Terror Alert
Random Thoughts:
*At least now we're talking about policy.
*Headlines are where newspapers show their bias. All you had to do was read the Gazette for the last 50 years to realize that. I used to compare the wildly different headlines of identical wire stories in the Tribune-Democrat -- for much of its life a labor and Democrat-friendly paper (especially when steel was king) -- and the Gazette, usually business and Republican-friendly. God that was fun!
*There's nothing new under the sun. The sales tax and flat tax seem to be dusted off every couple years and reinvented.
*Great story about Bill O'Reilly in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Believe it or not it wasn't a total hatchet job on the guy.
*Well, LP, maybe we'd have eliminated Osama if we'd had finished the job in Afganistan. Here's a quote from Maureen Dowd's book "Bushworld" -- yeah, I know, another liberal-ideology swilling New York Times writer (but she's a hell of a lot hotter-looking than that witchy Ann Coulter!) :
"In Bushworld you brag about how well Afganistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections."
*Hey, do you think McCain liked that kiss on the head W. gave him the other day at a rally? He's a good Party solider, but I guarantee you that in his heart of hearts he had dark thoughts. Won't McCain make a great Secretary of State for Kerry?
*Most pundits, left and right, think that it'll come down to the debates. I disagree. With Bush's tendency to garble and Kerry's tendency to drone and pontificate and waffle (note how I can criticize my guy?) , I don't think there will be any stellar exchanges. I think the VP debates will be a lot livelier and stimulating because both candidates are much better at thinking on their feet.
*At least now we're talking about policy.
*Headlines are where newspapers show their bias. All you had to do was read the Gazette for the last 50 years to realize that. I used to compare the wildly different headlines of identical wire stories in the Tribune-Democrat -- for much of its life a labor and Democrat-friendly paper (especially when steel was king) -- and the Gazette, usually business and Republican-friendly. God that was fun!
*There's nothing new under the sun. The sales tax and flat tax seem to be dusted off every couple years and reinvented.
*Great story about Bill O'Reilly in the latest issue of Rolling Stone. Believe it or not it wasn't a total hatchet job on the guy.
*Well, LP, maybe we'd have eliminated Osama if we'd had finished the job in Afganistan. Here's a quote from Maureen Dowd's book "Bushworld" -- yeah, I know, another liberal-ideology swilling New York Times writer (but she's a hell of a lot hotter-looking than that witchy Ann Coulter!) :
"In Bushworld you brag about how well Afganistan is going, even though soldiers like Pat Tillman are still dying and the Taliban are running freely around the border areas, hiding Osama and delaying elections."
*Hey, do you think McCain liked that kiss on the head W. gave him the other day at a rally? He's a good Party solider, but I guarantee you that in his heart of hearts he had dark thoughts. Won't McCain make a great Secretary of State for Kerry?
*Most pundits, left and right, think that it'll come down to the debates. I disagree. With Bush's tendency to garble and Kerry's tendency to drone and pontificate and waffle (note how I can criticize my guy?) , I don't think there will be any stellar exchanges. I think the VP debates will be a lot livelier and stimulating because both candidates are much better at thinking on their feet.
"Talk low, talk slow, and don't talk too much."
-- John Wayne
-- John Wayne
Re: Terror Alert
Official: No Evidence Attack Is Imminent
Fri Aug 13, 8:05 AM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of possible al-Qaida attacks, the "where" was very specific: financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J. The "when," however, was a mystery. And since Ridge's announcement, the Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings, a White House official acknowledged Thursday
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... or_threats
Fri Aug 13, 8:05 AM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of possible al-Qaida attacks, the "where" was very specific: financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J. The "when," however, was a mystery. And since Ridge's announcement, the Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings, a White House official acknowledged Thursday
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... or_threats
To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. Pre
Re: Terror Alert
[quote="Lemmy";p="57317"]Official: No Evidence Attack Is Imminent
Fri Aug 13, 8:05 AM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of possible al-Qaida attacks, the "where" was very specific: financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J. The "when," however, was a mystery. And since Ridge's announcement, the Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings, a White House official acknowledged Thursday
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... or_threats[/quote]
Lemmy - please answer this question before you criticize the alerts (no lib on here has yet to answer this). If the new intel was "sat on" (i.e. no alerts to the public), and an attack occurred on one of those buildings, what would you be saying about that?
Without a doubt, there would be a new commission. Without a doubt this intel would have been uncovered. And without a doubt, all you libs would've been screaming that this administration should've alerted us so that the attack would've never happened.
By politicizing our national defense, the Dems have actually played right into the hands of the terrorists. Don't you think they enjoy seeing all debate over actual plans they had in the works? Don't you think they are betting on the fact that the next time intel is gathered, the alerts may not come out immediately. And then the time after that, and after that, until we get to the point of ignoring this info.
The thing I admire most about George Bush is that he will make a decision based on what he thinks is right for our country, even if it isn't politically sound. Can you say the same for Bill Clinton? He had bin Laden served up on a silver platter by Sudan, but was too worried about the Lewinisky situation. John Kerry's voting record shows that he will do whatever is politically sound, no matter the consequences. And that is scary to me.
Fri Aug 13, 8:05 AM ET Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Two weeks ago, when Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned of possible al-Qaida attacks, the "where" was very specific: financial institutions in New York City, Washington and Newark, N.J. The "when," however, was a mystery. And since Ridge's announcement, the Bush administration has discovered no evidence of imminent plans by terrorists to attack U.S. buildings, a White House official acknowledged Thursday
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... or_threats[/quote]
Lemmy - please answer this question before you criticize the alerts (no lib on here has yet to answer this). If the new intel was "sat on" (i.e. no alerts to the public), and an attack occurred on one of those buildings, what would you be saying about that?
Without a doubt, there would be a new commission. Without a doubt this intel would have been uncovered. And without a doubt, all you libs would've been screaming that this administration should've alerted us so that the attack would've never happened.
By politicizing our national defense, the Dems have actually played right into the hands of the terrorists. Don't you think they enjoy seeing all debate over actual plans they had in the works? Don't you think they are betting on the fact that the next time intel is gathered, the alerts may not come out immediately. And then the time after that, and after that, until we get to the point of ignoring this info.
The thing I admire most about George Bush is that he will make a decision based on what he thinks is right for our country, even if it isn't politically sound. Can you say the same for Bill Clinton? He had bin Laden served up on a silver platter by Sudan, but was too worried about the Lewinisky situation. John Kerry's voting record shows that he will do whatever is politically sound, no matter the consequences. And that is scary to me.
[quote="foghorn";p="56783"]Man, LP, you sound a little touchy. Not the way to be for someone who has Blind Faith in All Things Bush.
Hey, did you hear that Dick C. now blames the high gas prices on the Dems?
I'll get around to my rebuttal. I'd sort of like to put it together myself rather than cop it from some political pundit's webpage.
I'm a lot closer to center than you think.[/quote]
Two weeks ago you promised me that rebuttal.......... Any closer after 2 weeks of reading liberal propaganda?
Hey, did you hear that Dick C. now blames the high gas prices on the Dems?
I'll get around to my rebuttal. I'd sort of like to put it together myself rather than cop it from some political pundit's webpage.
I'm a lot closer to center than you think.[/quote]
Two weeks ago you promised me that rebuttal.......... Any closer after 2 weeks of reading liberal propaganda?