Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

Advocate for the Devil wonders if the poster has any credible evidence to back up this horrific charge?

• It has been called the most dangerous piece of luggage in the world?the black bag know as the ?nuclear football.? It is handcuffed to a trusted military aide who is always by the side of the president of the United States. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Robert ?Buzz? Patterson was one of these military aides, and the commander in chief he was called to serve was William Jefferson Clinton. What Buzz Patterson saw shocked him?and finally led him to write this stunning book. It is a warning of just what harm an irresponsible president can do to our national security?harm that, Patterson shows, made the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and our potential war with Iraq, almost inevitable.
  
  In Dereliction of Duty, Lieutenant Colonel Patterson reveals the amazing and cavalier disregard with which Bill Clinton treated our nation?s most sensitive military secrets, the lives of our men and women in uniform, and the integrity of the office of president. In Dereliction of Duty, you?ll find out:
  
  ? How President Clinton lost he nuclear codes and never found them
  
  ? How the president kept American pilots in the air waiting for the go-ahead to strike Iraq?while he watched golf. Result: mission scrapped.

Or is this just another time when liberals accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do?

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Or is this just another time when liberals accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do?

Alexander is no liberal, I think, at least not in the common parlance (we're all "classical liberals" here.)

But you're right; it's a serious charge. What, I wonder, would an administration that takes the charge of WMD's in the hands of terrorists look like for Mr. Alexander?

It reminds me of when Ralph Nader claimed, in Autumn 2001, that he would have been much smarter about dealing with the Taliban; he would have BRIBED the Afghans.

As now we know, the use of bribes to get the Afghan warlords on our side was a major part of the effort there. Has Nader ever apologized? I doubt it. More likely, he would now argue that this was precisely the WRONG thing to do.

America and her efforts are, I'm afraid, hampered by the continued culture wars. Instead of actively, honestly exploring the range of actions available to us, whatever action Bush takes is by definition "wrong".

I don't care if a Dem wins, as long as he's honest about giving credit where credit is due, and wants only for us to find the best ways to deal with the threats.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Or is this just another time when liberals accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do?

Alexander is no liberal, I think, at least not in the common parlance (we're all "classical liberals" here.)

But you're right; it's a serious charge. What, I wonder, would an administration that takes the charge of WMD's in the hands of terrorists look like for Mr. Alexander?

It reminds me of when Ralph Nader claimed, in Autumn 2001, that he would have been much smarter about dealing with the Taliban; he would have BRIBED the Afghans.

As now we know, the use of bribes to get the Afghan warlords on our side was a major part of the effort there. Has Nader ever apologized? I doubt it. More likely, he would now argue that this was precisely the WRONG thing to do.

America and her efforts are, I'm afraid, hampered by the continued culture wars. Instead of actively, honestly exploring the range of actions available to us, whatever action Bush takes is by definition "wrong".

I don't care if a Dem wins, as long as he's honest about giving credit where credit is due, and wants only for us to find the best ways to deal with the threats.

Originally Posted by msm

What, I wonder, would an administration that takes the charge of WMD's in the hands of terrorists [seriously] look like for Mr. Alexander?

Mike can speak for himself, but I would say that showing concern about terrorists getting nuclear weapons from countries that actually have them -- like Russia -- would be a step in the right direction. Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal left over from the Soviet period, and a poorly-funded, inefficient security system to keep their nukes out of the wrong hands. Bush had an opportunity to help beef up that security system and declined. This does not look like someone who takes the threat of WMD in the hands of terrorists seriously (as opposed to using it as an excuse to invade a country he wanted to for totally unrelated reasons) to me.

It reminds me of when Ralph Nader claimed, in Autumn 2001, that he would have been much smarter about dealing with the Taliban; he would have BRIBED the Afghans.

Back to the red herrings, I see. How about addressing what Mike said instead of what Nader said? I've yet to see a post by Ralph Nader on this forum, unless he's posting under an assumed name.

Originally Posted by msm

What, I wonder, would an administration that takes the charge of WMD's in the hands of terrorists [seriously] look like for Mr. Alexander?

Mike can speak for himself, but I would say that showing concern about terrorists getting nuclear weapons from countries that actually have them -- like Russia -- would be a step in the right direction. Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal left over from the Soviet period, and a poorly-funded, inefficient security system to keep their nukes out of the wrong hands. Bush had an opportunity to help beef up that security system and declined. This does not look like someone who takes the threat of WMD in the hands of terrorists seriously (as opposed to using it as an excuse to invade a country he wanted to for totally unrelated reasons) to me.

It reminds me of when Ralph Nader claimed, in Autumn 2001, that he would have been much smarter about dealing with the Taliban; he would have BRIBED the Afghans.

Back to the red herrings, I see. How about addressing what Mike said instead of what Nader said? I've yet to see a post by Ralph Nader on this forum, unless he's posting under an assumed name.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by msm

What, I wonder, would an administration that takes the charge of WMD's in the hands of terrorists [seriously] look like for Mr. Alexander?

Mike can speak for himself, but I would say that showing concern about terrorists getting nuclear weapons from countries that actually have them -- like Russia -- would be a step in the right direction. Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal left over from the Soviet period, and a poorly-funded, inefficient security system to keep their nukes out of the wrong hands. Bush had an opportunity to help beef up that security system and declined.

Here is a very good point. What a pity it is confined to an obscure web board, and is not raised by, say, John Kerry.

But Rush said it, not Alexander.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It reminds me of when Ralph Nader claimed, in Autumn 2001, that he would have been much smarter about dealing with the Taliban; he would have BRIBED the Afghans.

Back to the red herrings, I see. How about addressing what Mike said instead of what Nader said? I've yet to see a post by Ralph Nader on this forum, unless he's posting under an assumed name.

Oh, geez, Brian. It's called "conversation". The preface "this reminds me of" clearly delineates a digression.

Why don't you make these same dumb comments about everyone's digressions?

As for addressing what Mike said, I already have, in a very Rush-like manner. Scroll up.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

After a lot of obvious irrelevant throat-clearing, you got to the issue: WMD in the hands of irrational actors.

The Bush admin. doesn't take the threat seriously? Care to back that up?

Also, please contrast to other American administrations. Which one took this issue more seriously? Give examples.

I repeat, re: Brain Rush: Oh, geez!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by msm

What, I wonder, would an administration that takes the charge of WMD's in the hands of terrorists [seriously] look like for Mr. Alexander?

Mike can speak for himself, but I would say that showing concern about terrorists getting nuclear weapons from countries that actually have them -- like Russia -- would be a step in the right direction. Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal left over from the Soviet period, and a poorly-funded, inefficient security system to keep their nukes out of the wrong hands. Bush had an opportunity to help beef up that security system and declined.

Here is a very good point. What a pity it is confined to an obscure web board, and is not raised by, say, John Kerry.

But Rush said it, not Alexander.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

It reminds me of when Ralph Nader claimed, in Autumn 2001, that he would have been much smarter about dealing with the Taliban; he would have BRIBED the Afghans.

Back to the red herrings, I see. How about addressing what Mike said instead of what Nader said? I've yet to see a post by Ralph Nader on this forum, unless he's posting under an assumed name.

Oh, geez, Brian. It's called "conversation". The preface "this reminds me of" clearly delineates a digression.

Why don't you make these same dumb comments about everyone's digressions?

As for addressing what Mike said, I already have, in a very Rush-like manner. Scroll up.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

After a lot of obvious irrelevant throat-clearing, you got to the issue: WMD in the hands of irrational actors.

The Bush admin. doesn't take the threat seriously? Care to back that up?

Also, please contrast to other American administrations. Which one took this issue more seriously? Give examples.

I repeat, re: Brain Rush: Oh, geez!

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Or is this just another time when liberals accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do?

Alexander is no liberal, I think, at least not in the common parlance (we're all "classical liberals" here.)

Alexander is a mixed bag liberal. Like many *Democrats* he would never dream of sinking to the debased and nihlistic cultural level of many post-modern liberals. Nor does he intentionally adhere to much of the doom and gloom crisis mongering that characterizes the left. He's pro taxes, pro labor, and pro Republicans are utterly beholden to the rich and corporate chiefs, would silence dissent if possible, and leave grandma feeding at a horse trough if they could.

Otherwise, Alexander was caling Bush a "wimp" for hesitating before the regime change in Iraq, but then quickly jumped on the "Bush lied" bandwagon last summer. Alexander might have voted for Libermann, but never admit it here. But likewise, he would never ever dream of voting for a Republican of any kind.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Or is this just another time when liberals accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves do?

Alexander is no liberal, I think, at least not in the common parlance (we're all "classical liberals" here.)

Alexander is a mixed bag liberal. Like many *Democrats* he would never dream of sinking to the debased and nihlistic cultural level of many post-modern liberals. Nor does he intentionally adhere to much of the doom and gloom crisis mongering that characterizes the left. He's pro taxes, pro labor, and pro Republicans are utterly beholden to the rich and corporate chiefs, would silence dissent if possible, and leave grandma feeding at a horse trough if they could.

Otherwise, Alexander was caling Bush a "wimp" for hesitating before the regime change in Iraq, but then quickly jumped on the "Bush lied" bandwagon last summer. Alexander might have voted for Libermann, but never admit it here. But likewise, he would never ever dream of voting for a Republican of any kind.

Originally Posted by msm

Here is a very good point. What a pity it is confined to an obscure web board, and is not raised by, say, John Kerry.

Perhaps Sen. Kerry will get around to it, just as soon as he's done informing us that he was "born in an Army hospital".

Originally Posted by msm

Here is a very good point. What a pity it is confined to an obscure web board, and is not raised by, say, John Kerry.

Perhaps Sen. Kerry will get around to it, just as soon as he's done informing us that he was "born in an Army hospital".

Originally Posted by msm

Here is a very good point. What a pity it is confined to an obscure web board, and is not raised by, say, John Kerry.

just a note: it was, however, raised by howard dean.


TK

Originally Posted by msm

Here is a very good point. What a pity it is confined to an obscure web board, and is not raised by, say, John Kerry.

just a note: it was, however, raised by howard dean.


TK

Originally Posted by msm

The Bush admin. doesn't take the threat seriously? Care to back that up?

Amongst previous administrations, the Reagan adminstration made an ineffective strike against the Libyans, but otherwise did nothing about Iranian or Iraqi terror. Rather, he cozied up to the Iraqis and made arms deals with the Iranians. So Reagan gets an F. The Bush adminstration did nothing about the Iranians, but they did roll up the Libyans. They created the mess in Iraq. So I give them an D, A, and D, for an overall grade of C.

The Clinton administration rolled up the Iranians. They struck effectively at Iraqi terror, but failed to resolve the mess left by the former adminstration. They struck ineffectively at the al Qaeda group. So I give them an A, C, and D, for an overal grade of C+.

C is satisfactory, which is all I ask, so both Bush I and Clinton did OK, whereas Reagan did not. But then Reagan was focused on the USSR and not on terrorism. He gets an A for the fall of the USSR.

So far, Bush has not taken down the al Qaeda organization that attacked us. Their leadership (bin Laden and senior al Qaeda members) and sponsors (Mullah Omar amd senior Taliban leaders) remain at large and still active. Efforts are still underway. This rates a D. He hasn't put as much effort into dealing with al Qaeda as he did with Saddam & Sons. He might have earned an A or B on this issue by now, but settles for a D.

On the other hand, Bush has made an attempt to resolve the Iraqi issue, which neither the former Bush nor Clinton did. Clearly this is the main objective of the Bush policy, as the USSR was for Reagan.

I can't grade this yet, because I don't know how it will turn out. I doubt it will be resolved before the election. I consider Iraq as a terrorism issue (although its more than that) because the administration has loudly proclaimed that it is, and because I personal believe it is linked to terrorism (but not the way the administration claims).

So right now he has a D, the worst performance since Reagan. But, if re-elected, he has on opportunity to improve his grade. He could get an "A" if everything works out.

But here is why I am down on Bush. Bush entered into the Iraq war with too little resources and under a false pretext. He could have made a more credible effort, in which case this issue might not be unresolved and I could grade it. In other words Bush is asking us to accept a "D" job on al Qaeda in exchange for the dubious benefits of his Iraq policy.

Originally Posted by msm

The Bush admin. doesn't take the threat seriously? Care to back that up?

Amongst previous administrations, the Reagan adminstration made an ineffective strike against the Libyans, but otherwise did nothing about Iranian or Iraqi terror. Rather, he cozied up to the Iraqis and made arms deals with the Iranians. So Reagan gets an F. The Bush adminstration did nothing about the Iranians, but they did roll up the Libyans. They created the mess in Iraq. So I give them an D, A, and D, for an overall grade of C.

The Clinton administration rolled up the Iranians. They struck effectively at Iraqi terror, but failed to resolve the mess left by the former adminstration. They struck ineffectively at the al Qaeda group. So I give them an A, C, and D, for an overal grade of C+.

C is satisfactory, which is all I ask, so both Bush I and Clinton did OK, whereas Reagan did not. But then Reagan was focused on the USSR and not on terrorism. He gets an A for the fall of the USSR.

So far, Bush has not taken down the al Qaeda organization that attacked us. Their leadership (bin Laden and senior al Qaeda members) and sponsors (Mullah Omar amd senior Taliban leaders) remain at large and still active. Efforts are still underway. This rates a D. He hasn't put as much effort into dealing with al Qaeda as he did with Saddam & Sons. He might have earned an A or B on this issue by now, but settles for a D.

On the other hand, Bush has made an attempt to resolve the Iraqi issue, which neither the former Bush nor Clinton did. Clearly this is the main objective of the Bush policy, as the USSR was for Reagan.

I can't grade this yet, because I don't know how it will turn out. I doubt it will be resolved before the election. I consider Iraq as a terrorism issue (although its more than that) because the administration has loudly proclaimed that it is, and because I personal believe it is linked to terrorism (but not the way the administration claims).

So right now he has a D, the worst performance since Reagan. But, if re-elected, he has on opportunity to improve his grade. He could get an "A" if everything works out.

But here is why I am down on Bush. Bush entered into the Iraq war with too little resources and under a false pretext. He could have made a more credible effort, in which case this issue might not be unresolved and I could grade it. In other words Bush is asking us to accept a "D" job on al Qaeda in exchange for the dubious benefits of his Iraq policy.

I am one liberal frog who will NOT vote for Kerry. He offers us NO CHOICE that differs significantly from Bush's failed foreign policy.

HOW CAN WE KILL THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES AND BE SO BOTHERED BY A SINGLE BEHEADING?

We are hypocrits of the highest order. Bush will win this election and we will all continue down that Garden Path, waving the flag and asking Cod to bless America.

When will we ever learn?...When will we ever learn?

--One Troubled Amphibian

I am one liberal frog who will NOT vote for Kerry. He offers us NO CHOICE that differs significantly from Bush's failed foreign policy.

HOW CAN WE KILL THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES AND BE SO BOTHERED BY A SINGLE BEHEADING?

We are hypocrits of the highest order. Bush will win this election and we will all continue down that Garden Path, waving the flag and asking Cod to bless America.

When will we ever learn?...When will we ever learn?

--One Troubled Amphibian

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Clinton administration rolled up the Iranians.

To what do you refer here?

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

The Clinton administration rolled up the Iranians.

To what do you refer here?

• 
  
  'Lest We Forget!'

Originally Posted by Croakmore

HOW CAN WE KILL THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES AND BE SO BOTHERED BY A SINGLE BEHEADING?

• 
  
  Lest We Remember.

• 
  
  'Lest We Forget!'

Originally Posted by Croakmore

HOW CAN WE KILL THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT IRAQI FAMILIES IN THEIR HOMES AND BE SO BOTHERED BY A SINGLE BEHEADING?

• 
  
  Lest We Remember.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

Advocate for the Devil wonders if the poster has any credible evidence to back up this horrific charge?

What sort of an effort is the adminstration making about nukes in terrorist hands? Most of the exertion and rhetoric has been about keeping potential Iraqi nukes out of terrorist hands as opposed to real Russian or Pakistani nukes. I see little evidence that the Bush administration considers the terrorist nuke threat as much more than a convenient talking point to justifiy their Iraq policy.

What exactly is horrific about what I said? If the Bush administration believed that terorists striking at the US with nukes was a very very serious threat and then did what they are doing, that would be horrific. If this was a very, very serious threat and the Bush administration did what they are doing about it, that too would be horrific. But if the Bush administration does not truly believe that this is a very very serious threat, and then did what they are doing, then there is nothing horrific about it. Perhaps I am being naive, but I interpret the lack of action as an assessment by the adminstration that terrorist nukes aren't really much of a threat. I don't think they want to die; they aren't stupid; and they have more facts that I do, so I don't worry about terrorist nukes.

I fail to see what the nuclear football has to do with someobdy like al Qaeda getting a Russian nuke and using it here.

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Yes the possibility of nihilistic terrorists gaining nukes and using them is a threat, but not one being taken very seriously by the Bush administration.

Advocate for the Devil wonders if the poster has any credible evidence to back up this horrific charge?

What sort of an effort is the adminstration making about nukes in terrorist hands? Most of the exertion and rhetoric has been about keeping potential Iraqi nukes out of terrorist hands as opposed to real Russian or Pakistani nukes. I see little evidence that the Bush administration considers the terrorist nuke threat as much more than a convenient talking point to justifiy their Iraq policy.

What exactly is horrific about what I said? If the Bush administration believed that terorists striking at the US with nukes was a very very serious threat and then did what they are doing, that would be horrific. If this was a very, very serious threat and the Bush administration did what they are doing about it, that too would be horrific. But if the Bush administration does not truly believe that this is a very very serious threat, and then did what they are doing, then there is nothing horrific about it. Perhaps I am being naive, but I interpret the lack of action as an assessment by the adminstration that terrorist nukes aren't really much of a threat. I don't think they want to die; they aren't stupid; and they have more facts that I do, so I don't worry about terrorist nukes.

I fail to see what the nuclear football has to do with someobdy like al Qaeda getting a Russian nuke and using it here.

You are not part of the solution, Marc. You are part of the PROBLEM. Your reactionary politics seeks only revenge. And your mindset will only inspire another round of "Onward Christian Soldiers."

Man, you love those flame and glory, don't you? "...rockets red glare and bombs bursting in air." You are a Neanderthal, and you're not the only one.

You are not part of the solution, Marc. You are part of the PROBLEM. Your reactionary politics seeks only revenge. And your mindset will only inspire another round of "Onward Christian Soldiers."

Man, you love those flame and glory, don't you? "...rockets red glare and bombs bursting in air." You are a Neanderthal, and you're not the only one.