I'm really, really, really sick of this.

Post #12,291 by mmoffitt 10/8/01 3:50:06 PM Reply	I'm really, really, really sick of this. Four airliners get hijacked and kill 6,000 Americans and Dubya gets a walk. I don't get it. Exactly WTF has he done that has demonstrated such great leadership? Launch a few cruise missles? Draw a line in the sand? Come up with clever old western cliches? What is so freaking great about all this shit? It may well be argued that he has done nothing more than Daddy did with Saddam. I see nothing (and its very early yet, I know) that indicates we're going to be more secure thanks to the outstanding leadership from our first USSC appointed president. Honestly, what is it that Dubya has done that no one else would have? NOTHING. That's leadership? "There is no opposition party," according to that collosus of assholes Trent Lott. WTFIT? This is still America, right? The fact that Herr Ari Fleischer has admonished us Americans that "Americans have to watch what they say now" notwithstanding. Dubya a great leader? Bullshit.
Post #12,329 by hnick 10/8/01 6:15:43 PM Reply	Umm.. He didn't end the planet...yet anyway. It seems pretty obvious that the WTC attack was designed to make us so angry that we throw our head at them in retaliation. He's had the reputation that would lead one to believe such an attack should work. He hasn't fucked up seriously yet, AFAIC. Everyone, including me, expected him to do so. Don't know that he's a great leader just yet. He's doing better than expected, and that's good news. Given what he's inherited WRT security, mid east history, and hostile fuckwits already in-country, I can't think that anyone else would do better. Resurrecting Saint JFK would not have saved the towers. He's enjoyed the reputation that he can't piss in the woods and hit a tree, but he hasn't fucked up seriously yet. He still requires serious watching, but for the moment, he's doing adaquately. That's not precisely a walk, but he should get some slack. When he starts using the slack to implement (more of) a police society to protect freedom, THEN we sic a crunch-bird on his ass... my .02, Hugh
Post #12,334 by jb4 10/8/01 6:36:32 PM Reply	Just wondering... Is it just a coincidence that Duhbayew is parked in front of a glass window through which you can see the street, while Cheney is sequestered away at an "undisclosed location", "for security reasons"? Don't get too far away, Dick. It's hard to control the puppet if the strings are too long jb4 (Resistance is not futile...)
Post #12,345 by Ashton 10/8/01 8:31:28 PM Reply	Sad commentary is: he's given credit for Not doing what - evidently - many expected "he would likely do"! Maybe that restraint IS enough to credit him. For a while, and depending upon such things as follow from.. Clarence Thomas swearing in the new Minister of Homeland Security (today). {sigh} A.
Post #12,413 by mmoffitt 10/9/01 10:37:59 AM Reply	You think that credit is owed to him? Remember his rhetoric at first? IMO he wanted to do the worst, but those really in power convinced him otherwise. He was his old hot-headed redneck self initially. But I've got to believe cooler heads prevailed. His tone quickly changed, and I don't think that was of his own will.
Post #12,538 by Ashton 10/9/01 8:37:05 PM Reply	Our hope lies in a Fact: (Well - as much a Fact as any hearsay from corroborating witnesses, I guess) When Nixon was suicidal, Kissinger 'arranged' that any "use of the Football" would not happen unless _____ (a lot more than Nixon's wish was involved). We may suppose that any Texas-style barbeque ordered by Dubya in his cups - might be short-circuited.. Can't go so far as to suggest will be, o'course.. That's the breaks - when 5 Repos select a CIEIO, so they can retire with country in "hands just like ours".
Post #12,357 by wharris2 10/8/01 10:11:54 PM Reply	And what the fuck do/did you expect him to do? Seriously. Other than getting rid of the asinine "can't recruit dubious CIA sources" rules, I don't see a lot he could have done to prevent the attacks. In retrospect, hijacking policy was screwed up but you can't blame him for that; blame the entire series of administrations (and the FAA) since the wave of hijackings in the 70's. Since the attacks, militarily and politically what else would you have suggested he do? The major disappointment I've had has been his soft-shoe treatment of the CIA - and the FBI and the border patrol and every other federal agency that might have been involved. There should have been dozens of agency heads and subheads chopped, rolling on the ground, piled in heaps, and set on fire. Everyone in the FAA and the CIA (amoungst other agencies) should have been doing some serious underwear laundry if they were still employed. Instead, in an act of moronic imbecility, Bush visits the (almost universally condemned) CIA and engages in an orgy of butt-kissing, telling them what a great job they're doing. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #12,392 by Ashton 10/9/01 4:56:43 AM Reply	FAA especially Recall story on tube a few nights ago. Mercifully I forgot (or they didn't mention) the city involved. Local police chief had ~ taken over airport security as a 'courtesy' and, for finding too many plant, procedural holes on even his inspection. Did FAA want to hear? Nahhh. He was quite expicit about it and he spoke English well - either he lied about the whole thing (!) or FAA attitude STILL sucks. Not very good stats, this one detailed report but - even one this bad, is too many. Hell, I plan to do the train when I visit friend in NC later on; I'm in no hurry - but the seats aren't my idea of a good place to sleep for That many nights. (Not worried about some psycho with a box cutter - just want to support an alt. to all those unnecessary bizness flights to show each other Power Punt slides -- at 20x the fuel cost per mile VS rail.) Ah well - Hobbit adventure.. A.
Post #12,415 by mmoffitt 10/9/01 10:48:44 AM Reply	STATE DEPARTMENT I have heard the FAA criticized ad nauseum. I have heard Flight Schools criticized ad nauseum. Make all new and existing Student and Private Pilots PAY for FBI/CIA background checks, yes, I've heard that too. What I have not heard is any criticism of the real problem here: the US Dept. of State. Those morons let known terrorists receive student visas (apparently one even used his real name). Where is the criticism of the State Department? Oh, I forgot, Colin Powell is in charge of that. No, no, we can't ask Colin about that, nor his involvement in atrocities committed in Viet Nam, no, no. He's a Murican hero.
Post #12,459 by wharris2 10/9/01 2:30:16 PM Reply	Re: STATE DEPARTMENT My statement about agency heads rolling would apply to the state department, too - especially the specific assholes in the embassies who issued the visas. And anyone involved in setting policy that allowed someone to not make background checks. All the way up to the top, although you do realize that the terrorists entered on Clinton-policy visas? But no, I won't neglect Colin Powell. He's been a naysayer from the word go, going off on a tangent from whatever Bush has said. The first time he opened his mouth after the bombing, he should have been summarily dismissed. I guess I add him to the CIA recruitment policies as one of the two things Bush could/should have done differently prior to the plane bombing. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #12,414 by mmoffitt 10/9/01 10:44:11 AM Reply	My point. He hasn't, no, can't do anything except bomb 'em, send covert nasties over to kill a few, etc, all the same old, same old. My complaint is that the asshole is getting a lot of credit for "leadership" and we are ignoring the mass exodus of our civil rights. Dubya's just going by the numbers already laid out to him, and imo that is not leadership.
Post #12,460 by wharris2 10/9/01 2:41:09 PM Reply	You don't win a war by bombing Oh fine we got rid of some Taleban assets. How many, well, we're told our bombing was a complete success. Then, Mr. Government Spokesperson, tell me again why we are then still running missions at 60,000 feet rather than ground hugging strafing runs. In World War 2, we bombed Dresden to hell and back and they kept turning out munitions. It takes drastic measures (eg, the firebombing of Tokyo) to really take out the enemy, and our year-2000 delicate sensibilities won't permit that. The only way to win a war, short of nuking them ala Japan in 1945, is to have people occupying the area. (But even then we had troops occupying Japan for a number of years.) If allies (such as the Northern Alliance) can't do it, we're going to have to send people there to break things and kill people. Who knows how empty the sky is In the place of a fallen tower. Who knows how quiet it is in the home Where a son has not returned. -- Anna Akhmatova (1889-1966)
Post #12,516 by kmself 10/9/01 6:28:38 PM Reply	Firebombing Kabul From photos, indiginous construction is largely brick and stone. Stone doesn't burn at anything near attainable temperatures. Note too: Dreseden was firebombed. For a US perspective, see Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. My read is that the air assaults are paving the way for ground war. We've knocked out enough defenses to fly day raids now. The NA report having severed the Taliban's northerthern forces' supply route, and Taliban airborne resupply is preempted by US air superiority. I expect land actions to commence within the week. `-- Karsten M. Self [link\|mailto:kmself@ix.netcom.com\|kmself@ix.netcom.com] What part of "gestalt" don't you understand?`

Welcome to IWETHEY!