Uh Excuse Me, Excuse Me....!

H

hseofpayne

Guest
I am going to type this slow because I type with two fingers (I can't help it, I'd rather turn a wrench then sit at a desk wailing away on a keyboard):sad-very::sad-very:

However, nice try on your part for quoting me on Browndriver's post. Even in your confused state of condition, I do appreciate you calling me "Distilled96" though, FYI distillation cleans me of all microscopic contaniments and mineral deposits that are vilified throughout your posts.
:sick::sick:

One misquote deserves another Disturbed96(FYI) its contaminants not contaniments, but in your disturbed condition one does tend to slur.As far as microscopic contaminants, I think distillation has failed as you are quite full of it!:laughing::laughing::laughing: :smart::smart::smart:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

diesel96

Well-Known Member
:sick::sick:

One misquote deserves another Disturbed96(FYI) its contaminants not contaniments, but in your disturbed condition one does tend to slur.As far as microscopic contaminants, I think distillation has failed as you are quite full of it!:laughing::laughing::laughing: :smart::smart::smart:


So now you want want to play Mrs Spellcheck for your Hseof-LAME response. BTW a misquote is an incorrect quotation.......a passage or a quotation that is cited. If your going to coin phrases and demand proper spelling to those who think your full of it, then at least demand it of those with the same warped views as you. <----- Mrs Spellcheck :teacher:
 
H

hseofpayne

Guest
So now you want want to play Mr. Spellcheck for your Hseof-PAYNE response. BTW a misquote is an incorrect quotation.......a passage or a quotation that is cited. If your going to coin phrases and demand proper spelling to those who think I am full of it, then at least demand it of those with the same intelligent views as you. <----- Mr. Spellcheck
:whiteflag::whiteflag:

69sVinDiesel: Now you want to play Madame Definition check for your I69VinDiesel response. Still not sure what phrase I coined:laughing::laughing:! Did your Mommy not play with you as a child?! You sure seem to have your arse as well as VinDiesels firmly planted on your shoulders!:laughing: As far as ole Kennedy goes, his tumor came either from alcohol abuse or many years of thinking about vehicular homicide, or at least I hope he felt remorse! But in reality, as a Southern gentleman once said,"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!":funny:Good Day, I said Good Day!
 

tieguy

Banned
How honorable....kick a man when he's down with a brain tumor. ?:confused:

I don't have a lot of compassion for ted kennedy. His wealth has allowed him a lifestyle that he does not deserve and has never earned.

By all rights he should have done some jail time when he drove off that bridge but money buys justice.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
:whiteflag::whiteflag:

69sVinDiesel: Now you want to play Madame Definition check for your I69VinDiesel response. Still not sure what phrase I coined:laughing::laughing:! Did your Mommy not play with you as a child?! You sure seem to have your arse as well as VinDiesels firmly planted on your shoulders!:laughing: As far as ole Kennedy goes, his tumor came either from alcohol abuse or many years of thinking about vehicular homicide, or at least I hope he felt remorse! But in reality, as a Southern gentleman once said,"Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!":funny:Good Day, I said Good Day!


Impressed you were able to follow all of that being that you are dumber than a sock full of hair!


Hseof-Flam-beau, it's obvious your the new kid on the block in "Current Events" by your flamboyant insecure writing style. Hopefully, in time, you will develop a commonality and respect among BC members, even the ones you disagree with. Comments such as the one you displayed (shown above) directed at me personally is a prime example. Don't expect people in BC to lay down and wimper at your feet especially when your insecurities cause you to break the terms and agreement of BC. There's also another obvious un-written man-law when playing in the playground, Mothers, Wives and family members are off limits. So the answer to your insulting question is yes, my Mommy did play with me growing up and she now lives 2 miles away, but I suggest it's time you move out of your Mommy's house and shred that security blanket. No wonder you lean and reley on the GOP smear machine.....your in need of reassurance...poor baby:2scared:




I don't have a lot of compassion for ted kennedy. His wealth has allowed him a lifestyle that he does not deserve and has never earned.

By all rights he should have done some jail time when he drove off that bridge but money buys justice.

40 years in the Senate, respected even by his Rep peers, has a senate record of accomplishments that would even make McCain look like a rookie. Had 2 brothers asassinated in a span of a few years and 1 brother killed earlier over London during WWII in a plane crash. Has a history of family tragedys and yes was a man who was raised as an elite, BUT who dedicated himself to helping people less fortunate. This is why your a perfect fit for Mngmt Tieguy...No compassion...JK... Yes his career was scarred with the un-intentional accident and un-intended death at Chappaquiddick which he was aqquitted back then. Who knows he could have done jail time or probation with expulsion from the Senate with todays more advanced and technical evidence gathering technics, but think of his 40 years in the Senate as a sentence of "Community Service" hrs. I know this doesn't take away the pain of the victim's family, but unintentional accidents are not pre-meditated circumstances requiring jail sentences especially back in the 60's. I would say however, if your so bent on jailing Kennedy, why not throw GW, Cheney, Rove Rumsfeld, Libby and the gang behind bars for the murder of 4,000 plus United States Soldiers and espionage for illegally tapping our phones and computers without permission. If you don't believe me just ask Dennis Kucinich......he'll back me up:peaceful:
 

Storm723

Preload Supervisor
I don't think Cheney has the guts to shoot someone intentionaly. That may be his best attribute.

On top of that, I have it from close friends who knew him as a CEO, the guy really is dumb as a bag of rocks.

Thank God.

Imagine what he would do if he was not only evil, but intelligent as well.:wink:

Well, how many other people do you know that can actually shoot someone...and just react like.."oh hmmm wow...ooops! really sorry about that" and there is just simply no consequence, none!

So maybe he is smarter than we give him credit for...he just acts like a bag of rocks!
 

tieguy

Banned
40 years in the Senate, respected even by his Rep peers, has a senate record of accomplishments that would even make McCain look like a rookie.

40 years of taking up space. A true aristrocracy. No wonder politics are in the toilet with turds like teddy eating and partying on taxpayer dollars for forty years.

Had 2 brothers asassinated in a span of a few years and 1 brother killed earlier over London during WWII in a plane crash.

Unfortunately the better kennedys died.:happy-very: The deaths of teds brothers does not make ted a good man.

Has a history of family tragedys and yes was a man who was raised as an elite, BUT who dedicated himself to helping people less fortunate.

I'm always impressed when the aristrocracy throws the poor a few coins...not.:happy-very: Now if the guy sold everything he had and lived like a pauper serving the poor then I would be impressed.
shoud we talk about Teds daddy while we are bringing up his family?
how about his raping cousins or nephews?

This is why your a perfect fit for Mngmt Tieguy...No compassion...

I have plenty of compassion for those that deserve it. Teddys tragedy may be a few less lobster and drinks at the taxpayers expense.:happy-very:

JK... Yes his career was scarred with the un-intentional accident and un-intended death at Chappaquiddick which he was aqquitted back then.

Yes the cheating coward unintentially left that poor girl in the car to fend for herself. What a contrast to Jfk and pt109.

Who knows he could have done jail time or probation with expulsion from the Senate with todays more advanced and technical evidence gathering technics, but think of his 40 years in the Senate as a sentence of "Community Service" hrs. I know this doesn't take away the pain of the victim's family, but unintentional accidents are not pre-meditated circumstances requiring jail sentences especially back in the 60's. I would say however, if your so bent on jailing Kennedy, why not throw GW, Cheney, Rove Rumsfeld, Libby and the gang behind bars for the murder of 4,000 plus United States Soldiers and espionage for illegally tapping our phones and computers without permission. If you don't believe me just ask Dennis Kucinich......he'll back me up:peaceful:

LOL Krazy Kucinich? Thats your bud? How about 7 years without any terrorist attacks. Looks like GW plans worked.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
How about 7 years without any terrorist attacks. Looks like GW plans worked.

Did they really need to launch another 9/11 type attack and I ask that in a serious way? Warfare is often thought of in purely violent means but it is also economic and social as well. In the 7 years since 9/11, how have things changed economically in this country? Where is public debt at or the value of the dollar? What is the price and situation with oil worldwide? What cost in the dollar sense has this country had to spend in order to make sure it thinks it has made itself safe?

Maybe we are looking in the wrong place and have the wrong idea at how to judge the success of Al Qeada and Osama and the totality of complete warfare. Or did Osama watch the US create the rouse that we laud over Reagan that caused the Soviets to spend themselves into bankruptcy. Are we now getting a dose of our own medicine?

You are correct, there have been NO successful attacks on the US since 9/11 "IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE!"

JMO.
 

tieguy

Banned
Did they really need to launch another 9/11 type attack and I ask that in a serious way? Warfare is often thought of in purely violent means but it is also economic and social as well. In the 7 years since 9/11, how have things changed economically in this country? Where is public debt at or the value of the dollar? What is the price and situation with oil worldwide? What cost in the dollar sense has this country had to spend in order to make sure it thinks it has made itself safe?

Maybe we are looking in the wrong place and have the wrong idea at how to judge the success of Al Qeada and Osama and the totality of complete warfare. Or did Osama watch the US create the rouse that we laud over Reagan that caused the Soviets to spend themselves into bankruptcy. Are we now getting a dose of our own medicine?

You are correct, there have been NO successful attacks on the US since 9/11 "IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE!"

JMO.

Giving me a classic lesson on terrorism wkmac?

No doubt in mind that you have to give GW credit for this success. If he does not take the war to the terrorist then yes we would have had more attacks on our soil. No doubt whatsoever on this subject.
 

diesel96

Well-Known Member
Did they really need to launch another 9/11 type attack and I ask that in a serious way? Warfare is often thought of in purely violent means but it is also economic and social as well. In the 7 years since 9/11, how have things changed economically in this country? Where is public debt at or the value of the dollar? What is the price and situation with oil worldwide? What cost in the dollar sense has this country had to spend in order to make sure it thinks it has made itself safe?

Maybe we are looking in the wrong place and have the wrong idea at how to judge the success of Al Qeada and Osama and the totality of complete warfare. Or did Osama watch the US create the rouse that we laud over Reagan that caused the Soviets to spend themselves into bankruptcy. Are we now getting a dose of our own medicine?

You are correct, there have been NO successful attacks on the US since 9/11 "IN THE CONVENTIONAL SENSE!"

JMO.

Giving me a classic lesson on terrorism wkmac?

No doubt in mind that you have to give GW credit for this success. If he does not take the war to the terrorist then yes we would have had more attacks on our soil. No doubt whatsoever on this subject.

I've got to side with WKMAC "Conrad Dobler" on this one Mr Tie. I was all for rooting out Osama in Afgh and taking the fight to the 9/11 perps, but our neo-con leadership lost the fortitude of tracking Bin Ladin and his cohorts then switching most of our resourses from the real "War on Terror" to the "War on oil" undermining the American Public and selling this conflict on the bases of protecting our freedom. Any president can call and employ for tighter security at our airports, ports, and boundries and call for citizens to be alert and aware of suspicious activity.(Gw, Rep's and now even a few spineless Dem's has taken it a step further by continuing to rape the fourth Amend by spying and eavesdropping on it's own citizens without a warrant.) But the fact remains Terrorist cells are growing larger than pre-9/11 days and anti-American sentiment is spreading worldwide. and many American Citizens are afraid or uncomfortable with traveling abroad.

Anyway, back to KMAC's point. We now know Al Qaeda was fixated on casing New York financial institutions for years before they attacked. Islamic terrorists are inflicting Economic Terrorism with a GW response of attacking Iraq under false pretenses. The impact upon our economy and tax-derived defense are massive. -- given their small cost of assaults and massive potential reward. Therefore, we must study Economic Terrorism and prepare an answer, because it is here on our soil. Ultimately, as the poor and overmatched Islamic terrorists pursue their struggle against the West, they realize this is the best ‘small war’ strategy of all.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
Giving me a classic lesson on terrorism wkmac?

No doubt in mind that you have to give GW credit for this success. If he does not take the war to the terrorist then yes we would have had more attacks on our soil. No doubt whatsoever on this subject.

OK Tie, I'll play with ya for a moment. August 2005', Yale University released a report entitled, "Osama's Endgame Approaches" and the report covers a lot of ground. Now in seeing Yale you are thinking "liberal hack job" you best stop now. The report comes across very clinical and at least to me doesn't seem pro or con to current policy. In fact and not sure you'll understand this without looking at the mideast from purely a strategic and tactical POV, I'd argue the article supports current Iraq policy without even saying so. But that's looking from outside the normal box and most people will not like that perspective, even some here who support the current pollicy.

Now that said, consider just this from the report:

The potential consequences of this shift in emphasis for Saudi Arabia's largely unprotected vast oil pipeline network - and by extension the world economy - should be a cause of great concern.

It has certainly not fallen on deaf ears among Al-Qaeda operatives.

According to the Washington-based SITE Institute, which monitors Islamist websites, an operative on a password-protected Al-Qaeda-affiliated forum described on Aug 19 what the author believed to be 'conclusive weapons'.

The Al-Qaeda member elaborated that to destroy the oil pipelines in Saudi Arabia would have greater power than a chemical weapon, would be easier to carry out than a car bomb, and at the same time would create a 'big economic disaster for the American public'.

He noted that Osama had referred to this tactic in December as a 'prudent method' of inflicting damage on the American economy.

Yes, in and of itself it's no means conclusive but you have to look beyond and there is more. Lot's more and no I'm not going to post it all so stop rolling the eyes and kicking yourself for opening the box for me.:wink2:

Consider this, what happens to the price of oil when the wrong person just farts? Gas goes up! Food goes up! Economic pressures go up! Yeah, we all know the drill. OK, what happens when the markets and the oil speculators see news stories like these?

From 2006'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225924,00.html

From 2004' read the 1st paragraph after the bullets points
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-26.htm

From 2006'
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369910

How gleefully, since he hates the Persians and Shia' anyway, does Osama act when he hears talk from Israel and the US about attacking Iran and then the speculators hear that fart again and up goes the gas! Several weeks ago, oil shot up massively in one day and the stock market tanked all because an Israeli official said an assault on Iran was as good as a done deal. Hasn't backed off since either, markets or the talk.

Osama knows for him to strike in the same manner as 9/11 would unleash a monster he does not want to face at this time nor is he even prepared to face. Osama learned the game of psy-ops very well and all he needs to do right now is make the illusion of threat (his version of Reagan Star Wars) and the economic chaos that falls out from it as it was pointed out is more effective than any WMD because the use of WMD would be followed by an all out "take no prisoners" assualt but in economic warfare, there is no direct response while you sit back and enjoy further weakening of your enemy. The first rule of successful warfare is the ability to pay for it. Osama watched from a front row seat that rule play out with the old Soviet empire.

IMO Bush made a major mistake in back burnering Bin Laden several years ago and instead trying to re-create the Mideast military footprint in Iraq that we gave up in Saudi after the first gulf war. That's that "outside the box view" I was talking about. Bush has either woke up or trying to save a legacy (I think he woke up myself and he even sidetracked Cheney on North Korea and Cheney didn't like it) and now has decided to go after Osama. If he can get him and the Al Qaeda leadership, the defense contractors will have lost their goose with the golden egg but the American consumer and business will get relief from oil prices as the market bubble will burst big time. Bush now knows this could let him leave office a lot closer to looking like a hero and if he can get it done, I'll applaud him too! I'm just proud of him for stiffing Cheney!:happy-very:

JMO!
 

tieguy

Banned
OK Tie, I'll play with ya for a moment. August 2005', Yale University released a report entitled, "Osama's Endgame Approaches" and the report covers a lot of ground. Now in seeing Yale you are thinking "liberal hack job" you best stop now. The report comes across very clinical and at least to me doesn't seem pro or con to current policy. In fact and not sure you'll understand this without looking at the mideast from purely a strategic and tactical POV, I'd argue the article supports current Iraq policy without even saying so. But that's looking from outside the normal box and most people will not like that perspective, even some here who support the current pollicy.

Now that said, consider just this from the report:

Yes, in and of itself it's no means conclusive but you have to look beyond and there is more. Lot's more and no I'm not going to post it all so stop rolling the eyes and kicking yourself for opening the box for me.:wink2:

Consider this, what happens to the price of oil when the wrong person just farts? Gas goes up! Food goes up! Economic pressures go up! Yeah, we all know the drill. OK, what happens when the markets and the oil speculators see news stories like these?

From 2006'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225924,00.html

From 2004' read the 1st paragraph after the bullets points
http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-26.htm

From 2006'
http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369910

How gleefully, since he hates the Persians and Shia' anyway, does Osama act when he hears talk from Israel and the US about attacking Iran and then the speculators hear that fart again and up goes the gas! Several weeks ago, oil shot up massively in one day and the stock market tanked all because an Israeli official said an assault on Iran was as good as a done deal. Hasn't backed off since either, markets or the talk.

Osama knows for him to strike in the same manner as 9/11 would unleash a monster he does not want to face at this time nor is he even prepared to face. Osama learned the game of psy-ops very well and all he needs to do right now is make the illusion of threat (his version of Reagan Star Wars) and the economic chaos that falls out from it as it was pointed out is more effective than any WMD because the use of WMD would be followed by an all out "take no prisoners" assualt but in economic warfare, there is no direct response while you sit back and enjoy further weakening of your enemy. The first rule of successful warfare is the ability to pay for it. Osama watched from a front row seat that rule play out with the old Soviet empire.

IMO Bush made a major mistake in back burnering Bin Laden several years ago and instead trying to re-create the Mideast military footprint in Iraq that we gave up in Saudi after the first gulf war. That's that "outside the box view" I was talking about. Bush has either woke up or trying to save a legacy (I think he woke up myself and he even sidetracked Cheney on North Korea and Cheney didn't like it) and now has decided to go after Osama. If he can get him and the Al Qaeda leadership, the defense contractors will have lost their goose with the golden egg but the American consumer and business will get relief from oil prices as the market bubble will burst big time. Bush now knows this could let him leave office a lot closer to looking like a hero and if he can get it done, I'll applaud him too! I'm just proud of him for stiffing Cheney!:happy-very:

JMO!

now wkmac, there will always be detractors who will try to take GW's credits away. Lord knows he has enough detractors. His success in this area is a simple one. No more attacks on american soil since 9/11. There have certainly been enough attacks in that time span elsewhere. Can't deny it. In this area he has been a big success.
 

av8torntn

Well-Known Member
I would say however, if your so bent on jailing Kennedy, why not throw GW, Cheney, Rove Rumsfeld, Libby and the gang behind bars for the murder of 4,000 plus United States Soldiers and :peaceful:

They have been trying to keep the gang responsible for the murder of 4000 plus soldiers but the Supreme Court seems to be trying to work against them.:happy-very:
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
now wkmac, there will always be detractors who will try to take GW's credits away. Lord knows he has enough detractors. His success in this area is a simple one. No more attacks on american soil since 9/11. There have certainly been enough attacks in that time span elsewhere. Can't deny it. In this area he has been a big success.

I think I said that since 9/11 there has been no attacks so on the point of denial, I haven't. Can Bush take credit? Sure he can because at this point it's the most obvious and any political leader would. I don't fault him for that but you also might go over to Fox News and look through the archives of Col. David Hunt who on several occassions blasted the Bush Adminstration for having Special Ops mission on the pad (literally the choppers winding up) to go get Osama as they had intel to his presence and then were told to stand down. It just begs the question why and no real clear answers either.

That said. Yesterday the word starting breaking that the US was involved in covert operations in Iran in prep for an assault with Israel. True? or False? It mostly depending on opinion of the reader or observer.

Regardless, does this news have an overall effect on the price of oil and thus the weapon of economics? Consider the news over the last 24 to 36 hours.

This started breaking yesterday and this morning I saw it on the internet.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=all

Over on the "oil price" thread I posted yesterday about oil going up in the Aussie markets as it was already Monday there. Could this have anything to do with word of the above article?

Well let's consider this from Associated Press via Yahoo News .

"The main factors behind the rise today are the U.S. dollar remains fragile and geopolitical tensions, particularly surrounding Iran," said David Moore, a commodity strategist at the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in Sydney. "That's unsettling for the oil market."

Funny how David Moore quoted above is from Australia which was the first market to open in the new business week where the dollar dropped and oil went up. Amazing how that works!

Why is the dollar fragile? Why is the dollar falling? Those are obvious and admitted factors but it also ties in to Al Qaeda's new weapon, a weapon of mass destruction that works completely inside the economic system of the world. Oil markets!

This is also straining relations between the Saudi heads of State and the US as US citizens cry for action to the price of oil, which keeps the royal family in power and denies Osama the real prize he is after and thus the whole reason he began the terror campaign at the US and the west to begin with. And it ain't to get you to bow to Mecca 5 times a day either!

If Osama and Al Qaeda have openly admitted to this new tactic of operation and we see the results of what they are, then I have to consider for the moment at least that Osama and Al Qaeda are on offense and we are on defense and worse part IMO is that we are playing the run while they are going up the field with a passing game!

JMO
 

tieguy

Banned
I think I said that since 9/11 there has been no attacks so on the point of denial, I haven't. Can Bush take credit? Sure he can because at this point it's the most obvious and any political leader would. I don't fault him for that but you also might go over to Fox News and look through the archives of Col. David unt who on several occassions blasted the Bush Adminstration for having Special Ops mission on the pad (literally the choppers winding up) to go get Osama as they had intel to his presence and then were told to stand down. It just begs the question why and no real clear answers either.

I don't believe that . In fact I think its blatant Bs. If Bush had the opportunity to get OSAMA he would. If he could hang osamas body on the white house fence he would do so.

That said. Yesterday the word starting breaking that the US was involved in covert operations in Iran in prep for an assault with Israel. True? or False? It mostly depending on opinion of the reader or observer.

Who knows.


Over on the "oil price" thread I posted yesterday about oil going up in the Aussie markets as it was already Monday there. Could this have anything to do with word of the above article?

Who knows. Everyone has their theories.

Funny how David Moore quoted above is from Australia which was the first market to open in the new business week where the dollar dropped and oil went up. Amazing how that works!

Why is the dollar fragile? Why is the dollar falling? Those are obvious and admitted factors but it also ties in to Al Qaeda's new weapon, a weapon of mass destruction that works completely inside the economic system of the world. Oil markets!

This is also straining relations between the Saudi heads of State and the US as US citizens cry for action to the price of oil, which keeps the royal family in power and denies Osama the real prize he is after and thus the whole reason he began the terror campaign at the US and the west to begin with. And it ain't to get you to bow to Mecca 5 times a day either!

If Osama and Al Qaeda have openly admitted to this new tactic of operation and we see the results of what they are, then I have to consider for the moment at least that Osama and Al Qaeda are on offense and we are on defense and worse part IMO is that we are playing the run while they are going up the field with a passing game!

JMO

Sounds like a great Clancy novel.:happy-very: Its always more exciting to think there might be some ingenious plot behind the rising price of oil then to simply think you have a bunch of idiots who failed economics in a panic driving up the price of oil in the commodities market.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
I don't believe that . In fact I think its blatant Bs. If Bush had the opportunity to get OSAMA he would. If he could hang osamas body on the white house fence he would do so.

Really?

I know, like most of us you want to and only remember this side of Bush 6 days after 9/11.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/

I'd say at least for the regulars here, we'd all agree with Bush on his focus.

However, something happened, something changed at some point in this "War of Terror" to the point that Bush no longer considered Osama a central focus.

In March of 2002' at a Press Conference the following Q and A took place concerning bin Laden.

Q Mr. President, in your speeches now you rarely talk or mention Osama bin Laden. Why is that? Also, can you tell the American people if you have any more information, if you know if he is dead or alive? Final part -- deep in your heart, don't you truly believe that until you find out if he is dead or alive, you won't really eliminate the threat of --


THE PRESIDENT: Deep in my heart I know the man is on the run, if he's alive at all. Who knows if he's hiding in some cave or not; we haven't heard from him in a long time. And the idea of focusing on one person is -- really indicates to me people don't understand the scope of the mission.
Terror is bigger than one person. And he's just -- he's a person who's now been marginalized. His network, his host government has been destroyed. He's the ultimate parasite who found weakness, exploited it, and met his match. He is -- as I mentioned in my speech, I do mention the fact that this is a fellow who is willing to commit youngsters to their death and he, himself, tries to hide -- if, in fact, he's hiding at all.
So I don't know where he is. You know, I just don't spend that much time on him, Kelly, to be honest with you. I'm more worried about making sure that our soldiers are well-supplied; that the strategy is clear; that the coalition is strong; that when we find enemy bunched up like we did in Shahikot Mountains, that the military has all the support it needs to go in and do the job, which they did. And there will be other battles in Afghanistan. There's going to be other struggles like Shahikot, and I'm just as confident about the outcome of those future battles as I was about Shahikot, where our soldiers are performing brilliantly. We're tough, we're strong, they're well-equipped. We have a good strategy. We are showing the world we know how to fight a guerrilla war with conventional means.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

What changed in March 2002' from his words on Sept. 17th 2001'? Where did the focus go from Osama to where?

But did it change back? No, seems in Sept. 2006', his direction expressed in March 2002' seemed the same. Consider this.

From none other than the voice of Bush adminstration in the publication of the "Weekly Standard" and Fox News Commentator Fred Barnes.

WE NOW KNOW WHY the Bush administration hasn't made the capture of Osama bin Laden a paramount goal of the war on terror. Emphasis on bin Laden doesn't fit with the administration's strategy for combating terrorism. Here's how President Bush explained this Tuesday: "This thing about . . . let's put 100,000 of our special forces stomping through Pakistan in order to find bin Laden is just simply not the strategy that will work."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp

Was Osama just buried deep and beyond approach? This seems to not be the case and in 2 seperate "known" occassions, we had a shot at Osama and the leadership called off the "Dogs of War."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288997,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html


But surely after Bush a few weeks ago spoke of the importance of getting Osama before he leaves office would become a frontburner issue but now it appears the same foot dragging is happening again and this time the DOD is complaining. And this from today's news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374064,00.html

Even today this was discussed on Fox News with a retired Army officer Maj. Gen. Tim Haake Ret. who commanded Special Operations and who confirmed the bureacratic footdragging. Go to Fox News Video and watch the video entitled Beyond Bureaucracy.

OK. except for the initial CNN story, none of the rest came from left wing, liberal or anti war sources. All raised questions as to just how hard Bush wants Osama like he did on Sept. 17th 2001' and I think these are valid concerns that raise legit questions.

As for Al Qaeda having changed tactics towards effecting the economics of the west and for that matter global economics?

For example, al-Qaeda’s February 24, 2005, attack on the Aramco facility in Abqaiq, Saudi Arabia, sent shock waves through the world’s financial markets. On the same day, the price of oil on international markets jumped nearly $2, despite the attack’s complete failure. (The terrorists and two security guards were killed.

Most analysts agree that this attack and an averted attempt on March 28 were merely trial runs in a much longer campaign designed to disrupt the global economy, particularly the oil and gas indus&shy;try. As the September 2001 World Trade Center attacks demonstrated, al-Qaeda tends to return to the scene of the crime, so another strike on Abqaiq and other oil targets is likely.

Both Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri have repeatedly called for attacks on key Western economic targets, especially energy sources.

Now who would utter such Tom Clancy fantasies? Why none other than the highly respected Conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation in April of 2006'.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/bg1926.cfm

You might also read this report from the Heritage Foundation given as testimony by James Philips in 02/2006' to the US House Armed Services Subcommittee of Terrorism called "The Evolving Al Qaeda Threat."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/tst021606a.cfm

You know before you rattle off Tom Clancy again, you might be aware that his "FICTION" is based on a lot of "FACT!"

Uh oil prices dropped a bit during mid-day trading as the US gov't released a report that US demand had dropped and they reported that the Seymour Hersch story on Iranian covery operations was unfounded. At least Ambassador Crocker was the mouthpiece for this but one could question just how much he knows to begin with. But then the Israeli jets are over the Med making what many believe are dry runs for something big!
 

tieguy

Banned
Really?

I know, like most of us you want to and only remember this side of Bush 6 days after 9/11.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/

I'd say at least for the regulars here, we'd all agree with Bush on his focus.

However, something happened, something changed at some point in this "War of Terror" to the point that Bush no longer considered Osama a central focus.

In March of 2002' at a Press Conference the following Q and A took place concerning bin Laden.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

What changed in March 2002' from his words on Sept. 17th 2001'? Where did the focus go from Osama to where?

But did it change back? No, seems in Sept. 2006', his direction expressed in March 2002' seemed the same. Consider this.

From none other than the voice of Bush adminstration in the publication of the "Weekly Standard" and Fox News Commentator Fred Barnes.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/696wnfcp.asp

Was Osama just buried deep and beyond approach? This seems to not be the case and in 2 seperate "known" occassions, we had a shot at Osama and the leadership called off the "Dogs of War."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288997,00.html

and

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304306,00.html


But surely after Bush a few weeks ago spoke of the importance of getting Osama before he leaves office would become a frontburner issue but now it appears the same foot dragging is happening again and this time the DOD is complaining. And this from today's news.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374064,00.html

Even today this was discussed on Fox News with a retired Army officer Maj. Gen. Tim Haake Ret. who commanded Special Operations and who confirmed the bureacratic footdragging. Go to Fox News Video and watch the video entitled Beyond Bureaucracy.

OK. except for the initial CNN story, none of the rest came from left wing, liberal or anti war sources. All raised questions as to just how hard Bush wants Osama like he did on Sept. 17th 2001' and I think these are valid concerns that raise legit questions.

As for Al Qaeda having changed tactics towards effecting the economics of the west and for that matter global economics?



Now who would utter such Tom Clancy fantasies? Why none other than the highly respected Conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation in April of 2006'.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/bg1926.cfm

You might also read this report from the Heritage Foundation given as testimony by James Philips in 02/2006' to the US House Armed Services Subcommittee of Terrorism called "The Evolving Al Qaeda Threat."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/tst021606a.cfm

You know before you rattle off Tom Clancy again, you might be aware that his "FICTION" is based on a lot of "FACT!"

Uh oil prices dropped a bit during mid-day trading as the US gov't released a report that US demand had dropped and they reported that the Seymour Hersch story on Iranian covery operations was unfounded. At least Ambassador Crocker was the mouthpiece for this but one could question just how much he knows to begin with. But then the Israeli jets are over the Med making what many believe are dry runs for something big!

Sigh. You must have done your debate team proud. Its a convincing argument you provide with no logical support. There is no greater cherry for Bush to capture then bin laden. Obviously Bush will never let the public know how bad he wants bin laden for his failure to capture bin laden will follow him to his grave. Thus he downplays his objective to leave himself an out should he fail. Even now capturing or killing Bin laden would instantly elevate his presidency to much higher levels. I really don't care about the dissenting opinions to this point for they are all in love with concepts that defy common sense. I just hope you don't also follow that mindset over the wrong cliff. This is one point that will not require 15 links of supporting dissent but the application of a little common sense.
 
Last edited:

wkmac

Well-Known Member
We now know Al Qaeda was fixated on casing New York financial institutions for years before they attacked. Islamic terrorists are inflicting Economic Terrorism with a GW response of attacking Iraq under false pretenses. The impact upon our economy and tax-derived defense are massive. -- given their small cost of assaults and massive potential reward. Therefore, we must study Economic Terrorism and prepare an answer, because it is here on our soil. Ultimately, as the poor and overmatched Islamic terrorists pursue their struggle against the West, they realize this is the best ‘small war’ strategy of all.

Why did they hit New York and the World Trade Center? New York, was not only considered by many one of the chief if not the chief global center of trade and commerce but NY along with London are the only 2 points of oil transactions for the entire globe. Washington was hit for the obvious but also the protector of that global economic system.

D,
As I read more and more I'm coming to think the "small war" strategy has been their game all along. In 2006' the Rand Corp. prepared a 2 part report entitled Beyond Al-Qaeda but to the specific subject we are discussing go to the PDF file at the link and scroll down to page 65 and 66 of the file (page 23 and 24 of the document) and read under the heading Strategy, Structure and Operational Evolution.

Even Rand IMO understands that 9/11 itself was about economics and Osama and friends understood this point from the get go.

Here's a small taste.

Prominent amnong these were the damages the relatively low-cost attacks caused to the US economy.

That literally is just the pinpoint of the iceberg itself. This is not a war on terror, it is a war about oil and who controls global commerce. I'm more convinced now that to win the war means as a nation we need our own domestic supply of energy (whatever that may be) that would allow us to walk away completely from that region and let these people first kill themselves in their own internal wars, see Iraq civil conflict for what that would look like, and then we sit on the world's food basket so let em' starve to death! That's JMO for what little it's worth!
:wink2:
 
Top