Bush's Lie

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ARogueTrader, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. Democrats are upset, and rightly so at a new political ad by the committee to re-elect Bush & Company.

    In essence, the ad is playing upon 911 with the ad saying that "there are 9 democratic candidates who are against the war on terrorism."

    Let's examine that statement.

    Is it true that democrats are against the war on terrorism, or is it true that:


    Examine the first statement of the Bush ad carefully, and understand the underlying argument.

    The argument is this: Bush's plan to fight terrorism is right, and not only right, but the only choice available...all other ideas or plans are not only wrong, they are supportive to terrorism. If you don't agree with his plan, then you are against the war on terrorism.

    This argument assumes fact not in evidence, i.e. that Bush's plan is the right plan, the only plan, or the best plan.

    By taking this position, which is fallacious in nature because it argues from conclusion--not to conclusion, the Bush administration can then call those who do not support their plan as not being in favor of the war on terrorism.

    This same argument was used when the extreme right wingers like Coulter, Hannity, and Limbaugh called those who did not agree with Bush's plan to fight terrorism visa vi the war in Iraq traitors.

    Those who still have a brain, and are not fully brainwashed to the point that they swallow anything either party says without any application of critical thinking, understand the nature of what Bush is doing....understand the use of fallacious reasoning, and appeal to emotion and not intellect.

    It is classic propaganda. It is playing upon the fears of the people, rather than playing to the reasoning ability of the electorate.

    While those who compare Bush's presidency to Hitler and other fascist regimes, I don't believe we have arrived at a totalitarian state...yet. However, the Bush administration does act as if they are always right, and for anyone who is a student of politics historically, this is very dangerous territory.

    Without a strong reasonable response to those in power, without the ability to critically question those in power, those in power are act without fear of criticism, as that power goes unchecked and unbridled.

    The bottom line is this:


    This issue should not be in question.

    The issue should be, what is the best way to fight it....short term, intermediary term, and long term.

    It is not wrong to have a different opinion on how the USA should exercise its power in this process....both military and political. In fact it is our mutual responsibility to learn to think through these issues for ourselves and come to conclusion on which solutions to support.

    Clearly Bush has the democrats on their heels, and that has more to do with the weakness of the democratic party at present than Bush's strength in my opinion.

    That said, his misuse of 911 to justify his own agenda or re-election I find most disgusting.

    People need to see the lies that are being spread under the blanket of "patriotism."

    Let's have a debate where the candidates offer their solutions to the problems of the present situation, and stop the slander, please.

    As long as the people support such behavior, it will continue, even out of the mind and mouth of the president of the United States.
  2. Cammin71


    Bush is evil, the people behind him are even more evil.
    We are a super power because our leaders are good at being evil.
  3. Maybe we so-called pro-Bush/warmongers/neo-cons could discuss this topic better if one of the anti-Bush/peacenik/Lefties could answer this:


    Withdrawal and concentrate on homeland defense? More approval needed from UN and our European "allies"? Stand in a circle holding hands and sing Kumbayah?

    Perhaps it's more substantive than the above. If so, some ETer please let me know, as all I hear from the D's are condemnation but no solution.
  4. I agree we do need to hear more of the democrats plan for the war on terrorism.

    The democrats are most reactive at present, and presenting a very weak front.

    It is my hope that the electorate of both parties will listen to what the candidates have to say, and think through the issues carefully before reaching a conclusion as to what is the best course of action....and who to vote for in the next election.

    At present, I see nothing but a battle of the lessors on both sides of the evils of the political game.

    Here is a plan from Gary Hart that I think has some ideas that ought to be discussed and addressed:

  5. IMHO Hart's essay is ridiculous, and for many reasons. The National Guard leading homeland security?!? (Please! I was in the Guard after doing a few years in the regular Army, and I can say with all honesty that I would desire a bunch of weekend warriors protecting me to the degree that Hugh Hefner would want all his mansion bunnies to wear chastity belts.) Fears of a military coup? Etc, etc. Good grief....

    Hart's "plan" has been regurgitated ad nauseum by the left in various degrees of invective. Basically it comes down to this: We need to understand why we are hated. Only by doing so and then eliminating the seeds of the hatred will we truly be "secure."

    I think it's total bullshit. We are always going to be hated by certain groups, be it for our economic superiority, foreign policy, or for or way of life being viewed by certain religious fundamentalists as immoral and decadent.

    As long as we are the sole superpower with the strongest economy on the planet, and we live our lives praying to the almighty dollar instead of someone's version of an Almighty, someone, somewhere, is going to want to tear us down. Heck, even if we did a total 180 and the entire US converted to Islam (and by the way, should we be Sunni or Shi'a? Wahabis?), stopped consuming such a high percentage of the world's resources, made the subjugation/beating/stoning to death of our women national law, and withdrew from the international arena and stopped playing global supercop, it wouldn't stop the bin Ladens and Husseins of the world dreaming of Islamic empires and controlling the world's economy via conquest of their oil-rich neighbors.

    This is why I can't understand Hart and his ilk. They put such faith in the premise that our enemies are rational, that it is encumbent on us to give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to our security.

    Hart obviously has more faith in the goodwill of our enemies than in our elected leaders. Thank God he never became President. Whoever leaked that "Monkey Business" picture did this nation a tremendous favor. Let me guess - it was Rush Limbaugh!
  6. brother SardoNamsa! The best way to deal with terrorists

    :mad:Your sister is raped, you ask how to deal with the newborn?? as a way to deal with the rapist?:confused::mad:
    Remove bumya and co from office. STOP FUCKING the US public, STOP FUCKING the world. DON'T help your "friends" bring down the WTC as an excuse for buyma's crimes on this planet.

    THAT"S how you deal with terrorism, but yer too stupid to see it. Typical necon chikhawk. Libs have no clue either. They are more spineless than a washed out jellyfish. They are all the same.Take yer pill, remove yer neocon colored glasses. :)

    If you would stop your regurgitation for a minute and look upon the large picture, maybe, just maybe you'll see THE REAL TERRORISTS and the state that sponsors them :p :cool: The true EVILDOERS are here in our own backyard.:D

    my 7 step solution to this mess still STANDS. Haven't seen you coming up with one.:p
  7. Rogue:

    How many times since 9-11 have you heard Hillary and all the dems line up for a talk show and say " We are losing the war on terrorism"?????? Why is that ok? also, if you ask me...i think that what they are hoping for is that if they say it long enough and loud enough.....and a bomb goes off before the election, they can say i told you so.
  8. Why are they saying it?

    They are being political, and as it is difficult to accurately gage the success of the war on terrorism. It is just as easy to claim we are winning the war on terrorism as it is to claim we are losing it. We lack statistical data to form a genuine conclusion.

    A bomb going off before the election actually favors Bush, not the opposing party, as it will just re-stimulate the 911 fears....and playing on the fears of the American people is Bush's greatest weapon politically speaking.
  9. msfe



    Mission Creep Hits Home

    American armed forces are assuming major new domestic policing and surveillance roles

    By William M. Arkin, William M. Arkin is a military affairs analyst who writes regularly for Opinion. E-mail: warkin@igc.org.

    SOUTH POMFRET, Vt. — Preoccupied with the war in Iraq and still traumatized by Sept. 11, 2001, the American public has paid little attention to some of what is being done inside the United States in the name of anti-terrorism. Under the banner of "homeland security," the military and intelligence communities are implementing far-reaching changes that blur the lines between terrorism and other kinds of crises and will break down long-established barriers to military action and surveillance within the U.S.

    "We must start thinking differently," says Air Force Gen. Ralph E. "Ed" Eberhart, the newly installed commander of Northern Command, the military's homeland security arm. Before 9/11, he says, the military and intelligence systems were focused on "the away game" and not properly focused on "the home game." "Home," of course, is the United States.

    Eberhart's Colorado-based command is charged with enhancing homeland security in two ways: by improving the military's capability to defend the country's borders, coasts and airspace — unquestionably within the military's long-established mission — and by providing "military assistance to civil authorities" when authorized by the secretary of Defense or the president.

    That too may sound unexceptionable: The military has long had mechanisms to respond to a request for help from state governors. New after 9/11 are more aggressive preparations and the presumption that local government will not be able to carry the new homeland security load. Being the military, moreover, contingency planners approach preparing by assuming the worst. All of this is a major — and potentially dangerous — departure from past policy.

    The U.S. military operates under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the direct use of federal troops "to execute the laws" of the United States. The courts have interpreted this to mean that the military is prohibited from any active role in direct civilian law enforcement, such as search, seizure or arrest of civilians.

    "There are abundant reasons for rejecting the further expansion of the military's domestic role," says Mackubin T. Owens, a professor of strategy and force planning at the Naval War College. Looking at the issue historically, Owens wrote in an August 2002 essay in the National Review's online edition that "the use of soldiers as a posse [places] them in the uncomfortable position of taking orders from local authorities who had an interest in the disputes that provoked the unrest in the first place." Moreover, Owens said, becoming more involved in domestic policing can be "subtle and subversive … like a lymphoma or termite infestation." Though we are far from having "tanks rumbling through the streets," he said, the potential long-term effect of an increasing military role in police and law enforcement activities is "a military contemptuous of American society and unresponsive to civilian authorities."

    Eberhart says his Northern Command operates scrupulously within the bounds of the law. "We believe the [Posse Comitatus] Act, as amended, provides the authority we need to do our job, and no modification is needed at this time," he told the House Armed Services Committee in March.

    Of course, what he knows is that amendments approved by Congress in 1996 for that earlier civilian war, the war on drugs, have already expanded the military's domestic powers so that Washington can act unilaterally in dispatching the military without waiting for a state's request for help. Long before 9/11, Congress authorized the military to assist local law enforcement officials in domestic "drug interdiction" and during terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Furthermore, the president, after proclaiming a state of emergency, can authorize additional actions.

    Indeed, the military is presently operating under just such an emergency declaration. Eberhart's command has defined three levels of operations, each of which triggers a larger set of authorized activities. The levels are "extraordinary," "emergency" and "temporary." At the "temporary" level, which covers such things as the Olympic Games or the Super Bowl, limited assistance can be provided to law enforcement agencies when a governor requests it, primarily in such areas as logistics, transportation and communications. During "emergencies," the military can provide similar support, mostly in response to specific events such as the attacks on the World Trade Center.

    It is only in the case of "extraordinary" domestic operations that the unique capabilities of the Defense Department are deployed. These include not just such things as air patrols to shoot down hijacked planes or the defusing of bombs and other explosives, , but also bringing in intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops.

    Given the absence of terrorist attacks inside the United States since 9/11, it may seem surprising that Northern Command is already working under the far-reaching authority that goes with "extraordinary operations." But it is.

    "We are not going to be out there spying on people," Eberhart told PBS' NewsHour in September. But, he said, "We get information from people who do." Some of that information increasingly comes not from the FBI or those charged with civilian law enforcement but from a Pentagon organization established last year, the Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA). The seemingly innocuous CIFA was originally given the mission of protecting the Defense Department and its personnel, as well as "critical infrastructure," against espionage conducted by terrorists and foreign intelligence services.

    But in August, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld expanded CIFA's mission, charging it with maintaining "a domestic law enforcement database that includes information related to potential terrorist threats directed against the Department of Defense." The group's Assessments and Technology Directorate, which shares offices with the Justice Department's Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, has already identified 200 foreign terrorist suspects in the U.S., according to a Defense Department report to Congress.

    This year, the Pentagon inspector general authorized assigning military special agents to 56 FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force operations at FBI field offices. These military agents will pursue leads in local communities of potential threats to the military. Eberhart also plans to have his own cadre of agents working with local law enforcement. Next year, he plans to transform Joint Task Force Six, a drug interdiction unit of 160 military personnel at Ft. Bliss, Texas, into Joint Interagency Task Force North. The new task force will be given nationwide responsibility for working with law enforcement agencies.

    CIFA, moreover, has been given a domestic "data mining" mission: figuring out a way to process massive sets of public records, intercepted communications, credit card accounts, etc., to find "actionable intelligence." "Homeland defense relies on the sharing of actionable intelligence among the appropriate federal, state, and local agencies," says Lt. Gen. Edward G. Anderson III, Eberhart's deputy.

    Another ambitious domestic project is being undertaken by the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, which is gathering "geospatial information" about 133 cities, the borders and seaports. This "urban data inventory" combines unclassified and classified data (including such things as the location of emergency services, communications, transportation and food supplies) with a high-resolution satellite map of the United States. When the mapping efforts are completed, a national "spatial data infrastructure" will be created down to the house level. Intelligence analysts speak of one day being able to identify individual occupants, as well as their national background and political affiliations. Though the military is just getting its systems in place, there can be no other conclusion: Domestic surveillance is back.

    It's not that we're heading toward martial law. We're not. But outside the view of most of the public, the government is daily expanding military operations into areas of local government and law enforcement that historically have been off-limits. And it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine that those charged with assembling "actionable intelligence" will slowly start combining databases of known terrorists with seemingly innocuous lists of contributors to charities or causes, that membership lists for activist organizations will be folded in, that names and personal data of anti-globalization protesters will be run through the "data mine." After all, the mission of Northern Command and other Pentagon agencies is to identify groups and individuals who could potentially pose threats to Defense Department and civilian installations.

    Given all this, it might be a good time for state and local governments to ask themselves whether the federal government, through the military, is slowly eroding their power to manage what — for very good reasons — have always been considered local responsibilities.

    #10     Nov 25, 2003