This is the moron that Democrats want to lead us?


PDA






Greg Bell
January 3, 2004, 03:44 PM
Reports: Dean was warned on lax Vermont security

By JOHN SOLOMON and DAVID GRAM
Associated Press


Presidential hopeful Howard Dean, who accuses President Bush of being weak on homeland security, was warned repeatedly as Vermont governor about security lapses at his state's nuclear power plant and was told the state was ill-prepared for a disaster at its most attractive terrorist target.


The warnings, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press, began in 1991 when a group of students were brought into a secure area of the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant without proper screening. On at least two occasions, a gun or mock terrorists passed undetected into the plant during security tests.


During Dean's final year in office in 2002, an audit concluded that despite a decade of repeated warnings of poor safety at Vermont Yankee, Dean's administration was poorly prepared for a nuclear disaster.


"The lack of funding and overarching coordination at the state level directly impacts the ability of the state, local and power plant planners to be adequately prepared for a real emergency at Vermont Yankee," state Auditor Elizabeth M. Ready wrote in a study issued five months after the Sept. 11 attacks.


Security was so lax at Vermont Yankee that in August 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staged a drill in which three mock terrorists gained access to the plant. The agency gave Vermont Yankee the worst security rating among the nation's 103 reactors.


The NRC has primary responsibility for safety at Vermont Yankee. But Vermont laws required an active state role by creating a panel to review security and performance and requiring plant operators to set aside money for the state to use in the event of a nuclear disaster.


Dean's campaign said Saturday it ultimately was the federal government's responsibility to ensure security at the plant, but that he badgered Vermont Yankee's operators and the NRC to make improvements during the 1990s.


"After September 11, Governor Dean decided the buck stops here in terms of security and personally ran this effort, creating a Cabinet-level agency," spokesman Jay Carson said.


Carson acknowledged there were weaknesses before 2002 in Vermont's nuclear preparedness, and Dean moved quickly afterward to place state troopers and National Guardsman at the plant, distribute radiation pills to civilians, demand a federal no-fly zone over the plant to prevent an aerial attack, and increase emergency preparedness funding.


"As many have said before, hindsight is 20-20 and no one could have predicted what could have happened on a terrible day in September 2001," Carson said.


"In retrospect, every state in the entire country could have been safer. The important thing is after Governor Dean recognized these vulnerabilities, he took swift, bold steps to make things better," Carson said.


State Auditor Ready, a Democrat and Dean backer, agreed things improved after her critical 2002 report and that security tests this year showed Vermont Yankee was safer. "Once Governor Dean got that report there was swift and thorough action," she said.


But even after Ready's report recommended the state's nuclear preparedness spending triple from $400,000 to $1.2 million, Dean budgeted only half the increase.


That led Dean's state emergency management director, Ed von Turkovich, to tell the Legislature in 2002 that the increase to $800,000 "does not cover the expenses related to the program" and that Vermont's nuclear preparedness was "in trouble, grossly underfunded, under-resourced and has been for years."


The lack of preparedness was blamed in the 2002 audit on inadequate funds. "Vermont receives the least amount of funding for its Radiological Emergency Response Plan, in total dollars, of any New England state that hosts a nuclear power plant," the audit disclosed.


The audit was not the first warning to Dean, documents show.


On Feb. 14, 2000, von Turkovich wrote Dean's top deputy, Administration Secretary Kathleen Hoyt, expressing concern the state was not forcing Vermont Yankee, which was up for sale, to set aside more money for preparedness.


"We are sympathetic to the utility's concern for controlling costs with respect to the pending sale of the plant and have committed to expend additional state and federal resources to subsidize this program in the coming year," von Turkovich wrote.


"However, I believe in the near future, the present or new owners will need to broaden their level of support for preparedness activities that need to be accomplished on behalf of the communities that reside in the Emergency Planning Zone," he wrote.


The documents contrast with Dean's position as a presidential candidate who has portrayed himself as more concerned about nuclear security than Bush.


"Our most important challenge will be to address the most dangerous threat of all: catastrophic terrorism using weapons of mass destruction," Dean said in his speech in Los Angeles last month. "Here, where the stakes are highest, the current administration has, remarkably, done the least."


Dean also has suggested Bush was unprepared before and after Sept. 11 to fight terrorism. "We are in danger of losing the war on terror, because we are fighting it with the strategies of the past," the Democratic candidate said.


The Vermont documents show Dean and his top aides received numerous warnings about Vermont Yankee.


In August 1991, an aide sent a handwritten memo to Dean saying there was a "security error" at Vermont Yankee that was "not public."


A group of students "on a tour were taken into a secure area without checking through security first," the aide wrote, saying the matter was minor but would be disclosed to federal regulators. Dean initialed the memo, indicating he read it.


In 1992, the NRC provided information to Dean about "declining performances at Vermont Yankee in three important areas: plant security, engineering/technical support and safety assessment/quality verification," documents show.


Dean responded by writing the head of the plant that the problems could "have an impact on the health and safety of the people of Vermont" and "it is my expectation that you will do all in your power to correct this declining trend." It was one of several such letters he wrote.


Just months later, the Vermont Nuclear Advisory Panel, a state panel, reported that it was concerned about two nuclear fuel mishandling incidents at the plant. "The panel finds it unacceptable that the fuel handling incidents occurred as a result of complacent operator and management actions," the panel reported.


Environmental groups sent Dean repeated letters about the plant's security and safety. During a 1998 federal security test, mock terrorists sneaked a fake gun past security and six times scaled, undetected, the plant's security perimeter fence.


The 1998 test was alarming because seven years earlier, protesters had managed to breach the same security by scaling the fence or rafting down an adjacent river. The 2001 security test again penetrated Vermont Yankee's security.


Ready's audit in 2002 questioned why, with so many warnings about safety, Dean's administration had significantly fewer people committed to nuclear emergency planning than neighboring states.


"Unlike its nearest counterparts, Vermont's Division of Emergency Management has only one full-time and two part-time staff to support" its emergency response program, she wrote. "New Hampshire has nearly 20 full- and part-time staff as well as consultants, while Massachusetts has more than 20 full-time staff to carry out" its program.

If you enjoyed reading about "This is the moron that Democrats want to lead us?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
greyhound
January 3, 2004, 04:08 PM
Not a lot of national spotlight shines on you when you are the Governor of a small state. But if you decide to run for a national office look out!

Take all the shananigans dug up about Bill Clinton in 1992.

On the other hand, they didn't seem to slow his momentum much.

Daedalus
January 3, 2004, 05:45 PM
Sealing loads of documents before his presidential bid may be the smartest thing Dean ever did if the dirt peeking from under the edges of the figurative carpet is any indication. Do the Democrats really think Dean is going to lead them away from the secrecy of the Bush admin into some kind of American executive branch Glasnost?

w4rma
January 3, 2004, 06:01 PM
Bush didn't handle security at this nuclear very well (the federal government provided security for this plant) and he wanted Gov. Dean to raise state taxes on the folks in Vermont to do it in order to pay for his huge federal tax cuts for the super wealthy.

It was like that all over the country (47% of the plants failed this test).

Maybe Bush should have funded the security at the plant, instead of redirecting resources towards federal tax cuts for the super wealthy and allowing 9.11 to happen?

'The goal of the NRC’s Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) over the past few years has been to assess the ability of nuclear plant security to repel armed terrorists. But at 47% of the plants tested, mock intruders were able to reach vital targets inside the plant and simulate destruction of enough equipment TO CAUSE A REACTOR MELTDOWN with a potentially devastating release of radiation.'
http://www.ncwarn.org/media/past%20nc%20warn%20nr/nr-05-09-01securityfails.htm

Glock Glockler
January 3, 2004, 06:26 PM
Bush didn't handle security at this nuclear very well...

What does this have to do with anything, the thread was about Dean being a moron? Dean doesnt become less of a moron because Bush is also a moron.

and he wanted Gov. Dean to raise state taxes on the folks in Vermont to do it in order to pay for his huge federal tax cuts for the super wealthy

1 - I am not wealthy by any means but I did get a nice little break in my tax bill, and I'm grateful for it, in fact, I want more of it. The tax cuts were to all that pay taxes, it's just that those evil wealthy people make a lot more so they pay disproportionately more.

2 - There is no free lunch. There will be a cost to doing something regardless of whether or not it's done by the Feds or by the States. I dont know where you got this notion that it was free when the Feds did it and not it costs something because the states are doing it.

Maybe Bush should have funded the security at the plant, instead of redirecting resources towards federal tax cuts for the super wealthy and allowing 9.11 to happen?

Do you really think that Bush knew about 911 before it happened, that he had some big Red button on his desk that would have blown up the hijackers when pushed, and simply refused to do so? What is to stop me from taking a steak knife, slitting the throat of a trucker who's driving a rig full of chemicals, and running it into a resovoir? I guess it's the fault of Bush and the Republicans if I pull it off.

Do yourself a favor, take off the silly partisan glasses and try to view things objectively. I'm no fan of Bush and the Republicans, but that doesnt mean that everything is automatically their fault and that the opposing group will lead us to the promised land.

Thumper
January 3, 2004, 07:05 PM
Do you really think that Bush knew about 911 before it happened

Glock, you have no idea of the depths of depravity of some of the DemocraticUnderground folks...perfect example; here's the current most recent thread at DU:

Was the Meteorite that hit Iran was a US Missile??

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A meteorite has hit northern Iran causing minor damage to property but there were no immediate reports of casualties, state radio has said.
It said the impact sent locals in panic onto the streets in the northern town of Babol in Mazandaran province.

"A meteorite which hit Babol on Friday morning caused only some minor damage to residential units," radio said, without giving further details or citing any source.

It said the impact was felt up to one kilometre away.

Iranians are currently mourning at least 30,000 people killed by an earthquake measuring 6.8 on the Richter scale which struck southeastern Iran on December 26.


-------------------------------------------------

Let's see an earthquake then a meteor. Definitely fishy. Both the US's doing, i'd wager.


He thinks we caused the frockin' earthquake...what does that tell you?

Dean's an idiot leading idiots.

Langenator
January 3, 2004, 08:14 PM
I'm still trying to figure something out...the tax cuts for the super rich (which I, a lowly Army Captain, apparently qualify as, since they dropped my taxes) cause lack of funding for Government projects X, Y, and Z, among many, and funding shortages at the state level. Refresh my memory, but when did President Bush veto a single spending bill? Hasn't the small government wing of the GOP been in an uproar ever since the Farm and Education bills?

Nevermind the fact that the tax cuts are pulling the economy around, or that the state's budget problems are the result of their own inability to stop spending, and basing their revenue figures on best-case economic scenarios.

Oh, and according to the article, the problems started in 1991, and continued until 2001...can somebody refresh my memory as to who was President for most of that time period?

Jeff Thomas
January 3, 2004, 09:20 PM
w4rma ... super wealthy? Wow. Do you still believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus as well?

I suppose by super wealthy you mean those of us who actually pay income taxes? Go read the law, friend, and notice what income levels were impacted by the tax cuts. I didn't see you or any other "progressives" lining up to help pay my room and board for the 6 years I went to college ... and ended up earning my high tax rate.

Frankly, I truly hope Dean scores the nomination. Bush is no picnic, but I always love watching Democrats discuss their fairyland version of national and personal security. Truly exquisite naivete.

Regards from TX

Balog
January 3, 2004, 09:36 PM
As has been mentioned before, security at all nuclear facilities in CONUS is very lax. I grew up a few miles from the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station. Out of the eight members of my immediate family, seven either helped to build or worked in the plant at one time or another. Believe me, you'd wet your pants if you knew how poorly it was guarded. Blaming Dean for the security of this plant is like blaming Dubya for every member of the Armed Forces who commits a crime. I don't like Dean at all, but I think he has enough problems that his opponents don't need to exaggerate and propagandize to make a case against him.

Standing Wolf
January 3, 2004, 10:04 PM
Five and a half beers short of a six-pack.

w4rma
January 3, 2004, 10:31 PM
Nuclear security mocked in plutonium raids

October 8, 2003

New York: Security at nuclear weapons laboratories in the United States is so lax that they have repeatedly failed drills in which mock terrorists captured radioactive material and escaped, an article in the magazine Vanity Fair says.

"Some of the facilities would fail year after year," said Rich Levernier, a federal employee who ran simulated "war games" to test security at the nuclear weapons facilities until he lost his security clearance in 2001.

The article, written by a veteran nuclear industry reporter, Mark Hertsgaard, quotes Mr Levernier as saying teams of mock terrorists ran attack drills on the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and other premises.

"In more than 50 per cent of our tests at the Los Alamos facility, we got in, captured the plutonium, got out again, and in some cases didn't fire a shot, because we didn't encounter any guards," he said in the article.

These failures occurred despite the security forces at the laboratories knowing the dates of the drills months in advance.

The report says Mr Levernier, a 22-year veteran of the US Department of Energy, was stripped of his security clearance after he faxed an unclassified document to The Washington Post.

He has filed a Whistleblower Protection Act lawsuit against the department, arguing he was illegally removed from his duties.

Anson Franklin, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), told the magazine the lawsuit prevented him from commenting, but he denied that nuclear-weapons facilities are vulnerable to attack.

"The impression has been given that these tests are staged like football games, with winners and losers," he said. "But the whole idea of these exercises is to test for weaknesses. We want to find them before any adversaries could, and then make adjustments."

A statement from the NNSA said the incidents cited by Mr Levernier occurred from 1996 to 1999 and noted that the Bush Administration and Energy Department had increased security funding by more than 50 per cent "to ensure that our nuclear weapons materials are not vulnerable to terrorist attack".

The report said a second whistleblower, Chris Steele, formerly the DOE's senior safety official at Los Alamos, sounded an alarm after he received a safety report last October for the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility at Los Alamos.

Lab officials had analysed various scenarios, including an aircraft crashing into the radioactive waste, and concluded that although such a crash would cause hundreds of thousands of litres of nuclear waste to catch fire, the fire would be put out by the facility's roof-sprinklers.

"That must be a magical sprinkler system," Mr Steele said, "since it's apparently able to rise up from the rubble, turn itself on, and put out the flames. We should buy one of those for every nuclear plant in the country."

The Los Alamos laboratory, which was where the first atomic bomb was developed, has faced a series of security lapses in recent years, including a lost hard drive in 2000 that contained classified information. The drive was later found behind a photocopier.

Associated Press, Reuters
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/07/1065292588799.html

Glock Glockler
January 3, 2004, 10:58 PM
w4rma,

Wow, you know how to use the cut-and-paste function, that's great.

Perhaps you can elevate my opinion of Democrats and at least attempt to refute some of the points raised.

w4rma
January 3, 2004, 11:33 PM
What does this have to do with anything, the thread was about Dean being a moron? Dean doesnt become less of a moron because Bush is also a moron.

This thread should be one about Bush being the moron who *still* hasn't properly funded homeland security in the states. And (see the above article I posted) Bush still hasn't properly dealt with security at nuclear reactors across the country, even after 9.11.

1 - I am not wealthy by any means but I did get a nice little break in my tax bill, and I'm grateful for it, in fact, I want more of it. The tax cuts were to all that pay taxes, it's just that those evil wealthy people make a lot more so they pay disproportionately more.

You got a federal tax cut, depending on your circumstances. You got a state tax increase, depending on your circumstances. The GOP leadership increased federal spending, increased deficit spending, thereby increased future taxes from SOMEBODY in America. The GOP leadership has decreased the number of jobs available thereby stagnateing or decreasing mean American salaries.

2 - There is no free lunch. There will be a cost to doing something regardless of whether or not it's done by the Feds or by the States. I dont know where you got this notion that it was free when the Feds did it and not it costs something because the states are doing it.

Unfunded mandates seem to be the norm since the GOP got into power. (Super wealthy, maybe American, contributors get paid back their donations + profit. Everyone else gets shafted.)

Do you really think that Bush knew about 911 before it happened, that he had some big Red button on his desk that would have blown up the hijackers when pushed, and simply refused to do so? What is to stop me from taking a steak knife, slitting the throat of a trucker who's driving a rig full of chemicals, and running it into a resovoir? I guess it's the fault of Bush and the Republicans if I pull it off.

I said Bush "allow(ed) 9.11 to happen". But I didn't say he knew it was going to happen or tried to make it happen. IMHO, what happened was he ignored the warnings by the CIA and the FBI and former Clinton officials and folks on the Hart-Rudman/Gore-Commision who were trying to warn Bush to enact some of the stuff they had proposed, but that he had tossed into the wastebasket upon taking office.

Also:
FBI and US Spy Agents Say Bush Spiked Bin Laden Probes Before 11 September

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), with which they were linked.

The FBI file, marked Secret and coded 199, which means a case involving national security, records that Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, had originally had a file opened on him “because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth - a suspected terrorist organisation”.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1

Do yourself a favor, take off the silly partisan glasses and try to view things objectively. I'm no fan of Bush and the Republicans, but that doesnt mean that everything is automatically their fault and that the opposing group will lead us to the promised land.

I have. I was criticizing Bush for not funding homeland security properly way back in 2001. I'm surely not going to allow the candidate I support to get smeared by something that was Bush's fault.

BenW
January 3, 2004, 11:45 PM
And (see the above article I posted) Bush still hasn't properly dealt with security at nuclear reactors across the country, even after 9.11.
Interestingly, I read the article you posted and saw:
A statement from the NNSA said the incidents cited by Mr Levernier occurred from 1996 to 1999
Could someone remind me who was President then?

Tag
January 3, 2004, 11:46 PM
this is what scares me the most... The Palisades nuclear plant is right on Lake Michigan, making not only the areas around the plant itself vulnerable but all the great lakes. and probably much of the midwestern watertable.

:uhoh:

Bruce H
January 3, 2004, 11:51 PM
No Dean isn't a moron. Why does he want to be president? Why did he enter politics at all? If he was good as a doctor why did he quit? I don't understand the man at all. I worry about the power hungry factor with him.

fallingblock
January 4, 2004, 01:27 AM
"A statement from the NNSA said the incidents cited by Mr Levernier occurred from 1996 to 1999
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could someone remind me who was President then?
************************************************************

w4rma does so much scanning in those lefty sources that he sometimes misses small details....:)


If it's BAD, it must have been Bush:eek: !

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 03:04 AM
article in the magazine Vanity Fair Now there's a great analytical investigative publication.

Steeeeerike ONE!A statement from the NNSA said the incidents cited by Mr Levernier occurred from 1996 to 1999Bush wasn't even the President at that time and couldn't have been the irresponsible President you claim he is. I think that was the other guy.

Steeeeerike TWO! and noted that the Bush Administration and Energy Department had increased security funding by more than 50 per cent "to ensure that our nuclear weapons materials are not vulnerable to terrorist attack".You post that Bush has done nothing -- even insinuating he had prior knowledge of 9-11 -- and then you post an article that refutes the very accusations you made in your initial post.

Steeeeerike THREE!

ravinraven
January 4, 2004, 07:31 AM
Yes. It's true. I resemble that remark. I had a cousin, rest his dumb soul, who was a certified moron. He was Einstein compared to this doctor turned political quack.

I have three, count 'em--three acquaintances who are registered Democrats. All three have dropped out of the Dean support group. One even had a sign in his yard. He donated it to me a while ago.

The point is that if Dean is so bad that even democrats are beginning to notice, how are we going to keep him on the ticket so that we can sit around and enjoy the left lobotimizing itself this fall?

Well, maybe a lobotomy would be an improvement.

And that Bush! What a caution! How did he get that meteor to hit Iran? How did he get that earthquake going over there? We know how he got that mud slide started in kalif. that killed all those kids. Tax cuts for the rich did that.

Methinks that the Bush whackers probably aren't sincere in their whacking. If they really thought he did all those things, they certainly wouldn't call attention to themselves lest Dubya set off a quake in their shorts.

Dubya has his shortcomings. I think he is the result of the Republicans being forced to go lower and lower on the scale of human worth without falling off the scale completely in order to find someone who can compete with the low-life trash that the dems have put forward lately. You know that if Hitlary [sorry, Adolph] ran today, there are enuf fools in the country that she would probably get every eltectoral vote.

One of my dem friends, a college prof.! switched to rep. shortly after 9-11. He said that the dems were an embarrassment to him.

And it's a pity. We NEED a two party system. We don't have it now.

But, it's Sunday morning and I've got a crowd of liberals to meet over coffee in a few minutes.

rr

stevelyn
January 4, 2004, 09:07 AM
Dean's an idiot leading idiots.

In the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is king.:D :evil:

greyhound
January 4, 2004, 09:16 AM
I truly think the momentum Dean gained last year is remarkable. Seems now the worm is starting to turn.

Mainstream press shouted from the rooftops that Dean's appeal was his anti-war stance. Asusual they were wrong. Though anti-war, his real appeal was to the percentage of Democrats that have an insane, all abiding hatred of George Bush, at least the equal if not greater than the Republican hatred for Clinton.

Problem is, "hating the President" won't win a popular election, and in fact looks like a slaughter if GWB keeps his approval rating around 60%.

Add to that the fact this eejit causes a ruckus every time he opens his mouth (Confederate flag, "race, God, guns, gays", No safer capturing Saddam, "interesting theory" that Bush knew about 9/11, will talk about Jesus only in the South, etc, etc) and I think even some of the "anybody but Bush" crowd that were so behind him are starting to question.

His latest brilliant:D move was to criticize Democratic leadership for not curbing attacks on him. Well, Dr. Dean, paint yourself as the outsider "crusading to take our country back from the worst adminstration ever" and don't be surprised that you get treated like one. Saying that "it may be too far gone for my supporters to support a traditional Washington politician" doesn't help.

Clinton pulled off his "Man From Hope" routine because of his charming ways. People really liked him (me included) in 1992. Howard Dean has all the charm of a pet rock.

Now though I would never vote for Dean, the thought of Wesley Clark as President genuinely frightens me. But that's a topic for another thread!

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 09:25 AM
his real appeal was to the percentage of Democrats that have an insane, all abiding hatred of George Bush, at least the equal if not greater than the Republican hatred for Clinton.

Yep...Dean was able to tap into that special kind of angry, suppressed dementia that the left seems to share. They see themselves in their candidate every time he sputters and hisses. Contradicts himself? When has that ever been a problem for the uber left?

I pray that this nincompoop wins the dem nomination. Have you noticed how Fox pretty much gives this guy all the free press he could want? Bet that stops after the nomination, though. ;)

Every time I see Dr. Deanmento, I picture this guy:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=702900

Jeff Thomas
January 4, 2004, 12:44 PM
w4rma, with comments such as Unfunded mandates seem to be the norm since the GOP got into power. you'll go far in advancing Dean's candidacy. Understanding and politely discussing politics is easier when your historical perspective spans more than 3 years or so. Unfunded mandates weren't a problem before Bush?

I too love the Bush bashing that coincidentially throws Clinton under the bus almost every time ... but the "progressives" never notice the irony. What a stitch.

Yes, Bush is a disappointment, like every other Republican President we've seen for a long time. Democrats and Republicans are taking us to the same destination ... simply at different speeds.

But I'll prefer to head down that path more slowly, and retain some chance of changing course. IMHO, Dean hasn't a prayer ... so he is the perfect Democrat candidate. And, the average Democrat is rabid and illogical enough to choose him.

Regards from TX

El Tejon
January 4, 2004, 12:49 PM
Dean is not a moron. He is playing to his base and doing a fantastic job.

This is what scares the beejeebus out of me.:uhoh:

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 01:10 PM
So, much whacked out bashing of Democrats and Dean. We have a couple of guys who think that if it isn't said by a Murdoch or Rev. Moon source it never happened or it's "liberal propaganda". Bush spikes Bin Laden probes that might have averted 911 and folks, zealotly, think he's fantastic on terrorism. His head lawyer, during the Florida recounts, defends the Saudis against AMERICAN VICTIMS OF 911 and Bush is a true Christian and a one of a kind hero American?

A Legal Counterattack
Saudis hire some of the toniest U.S. law firms to defend them against the landmark $1 trillion lawsuit on behalf of the victims of 9-11. So why is the plaintiff’s counsel ecstatic? …

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

April 16 — After months of working below the radar, a huge U.S. legal team hired by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has sprung into action and begun a major counteroffensive against a landmark lawsuit seeking $1 trillion in damages on behalf of the victims of the September 11 terror attacks.

THE OPENING DEFENSE SALVO in what promises to be a bruising legal battle was fired last week when a trio of lawyers from Baker Botts, a prestigious Houston-based law firm, filed a motion on behalf of Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi defense minister. The motion attacked the 9-11 lawsuit as a “broadside indictment of Saudi government, religion and culture.” It also argued that, as the third-ranking official of a foreign government, their client is immune from any U.S. legal action and that he should therefore be dismissed from the case altogether.

Motley’s team and their investigators have been working closely with some of those government officials. A few of those officials, sources say, see the 9-11 lawsuit as a useful tool to turn up the public heat on the Saudis. In that sense, there is a growing view among U.S. counterterrorism officials that it might be a good thing for the case to proceed—no matter how embarrassing it might prove to the Saudis.

To keep that from happening, sources close to the case say, members of the Saudi royal family and the country’s wealthiest businessmen—many of whom are defendants in the case—have offered up seven-figure retainers to some of the toniest and most politically connected law firms in the country.

Baker Botts, Sultan’s law firm, for example, still boasts former secretary of State James Baker as one of its senior partners. Its recent alumni include Robert Jordan, the former personal lawyer for President Bush who is now U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

But legal sources say some high-priced firms and their senior partners have been wary of the Saudi overtures—despite offers of retainers that, in some cases, have ranged as high as $5 million. One former Clinton administration official at a big law firm said he was personally approached to represent a high-ranking Saudi prince in the case but turned it down. “I kept asking myself, ‘do I want to be representing the Saudis against the 9-11 families—especially after all the trouble we had getting cooperation from the Saudis on terrorism’,” the official said. “I finally just said no.”

http://www.msnbc.com/news/901320.asp

Rev. Moon (owner of the Washington Times, UPI, NewsMax) runs a cult in North Korea. From many folks' zealotish defenses of Republicans and zealotish bashes on Democrats, I think he's helping run another in America.

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 01:32 PM
Typical DUer.

People here have asked you to defend articles you've posted and statements you've made and instead of doing that, you post yet another article that may or may not contain accurate information about a whole new subject.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 01:33 PM
… defend articles you've posted and statements you've made …Such as?

Also, when are the zealotish Bush defenders going to respond to the questions I've proposed, instead of trying to change the subject again?

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 01:37 PM
Such as who was actually president during the timespan of the article about security in NY plants that you posted.

Others have already asked you about this, and you refuse to answer.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 01:47 PM
The article was published a couple of months ago. 3 years after Bush has taken office and the Republican leadership took over all three branches of government. The security problems that existed back then, STILL exist today. Correct?

Bush has had 3 years to fix these security problems. I think it's past time for Bush to take some responsibility for his own actions and quit trying to act like the problems of today are Clinton's fault three years ago.

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 01:54 PM
Probably not, but since you presented this article as evidence of problems with Bush; it is your responsibility to back up your claim. This is kinda like a debate. That means YOU need to defend your position, not me.

Of course now you'll just start insulting me since you don't have any arguments.

BTW Go ahead call me a freeper, I consider it an honor to be called a free person.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 01:58 PM
Former Centcom Commander (Zinni) - Americans have been "conned"
Iraq has old-school Marine regretting support for Bush :

By Thomas E. Ricks
The Washington Post

12/28/03: (Seattle Times) Anthony Zinni's opposition to U.S. policy on Iraq began on the monsoon-ridden afternoon of Nov. 3, 1970. He was lying on a Vietnamese mountainside west of Da Nang, three rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle in his side and back. He could feel his lifeblood seeping into the ground as he slipped in and out of consciousness.

He had plenty of time to think while recuperating. He promised himself that "if I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. ... I don't care what happens to my career."

That time has arrived.

Over the past year, the retired Marine Corps general has become a prominent opponent of Bush administration policy on Iraq, which he now fears is drifting toward disaster.

Zinni, 60, still talks like an old-school Marine — a big-shouldered, weight-lifting, working-class Philadelphian whose father emigrated from Italy. Yet he finds himself in the unaccustomed role of rallying the anti-war camp, attacking the policies of the president he had endorsed in the 2000 election.

"Iraq is in serious danger of coming apart because of lack of planning, underestimating the task and buying into a flawed strategy," he says. "The longer we stubbornly resist admitting the mistakes and not altering our approach, the harder it will be to pull this chestnut out of the fire."

Three years ago, Zinni completed a tour as chief of the Central Command, the U.S. military headquarters for the Middle East, during which he oversaw enforcement of the two "no-fly" zones in Iraq and conducted four days of punishing airstrikes against that country in 1998. He served briefly as a special envoy to the Middle East.

Zinni long has worried that there are worse outcomes possible in Iraq than having Saddam Hussein in power — such as eliminating him in such a way that Iraq will become a new haven for terrorism in the Middle East.

"I think a weakened, fragmented, chaotic Iraq, which could happen if this isn't done carefully, is more dangerous in the long run than a contained Saddam is now," he told reporters in 1998. "I don't think these questions have been thought through or answered."

It was a warning for which Iraq hawks such as Paul Wolfowitz, then an academic and now the No. 2 official at the Pentagon, attacked him in print at the time.

Five years later, Zinni fears it is an outcome toward which U.S.-occupied Iraq may be drifting. Nor does he think Saddam's capture is likely to matter much.

"Since we've failed thus far to capitalize" on opportunities in Iraq, he says, "I don't have confidence we will do it now. I believe the only way it will work now is for the Iraqis themselves to somehow take charge and turn things around. Our policy, strategy, tactics, et cetera, are still screwed up."

Anthony Zinni's passage from obedient general to outspoken opponent began in the unlikeliest of locations: the 2002 national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Zinni was to receive the group's Dwight D. Eisenhower Distinguished Service Award, recognition for his 35 years in the Marine Corps.

Vice President Dick Cheney was also there, delivering a speech on foreign policy. Sitting on stage behind Cheney, Zinni grew puzzled. He had endorsed Bush and Cheney two years earlier, just after retiring from his last military post, as chief of the U.S. Central Command, which oversees operations in Iraq. But he was alarmed at Cheney's words:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," Cheney said. "There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Cheney's certitude bewildered Zinni. At Central Command, Zinni had been immersed in U.S. intelligence about Iraq. He was all too familiar with analysts' doubts about Iraq's programs to acquire weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. "In my time at Centcom, I watched the intelligence, and never — not once — did it say, '(Saddam) has WMD.' "

Though retired for nearly two years, Zinni says, he remained current on the intelligence through consulting with the CIA and the military. "I did consulting work for the agency, right up to the beginning of the war. I never saw anything. I'd say to analysts, 'Where's the threat?' " Their response was, "Silence."

His concern deepened as he listened to Cheney. Zinni's conclusion was that the Bush administration was determined to go to war. A moment later, he had another, equally chilling thought: "These guys don't understand what they are getting into."

Zinni is hardly a late-life convert to pacifism. "I'm not saying there aren't parts of the world that don't need their ??? kicked," says Zinni. "Afghanistan was the right thing to do," he adds, referring to the 2001 U.S. invasion to oust the Taliban regime and its al-Qaida allies.

But he saw no need to invade Iraq. "He was contained," he says of Saddam. " ... He had a deteriorated military. He wasn't a threat to the region."

Zinni's concern deepened at a February Senate hearing, six weeks before the war began, as he listened to Pentagon and State Department officials talk vaguely about the "uncertainties" of a postwar Iraq. "I was listening to the panel, and I realized, 'These guys don't have a clue.' "

That wasn't a casual judgment. Zinni had thought about how the United States might handle Iraq if Saddam's government collapsed after the four days of airstrikes he oversaw in December 1998.

"After the strike, we heard from countries with diplomatic missions in (Baghdad) that the regime was paralyzed, and that there was a kind of defiance in the streets," he recalls.

So early in 1999 he ordered that plans be devised for the possibility of the U.S. military having to occupy Iraq. The resulting document called for a nationwide civilian occupation authority, with offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. That plan contrasts sharply, he notes, with the reality of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S. occupation power, which for months this year had almost no presence outside Baghdad — an absence some Army generals say has increased their burden in Iraq.

The more he listened to administration officials testify that day, the more Zinni became convinced that interventionist "neoconservative" ideologues were plunging the nation into a war in a part of the world they didn't understand. "These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had an idea that worked on the ground."

Increasingly, he began to believe that U.S. soldiers would wind up paying for the mistakes of Washington policy-makers. And that took him back to that bloody day in the mountains in Vietnam.

He sees both conflicts as beginning with deception by the U.S. government. "I think the American people were conned into this," he says. Referring to the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which the Johnson administration claimed that U.S. Navy ships had been subjected to an unprovoked attack by North Vietnam, he says, "The Gulf of Tonkin and the case for WMD and terrorism is synonymous in my mind."

And the goal of transforming the Middle East by imposing democracy by force reminds him of the "domino theory" in the 1960s that the United States had to win in Vietnam to prevent Southeast Asia from falling into communist hands.

That brings him back to Wolfowitz and his neoconservative allies as the root of the problem. "I don't know where the neocons came from — that wasn't the platform they ran on," he says. "Somehow, the neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president."

He is especially irked that, as he sees it, no senior officials have taken responsibility for their incorrect assessment of the threat posed by Iraq. "What I don't understand is that the bill of goods the neocons sold him has been proven false, yet heads haven't rolled," he says. "I think some fairly senior people at the Pentagon ought to go." Who? "That's up to the president."

Zinni says he hasn't received a single negative response from military people. "I was surprised by the number of uniformed guys, all ranks, who said, 'You're speaking for us. Keep on keeping on.' "

Copyright © 2003 The Seattle Times Company
http://www.informationclearinghouse...article5438.htm
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56800

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 02:04 PM
Yet again you use the same tactic. You post one man's opinion listing stuff from the 70's on. I don't recall Bush being in office during the 70's or 80's or even 90's. And what does this article have to do with security at Reactors in NY or VT.

And you still haven't defended the first article you posted. And you're now way off topic anyway.

If you want to debate the first article then support it.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 02:10 PM
You post one man's opinion listing stuff from the 70's on.C'mon, I KNOW you can read: You're on this messageboard. Did you just scan the article for numbers? Because that number refers to a story about General Zinni's background. His opinion starts after that.

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 02:14 PM
I did read it. It is one man's opinion of the war in Iraq based on his experiences(unverified) during the 70's 80's and 90's. What does this have to do with security at a Nuclear Reactor in VT or NY.

Again just keep changing the subject and you never have to defend your position. This is the same stuff that I see over at DU all the time.

What evidence do you have to support the first article you posted that Bush has not improved security at the power plant in NY that you posted about.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 02:20 PM
The first point I made was that security at nuclear reactors are the job of the federal government. Bush is head of the federal government. 47% of all the nation's reactors failed this security test:

'The goal of the NRC’s Operational Safeguards Response Evaluation (OSRE) over the past few years has been to assess the ability of nuclear plant security to repel armed terrorists. But at 47% of the plants tested, mock intruders were able to reach vital targets inside the plant and simulate destruction of enough equipment TO CAUSE A REACTOR MELTDOWN with a potentially devastating release of radiation.'
http://www.ncwarn.org/media/past%20nc%20warn%20nr/nr-05-09-01securityfails.htm

greyhound
January 4, 2004, 02:20 PM
Slightly OT, but if Wes Clark really means what he said this morning about not accepting any VP nomination, could Zinni do it?

Though I suspect he's a Republican as he endorsed Bush/Cheney in 2000, but as Clark shows political affiliation doesn't matter if you "hate Bush".*

*Not implying that Zinni "hates" Bush. Definately disagrees with Iraq though. Clark IS a "Bush hater".

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 02:23 PM
I have read that General Zinni may be on Dean's short list for VP. Gen. Clark, Gen. Zinni, Sen. Graham, Sen. Edwards and Rep. Ron Paul are some names I've seen floated.

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 02:26 PM
w4rma

Sorry that article doesn't hold water. The date at the top of the page is May 9, 2001. These audits take months if not years, therefore Bush couldn't have been in office long enough to have had an effect.

Try again.

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 02:34 PM
Watching the Dems try to re-invent themselves as the party with a handle on foreign policy issues is pretty funny.

"Let's see if we can cut MORE military funding and further hamstring intelligence services."

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 02:39 PM

Because I will have no higher priority than the security and safety of the American people.

That's why we must double our funding for keeping Americans safe at home, from police to firefighters, from port inspections to power plant security.

That's why our armed forces must remain the finest in the world, equipped and trained to fight 21st Century battles and defeat 21st Century threats.

We must improve leadership within the CIA, FBI, and other agencies to provide the level of communication and vigilance needed to prevent another September 11.

We must redouble our efforts through the Cooperative Threat Reduction program to prevent nuclear materials from Russia and other former Soviet Republics from falling into the wrong hands.

We must follow through on our commitments in Afghanistan to prevent that troubled land from ever again serving as a base for terrorism.

Around the world, we must show an unwavering dedication to the principles of democracy, tolerance, and human rights, including the rights of women to participate as full and equal citizens in every society, including those in the Middle East.

Above all, we must be clear that no terrorist will ever intimidate the United States of America into withdrawing from the world or abandoning our allies, friends, and ideals.

http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_speech_foreign_drake

Ed Straker
January 4, 2004, 02:43 PM
Dean is being put up because there's no way he can beat Bush in 2004, which will set up Hillary in 2008.

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 02:45 PM
w4rma

Still waiting. And you're still changing subjects.

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 02:46 PM
Deeds, not words...we all have seen what Dems do to the military. Or are you saying that Democrats have suddenly changed their colors? Does it burn you up that servicepeople vote overwhelmingly Republican?

The section you highlighted makes it plain to me:

At home...Dean plans to further infringe upon your liberties to make you "safer." Pretty popular idea amongst some these days. I abhor the Patriot Act...but I have a feeling, based on their own words, that the Dems would have enacted something far worse.

Bush goes after those who hate America where they live...I like that a lot.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 02:51 PM
Deeds, not words…Ashcroft Recuses Self From CIA Leak Probe
By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Attorney General John Ashcroft removed himself Tuesday from the investigation into whether the Bush administration leaked a CIA operative's name to a newspaper columnist, and a career federal prosecutor from Chicago was named as special counsel to take over.

In a move cheered by Democrats, Deputy Attorney General James Comey announced that Ashcroft had stepped aside to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest after reviewing evidence recently developed in the inquiry. He would not specify the nature of that evidence.

Investigators want to know who leaked the name of Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA officer, to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July. Plame is married to former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, who has said he believes his wife's identity was disclosed to discredit his assertions that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities to build a case for war.

The leaker could be charged with a felony if identified. The FBI has interviewed more than three dozen Bush administration officials, including political adviser Karl Rove and press secretary Scott McClellan.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&e=1&u=/ap/20031230/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/cia_leak
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=291172

CIA seeks probe of White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — The CIA has asked the Justice Department to investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees in retaliation against the woman’s husband, a former ambassador who publicly criticized President Bush’s since-discredited claim that Iraq had sought weapons-grade uranium from Africa, NBC News has learned.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937524.asp?0cv=CB10
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=135657

Leak of Agent's Name Causes Exposure of CIA Front Firm

The leak of a CIA operative's name has also exposed the identity of a CIA front company, potentially expanding the damage caused by the original disclosure, Bush administration officials said yesterday.

The company's identity, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, became public because it appeared in Federal Election Commission records on a form filled out in 1999 by Valerie Plame, the case officer at the center of the controversy, when she contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA. Plame's name was first published July 14 in a newspaper column by Robert D. Novak that quoted two senior administration officials. They were critical of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, for his handling of a CIA mission that undercut President Bush's claim that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger for possible use in developing nuclear weapons.

The Justice Department began a formal criminal investigation of the leak Sept. 26.

The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.

A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.

"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40012-2003Oct3.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=147987

Democrats seek assessment of damage caused by outing of US intelligence agent

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Leading Democrats sent a letter to the US agency tasked with safeguarding America's intelligence capability, seeking an immediate assessment of the damage caused by the outing of a CIA agent's identity.

Top Democrats in the US Senate, including Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, asked the National Counterintelligence Executive headed by Michelle Van Cleave to undertake an immediate review of whether US intelligence has been compromised by the leak.

"The exposure of one of America's undercover intelligence officers by an official of the US government constitutes the most egregious form of betrayal," read the letter by Daschle, and fellow Senate Democrats Carl Levin, Joseph Biden, and John Rockefeller.

"Since this case involves the publication of classified information and the extent of the material disclosed is known, we believe that a damage assessment can and should be undertaken immediately," the lawmakers wrote.

"Swift action is needed to protect the individuals whose lives may be at risk," they said, requesting a copy of the findings within 30 days.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031015/pl_afp/us_cia_iraq_politics&cid=1521&ncid=1480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=539395

Rice 'Knew Nothing' About CIA Agent Leak

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Sunday she knew "nothing of any" White House effort to leak the identity of an undercover CIA officer in July, a charge now under review at the Justice Department.

On the "Fox News Sunday" program, the top aide to President Bush said, "This has been referred to the Justice Department. I think that is the appropriate place for it."

Rice said the White House would cooperate should the Justice Department, headed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, decide to proceed with a criminal investigation of the matter, which centers on the alleged public disclosure of the wife of former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

Wilson was sent by the CIA to Niger in 2002 to investigate a report that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium from Niger, but returned to say it was highly doubtful.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030928/ts_nm/iraq_intelligence_probe_dc&cid=564&ncid=1480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=136932

A White House smear

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security—and break the law—in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?

It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

The sources for Novak’s assertion about Wilson’s wife appear to be “two senior administration officials.” If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what’s known as “nonofficial cover” and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson’s wife is such a person—and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her—her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, “Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames.” If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.

This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. Journalists are protected from prosecution, unless they engage in a “pattern of activities” to name agents in order to impair US intelligence activities. So Novak need not worry.

Novak tells me that he was indeed tipped off by government officials about Wilson’s wife and had no reluctance about naming her. “I figured if they gave it to me,” he says. “They’d give it to others....I’m a reporter. Somebody gives me information and it’s accurate. I generally use it.” And Wilson says Novak told him that his sources were administration officials.

http://thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=823
http://www.arbiteronline.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/07/23/3f1f5fa79c206
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18072&mesg_id=18072&page=
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=5913&mesg_id=5913&page=


Novak, in an interview, said his sources had come to him with the information. “I didn't dig it out, it was given to me,” he said. “They thought it was significant, they gave me the name and I used it.”

Wilson and others said such a disclosure would be a violation of the law by the officials, not the columnist.

Novak reported that his “two senior administration officials” told him that it was Plame who suggested sending her husband, Wilson, to Niger.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia0722,0,2346857.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=2326&mesg_id=2326&page=

A War on Wilson?
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,465270,00.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=18113&mesg_id=18113&page=

White House striking back?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/942095.asp?0cv=CA01

Schumer Urges FBI Probe Into Iraq Leaks
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030724/ap_on_go_ot/schumer_agent_1

Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia233384176jul23,0,5461415.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print

The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic: The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives by John W. Dean
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030815.html

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 02:54 PM
Come on w4rma. You could at least stick with the topic, or the second or third without starting another one here. It's not even worth rebutting anything you state. Every time someone does, you just change topics again.

You still haven't supported your first suppositions.

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 03:06 PM
You might be the king of the inconsequential copy/paste. What are you trying to say? There was an alleged leak that allegedly originated with the Bush administration?

Your support of Dean invariably reverts to "Bush sucks." That, if nothing else, demonstrates not only the lack of substance in your candidate, but also the political acuity of his supporters.

Do you not understand how your huge reliance on the words of the popular press undermines your argument? Hopefully it also allows you to refute for yourself the DUers continued claim that the popular media is controlled by Bush.

Zealots? What Bush zealots? We criticize Bush every day.

As far as I can tell, you have managed to make over 300 posts without mentioning firearms unless it has something to do with Dean politically.

That, to me, is a pretty good description of a zealot.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 03:08 PM
Thumper, you seem to need to resort to personal attacks when you're backed into a corner.

MikeB, I am basically responding to whatever the Dean and Democrat bashers are posting. You guys keep changing the topic and I have to keep correcting ya'll. Like, now, the topic seems to have switched from national security to personal attacks on myself. :rolleyes:

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 03:16 PM
w4rma,

I haven't changed the topic once since I responded to your post about the nuclear plant in NY. You have changed the topic several times.

I'm still waiting for that evidence that Bush was responsible for security at that NY plant from 96 to 99.

Daedalus
January 4, 2004, 03:16 PM
W4rma, your flame warrior is Artful Dodger (http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_59.php)

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 03:27 PM
Thumper, you seem to need to resort to personal attacks when you're backed into a corner.

What an amazingly transparent attempt to manipulate the moderators.

What corner? Further, what personal attack? That I said you might be the king of the inconsequential copy/paste? I attacked the substance of your "argument;" that being that you continue to quote unrelated published material to substantiate other raw published material you've posted.

You used the term zealot, which I don't believe is terribly offensive...even though you didn't substantiate your claim. I believe I made a pretty good case for characterizing you as a zealot, however.

If not, perhaps you'll point me to some of your firearms related posts that have nothing to do with Dean.

Otherwise, I'll continue to dismiss you as one of Dean's infamous intenet minions, replete with a hardrive full of shared Bush bashing material gleaned from democraticunderground.com (at least your honest enough to credit the site).

greyhound
January 4, 2004, 03:28 PM
"Bush sucks."

The official slogan of the Howard Dean campaign.

"Dean sucks"

The official slogan of the other 8 Democratic candidates.:D

I find it interesting that back in 1996 the right's hatred of Bill Clinton was at least as much as the leftists for George Bush. But where was their "Angry Man" Howard Dean? They nominated Kindly Uncle Bob Dole!

Its interesting, just like Dean said it was "interesting" that there's a theory that the Saudis warned Bush about 9/11 (he quickly added that that "of course he doesn't believe that". What a sniveling political trick to pull. :fire: )

I want absolutley no part of this guy as my President but more importantly Commander in Chief. I know theres a few Dean men here and good for them, but I'll bet that even those most disappointed by Bush will not be voting for Dean (me included).

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 03:29 PM
Daedalus, you are dead on... :D

If I hadn't known about that site for awhile, I would swear that page was written for this particular circumstance. How funny.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 03:32 PM
And I was beginning to think it was Target (http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_67.php). (A Democrat among Libertarians and Republicans.)

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 03:41 PM
Ok then ....CAUTION: Target is a favorite disguise of Troller amd Evil Clown.

And I'm still waiting for you to backup your posts from hours ago.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 03:45 PM
Well, I'm neither an evil clown nor a troll, so lets quit the personal attacks, eh?

Note, I've responded now, multiple times. I've backed myself up with sources, multiple times. What hoops do you have for me now?

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 03:48 PM
You said you were Target.

Copied from flamewarrior site.

"Target is the guy everyone in a forum loves to hate. To some degree he brings this upon himself. For example, he may be a known cheater in a game forum, a conservative among liberals, a Windows guy among Mac enthusiasts, or even a man in a women's forum. Why Target places himself in such dicey situations is anyone's guess, but he seems genuinely oblivious to his precarious position. When Target inevitably runs afoul of a forum's prevailing attitudes the other Warriors unleash their collective fury upon him. His usual reaction is "Hey, what did I do?" or "Why do you all hate me?" Target usually gets the hint after a while and moves on. NOTE: Target often serves as a useful pressure valve for the forum's pent up hostilities. Therefore, if the current Target has been driven off or immobilized a new target will be quickly selected. CAUTION: Target is a favorite disguise of Troller amd Evil Clown."


See that part at the end. I was just supplying the parts you left out in your post.

You have not supplied one factually relevent document to back up your argument. You've only posted articles detailing problems BEFORE Bush was in office as evidence of his wrongdoing as a President. Now again who was in office during the time that your evidence was relevent.

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 03:51 PM
Quit with the "personal attack" mantra, already. Disingenuously hitting up the mods for a thread closure doesn't remove your obligation to respond.

My question again: do you have any firearms related posts not dealing with Dean?

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 03:52 PM
You have not posted one source to back up anything you've said AND you have decided to focus on me, the messenger, instead of going to hunt down some information.

do you have any firearms related posts not dealing with Dean?A whole lot of them. Do a search.

Daedalus
January 4, 2004, 03:53 PM
Topic : Dean Lax on Nuclear Plant Security

Your Responses :
It is Bush' Fault >
Tax Cuts For the Rich = Underfunded Fed. Govt Programs > Bush spiked 9/11 probes > One of Bush'd lawyer defending Saudi's >
Anthony Zinni article >
Novak Leak Probe >
Deluge of other links to articles that criticize current administration >

I assembled this little chronology of this thread because you apparently missed it. Your initial claim that Bush is responsible for all Nuclear Power plant security breaches from ??? - May 9, 2001 was refuted by the simple fact that before January 2000 it was Clinton's responsibility and that these breaches are an ongoing problem.
The Force on Force security tests are often carried out by Navy Seals, Army Rangers, and other professional military commando units who are much more trained in infiltration than any security force could ever be trained to defend against with 100% success. I would say that a 53% success rate of defending against these infiltrations is not as terrible as you make it out to be.

I fail to see where you are being unjustly singled out for attack, and see only that you have posted a deluge of copy>paste articles that have only the most tenuous of links to the posted article.
I have countered your claim that Bush is entirely responsible for national power plant security lapses, and have explained why I feel your 47% failure rate in fore on force is not as terrible as you make it out to be. I am eagerly awaiting your explanation as to how the security breaches that Clinton did not repair in 8 years could possibly be fixed by Bush in 3.
Why don't you try and stop making yourself out to be some kind of Daniel in the Lion's Den and actually debate the issue of Nuclear Power Plant security and the responsibility of the State and Federal governments in its administration.

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 03:54 PM
w4rma.

I haven't submitted anything so I don't need to defend anything, I've told you how your evidence isn't relevent. You have refused to supply relevent information. And again it's not my responsibility to support your argument for you. When you post relevent information I will attempt to refute it, but you haven't done that yet.

BTW Thanks for all the info to refute your argument. It was a little too easy when you used data from someone elses time in office to criticize the person who's in office now.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 04:04 PM
I have countered your claim that Bush is entirely responsible for national power plant security lapses, and have explained why I feel your 47% failure rate in fore on force is not as terrible as you make it out to be. I am eagerly awaiting your explanation as to how the security breaches that Clinton did not repair in 8 years could possibly be fixed by Bush in 3.Bush was prodded by 9.11 and given a majority Republican Congress to fix it with. Clinton had to fight against a very partisan Republican Congress to fix anything with. Folks seem to forget that from 1994 on, the Republicans have controlled a majority in Congress.


FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
The Guardian Wednesday November 7, 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html

FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.

US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.

They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to “back off” from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.

“There were particular investigations that were effectively killed.”
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their “black sheep”.

Hart-Rudman
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:

Commission warned Bush
But White House passed on recommendations by a bipartisan, Defense department-ordered commission on domestic terrorism.
by Jake Tapper

Sept. 12, 2001 | WASHINGTON -- They went to great pains not to sound as though they were telling the president “We told you so.”

But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year.

Bush administration officials told former Sens. Gary Hart, D-Colo., and Warren Rudman, R-N.H., that they preferred instead to put aside the recommendations issued in the January report by the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Instead, the White House announced in May that it would have Vice President Dick Cheney study the potential problem of domestic terrorism -- which the bipartisan group had already spent two and a half years studying -- while assigning responsibility for dealing with the issue to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, headed by former Bush campaign manager Joe Allbaugh.

Before the White House decided to go in its own direction, Congress seemed to be taking the commission's suggestions seriously, according to Hart and Rudman. “Frankly, the White House shut it down,” Hart says. “The president said 'Please wait, we're going to turn this over to the vice president. We believe FEMA is competent to coordinate this effort.' And so Congress moved on to other things, like tax cuts and the issue of the day.”

“We predicted it,” Hart says of Tuesday's horrific events. “We said Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers -- that's a quote (from the commission's Phase One Report) from the fall of 1999.”

http://www.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/09/12/bush/

The Gore Commission
also known as the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.
http://www.airportnet.org/depts/regulatory/gorecom.htm

Here is what seems to have happened to the recomendations of the Gore Commission:
We begin our news with a quote: “The federal government should consider aviation security as a national security issue, and provide substantial funding for capital improvements. The Commission believes that terrorist attacks on civil aviation are directed at the United States, and that there should be an ongoing federal commitment to reducing the threats that they pose.”

If you think that comes from a recent Bush White House report, guess again. In the summer of 1996, shortly after the crash of TWA flight 800, President Clinton asked Vice President Al Gore to chair a commission on improving air transportation safety. As a result, the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security, commonly known as the Gore Commission, conducted an in-depth analysis of the U.S. commercial airlines' safeguards against terrorist attacks. In its final report, which is what I quoted from a moment ago, the Gore Commission found that security measures used by U.S. airlines were extremely inadequate, and made over 50 recommendations to improve security.

What happened? Well, the Gore Commission demanded tougher airline security, but airlines and conservatives said no. Specifically, the airline industry dismissed the threat of terrorists, and attacked the commission. Indeed, the day after the final report was published, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association fought back with a legislative action of their own that claimed the Gore Commission existed simply to thwart the will of the Republican Congress.

And conservative ideologues rejected the proposal on “cost-effectiveness” grounds. OK, so how much are 6,000 lives worth - not to mention the dollar value placed on the World Trade Center, a portion of the Pentagon, an economic recession, and America's security?
http://www.d28dems.org/pspeak/psE85.htm

For instance, the commission, headed by then-Vice President Al Gore, wanted airlines to screen all passengers with computerized profiling systems to detect potential terrorists.
http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312052.htm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=25100&forum=DCForumID35

Thumper
January 4, 2004, 04:17 PM
Bush was prodded by 9.11 and given a majority Republican Congress to fix it with. Clinton had to fight against a Republican Congress to fix anything with. Folks seem to forget that from 1994 on, the Republicans have controlled a majority in Congress.

Oh, now I understand: Bush did a better job, but only because of external reasons...got it. How about your boy Dean? Would a hostile Congress be your excuse for his failures, too?

Besides, are you seriously trying to talk nuclear security with references to Clinton? Clinton gave away the farm, in case you slept through his administration:

Loss of nuclear secrets called 'one of worst failures' in U.S. history
http://www.cnn.com/US/9905/25/cox.report.04/

Clinton to continue engagement with China despite espionage report
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/05/25/white.house.reax/index.html

Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/9/29/25139.shtml

Give me a break!

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 04:19 PM
w4rma.

Your just changing topics again. You still haven't provided any evidence of your original suppositions.

Daedalus
January 4, 2004, 04:31 PM
Since you are really trying to duct tape what you see as an intentional bungling of 9/11 (something that I personally feel is a pretty dirty thing to say about anyone) to this thread, which is about Howard Dean and Vermont's nuclear power plants I guess I will have to ask you one question.

How would you, the american people, and the economy have responded if President Bush came on television the day after he was inaugurated and said "I have information that some time in the future terrorists may potentially hijack an airliner. In response to this threat I propose forming a whole new branch of the federal governmentthat is responsible solely for far stricter security at airports. In response to this threat I will spend X Billion tax dollars to protect against an unconfirmed threat that will arise sometime, we do not know exactly when." The suggestion that because President Bush did not immediately spend BILLIONS to turn air travel into the hours long security checks that it currently is because of a unconfirmed threat is ridiculous.
There are terrorist threats floating in the ether every second of every day. If every threat was treated as a Fred Sanford-esque BIG ONE we would shut down as a society. If terrorists knew that they could shut down an airline, a school, whathave you just by making threats we would be unable to function.
Every time the terror alert is raised, Deanites and other liberals mock the warnings "Oh its the Bu$h administration trying to scare us." Maybe you should think about that before immediately blaming Bush for 9/11 instead of the terrorists. Noone knew that 9/11 was going to happen. Noone let it happen. The cloak and dagger horse squeeze that you accuse the Bush administration of is the ridiculous fantasy of an angry liberal.
I encourage you to let me know of any government programs that Bush decreased funding to since he has been in office. Name one single program, especially a security one, where it went from X dollars to <X dollars.
Blaming Clintons inaction on a Republican controlled congress is a nonstarter. Clinton never proposed any kind of security increase that would have been sufficient to stop 9/11. From your own admission the "gore commision" took place during Clinton's administration. If the threat was so obvious why did he not do anything about it?

Sean Smith
January 4, 2004, 04:38 PM
Time for w4rma to hide behind a smoke screen of new article snippiets that are only tangentally (if at all) pertinent to the topic. :rolleyes:

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 05:04 PM
He had plenty of time to think while recuperating. He promised himself that "if I'm ever in a position to say what I think is right, I will. ... I don't care what happens to my career."What career? He's retired! So we have one guy who is still p---ed off that he took three rounds in a war and can't get over it. So what?the retired Marine Corps generalNow that's really stepping up to the plate. Wait until you are retired to start "speaking up" after your career -- which you swore to put on the line -- is over and the pension checks are rolling in.

What a joke.:rolleyes:

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 05:23 PM
I have *never* said that the bungling of 9.11 was intentional. My understanding is that it happened beause of gross, top-down, incompetence partially due to an extreme adherence to the neo-con ideological doctrine. Please do not put words into my mouth to create a straw man you can hit.

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 05:28 PM
First you say:Maybe Bush should have funded the security at the plant, instead of redirecting resources towards federal tax cuts for the super wealthy and allowing 9.11 to happen?but then post an article that states very clearlythe Bush Administration and Energy Department had increased security funding by more than 50 per cent "to ensure that our nuclear weapons materials are not vulnerable to terrorist attack".Why should we refute your contentions when you are doing an absolutely marvelous job on your own?

There is an old saying that when your opponent is making a fool of himself, shut up and let him. You are doing a fine job.

When it turns out that Zinni is full of steaming excrement will you come here and post that also; or simply ignore it?

We anxiously await your next cut-n-paste article that has nothing to do with your original contention. What will it be; Presidential tee ball? Barneycam? Laura's new hairdo? Oh, the excitement mounts!

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 05:33 PM
jimpeel, just out of curiousity, what would have to happen for you to ever admit that the Republican leadership failed at something? Can you think of anything?

MikeB
January 4, 2004, 05:42 PM
So w4rma, that's what your argument comes down to. You present a silly argument with no evidence. And then want someone else to provide you with some hypothetical failure on this administrations part that will be acceptable.

Silly silly silly. First off Bush has done a lot of wrong things, Increased government spending, Patriot Act I and II, etc. however your prescious democrats also voted for these things.

Is Bush the greatest ever - no of course not, but he is a hell of a lot better for this country than Dean would be.

I'mSpartacus!
January 4, 2004, 05:44 PM
And who wouldn't vote for Dean when he has this sort of supporters?

"This round, Dean, the favorite of Rob Reiner and Martin Sheen, also attracted the support of celebs including Alec Baldwin, Mel Brooks, Ted Danson, Janeane Garofalo, Christopher Guest, Norman Lear, Paul Newman, Carl Reiner, Aaron Sorkin, Barbra Streisand and Bradley Whitford. Some biz types, such as HBO topper Chris Albrecht, also cut checks to Dean."

http://www.bootlegbetty.com/2003_07.html

My gosh, maybe Dean can use these people to help him shape major domestic and foreign policy!

:mad:

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 06:09 PM
Not only did Clinton's actions prevent Y2K terrorist acts (eg, a bomber headed off on his way to the celebration in Seattle), but much more occurred in his administration to ward off terrorism ~ only to be scuttled by the Bushistas:From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,459230,00.html A suspicious US border guard stopped Mr Ressam when he tried to enter the United States at Port Angeles, Washington, from Victoria, British Columbia on December 14 1999. In his trunk were enough explosives and components to make three powerful time bombs. How is it that Clinton can be credited for a U.S. Border Patrol agent simply doing her job?

jimpeel
January 4, 2004, 06:44 PM
what would have to happen for you to ever admit that the Republican leadership failed at something? Can you think of anything?
Siiiigggghhhhh.

What MikeB said. Add Barneycam two years in a row.

In an attempt to flesh out a firearms post from you; do you think that Bush will re-up the AWB or let it die? What would Clinton have done? What would Dean do if he were President now?

greyhound
January 4, 2004, 08:48 PM
My final .02 on this one:

Though disappointed in the Bush presidency so far, there is no way anyone is going to convince me that Howard Dean is preferable. I could see articles and op-eds from here to Sunday about how bad Bush is and how great Howard Dean is and it won't change a thing.

I believe what my own eyes see:

Howard Dean is a patented product-of-the-sixties-leftist (tm) and Bush (with many flaws) isn't.

(I am more of a ranter than debater, sorry!)

clubsoda22
January 4, 2004, 09:58 PM
w4rma, i'm adding the link in your sig line to mine. We'll see how many more gun owners of dean on this board will catch on.

fallingblock
January 4, 2004, 10:45 PM
"....if it isn't said by a Murdoch or Rev. Moon source it never happened or it's "liberal propaganda".
************************************************************

Are there other sources that are not liberal propaganda out there? :confused:

The ones w4rma cites so often do seem to be liberal propaganda sources.:D

Daedalus
January 4, 2004, 10:48 PM
I do not think Dean's stance on gun control is going to be as popular on this board as you think.

From his website (http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_civilrights_sensiblegunlaws) (emphasis mine)

"I believe the federal gun laws we have -- like the Brady Bill -- are important, and I would veto any attempt to repeal or gut them. The Assault Weapons Ban expires next year, and it should be renewed."

"we do need to do a few things at the federal level, like requiring Insta-Check on all retail and gun show sales."

If you are happy that putting a bayonet on your rifle can make you a felon, Dean is your candidate. If you are happy paying 100$ for a high cap pre ban mag for your son's 10-22, Dean is your candidate. If you want de facto gun registration and to extend it to personal sales, Dean is your candidate. If you want a president who promises gun owners nothing, and promises gun prohibitionists vetoes, Dean is your candidate.

Dean is NOT my candidate.

w4rma
January 4, 2004, 11:45 PM
do you think that Bush will re-up the AWB or let it die?He will sign it and in Bush's usual Orwellian way he'll call it a great triumph for gun owners. His big buisness backers want him to sign it and he *always* does what they tell him to do.

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts
What would Clinton have done?He would have signed it.
What would Dean do if he were President now?He would sign it, also.

I've always maintained that the difference between Dean and Bush on gun policy is very minute (note that in Vermont, Dean never pushed for nor signed a single gun control law in his 11 years as governor. IMHO he will hold the line as long as he is in office.), while their differences on other civil liberties are nearly polar opposites. Bush supports Ashcroft who, IMHO, is one of the most totalitarian AGs ever and Bush supports judges just like Ashcroft. When they say conservative judges, they mean pro-Patriot Act, pro-state religion, pro-big buisness, anti-individuals and anti-small buisness judges.

Greyhound, you are incorrect, IMHO. Dean is a moderate in the mold of Harry Truman. I think as he switches gears towards the general election that will become more and more obvious, maybe even to yourself. I sincerely hope that you'll go out and do some research on his positions (This, IMHO, is a good place to start, C-Span video unfiltered by journalists or columnists: Fmr. Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) holds a town hall meeting campaign event in North Conway, New Hampshire. The focus of this meeting is education. - 12/18/2003 (rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04121803_dean.rm)) rather than taking the word of many of his opportunistic opponents and pundits in big media who wish to stereotype him as something he isn't for their own political gain.w4rma, i'm adding the link in your sig line to mine. We'll see how many more gun owners of dean on this board will catch on.Fantastic!

Daedalus
January 5, 2004, 12:28 AM
I am going to say this again because it is not being addressed by Dean's supporters.

DEAN WILL VETO ANY LOOSENING OF FEDERAL GUN RESTRICTIONS.

That is what is called a campaign promise. Dean's website says "Although President Bush has claimed he supports renewing it, he is talking out both sides of his mouth; his staff has signaled that he doesn’t want or expect Congress to renew the ban, and that is wrong." and w4rma says that Bush is going to pass the AWB. That is what is called mixed signals. Dean is obviously courting the anti-gun lobby, and his supporters are courting us. We will never regain lost ground under Dean, there will be no restoration of our 2nd Amendment rights. There is nowhere for us to go except further into Brady territory. That is something to keep in mind when you vote.

w4rma
January 5, 2004, 12:43 AM
There is nowhere for us to go except further into Brady territory.You are beginning to understand. But, you're not there yet. BOTH political parties are moderate on gun control and to turn it around we need someone who will talk about guns and gun control. Remember, in 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the first significant federal “anti-gun” legislation since 1968.

Also, note that just like Nixon was the only President who could open up trade relations with China, IMHO, it will be a Democrat who stops the slide into more and more gun control.

Daedalus
January 5, 2004, 01:15 AM
IMHO, it will be a Democrat who stops the slide into more and more gun control.

So the answer to getting back our missing chickens is to give the fox the keys to henhouse? Brilliant. :rolleyes:

Dean promises nothing for us, the RKBA crowd.
He. Has. Made. Veto. Promises. To. The. Gun. Grabbers.
Reading his policy page on "Sensible Gun Control" shows it is an offering to the gun grabbers. He is towing the line of courting the gun grabbers and relying on his activists to try and smooth things out with us. Talking about guns? All I have heard is the same crap we hear from every liberal gun banner. Sensible Gun Control. Renew the AWB. Close the so-called gun show loophole. Your hunting rifle is safe. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and acts like a duck...

Bush is not going to be the Republican that will lead us into the RKBA promised land, but his 2008 successor may well be. Bush will not dare to pass any new gun legislation because he knows that if he does we will desert him and the rest of the Republicans, as many of us already have. Bush cannot run for reelection in 2008, and the Republicans will have to come crawling back to us if they want to secure a victory.

I will vote Libertarian in 2004 as a pro-gun protest vote, and let us see who the Republicans will give us as a candidate if Libertarians can make 5% of the vote.

MicroBalrog
January 5, 2004, 06:20 PM
So the answer to getting back our missing chickens is to give the fox the keys to henhouse? Brilliant.

I will take this as a compliment.

'Sides which, you know, there are left-libertarians there too.

A 5% libertarian candidate will cause both sides on the fence to move towards freedom... but that's actually not the best L statistic.

greyhound
January 5, 2004, 06:50 PM
Bush supports Ashcroft who, IMHO, is one of the most totalitarian AGs ever and Bush supports judges just like Ashcroft

I am not a big Ashcroft fan either, however the AG who scares me the most is thankfully a former AG: Madeliene "October Surprise" Albright.*

* who claimed while waiting to go on TV she wouldn't be surprised if Bush had Osama Bin Laden under wraps and was going to trot him out in October, right before the election. When called on it, of course she said she "was joking".

These are the kind of people we want to turn the country back over to?

W4RMA - You may be right about Dean being a centrist a la Truman, but I only know what I've seen so far and that is a raving lunatic pandering to the far-left of the party. I remain open minded, but I'll have to see a real change. (The man wouldn't hurt himself by thinking twice and speaking once. I'm getting tired of hearing op-eds that say his gaffes are seen by his base as "refreshing". Maybe to his base, but they cause most of us to recoil in horror!)

Thumper
January 5, 2004, 07:51 PM
BOTH political parties are moderate on gun control

How ridiculous...w4rma is trying to actually get you to think that there's no difference between Repubs and Dems on gun control.

Such a time honored tactic of the left: The outright, bald-faced lie:

Luckily, easily refuted in the internet era...

The current Senate AWban scoreboard:

http://www.awbansunset.com/senate.html

Pretty cut and dried...see also: The Congressional Voting Record on anything involving gun control.

Also from awbansunset.com:

'The Federal ban on "assault weapons" became a top priority of the Clinton administration in early-1994, and was passed by a very narrow margin (216-214) in the House of Representatives (where the most resistance was expected). On September 13, 1994, about a month after being passed by the Senate, the "Crime Bill" (which included the ban) was signed by the president.

A few months later, Democrats were eviscerated at the polls, losing nine seats in the Senate, and a whopping 54 seats in the House of Representatives, handing over control of Congress to the Republicans. Among the casualties was then House Speaker Tom Foley (who, thanks to some last minute rule-breaking and arm-twisting, was largely responsible for the ban passing in the House); a district tossing out a Representative who holds such a high-level position of seniority and leadership in Congress was quite a rare event. In any case, President Clinton stated that 20-21 of the seats lost in the House were directly due to their votes on the ban. Considering that the Repubicans' post-election majority was only 14 seats, it is clear that Clinton's "assault weapons" ban cost his party control of the House.'

Gun owners are more informed than that, w4rma...please try again.

Art Eatman
January 5, 2004, 11:27 PM
greyhound, Maddy HAlFbright was SecState. (Once taken for a charlady by a French diplomat, which is why I'm not all that down on the French.)

Janet "The Rhino" Reno was AG. She later wandered around Florida in a daze...Oops, 'scuse me, she was a gubernatorial candidate agains Jeb Bush.

:), Art

"How soon we forget..."

jimpeel
January 6, 2004, 12:00 AM
Oops. Aleady done.

DELETED by jimpeel

fallingblock
January 6, 2004, 03:09 AM
".... a raving lunatic pandering to the far-left of the party."
************************************************************


Howweird is no friend of gunowners.:scrutiny:

Howweird is actually an enemy of the Second Amendment:eek: .

Howweird is definitely a raving lunatic pandering to the left.;)

racenutz
January 6, 2004, 03:30 AM
IMHO, it will be a Democrat who stops the slide into more and more gun control.

Thanks for the laugh, I needed it!!!

tiberius
January 6, 2004, 04:03 AM
IMHO, it will be a Democrat who stops the slide into more and more gun control.
Only because you stop sliding when you hit the bottom of the slope. :rolleyes:

jimpeel
January 6, 2004, 09:22 PM
I guess he was waiting for President Bush to drop by and close the vault door for him. :neener:

http://news.bostonherald.com/national/national.bg?articleid=409&format=text]SOURCE

Nuke flap dogs Dean
By David R. Guarino
Tuesday, January 6, 2004

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says former Gov. Howard Dean and other Vermont officials violated federal law by releasing secret protection plans for its nuclear power plant in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The NRC's charge had Vermont officials scrambling to impound top-secret nuclear documents the Democratic presidential front-runner wrongly made public.

Some of the documents regarding the Vermont Yankee nuke plant include so-called ``safeguards information,'' which is to be released under ``need to know requirements and . . . not publicly releasable,'' said NRC spokesman Scott Burnell.

The documents are included in files Dean made public - even as he opposes the release of other records on the grounds that they may include similar security or personal information.

``They have been made aware that these documents aren't supposed to be publicly available,'' said Burnell. ``They have assured us that steps are being taken to remove the documents from public availability.''

Burnell said visible warnings on the records weren't heeded by Dean's office, the Vermont secretary of state and the state archivist - making civil or criminal charges a possibility.

``If warranted, there is going to be an investigation,'' Burnell said.

Dean has come under steady fire for refusing to release many of the files from his 11 years as Vermont governor until 2013.

The front-running Democrat has said he doesn't want his gubernatorial records released for political reasons but said he also worries that security data and things like constituent medical information could accidentally be released if all his documents were made public.

The NRC review follows a Herald report last month that documents containing security and personal medical information were tucked in Dean's public files.

The documents undercut Dean's argument that files should remain private and have been used by his competitors, most recently by U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman during a debate in Iowa Sunday.

Dean has also been criticized for reports of lax security at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

Officials at the Vermont state archives told the NRC that documents were released only after an OK from Dean's office, according to Burnell.

Dean campaign spokesman Jay Carson refused to comment. But Vermont Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz, a Democrat, said her office is equally to blame for the gaffe.

``Because of the very quick and intense interest in Gov. Dean's records, we simply missed this batch,'' Markowitz said. ``It was ultimately a result of the pressure our office had, we weren't ready for it.''

Markowitz said governors are supposed to exclude data not subject to public records laws. But, she said, her office is the last check. ``We're the custodian of the record. The buck stops here,'' she said.

The nuclear files have been removed from public view. Archivists and officials from the NRC will soon review all public documents to ensure there aren't other secret files available, officials said.

greyhound
January 6, 2004, 09:43 PM
greyhound, Maddy HAlFbright was SecState.

Holy smokes, that's right. Maybe I should take my own advice and think twice and post once!:)

If you enjoyed reading about "This is the moron that Democrats want to lead us?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!