wvucrazed Wrote:Is it a leak if it wasn't a secret in the first place?



There's just one little problem here. The transaction-monitoring program described by the Times and other media outlets wasn't much of a secret anyway. ," Cressey tells the Globe.

Shades of Valerie Plame.

wvucrazed Wrote:Does it, or does it not, concern you that the seething hatred for the US in the middle east has only skyrocketed since the Iraq invasion? Do you, or do you not, think this will lead to increased potential terrorist activity in the future?

Let's start from where we are rather than from you would have liked us to been. Do you think a pullout now, either immediate or phased, will return us to whatever level of lovie-dovieness we had in the middle east before this war? Do you think the terroists will pack up and go home to take up farming? Or are you looking just to return to the level of terrorism we enjoyed in the Clinton years ?

I want to hear your solutions. If by some act of magic, you became president today, what would you do and what results do you think those actions would bring?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:Show me where it is legal for the federal government to:
- Examine all my financial dealings
- Listen to all internet traffic I generate (equivalent to tapping a phone)
... WITHOUT a warrant.

Unless you are a terrorist GTS they weren't. The financial program was tracking dollars being funneled to terrorists. They weren't shifting through everyone's transactions.

It's sifting through the financial transactions of Americans as well as suspected terrorists .. just like the NSA spy computer racks in AT&T datacenters gobble up domestic American traffic as well as international American traffic as well as suspected terrorist traffic. It's a violation of my civil rights. Go to eff.org to read more about the NSA's big brother operations. A former AT&T employee has already blown the whistle on them, and Wired News has published court-sealed documents that AT&T tried tooth and nail to keep secret that detail what's going on.

I don't know if this is the same as what you are talking about, GTS, but the government has been montoring our finanacial transactions for a long time. All transactions of $10,000 or more are reported. You are not allowed to bring in or out of the cuntry more than $10K in cash. I was in international trade for 28 years. Are these violations of your rights? Shouldn't you be allowed to write a $10,000 check without it being reported to Big Brother? They started this long before the Bush administration. If it is OK, why so? What are the differences that make it OK?

DrTorch Wrote:Wrong place? How many terrorist acts (not counting ELF) have been perpetrated in the US since the war?

What about the anthrax attacks?

Are you referring to the Afghanistan or Iraq?

Ninerfan1 Wrote:I support lots of things on the blue side, "in general" but I've yet to find something in the "how it will be done" that I can support. That's where the disagreement comes in, with the "how".

We can start with terrorism. Tell me howdemocrats would fight the war on terror. I truly have no idea and their party platform just restates much of what we're already doing.

What do you support on the "blue side", specifically?

As to how it will be done: first and foremost, repair our relationship with our allies and with other countries that can assist us in the regional conflict. Bush is unable or unwilling to do this. The situation any president will inherit is going to be difficult at best. We need a plan that will stabilize Iraq while getting our troops home as quickly as possible. We need someone in office who will actually listen to someone beyond their immediate circle of advisors, who are all making plans based on a specific political agenda and military and philosophical ideas that they had years before 9/11. Various Democrats have outlines specific plans - this notion that the Dems "don't have a plan" is nothing but right-wingnut radio talking-heads posturing.

Quote:What do you support on the "blue side", specifically?

I told you, in general there is nothing that makes them different from republicans. It's in the how.

Example, "We need to balance the budget" Republicans and Democrats both agree. When you ask how, one says raise taxes, cut defense spending, the other says cut taxes, cut spending on social programs. The disagreement is in the details.

Quote:As to how it will be done: first and foremost, repair our relationship with our allies and with other countries that can assist us in the regional conflict.

This is a broad based concept that tells me nothing. How would they repair our relationship? It's also based on a faulty premise that other countries aren't helping us already. They have, are and will continue to.

Quote:We need someone in office who will actually listen to someone beyond their immediate circle of advisors, who are all making plans based on a specific political agenda and military and philosophical ideas that they had years before 9/11.

This tells me nothing. It's based on your perception of what process Bush makes his decisions on. Bush has said repeatedly he listens to his generals. Last I checked they don't have political agendas. Give me facts. Give me specifics. You're telling me nothing about how democrats would fight terrorism.

It's like me asking you how FDR would win WWII and the first thing you offer is, "Well, first we must build up our military strength." well duh. But how do you do that? How do you pay for it? What do you concentrate on?

Quote:Various Democrats have outlines specific plans - this notion that the Dems "don't have a plan" is nothing but right-wingnut radio talking-heads posturing.

They've provided what you have, generalities and non-specifics. You don't even know how'd they do it.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:

Quote:What do you support on the "blue side", specifically?

I told you, in general there is nothing that makes them different from republicans. It's in the how.

Example, "We need to balance the budget" Republicans and Democrats both agree. When you ask how, one says raise taxes, cut defense spending, the other says cut taxes, cut spending on social programs. The disagreement is in the details.

Quote:As to how it will be done: first and foremost, repair our relationship with our allies and with other countries that can assist us in the regional conflict.

This is a broad based concept that tells me nothing. How would they repair our relationship? It's also based on a faulty premise that other countries aren't helping us already. They have, are and will continue to.

Quote:We need someone in office who will actually listen to someone beyond their immediate circle of advisors, who are all making plans based on a specific political agenda and military and philosophical ideas that they had years before 9/11.

This tells me nothing. It's based on your perception of what process Bush makes his decisions on. Bush has said repeatedly he listens to his generals. Last I checked they don't have political agendas. Give me facts. Give me specifics. You're telling me nothing about how democrats would fight terrorism.

It's like me asking you how FDR would win WWII and the first thing you offer is, "Well, first we must build up our military strength." well duh. But how do you do that? How do you pay for it? What do you concentrate on?

Quote:Various Democrats have outlines specific plans - this notion that the Dems "don't have a plan" is nothing but right-wingnut radio talking-heads posturing.

They've provided what you have, generalities and non-specifics. You don't even know how'd they do it.

Dude I don't have a 20 point plan from Hillary Clinton's desk, nor do you from Donald Rumsfeld.

In case you haven't noticed, the rest of the world hates us. The support we are getting is grudging, and is generally hurting the head of state in their own country. The war is unpopular and we are unpopular, and much of that reason is George Bush. You may say that is an unfair assessment of him, but reality is reality - Bush is loathed. A new voice, a new direction, a new plan to get us out of there [and not leaving the country in chaos] will win us more international support. Bush has burned too many bridges in too many different areas.

Bush's generals don't have political agendas, but Bush and his inner circle listen only to the ones who are giving advice to FIT THEIR political agendas - or have you not read anything at all about the lead up to the Iraq war? Where is Colin Powell right now? Where is ANYONE who disagreed with Cheney's crew?

If you REALLY believed the new direction etc bit... you'd be supporting a 3rd party.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:If you REALLY believed the new direction etc bit... you'd be supporting a 3rd party.

There is no viable 3rd party - that is unfortunate but true. If not for Nader, Al Gore would have been president in 2000. The Dems are lacking in MANY areas, but they are more closely aligned with my beliefs by far.... too bad their leadership is so pathetic.

Quote:Dude I don't have a 20 point plan from Hillary Clinton's desk, nor do you from Donald Rumsfeld.

I don't need one, I can see the specific ways we're fighting terrorism just by reading the news and listening to our leaders talk.

Quote:In case you haven't noticed, the rest of the world hates us.

Once again, you're point is flawed because 1) It presumes they didn't hate us prior to Iraq and that 2) the democrats, or anyone else for that matter can do something about it and 3) that we're actually hated. The rest of the world does not hate us and it's stupid to keep saying it. There were 32 countries that went into Iraq with us and supported us. That alone disproves your assertion.

Quote:The support we are getting is grudging, and is generally hurting the head of state in their own country.

At least you acknowledge we're getting support now. Well done, you've evolved.

Your geopolitical view is surprisingly naive. Since when is holding hands with the world and singing Kum Ba Yah a requirement for effective support? News flash, the "world" doesn't like us when we don't do what they want us to do. For example they think we should give more aid to 3rd world countries even though we're the largest giver, more than the rest of the world combined. And for them to like us we're going to have to give them a say in what we do. You and Jimmy Carter may be all gooey over that idea but most people understand it would be moronic.

And BTW, 6 countries were involved in the FBI's taking down of the plot to blow up the tunnel in NY that was reported yesterday. We're getting cooperation.

Quote:The war is unpopular and we are unpopular, and much of that reason is George Bush.

The same was said of Reagan, and I think history has shown our unpopularity to have been what was best for us. And this isn't high school. You don't have to be popular in the world to get cooperation from other countries and work together.

Quote:You may say that is an unfair assessment of him, but reality is reality - Bush is loathed.

So what? The only reason you care is because you loathe him as well. Yet amazingly enough we haven't been cut off, we're still the leader of the free world and the international community still looks to us to solve problems.

"the world" doesn't vote in our elections and like it or not Bush was elected and that's all that needs to be said. If the majority of Americans laid awake at night sweating about our popularity in the world then I guess he would have been voted out. But he wasn't, so get over it.

Quote:A new voice, a new direction, a new plan to get us out of there [and not leaving the country in chaos] will win us more international support. Bush has burned too many bridges in too many different areas.

A new voice will do nothing unless it cowtows to "the world", a new direction will be meaningless unless it's the one "the world" wants us to go on. Why don't you just come out and say you want to turn this country's foreign policy over to the UN and be done with it?

Quote:Bush's generals don't have political agendas, but Bush and his inner circle listen only to the ones who are giving advice to FIT THEIR political agendas - or have you not read anything at all about the lead up to the Iraq war? Where is Colin Powell right now? Where is ANYONE who disagreed with Cheney's crew?

You're right, I haven't read democratic underground, Al Franken or the dailykos that provide all that information. What I have read is both of Bob Woodward's books on the Iraq war, both of which back up what I'm saying.

The black helicopters are everywhere aren't they?