Does L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks think 9-11 was "fictional and entirely implausible"? I ask, because in The GOP's Torture Enthusiasts today, that's how she describes a similar scenario that Brit Hume sketched during this past Tuesday's GOP presidential debate. In inviting the candidates to discuss their views on interrogation during this past Tuesday's get together, debate moderator and Fox News DC Bureau managing editor Brit Hume said the following:
The questions in this round will be premised on a fictional, but we think plausible scenario involving terrorism and the response to it. Here is the premise: Three shopping centers near major U.S. cities have been hit by suicide bombers. Hundreds are dead, thousands injured. A fourth attack has been averted when the attackers were captured off the Florida coast and taken to Guantanamo Bay, whereBrooks sniffed at the scenario, calling it "the kind that most intelligence experts consider fictional and entirely implausible."they are being questioned. U.S. intelligence believes that another larger attack is planned and could come at any time.
Really? Entirely implausible to imagine three targets hit by suicide bombers and another attack planned? Let's see, if I recall correctly, on 9-11, three targets [the two WTC towers and the Pentagon] were hit by suicide bombers. A fourth attack, possibly on the White House or the Capitol, was planned. It was averted thanks to the heroic efforts of passengers aboard United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
Brooks mocked the candidates for their responses, calling them "a group of middle-aged white guys competing with one another to see who could do the best impersonation of Jack Bauer." For good measure, she claimed that Brit Hume "appears to have been watching too much '24' himself." Aside: why do liberals gratuitously drag race into these discussions? As for being "middle-aged" [which I suppose septugenarians McCain and Paul would take as a compliment], the Constitution requires presidents to be at least 35, and even Obama would be 47 by inauguration day. So what's Rosa's point?
In any case, it's not that the Republicans have been watching too much "24." It's that Brooks has apparently forgotten our recent history.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
Aside: why do liberals grat
May 18, 2007 - 06:33 ET by motherbeltAside: why do liberals gratuitously drag race into these discussions?
That's right...the people that claim race and sex don't matter always describe someone by those characteristics first. The Democrat group is billed as a woman against a black man. Interesting that they don't call Hillary a "white woman".
Besides, "white guys" has now become a derogatory category. Isn't that racist???
Racist? You're being silly! E
May 18, 2007 - 07:06 ET by Sergeant ROCKRacist? You're being silly! Everyone knows that there's only one defintion of racism and that one is defined by liberals.
These people are racist, no q
May 18, 2007 - 07:14 ET by JimboThese people are racist, no question about it. The “white guys” comment is a safe way for them to vent. “White guys” don’t pull an Al Sharpton every time someone says it, so they have no fear of reprisal. Perhaps we “white guys” should start calling them on their hypocrisy.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I have a long history of deal
May 18, 2007 - 07:52 ET by danboI have a long history of dealing with David Duke. He went to the same university as I, at the same time. I remember him in his klan robes and nazi uniform in free speech alley. He ran for congress in my district. He and I belonged to the same gym. I understand how he operates.
I don't see a lot of difference between him and these people. They both play of prejudice. They both are not above playing games with the truth.
However. Apparently David was the smarter of the two. He knows when people want to kill him.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
OK – but how does that chan
May 18, 2007 - 07:55 ET by JimboOK – but how does that change the notion that people in the MSM saying “white guys” is given a pass and not called for being racist?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
OK – but how does that ch
May 18, 2007 - 09:25 ET by motherbeltOK – but how does that change the notion that people in the MSM saying
“white guys” is given a pass and not called for being racist? - Jimbo
It doesn't. But Algore's campaign manager, years ago, said that they weren't going to "let the white boys win." And no one even blinked. She then helpfully explained that "white boys" wasn't a matter of gender or race, but an attitude: "A white-boy attitude is 'I must exclude, denigrate, and leave behind.'"
So you see, it's not a racist insult, because it's not about skin color, it's about attitude; it's an acceptable slur, particularly if spoken by someone who is black.
Which is also why people like
May 18, 2007 - 10:57 ET by MrSnugglesWhich is also why people like Justice Thomas are not considered black. they dont have the "white man is keeping me down" attitude that one must have in order to be genuinely "black".
My fantasy for the world's
May 18, 2007 - 08:02 ET by sarcasmoMy fantasy for the world's best reality-show (featuring almost 0 budget)? Get Duke & Sharpton in a room and handcuff 'em together for 12 hours. Hell for both of them would be heaven for viewers like me.
JMR
It's gotten so that being cal
May 18, 2007 - 07:44 ET by danboIt's gotten so that being called a racist, is a badge of honor. Means you don't kneel before the altar of political correctness
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
I disagree
May 18, 2007 - 07:50 ET by JimboI disagree. I think it’s gotten to the point where labeling others as a racist is a tool of others to advance their own political agendas. And I find more often than not, the ones doing the labeling are bigger racists than those they are tagging.
Ask Don Imus if being labeled a racist is a badge of honor.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
We can disagree. For me, when
May 18, 2007 - 07:58 ET by danboWe can disagree. For me, when someone is called a racist, I pay no mind. It's used too much and as you point out, to often, to intimidate. Fewer of us are listening.
Maybe because I now live in Mississippi. When they used the race card to try to force us to change the state flag. 20 years ago I would have voted to change it. Yet the vote to keep the flag (also in many black districts) was a no to the crying racism when there is none. It was for me.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.” H.L. Mencken
Danger
May 18, 2007 - 08:48 ET by cvgbuckeyeI will tell you something right now. If enough of the people who are always screaming "RACIST" along with enough PC people were elected to positions of authority, millions of us would be thrown into jail within a year. Who we like or dislike would become criminalized. Being a Republican or a Conservative would be criminalized. Practicing your chosen religion would be criminalized.
Just yesterday, a science professor was being interviewed on 700, Cincinnati radio. He and his group intend on trying to shut down a new museum that will be opening next week-end in Northern Kentucky. It is called Answers In Genesis. He and his group are distressed because the museum is all about Creationism and they want it shut down before it opens because they say it is a lie.
Now, he is afforded his opinion but the religious group is not. A question to him was, "If you were king, would you proclaim this museum to be illegal and shut it down?". He hedged a little but it was obvious that he would.
HMMMMM! Lets see now. This organization opposes the beliefs of Answers In Genesis. If these folks want to criminalze it, THENNNNNNN, it follows that they would have their same way with the Christian Churches who obviously teach Creationism.
And you say that you don't know where this is going and how dangerous these people are?
When Answers In Genesis officially opens on Memorial Day week-end and all of these protestors show up and show their back-sides and try to keep people from attending, lets see how much the MSM covers these denyers of our religious freedom.
Religious freedom?
May 18, 2007 - 11:35 ET by Hoosier DaddyReligious freedom, you say? The Though Police are coming. Isn't the new "hate crimes" law designed to criminalize preaching against Sin?
Remember, now, that the Creation Museum is as much scientfic as it is religious and the Field Museum in Chicago is more religious than it is scientific. That religion would be evolutionism and belief in it requires a belief in miracles.
Evolutionists have heard of Darwin; Creationists understand Darwin.
Touché!
May 18, 2007 - 07:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKTouché!
..."a group of middle-
May 18, 2007 - 06:41 ET by Dave R..."a group of middle-aged white guys competing with one another to see who could do the best impersonation of Jack Bauer."....
So, middle-aged white guys don't count, is that it? A little too much testosterone there for Mzzzz. Brooks, I'm guessing.
How typical.
Does she really know the
May 18, 2007 - 06:45 ET by sarcasmoDoes she really know the racial/ethnic background of all the candidates? Some people may "look white," but their actual ancestry is much more "interesting." I'm sure an important columnist like Ms. Brooks would not deign to come to a mediabias board like this to answer questions, but if she did I'll bet we'd have a few about racial assumptions.
JMR
Sounds more like Rosa has b
May 18, 2007 - 06:50 ET by Jack BauerSounds more like Rosa has been watching too much...
Rosie (the first time in history fire has melted steel) O'Donnell.
Also -- didn't I hear, on numerous occasions, Bill Clinton boast about personally "thwarting" a huge al-Kayda terrorist attack at LAX.
That's in LA, right?
Sure it's totally unknown for islamo-terrorists to plot mass murder in shopping malls. That's never happened, right?
Maybe some helpful person should post on line the plans and security details for the LA Times building. Where's the harm in that?
Maybe the LA Times building s
May 18, 2007 - 07:38 ET by HypocriteHaterMaybe the LA Times building should publically boast about being a "gun-free zone". That'll keep the terrorists away!
Yep. That worked so well in
May 18, 2007 - 08:03 ET by Jack BauerYep. That worked so well in Virginia Tech. 1 nut. 2 handguns. 20 minutes. 32 dead.
Clearly people like the Fort Dix Six, armed to the teeth with assault weapons and unlimited ammo, couldn't possibly be thinking of attacking a shopping mall and killing hundreds.
That's just crazy talk.
The gym where I (and plenty
May 18, 2007 - 08:07 ET by sarcasmoThe gym where I (and plenty of cops...) work-out has one of those signs, and it even purports to ban knives. Thankfully, lots of peaceful people ignore it, but it's disturbing that such signs even exist. I wonder if I should approach the gym's highly-Dilbertesque management about this issue? Probably not...
JMR
LOL! That's hillarious! I oft
May 18, 2007 - 08:10 ET by Sergeant ROCKLOL! That's hillarious! I often tell liberals that if you are that adamant about your position on gun control, why don't you post a sign in your front yard saying DOING MY PART FOR GUN CONTROL - THIS IS A GUN-FREE HOME. I even offer to buy the sign! I have yet to have any takers.
Deny deny deny and make up stuff
May 18, 2007 - 07:03 ET by c5thenThat seems to be Rosa's modus operandii. Whether or not she has forgotten about 9/11...has she also forgotten about 4/11 in Spain? What about the London attacks on multiple buses at the same time? How about the guy who's backpack bomb exploded prematurely while he was still crossing the parking lot to enter a football stadium?
And how about citing just one intelligence expert who thinks that the multiple shopping centers hit by suicide bombers scenario is implausible? Two or three would be journalism, but we'll let you get away with just one. Go ahead. I dare you.
The entire lot of the MSM salaries should be decalired campaign gifts to the DNC. At least that would be honest.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
I would like to know who thes
May 18, 2007 - 07:04 ET by KC BeachI would like to know who these "intelligence experts" Brooks spoke to who claim to think three shopping mall bombings is "fictional and entirely implausible" since I did not see her question the sceniro posed in the eariler Dem debate about "two mushroom clouds over American cities".
The article doesn't make it
May 18, 2007 - 07:37 ET by sarcasmoThe article doesn't make it clear, but what she may be saying isn't that 9/11 type plots are unlikely, but rather that they're likely to be compartmentalized just as 9/11 apparently was, with as little information as possible in the unsafe hands of the actual actors. IOW, as few Mohammed Attas as possible in each plot to kill people, so that if/when part of the plot gets detected/stopped the rest still goes forward unhindered. The words "need to know" are heard frequently in this context. It makes "Jack Bauer" techniques less effective, but "compartmentalization" is a widely known real-world intelligence-industry term of art. Like "blowback."
JMR
You are reading an awful lo
May 18, 2007 - 07:40 ET by Mark FinkelsteinYou are reading an awful lot in to what she wrote.
Agreed. As I said, the arti
May 18, 2007 - 07:47 ET by sarcasmoAgreed. As I said, the article doesn't really make it clear for me. I wonder how candidates would deal with official and unofficial US intelligence agencies which claimed they "can't" infiltrate dangerous groups in places that don't have chigger-free bedsheets; now that we've tried/charged a number of Americans who did just that -- although as true-believers rather than as infiltrating agents. Perhaps fewer, but harder-working intelligence agencies would benefit the USA in the future, and while intel from space does many good things, it's not like having someone on the ground.
JMR
Shopping Malls
May 18, 2007 - 07:09 ET by JimboIt is the desire of liberals and the MSM to distance Americans from the events of 9/11. Remembering what happened, and more importantly what could happen, undermines their entire platform.
This issue however, takes that notion to the extreme. So much so, that it renders their "reporting" fictional.
I was in a mall the day before Mother’s Day, and it was crowded to the point where I had to stand back and absorb the sheer number of people trying to navigate through it. A bomb, a gas attack, a biological attack would not only be plausible, it would be easy.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
You are dead-on. I find it ra
May 18, 2007 - 07:14 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou are dead-on. I find it rather humorous that liberals view 9/11 as an event sooo long ago, but if it's about Bush's DWI, Guard Service, etc. it's like it happened yesterday and kept on the front burner.
Josef Goebbels would eny the MSM.
Excellent point! The moveon.o
May 18, 2007 - 07:45 ET by HypocriteHaterExcellent point! The moveon.org crowd only wants to "move on" when it's comvenient for their agenda.
But still, even those discret
May 18, 2007 - 08:01 ET by general companyBut still, even those discretions couldn't prevent them from Bushes presidency.
The down side of not being attack again are these type of articles and knuckleheads like Rosa Brooks.
General
May 18, 2007 - 08:09 ET by JimboGeneral – I think we are in a lose – lose situation with regard to liberals and not being attacked again. As I posted yesterday, I pray every night that my children will be safe and that we will not be attacked again.
But if we are, I firmly believe that the liberals will use that tragedy to further vilify the Bush Administration on two points.
First is, “See! We told you the War on Terror wasn’t working! You told us that if we fought them over there, then they wouldn’t attack us over here! You were wrong Mr. Bush! Hey America! Vote for a Democrat!”
Secondly, as incredible as it sounds, a portion of the MSM and the liberals will blame a second attack on the fact that we went to war in the first place. The terrorist sympathizers in this country will say “Well, what did you expect them to do? They are fighting back!”
These are they types of things we will need to listen to while we try to pick up the pieces of another attack. The ideal makes me literally sick to my stomach.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Excellent point Jimbo. We'
May 18, 2007 - 08:17 ET by The Wicked ConservativeExcellent point Jimbo. We'll never hear about how the portions of the patriot act that were rolled back left a window of opportunity that the terrorists exploited. We'll hear how Bush caused this. The MSM will call for understanding. So I ask, who is the real enemy. I firmly believe the left wing nuts are one in the same with the MSM. There is no difference. The MSM is simply the propaganda arm of the party. And these leftists would rather be rolled over and raped than stand for anything.
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. Talk sense to a
liberal and he calls you a racist, sexist, biggot, homophobe, denier.
Currently, it seems to me, th
May 18, 2007 - 08:18 ET by Sergeant ROCKCurrently, it seems to me, that since we haven't been attacked since 9/11 that the terrorist threat has been downplayed. So, we have this prevailing wisdom in the MSM that perhaps the threat has been exaggerated so as to justify our war with Saddam.
So, you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
That is precisely what the Is
May 18, 2007 - 10:03 ET by Ten7sThat is precisely what the Islamists are counting on. The Islamists believe America is too effeminate to stand up to a serious smackdown. The Bush Administration shocked them with an iron-fisted response. But all the weak talk from the Liberals is really encouraging them. The Dhimmicrats are trying to subjugate us all to the vile murderous Islamists.
That's why it is important to
May 18, 2007 - 12:01 ET by general companyThat's why it is important to distribute what the terrorist say. What they say often gets left out of any discussion about terrorist. It should be distributed and condemned forcefully.
This is why I am so disappointed in our Media and many of our public leaders. If they were on top of this, they would publicly ridicule and belittle these guy's. These folks work with perception, reality means little. If give the perception of them as one of beneath contempt, then I believe you would see more folks getting behind the fight against these monsters. Instead our media and many of our public leader go out of their way as not to be offensive or to even condemn what they do. As long as this continues, terrorism will as well. Quite honestly, why else does any one think they use this method? The media runs to it like flies on.......
Unfortunately, I think much o
May 18, 2007 - 13:27 ET by JimboUnfortunately, I think much of what they say is a regurgitation of what the liberals are already saying in this country. The terrorists are listening and repeating the seditious talk.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
If people think 9/11 was &quo
May 18, 2007 - 07:16 ET by Tony SIf people think 9/11 was "implausabile," because of crackpot theorists, then they should also think the Holocaust was a hoax, because that too has spawned a cottage industry of deniers.
What is PLAUSIBLE in her mind
May 18, 2007 - 07:16 ET by rimskyWhat is PLAUSIBLE in her mind, I wonder? What does she think the future holds? Does she really think that another attack is implausible? If she really beleives that then she must think our domestic security policys and procedures are top notch and working better than ever. But I'd bet if she were engaged in a discussion along those lines, she'd have plenty bad to say.. like why aren't we doing more to protect our borders, and why isn't there better security at power plants and, what about our water supplies.. it would be a constant drum beat of we aren't doing enough and we could be attacked again.. why isn't this administration more concerned with these things. .
We already have the reports
May 20, 2007 - 13:00 ET by SportPoliticsWe already have the reports, for several years now, that interrogation including and especially waterboarding has yielded more information and prevented more attacks than anything else.
John McCain was the press' little fawning fool that lied about that.
So, most Americans now think torture never works, so they actually conclude the only reason anyone would do it is to be mean and nasty.
That's how our world works today. It's upside down for most.
On Sept. 10, 2001, 9/11 was a
May 18, 2007 - 07:19 ET by Hero SquadOn Sept. 10, 2001, 9/11 was also "fictional and entirely implausible" in most of our minds.
*****
"Was it a millionaire who said 'Imagine no possessions?'" - Elvis Costello
So true, Hero, and look how q
May 18, 2007 - 07:24 ET by rimskySo true, Hero, and look how quickly some forget. Implausible? Only by the Grace and Guidance of God.
I agree. And although I don't
May 18, 2007 - 08:27 ET by KC MulvilleI agree. And although I don't agree with everything in the 9/11 Commission report, they hit the nail on the head with the phrase "failure of the imagination." We need imagination to prevent whatever attack they're planning.
The debate's scenario can instead be asked as a straightforward question: how do you think we should fight a war against terrorists? We hear all the griping and hindsight from the Democrats, but we’re in a war we don’t like fighting. It’s a war of attrition against no fixed targets. Terrorism exploits our compassion, because the terrorists count on us to wage war humanely. We won’t attack bystanders, and that’s why terrorists hide behind them. A war against terrorists provokes moral choices. You can only fight them in two ways. Either: (1) You attack the innocent along with the guilty; or (2) You strangle their resources from the outside. We won’t consider (1). The problem with (2) is that it takes time and patience, and you have to suffer attacks in the meantime. There is no magic, quick answer. You have to keep strangling them, day by day, even while they’re flailing against you.
The real answer to the debate scenario is that you may not have any immediate options to retaliate. Instead, you have to keep strangling. A true leader would tell the public to be patient.
The media will be screaming. A true leader would tell us to ignore them.
Worse than that KC Mulville
May 20, 2007 - 13:24 ET by SportPoliticsWorse than that KC Mulville, when we have the targets, our political and legal system tries to excuse them and declare them innocent and let them go.
We have this idea preached far and wide that if we kill them, waterboard them, or wipe them out without regret, we are just like them. That's PC talk, and it has already caused a lot of death and destruction.
Look at the attempt to bring Al Sadr "into the fold" in Iraq. That's how the war on terror isn't being fought properly.
Our society and newsspeakers are so filled with pacifism and worry that we are just like the wacko Islaimic radicals, that " we don't want to stoop so low and become them".
That of course is the biggest argument out there. It's the most often cited, and the most often followed, even in the war in Iraq.
The best thing we can do according to this modern and incorrect psychological mind game is "be nice and talk to them", and give them US citizen rights. That way we don't "become them".
It's all over the TV shows for any sort of behavior some floosie bipper claims their parent or boss or ex-friend or ex-spouse did or does, and the lesson always is " Don't do that or you'll be justlike them ".
Frankly, we won't beat the terrorists till we start executing them with impunity, after using all our best techniques for extracting information.
In Iraq, we played games with Al Sadr, then years later we finally decided to show some nuggets, and he fled to Iran and is hanging out there now.
More important than winning the war against terrorists is "how we view ourselves", and how we think others view us. Include the most distorted modern lying techniques in that "view", that skew it toward "we're just like them". That's the new "plan for success".
It's amazing.
If there were terrorists in my neighborhood, even if it was occupied by foreign forces, the thing that would piss me off the most, would be the forces not KILLING THEM DEAD. Worst case scenario they do little, the bombs keep exploding, they try to negotiate with them, they release them after capture like they have been in Iraq, and of course the result is the same nightmare, and the same terrorists wreaking havoc again. My patience for "the good guys" would be very thin very quickly.
However, just the opposite is considered winning hearts and minds today.
It's nothing short of Orwell, it's absolutely amazing.
I believe in looking reality
May 18, 2007 - 07:22 ET by Sergeant ROCKI believe in looking reality straight in the eye and denying it.
-Garrison Keillor
Let me hear from this gal a
May 18, 2007 - 07:23 ET by Right2thePointLet me hear from this gal as to what measures she would go thru to protect her children, assuming she didn't abort them all.
How typical....most intellige
May 18, 2007 - 07:59 ET by HadEnoughHow typical....most intelligence experts.... what does most mean? Can you provide your sources? I thought not. Rosa Brooks, Fictional/Fantasy Columnist for the L.A. Times. Now that's much more appropriate!
The tragic thing is that th
May 18, 2007 - 08:05 ET by MightyMouthThe tragic thing is that the scenerio Hume used is probably one of the most plausable and easily pulled off by a gang of terrorists. I was thinking to myself as he unveiled it "Shut up Brit, they might be watching..."
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Imagine teams of "DC snipers"
May 18, 2007 - 08:14 ET by sarcasmoImagine teams of "DC snipers" with actual training & talent in well-outfitted but unobtrusive vehicles, instead of a couple of barely-competent and resourceless weirdos with marginal equipment. Or imagine how easy it would be to poison lots of other people's food at various stages of processing between farmer & consumer -- as just accidentally happened to a bunch of pets. I don't think any of this, or what Brit said, is any news to the bad guys.
JMR
Sarc,I heard an explanation
May 18, 2007 - 08:26 ET by MightyMouthSarc,
I heard an explanation (don't remember who) as to why something like this has not happened yet. In addition to new security measures (most of which wouldn't have stopped 9/11) Muslims, (even radicalized Muslims) in the U.S realize how much better they have it here, than in nearly every country on earth. In almost every country where there are muslim minorities they are generally marginalized by the society (ie: france, england). Here in the US they have nearly the same oportunities as everyone else. Therefore, the majority of radicals must be imported to try some mischief. There are exceptions of course,Fort Dix miscreants, being one example. I am also of the further opinion that Iraq indeed has become a killing ground for the most radical. Thank God for that.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
More Attacks
May 18, 2007 - 08:36 ET by JimboI think the reports that we hear about the thwarting of additional attacks in this country are only the tip of the iceberg. I think things have been thwarted that we won’t hear about for a long time or maybe never.
Although I don’t think your post is an exhaustive list of reasons why we haven’t been attacked again (nor do I think you meant it to be) I agree with all your points, especially the one about Iraq being a killing field for the most extreme.
Obviously, the terrorists want to attack us again on American soil. The fact is however, thanks to our military and the war on terror, they have their hands full preventing democracy from taking root in their own back yard. That is a battle they simply cannot afford to lose, and need to devote their best resources to avoid it. Whatever is left is devoted to attacking us, and thus far, thankfully, it hasn’t been enough.
Anyone who says the war on terror is having no effect is either a fool or intentionally lying.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
On the other hand, they could be laying low
May 18, 2007 - 09:00 ET by RJOn the other hand, it's entirely possible they could be laying low, building force. A couple of days ago, Laura Ingraham had an ex-FBI guy who says he's identified 30-40 guarded Muslim compounds in rural areas around the U.S. According to him, they have political and financial contacts with mid-Eastern groups and are populated by significant numbers of "African-American" ex-cons. Neighbors supposedly say that automatic rifle fire and explosions are heard regularly.
Overwrought nonsense? Who knows? Obviously, there wrere questions about how they could exist without the FBI and other security organizations knowing, how ex-cons could be there (parole officers, reporting requirements, having access to guns), but he seemed pretty detailed in his story.
No matter how you cut it RJ
May 18, 2007 - 09:07 ET by JimboNo matter how you cut it RJ, these are scary and dangerous times for America. This is the time we all need to be united in our stand against these aggressors. In addition to the MSM, the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha, et al. are as anti-American as the people who continue to vote for them. It’s one thing to be anti-American while enjoying its freedoms. But a person crosses into a completely different territory when their actions jeopardize the safety of our country.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Logically we're in deep trouble
May 20, 2007 - 14:01 ET by SportPoliticsLogically we're in deep trouble. In WW2 days, we just simply rounded up 100,000 japs and austrians or whatever else. That was the total in the nation for the most part. I have heard there were a number of sleepers and agents of the enemy in that group.
Today, we have 2-3 million muslims here, many, many of them born and raised overseas, and we cower amongst ourselves to do what is neccessary. When we do a roundup like Ashcroft did - the newsspeakers cry it "was a trick" - when we have some in custody, it often turns into a national circus with many of our own demanding they be let go, be given full citizen rights, are being abused, need a lawyer and trial in a clown court of release, and on and on.
This certainly is not the environment we won WW2 in, against a known "fixed" enemy.
I think we're in for a very bad wakeup call, or a lot of them. Bin Laden already said the plan is going forward, we're giving you a chance to "negotiate" and make peace (2004 pre election video - democrat talking points ), and his agents are already in place, waiting for his signal.
I doubt he is lying, and although it seems surreal, our government officials haven't doubted it either.
I'm sure it will be lost in the fray if there are some gigantic attacks... but if we look at what they have said already, their answer has always been it's coming for sure we just don't know when.
They have been using radiation detectors to search on US soil - they searched the DC muslim corridor on foot - walking through with the detectors - it's been a couple years since I saw that report.
I think the only thing stopping it is the AQ networks fear of what the response would be. Now they hide safely in Pakistan. I doubt they would if something happened. Who knows.
I imagine of we get a jimmah carter back in there - you can watch the explosions start reigning, and early on.
What hope is there any follow on President would have the "sting still fresh " to largely change the lack of retaliation. Already half and more(supposedly) of the nation says " we've had it" with Iraq.
I'm certainly not impressed. I have expected hundreds of executions coming out of Gitmo - but they let most of them go, by a large percentage.
sport can't you see---
May 20, 2007 - 14:12 ET by misterbillsport can't you see---that's why we need Hillary in the White House. She will use Willie and AH Jimmy Carter to negotiate with the leaders of the terrorist groups. She will resolve all immigration issues by implementing an open border policy. We will no longer need Border Guards--look at the savings. And no war or attacks after negotiations are completed.
What a wonderful world to look forward to.. if you wish to respond to this Press "1" for English.
<sarcoff>
God help us.
Where’s the coward that would not dare to fight for such a land? And the parent that wouldn't be honored by the sacrifice?
Sir Walter Scott & Noel Sheppard
Jimbo & MightyMouth.... d
May 18, 2007 - 17:44 ET by MrShyJimbo & MightyMouth.... drum-roll please.... I concure! :)
Iraq is indeed sucking in the full weight of the terrorists resources, as they (radical terrorist groups AND the rogue, neighboring states/countries that out-source them) are well aware of the tremendous setback for them if Iraq flourishes as a democracy.
I live in the DC area and I c
May 18, 2007 - 09:17 ET by ahusserI live in the DC area and I can attest to the fact that the DC snipers caused a huge amount of hysteria, terror and panic. Just 2 guys a rifle and a car. One a pseudo-muslim the other an teen-age idiot wreaked havoc for over two or three weeks. Terror doesn't need a lot of resources, that is the point.
"A mind is a terrible thing." - A comic I forgot the name of.
I suspect both were repress
May 18, 2007 - 09:32 ET by sarcasmoI suspect both were repressed homosexuals, as well. No proof, but it sure seemed that way to me.
JMR
Breaking - Terrorism ends
May 18, 2007 - 08:11 ET by acumen"...white guys...." (?)
Looking at the picture of Brooks it all makes sense. Isn't she the first black woman columnlist in chief of America?
"Fictional and entirely implausible" (?)
Oh, that's right.....I forgot, Madam Pelosi talked to Basher recently and terrorism has now been declared over.
I saw a clip of Hume descri
May 18, 2007 - 09:36 ET by balboaI saw a clip of Hume describing the "setup" and it did sound more like a "24" story than anything else. A little over dramatic for a debate question if you ask me. The question could have been asked without the huge back story.
You can't see me!
May 18, 2007 - 09:45 ET by JimboActually, no, it couldn’t. The question needed context. Why are liberals so scared of visualizing what is a real possibility? Do you think that if you don’t think about it, it won’t happen? Kind of like a child who covers his eyes and thinks noone can see him??
NA NA!! You can’t see me!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Not sure it's a fear of "visu
May 18, 2007 - 17:39 ET by balboaNot sure it's a fear of "visualizing" as much as it is an amusement at the right's zest in "visualizing."
balboa.... do you know what
May 18, 2007 - 17:53 ET by MrShybalboa.... do you know what terrorists have done over the last, oh let me just say, 20 years?... at ALL ?!?!? They have ruthlessly killed people all over the world with the most heiness surprise-technics, at shopping malls, hotels, high-rise buildings, you name it.... having already created plenty of "visualizations" for us all with ACTUAL HORRIBLE EVENTS they pulled off on a stead-fastly "sympathetic to the muslim's plight" public.
The "right's zest in visualizing"?? .... I beg of you to really step back and get some true perspective on things.
I'm referring to the question
May 18, 2007 - 17:57 ET by balboaI'm referring to the question posed at the debate, which was a little overwrought is all.
How is it overwrought? How
May 18, 2007 - 18:10 ET by MrShyHow is it overwrought? How is it different from him asking the candidates about an economy-related or social programs issue, let's say, and using some historic example relating to these issues to lead up to his question? That's exactly what he did with the issue of terrorism, which, these days, is very much a vital issue, too, and deserves a question that is framed accurately.
I will grant you, maybe.... maybe.... the argument that he didn't have to go so long in his story-telling of the scenerio, but if you're honest with yourself, you're making an issue of that only cuz it's the "right" doing it/framing it. I mean, even you said it... it's "a little" overwrought.... yeah, fine, a little, maybe. So?
If the NBC/CBS debate moderaters asked this, well then.... oh wait, they would probably not ask ANY question about terrorism and what candidates would do, the "what if's", etc.... unless it was some meaningless question indirectly/subtly belittling the WoT efforts of the current administration.
I will grant you, maybe.... m
May 18, 2007 - 18:17 ET by balboaI will grant you, maybe.... maybe.... the argument that he didn't have to go so long in his story-telling of the scenerio
That's all I'm saying. The question itself is fine, appropriate. I'd point the same thing out if Tom Brokaw had done it.
The torture question in the debate
May 20, 2007 - 15:11 ET by SportPoliticsThe torture question in the debate was obviously designed to let all candidates support harsh measures or not in a best case scenario.
Liberals and the democrats and McCain just quack " Anyone will tell you anything you want to hear if you torture them ". Not if they don't know it. But if they do know it - and WE DON'T ? ( the impossibility for the godlike idiot lib)
The reason for torture is to acquire information YOU DON'T HAVE, not to have something told to you "that you want to hear" - what does dippy McCain think - the interrogators get a thrill when the perp AQ'er cries out "Bin Laden sucks! " ? (well yes, they probably do - so what ? )
Most people are stupid though, and McCain's answer makes perfect sense to them. Their spouse or better yet, their child, told them exactly what they wanted to hear - and of course the child was lying, just last night. That was during the "torturous grilling" the parent was delivering - the "interrogation"...
And so, it makes sense to stupid liberals, and reactionary lib lying rinos. All John McCain is telling us is he told his captors anything they wanted to hear- and he had no real knowledge they needed, none whatsoever, he knew nothing.
The real issue comes when you have someone captured that DOES KNOW SOMETHING.
Liberals know everything, so torture is absolutely unneccessary.
If you just ask the terorrist real nice like, and pray on their mat with them, and share your halal cookies, why a few minutes is all it takes. Besides, none of them know more than the cia - the biggest terrorist group that is probably doing all this as an inside job...another reason why the Gitmo "terrorists"can never yield any information.
@ Brooks sniffed at the scena
May 18, 2007 - 09:39 ET by drillanwr@ Brooks sniffed at the scenario, calling it "the kind that most intelligence experts consider fictional and entirely implausible."
(9-11 and future attacks aside) ... The fact that there is a hell of a lot more credibile and plausible evidence to ANY future terrorist attack scenarios than there is to ANY global warming scenario is completely beyond the mental grasp of these numb-skulls.
drullanwr... 5 stars for that
May 18, 2007 - 17:23 ET by MrShydrullanwr... 5 stars for that one!! On point! :) .... comPLETE numb-skulls. We're inundated daily with GW scenerios from Al Gore et el, and the "numb-skulls" eat it up and put it all on a pedastal.... then, a scenerio is RE-enacted from an ACTUAL EVENT not long ago, in the biggest city on earth, and these thoroughly brain-dead, say-anything-to-regain-the-oval-office sorry sacks have the gall to take Brit to task...
Every day, it's just more and
May 18, 2007 - 09:49 ET by jpatchEvery day, it's just more and more of this insane babble written by people that think they live in a bubble, just like Bill Maher.
How is it possible that someone could honestly believe that terrorists blowing up some shopping malls is implausible? There are two answers: They believe 9/11 was an inside job, and "terrorism" isn't real...ala Rosie Odonnell (but, like someone said, what about Madrid, Mumbai, Bali, London, WTC '93? I guess those were all figments of our collective imagination...) or answer number two, that they have such an inner hatred for members of the opposing political party, that they'll just ignore the truth to push their own agenda...hmmm, how many people in this country fall into both of those categories? That's what really scares me.
And lastly, someone already said this as well, but how come there isn't anyone talking about how we've created a battlefield in Iraq? I think this is the single biggest reason why we need to keep fighting, and fighting hard. Before we invaded, terrorists operated in small clandestine cells all over the world...now we've created a front where they can be engaged. We've lost about 3,600 of the bravest people on the face of the earth so far in this war, but it's been raging for over four years...people wanna keep comparing Iraq to Vietnam?? Jesus, we lost over 60,000 troops in Vietnam, in a shorter time span. THIS IS THE START OF A CONFLICT THAT WILL DEFINE OUR GLOBE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME...why are their so many in this country that want us to lose, or that can't come to grips with this fact?
God bless all of you on this board that care enough about your country to not let people like this off of the hook...we'll make a difference yet.
Liberals are simply white-o
May 18, 2007 - 10:57 ET by wiwfLiberals are simply white-ophobic.
Perfectly said jpatch.... a
May 18, 2007 - 17:36 ET by MrShyPerfectly said jpatch.... and YES, the Vietnam-Iraq comparisons, on so many levels, are so utterly insane. But throwing it out there, repeatedly, slowly-but-surely, turns it into "truth"... scary....
But more to the point, you are also right about how this war has indeed sucked in all the killer terrorists from around the globe to that region... whether intentional or unintentional on the part of the Bush admin, but I'd like to lean to the former (yes, how do u like that? giving my president the benefit of the doubt :p) .... and really, it doesn't matter. I had a good feeling that removing a cancerous, unpredictable dictator from a country smack in the middle of the M.E. and planting a democratic government (in what was already a mixed, secular country -- which dumbies then argue "but he was secular!"), after 9/11, was a very logical step.
I also pointed out here on NB a couple of weeks ago about how, very quietly (because the MSM wants no part of this FACT) terrorism by cells in countries all over the world has not happened now for a couple of years... and I'll knock on some wood.
Here is the premise: Three
May 18, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Tom1969ca"Implausible"?!? Hell, three suicide bombers blowing up shopping malls is a typical week in Israel.
Isolationism went out in 1941, Ms. Brooks; the Atlantic and Pacific no longer protect America from attacks on her own soil. The incredible truth is that - far from such attacks being "implausible" - but rather that they haven't happened already.
~~~
"You know, folks, the French have always been reluctant to surrender to
the wishes of their friends, and almost anticipatory in their urge to
surrender to their enemies." -- Dennis Miller
I see all the little snivelin
May 18, 2007 - 15:18 ET by bigtimerI see all the little sniveling leftists are still miffed by the class the FOX debate had with very important tough questions to all the candidates.
Well, snivel on...as only you leftists are perfect at.
A fourth attack has been aver
May 18, 2007 - 15:27 ET by ding7777Since the suicide attackers from the planned 4th attack would have presumedly died in the 4th attack had it not been averted, U.S. intelligence knows that they could not be part of the next larger planned 5th attack.
ding...You have me laughing s
May 18, 2007 - 15:35 ET by bigtimerding...
You have me laughing so hard I can't even harldy type this out.
Let me try to explain something to you....the enemy are not all together in one place at the same time aiming at just one object of attack.