's why they will continue to thrive while Bush-Cheney are in office.

But yes I agree that going after bin Laden is the right thing to do - let's remember that's what (Bill) Clinton was trying to do.

[Posteritatis]

6. Yep, they do

Obligatory book recommendation on the relationship: Gwynne Dyer, Future: Tense. It's a couple-hours read, probably somewhat choirpreachy to a lot of DUers, but damn does it lay some things out clearly.

[ProSense]

8. Utter nonsense! No one would attack Pakistan.

If they would, they are crazy! Is it possible to fight terrorism without violating the sovereignty of other countries? Sure it is.

As someone who lived (past) and worked in New York (blocks from the WTC), there is always something for New Yorkers to be alarmed about, from the 1993 WTC bombing to 9/11 to the black out.

[AtomicKitten]

9. Dems put their candidates between a rock and a hard place.

Of course the candidates are going to puff themselves up when it comes to matters of national security. As much as that displeases many on the left, they must assert themselves in the discussion to be taken seriously.

As much as John Bolton believes the president should serve only those that elect him/her and Cheney believes you only need 50+1 votes to have your way with government, the president is elected by America to serve America. All of America. The candidates will address issues that make those on the left bristle.

If you keep in mind (1) elections are a dog and pony show and (2) you can't please all the people all the time, it's better to stand back for an overview of the day-to-day grind of elections than to don hip boots and wade through the BS.

[Danieljay]

11. why do you hate Hillary, ya bastard?

Just kidding. Just thought I'd beat the "why do you hate Hillary crowd" before they turned it in to a Hillary bashing thread.

[Beam Me Up]

13. Nice fairy tale, not backed up by the hard evidence. Sorry.

Other than the fact that this LYING ADMINISTRATION said so and their corporate owned media repeated it over and over without question, what evidence do you have to back up your assertion?

The FBI would like to have your evidence.

FBI says, it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

By Ed Haas

06/18/06 "Muckraker Report " - June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, and was sent to the Muckraker Report by Mr. Paul V. Sheridan (Winner of the 2005 Civil Justice Foundation Award), bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.<1> (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, [phone], to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

. . .

Source: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

Moreover, we have anomalies. Tons of anomalies. Four hijackings, same day. In flight around Eastern corridor without interception for 90 minutes. Three steel frame buildings "collapsing due to fire" (never happened before nor since). And hundreds of other things -- including Bush and Cheney refusing to testify separately and under oath even before their OWN 9/11 Commission.

Sorry.

The war on terror is bogus. Totally bogus. Just like everything else about this maladministration, including their occupancy of the White House after 2000.

[stillcool]

16. thank you...

for taking the time to respond so decently. I am often not willing to make the effort to put forth any argument at all to the meme's that abound...which is a shame..as I can attest that change in perception is incremental.

[DeeDeeNY]

25. Exactly right

Your points are all valid. We don't know for sure what the true story behind 9/11 was, but we do know that for some unknown reason, the administration fought hard that it not get out.
And "war on terror" is a Republican-manufactured phrase that means nothing. Terror is a tactic. You can't have war on a tactic, but if you did, then it would last until the end of time, similar to a war on "evil". I cringe when I hear Democratic candidates use this phrase.

[Raster]

28. Bravo, my friend! There comes a time when all the anomalies and coincidences

absolutely overwhelm and one must realize there is more to the story than the line we're force fed. The war on terror is just another stage prop for "the war president," who MUST ALWAYS HAVE A WAR ON SOMETHING. It's an old magicians trick: distract with one had while the other palms the coin. Literally.

Wake up America!:kick:

[Mark Twain Girl]

33. Wish I could K&R your post - "FBI says it has “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”

A scam indeed... gotta keep those defense dollars rolling and rolling.

[Mythsaje]

15. Declaring war on sovereign nations isn't working so well

in this war against Al Qeida, if you ask me. Bullying, pre-emptive war, mass destruction of infrastructure, and all that goes with it IS NOT HELPING. It just allows OBL and others like him to say "We TOLD you they were evil."

And their people are listening. Why not? They're seeing the "proof" with their own eyes.

Of course diplomacy is important. In fact, it's vital.

So what are we going to do if Pakistan says "no?"

Invade?

:rofl:

With what army?

Because of this administration's stupidity, we're already fighting a two-front war. The last thing we can afford is a third, no matter how hungrily they're eyeing Iraq.

We need to fight smarter, not harder. And that means a strong core of highly trained soldiers, an elite cadre with our most advanced equipment, that can strike quickly and accurately to the heart of everything.

This requires highly accurate intelligence and the cooperation of the world's policing agencies--the kind of cooperation THIS administration can no longer get.

[mzmolly]

19. "The pile-on Obama for stating the obvious is unbelievable." Landrieu recently warned that we were

spending not only America's money in Iraq, but our patience.

Though, I agree with your post overall.

[CGowen]

21. really?

[Hydra]

24. I wish I could down rec this post, but I suposse it's important

Thanks to all those above who have posted the evidence and advocated for non-military action.

I just have to add this:

We are holding suspected terrorists in amnesty here in the US- does it sound rational to you that China, Russia or the EU come and run our country over so that they can drag those people off to be executed someplace else?

If you do, you have issues. YOU DEMAND THE GOV'T GIVE THOSE PEOPLE UP, NOT BOMB A COUNTRY TO ALL HELL OR INVADE!

I swear living in the matrix is wearing on me. People say the most insane things and expect to be seen as rational. War should never be the first answer, the second, or even the third.

"You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause."

-Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

[Scriptor Ignotus]

30. and when those demands go unfulfilled?

what do you say to the American people? Um, Pakistan said we couldn't get Bin Laden so we're not going to. Sorry.

When there are no alternatives, you go in. All the Dem candidates would do the same, cept maybe Kucinich.

[BushOut06]

32. Ever think about non-military pressure?

You don't just ask a country nicely, then start bombing the hell out of them. Ever hear of something called diplomacy, economic sanctions, etc? Those sort of non-military actions tend to work MUCH better.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

36. I think that goes without saying

that's why I didn't say it.

[mhatrw]

29. What is *obvious* is that the whole "War on Terror" is a load of shit!

How is it that so many even on DU can be so blind to the patently obvious?

See: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3421432

[LWolf]

31. Naive? No.

I just see so much more pressing priorities here at home. Before I decide to appoint myself police, judge, jury, and executioner of or in the world at large, I've got a stinking mess to clean up at home.

First, I want all the criminals and violators of the U.S. Constitution removed from office, prosecuted, and sentenced.

Next, I want them replaced by public servants who have no ties of any kind to corporate $$ or influence.

Then I want the U.S. election system rebuilt/reformed, the nation's infrastructure modernized and updated, and all social programs re-energized, restructured, and fully funded.

When no one on U.S. soil has to fear homelessness, poverty, bankruptcy; when everyone on U.S. soil gets equal opportunity, equal access to high quality education, health care; when civil liberties are restored and strengthened, our energy an environmental challenges are safely, cleanly, and appropriately dealt with, and we have re-publicized every public service privatized in the last 50 years...

When we have rebuilt partnerships with the rest of the world by removing our presence from their soil and treated them with respect, and when we have strengthened the UN and other international peacekeeping groups whose job it is to deal with international terrorists....


then we'll have time to go cache hunting for OBL.

[OwnedByFerrets]

35. But, but, but............

its much more fun to bomb things and kill ppl who are a different shade of pale.:sarcasm:

[earth mom]

38. Nah-the real terrorists are not Al Qaeda. It was an inside job. nt