NIE Terrorism Report Released

[Todd33]

I love it, these guys think alike. To Palehourse Iraq, Katrina, Abu Gareb, Afghanistan, etc. = "crying over spilled milk" and just last week Bush said the current Iraq war will be a "comma" in Iraq's history. When you FUBAR just wave your hands and deflect. Firing an incompetent leader like Rummy "makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a game-plan for winning". Uh huh... when someone has illustrated they are unfit for the job why fire them, just let them continue to screw up. Great thinking. I guess all those four and five star generals calling for his resignation are fools.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

In addition to the news of Bush's own government reporting that the U.S. is in greater danger now than before Bush attacked Iraq, we get word that the Iraqis want us the U.S. OUT NOW. They also BACK attacks on U.S. troops. But I thought we were there to "save the people...." Well, NEOCONS, they don't want to be "saved" by the likes of you.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/4217126.html

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraqi_Opinion.html

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Pabster
I was wrong.

as usual

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Gaard
as usual

And here you are, trolling, per usual.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Poll: Iraqis back attacks on U.S. troops

About six in 10 Iraqis say they approve of attacks on U.S.-led forces, and slightly more than that want their government to ask U.S. troops to leave within a year, a poll finds.

The NeoCons response? "Stayyyyy the course...stayyyyy the course.....":laugh:

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
In response to this line "Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq?" I give you this:

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
blah blah blah We can't "win" in Iraq... That is the problem here. It's been 3 years and each year there is more violence and no progress... If we COULD have won, it would have been at the beginning with a comprehensive strategy. blah blah blah

Saying we can't win is the same as suggesting we will lose, right? If no please explain exactly what that line means.

No wonder no one can get through to people like you when you abuse logic and jump to conclusions like that.

 

[her209]

Apparently there is exists a newer terrorism assessment specifically on Iraq by the NIE according to MSNBC.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Todd33
I love it, these guys think alike. To Palehourse Iraq, Katrina, Abu Gareb, Afghanistan, etc. = "crying over spilled milk" and just last week Bush said the current Iraq war will be a "comma" in Iraq's history. When you FUBAR just wave your hands and deflect. Firing an incompetent leader like Rummy "makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a game-plan for winning". Uh huh... when someone has illustrated they are unfit for the job why fire them, just let them continue to screw up. Great thinking. I guess all those four and five star generals calling for his resignation are fools.

You didnt get my point: it's not the firing and replacement of the Admin folks that I object to; rather, it's doing so without a followup plan. That, coincidentally, is the opposition's primary fault with the Admin's strategy in Iraq.

Do you get it yet, or must I break out MS Paint and draw it for you?

I'll repeat the question: What should a NEW Admin do with the hand they would be dealt in the GWOT. Given the current situation(s), what would be their course of action in continuing the GWOT, but n a different way?

 

[Rainsford]

You Bush supporters that are dismissing the choices made in the past as irrelevant to who we should put in charge in the future (I'm looking at YOU palehorse) in favor of focusing on who's going to do what in the future are missing a rather large point. My desire (and I think the desire of a lot of people) for Bush and the Republicans to be out of power has little to do with the Democrats having some sort of magical solution to the Iraq conflict. In reality, I'm not sure the Dems will do ANYTHING significantly better in Iraq than the Republicans. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I'm having trouble coming up with some magic fix, so I don't think I can reasonably expect Dems to do so.

But as I said, my desire to boot see the Republicans out of power in 2008 (or 2006 if possible) isn't really based on that...it's more based on the fact that, with Republicans at the helm, more stupid mistakes like Iraq seem inevitable. The current situation in the war on terror is by no means fixed, it's very possible that we could do something tomorrow to significantly worsen our position. Iraq was such a move, and since Republicans have failed to learn the lessons from that invasion, or to even admit that it wasn't a very good idea, I see no reason to expect them to avoid similar disasters in the future. If you borrow my car and then crash it into a tree, arguments about how you can do just as good a job at "uncrashing it" as the next guy are unconvincing...I'd rather lend my car to someone who isn't going to crash it in the first place.

If this looks like misdirection, it's not...the issues are one and the same. While the past can't be changed, and while "firing them" out of a sense of vindictivness serves no one, getting some people in there who won't screw up again seems like a good game plan. To directly answer the question, the steps after firing Rummy and Condi or impeaching Bush (I don't really support that, btw, but that was the example you used) will not be significantly better...it's a few steps after THAT that get interesting, those are the step where we don't have an Iraq part 2, or further trample on civil liberties, or piss off even more of our allies, or any other disaster Bush and the Republicans are sure to lead us into. Their prosecution of the "GWOT" has been terrible, invading Iraq is simply a part of the whole...and part of a pattern that I fully expect to continue if they remain in power. The argument that the Dems don't have any better ideas to fix Iraq remains unconvincing, without the "leadership" of Bush and the rest of the Republican party, chances are our troops would have finished the job in Afghanistan, really broken up the al-Qaeda network, maybe even captured or killed bin Laden, and enjoyed some well deserved rest and relaxation while our intelligence and police forces dealt with whatever terrorists were left over. Saddam would still be a murderous asshole, but he'd be an isolated asshole that we could deal with at our leisure, the job at hand having been accomplished. Iran would see the US as victorious against the terrorist groups they support, and in a position of strength ready to deal with their bullshit...I'm not convinced they'd be making too much noise. Oh yeah, and about 3000 Americans in uniform would still be alive...how's that for supporting the troops?

We can't change history, but we CAN learn from it. At least SOME of us can, the Republicans seem to have missed that lesson...and I'd prefer leaders who ARE paying attention.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Todd33
I love it, these guys think alike. To Palehourse Iraq, Katrina, Abu Gareb, Afghanistan, etc. = "crying over spilled milk" and just last week Bush said the current Iraq war will be a "comma" in Iraq's history. When you FUBAR just wave your hands and deflect. Firing an incompetent leader like Rummy "makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a game-plan for winning". Uh huh... when someone has illustrated they are unfit for the job why fire them, just let them continue to screw up. Great thinking. I guess all those four and five star generals calling for his resignation are fools.

You didnt get my point: it's not the firing and replacement of the Admin folks that I object to; rather, it's doing so without a followup plan. That, coincidentally, is the opposition's primary fault with the Admin's strategy in Iraq.

Do you get it yet, or must I break out MS Paint and draw it for you?

I'll repeat the question: What should a NEW Admin do with the hand they would be dealt in the GWOT. Given the current situation(s), what would be their course of action in continuing the GWOT, but n a different way?

How about not taking part in the next stupid ass plan like invading Iraq? Granted, it's not a groundbreaking idea for taking the GWOT in a new direction, but the Republicans sure as hell don't seem to get it. So here is the new strategy: "Use intelligence, police and military assets to track down and either capture or kill terrorists, use intelligence assets to track and stop the flow of money to terrorist groups, and (most importantly) NOT get sidetracked with some PNAC bullshit plan that has nothing to do with the 'GWOT'".

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You Bush supporters that are dismissing the choices made in the past as irrelevant to who we should put in charge in the future (I'm looking at YOU palehorse) in favor of focusing on who's going to do what in the future are missing a rather large point. My desire (and I think the desire of a lot of people) for Bush and the Republicans to be out of power has little to do with the Democrats having some sort of magical solution to the Iraq conflict. In reality, I'm not sure the Dems will do ANYTHING significantly better in Iraq than the Republicans. I'm a pretty smart guy, and I'm having trouble coming up with some magic fix, so I don't think I can reasonably expect Dems to do so.

But as I said, my desire to boot see the Republicans out of power in 2008 (or 2006 if possible) isn't really based on that...it's more based on the fact that, with Republicans at the helm, more stupid mistakes like Iraq seem inevitable. The current situation in the war on terror is by no means fixed, it's very possible that we could do something tomorrow to significantly worsen our position. Iraq was such a move, and since Republicans have failed to learn the lessons from that invasion, or to even admit that it wasn't a very good idea, I see no reason to expect them to avoid similar disasters in the future. If you borrow my car and then crash it into a tree, arguments about how you can do just as good a job at "uncrashing it" as the next guy are unconvincing...I'd rather lend my car to someone who isn't going to crash it in the first place.

If this looks like misdirection, it's not...the issues are one and the same. While the past can't be changed, and while "firing them" out of a sense of vindictivness serves no one, getting some people in there who won't screw up again seems like a good game plan. To directly answer the question, the steps after firing Rummy and Condi or impeaching Bush (I don't really support that, btw, but that was the example you used) will not be significantly better...it's a few steps after THAT that get interesting, those are the step where we don't have an Iraq part 2, or further trample on civil liberties, or piss off even more of our allies, or any other disaster Bush and the Republicans are sure to lead us into. Their prosecution of the "GWOT" has been terrible, invading Iraq is simply a part of the whole...and part of a pattern that I fully expect to continue if they remain in power. The argument that the Dems don't have any better ideas to fix Iraq remains unconvincing, without the "leadership" of Bush and the rest of the Republican party, chances are our troops would have finished the job in Afghanistan, really broken up the al-Qaeda network, maybe even captured or killed bin Laden, and enjoyed some well deserved rest and relaxation while our intelligence and police forces dealt with whatever terrorists were left over. Saddam would still be a murderous asshole, but he'd be an isolated asshole that we could deal with at our leisure, the job at hand having been accomplished. Iran would see the US as victorious against the terrorist groups they support, and in a position of strength ready to deal with their bullshit...I'm not convinced they'd be making too much noise. Oh yeah, and about 3000 Americans in uniform would still be alive...how's that for supporting the troops?

We can't change history, but we CAN learn from it. At least SOME of us can, the Republicans seem to have missed that lesson...and I'd prefer leaders who ARE paying attention.

Well said.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Todd33
ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

firing people and changing the lineup makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a gameplan for winning...

I dont agree with every move this Admin has made, and I AM willing to listen to alternatives. That was the point of my hypothetical 2008 questions.

The problem is that people spend too much time placing blame, flaming, and saying "fire them," instead of offering up realistic and well thought-out alternatives. You spend too much time listing the mistakes and describing the obvious situation rather than brainstorming viable solutions.

So what is step 2 after we fire Rummy and Condi? or after we impeach Bush? What happens THEN? Should we just tear apart our current Admin "without a plan for actually winning the war"?

How about, instead of harping on all of the mistakes and crying over spilled milk, you tell me what we're supposed to do NOW and in the FUTURE to fight or "win" the GWOT? (give us an alternative to "staying the course"!)

ps: yes, alternative fuel is one of the longterm strategies, but I'm talking about something that gives us victory in 10 to 15 years, not 40-50. The alternative fuels will certainly help, but that should be done regardless of whatever else we do.

Well, you ignored my response again, so I'll just repost it again. I know it is easy to pick the easy targets to respond to... but don't keep coming back and asking the same question...


Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: soundforbjt

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
[BTW: Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day. The entire world uses about 82 million barrels a day. The US uses 10 times as much as Brazil, 5 million barrels a day is used just in our cars and trucks.

The reason Brazil only uses 1.9 million barrels of oil a day is because they are doing something about their consumption. By next year Brazil will be energy independent.

They are using ethanol made from sugar cane, a cheap source and highly efficient cost/gal to produce. We (because of farmers) are using corn to make ethanol, one of the most in-efficient cost/gal sources you can use. The farm industry is blocking importation of more efficient sources for the production of ethanol to save their interests.

I don?t think it is energy independence, I thought it was oil independence, but I could be wrong.

Look at Brazil?s GDP and compare it to ours (GDP is a decent indicator of energy usage)
Total:
US 12,485,725,000,000
Brazil 792,683,000,000
Our GDP is 15 times larger than theirs, that is a lot of energy.
Per capita:
US: 42,000
Brazil: 4,320
10 times more per person, again a HUGE difference.

We can certainly do more to improve our own energy independence, such as drilling in ANWR and the Gulf, but it is simplistic at best to say that we can match Brazil by being energy independent, especially via ethanol.
Read this for more facts and data:
Lessons from Brazil

According to Per Capita Oil Consumption and Production, oil consumption in Brazil is 4.2 barrels per person per year. In the U.S., oil consumption is 27 barrels per person per year, 6.4 times as much per person as Brazil's.

All we have to do is go from using 6 times as much oil per person to 3 times as much as we too can be oil independent. Easy right

You ignored it, so I will repeat it.. name ONE thing Bush has done toward getting rid of our oil dependence that he admitted we have?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
So here is the new strategy: "Use intelligence, police and military assets to track down and either capture or kill terrorists, use intelligence assets to track and stop the flow of money to terrorist groups, and (most importantly) NOT get sidetracked with some PNAC bullshit plan that has nothing to do with the 'GWOT'".

so basically the exact same thing we're already doing, but with a different leader at the helm?

profound.

and by the PNAC bs, i assume you are referring to Iraq... so then, what should we do in Iraq with this new non-PNAC Superman at the helm?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Todd33
ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

firing people and changing the lineup makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a gameplan for winning...

I dont agree with every move this Admin has made, and I AM willing to listen to alternatives. That was the point of my hypothetical 2008 questions.

The problem is that people spend too much time placing blame, flaming, and saying "fire them," instead of offering up realistic and well thought-out alternatives. You spend too much time listing the mistakes and describing the obvious situation rather than brainstorming viable solutions.

So what is step 2 after we fire Rummy and Condi? or after we impeach Bush? What happens THEN? Should we just tear apart our current Admin "without a plan for actually winning the war"?

How about, instead of harping on all of the mistakes and crying over spilled milk, you tell me what we're supposed to do NOW and in the FUTURE to fight or "win" the GWOT? (give us an alternative to "staying the course"!)

ps: yes, alternative fuel is one of the longterm strategies, but I'm talking about something that gives us victory in 10 to 15 years, not 40-50. The alternative fuels will certainly help, but that should be done regardless of whatever else we do.

Well, you ignored my response again, so I'll just repost it again. I know it is easy to pick the easy targets to respond to... but don't keep coming back and asking the same question...


Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

your entire plan revolves around alternative fuels. I've already addressed that and recognized it as nothing more than a good idea to do on the side... and you also want to turn back time and re-fight Tora Bora...

so post it a 5th time, that might accomplish something. go for it!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Todd33
ProfJohn you are a master of deflection. You are arguing with a ghost. Did anyone suggest we lose in Iraq? How do you define "win" BTW? Everyone outside of far right sees the NIE as a huge negative and negates Bush's "reason" that Iraq is central to the war on terror. The bottom line is Iraq is the 1980s Afghanistan of today. Instead of Russia slowly bleeding dry it is the US and you support it blindly for partisan reasons. The first step to a solution is to recognize that is a was a huger blunder and start holding people accountable. That means replacing people in charge and not rewarding with the status quo. Re-electing this current do nothing rubber stamp Congress is just way of giving Bush a pass on all the screw ups. Having two different parties in control of the WH and Congress is the best thing to have at this point. A monopoly of power has only led to corruption and no oversight.

firing people and changing the lineup makes about as much sense as going into Iraq without a gameplan for winning...

I dont agree with every move this Admin has made, and I AM willing to listen to alternatives. That was the point of my hypothetical 2008 questions.

The problem is that people spend too much time placing blame, flaming, and saying "fire them," instead of offering up realistic and well thought-out alternatives. You spend too much time listing the mistakes and describing the obvious situation rather than brainstorming viable solutions.

So what is step 2 after we fire Rummy and Condi? or after we impeach Bush? What happens THEN? Should we just tear apart our current Admin "without a plan for actually winning the war"?

How about, instead of harping on all of the mistakes and crying over spilled milk, you tell me what we're supposed to do NOW and in the FUTURE to fight or "win" the GWOT? (give us an alternative to "staying the course"!)

ps: yes, alternative fuel is one of the longterm strategies, but I'm talking about something that gives us victory in 10 to 15 years, not 40-50. The alternative fuels will certainly help, but that should be done regardless of whatever else we do.

Well, you ignored my response again, so I'll just repost it again. I know it is easy to pick the easy targets to respond to... but don't keep coming back and asking the same question...


Very simple. We should have done an 1000x better job catching the terrorists in tora bora.. after securing Afghanistan(and not letting violence get out of hand by ignoring it like we are doing now). Then we should beef up our borders, increase our inspections at our ports, and prepare a comprehensive plan to deal with future emergencies(even including something like Katrina, which is pretty similar of a disaster).

That is it. The "terrorists" term is mainly a bogeyman.. there will ALWAYS be terrorists... after 1993, there were no attacks until 2001... and that was without doing anything like attacking Afghanistan and trapping and killing the Taliban/Al Qaeda. We aren't surrounded by terrorists in this country...we simply keep interfering with the middle east and try to control oil for our benefit.

Since oil is the only production of the Middle East that we need and it is their main means of income, if we simply followed Brazil and use alternative fuel, we will slowly bankrupt the ME byu refusing their oil and acting as a role model for the world including Russia and China in using alternative fuel. Since we no longer would have any personal interest in the Middle East, the terrorists would focus their efforts to other countries interfering with the ME(since we won't be).

There. Is that so complicated? Attacking everything in site makes no sense. Iraq makes no sense. We are no closer to eliminating dependency on foreign oil. Bush said we are dependant on oil yet has done NOT ONE SINGLE DAMN THING to change that since that speach!

your entire plan revolves around alternative fuels. I've already addressed that and recognized it as nothing more than a good idea to do on the side... and you also want to turn back time and re-fight Tora Bora...

so post it a 5th time, that might accomplish something. go for it!

A good idea on the side? Are you joking? What about the whole idea that we should NOT be interfering in the ME and OIL is the ONLY reason we CONTINUE to do so!

If we get off oil and leave the ME alone do YOU think we would continue to be a target for terrorists?

And no one has even named ONE FRIGGIN THING that Bush has done to get us off oil after his big speech declaring we relied too much on oil... I'll be waiting!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A good idea on the side? Are you joking? What about the whole idea that we should NOT be interfering in the ME and OIL is the ONLY reason we CONTINUE to do so!

If we get off oil and leave the ME alone do YOU think we would continue to be a target for terrorists?

And no one has even named ONE FRIGGIN THING that Bush has done to get us off oil after his big speech declaring we relied too much on oil... I'll be waiting!

Of course getting off of oil solves everything, but doing so may take 20-30 years, or more! So yes, it's a great idea to dump money into alternative fuel research and prepare for that future, but at the same time, we must deal with terrorism and the ME for 20-30 years. We cannot eliminate our involvement in the ME until AFTER we have a viable and cost-effective alternative fuel infrastructure.

And yes, I agree with you that Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs for a longterm strategy to kick our nation's addiction to oil. He really needs to start talking about it.

But yes, sadly, we must stay in the ME until then...and my prediction is 20-30 years.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A good idea on the side? Are you joking? What about the whole idea that we should NOT be interfering in the ME and OIL is the ONLY reason we CONTINUE to do so!

If we get off oil and leave the ME alone do YOU think we would continue to be a target for terrorists?

And no one has even named ONE FRIGGIN THING that Bush has done to get us off oil after his big speech declaring we relied too much on oil... I'll be waiting!

Of course getting off of oil solves everything, but doing so may take 20-30 years, or more! So yes, it's a great idea to dump money into alternative fuel research and prepare for that future, but at the same time, we must deal with terrorism and the ME for 20-30 years. We cannot eliminate our involvement in the ME until AFTER we have a viable and cost-effective alternative fuel infrastructure.

And yes, I agree with you that Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs for a longterm strategy to kick our nation's addiction to oil. He really needs to start talking about it.

But yes, sadly, we must stay in the ME until then...and my prediction is 20-30 years.

"Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs "

Enough? He hasn't done ONE THING since he entered office... 3 and a half years since Iraq started and not ONE THING...

And we do NOT need to stay in the ME... If we simply stay away from them, and reduce our oil(which could have been done YEARS AGO) needs, we would be free from terrorist threats.

I thought you claimed no one else had a plan... so much for that! Our plan simply doesn't involve attacking everything in sight.. therefore you aren't on board.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Rainsford
So here is the new strategy: "Use intelligence, police and military assets to track down and either capture or kill terrorists, use intelligence assets to track and stop the flow of money to terrorist groups, and (most importantly) NOT get sidetracked with some PNAC bullshit plan that has nothing to do with the 'GWOT'".

so basically the exact same thing we're already doing, but with a different leader at the helm?

profound.

and by the PNAC bs, i assume you are referring to Iraq... so then, what should we do in Iraq with this new non-PNAC Superman at the helm?

Read what I said again...I AM advocating a lot of what is going on already (although without the pointless pissing all over the Constitution), but I'm also advocating sticking with that plan and NOT running off into the weeds with dumbass ideas like invading Iraq. I'm not suggesting the next person to come along will be able to fix Iraq with some magical solution, I'm suggesting that he (or she) will instead focus on actually fighting terrorists and not get distracted with the next unrelated snipe hunt that pops into their head. We've got to deal with Iraq, there is no getting around that, but a new leader at the helm would help us avoid having to deal with ANOTHER Iraq-like situation.

Your sarcasm aside, I have no problem with the general ideas Bush has for fighting terrorism, the primary problem is the fact that HE'S the one leading the effort. After 9/11 he had a great plan, improve our intelligence and police agencies and use the military to "hunt down" (his words) the people and groups responsible. I was all for that, it sounded like a great idea. But as any engineer knows, the distance between an idea and its implementation can be quite large...the problem with Bush is that the idea was this great plan for fighting the people who attacked us on 9/11, but the implementation largely consisted of an unrelated invasion of the wrong country, stomping on our civil liberties and pissing off all our allies. But the IDEA is still perfectly sound, I'd be fine having a different leader who will just actually follow through.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A good idea on the side? Are you joking? What about the whole idea that we should NOT be interfering in the ME and OIL is the ONLY reason we CONTINUE to do so!

If we get off oil and leave the ME alone do YOU think we would continue to be a target for terrorists?

And no one has even named ONE FRIGGIN THING that Bush has done to get us off oil after his big speech declaring we relied too much on oil... I'll be waiting!

Of course getting off of oil solves everything, but doing so may take 20-30 years, or more! So yes, it's a great idea to dump money into alternative fuel research and prepare for that future, but at the same time, we must deal with terrorism and the ME for 20-30 years. We cannot eliminate our involvement in the ME until AFTER we have a viable and cost-effective alternative fuel infrastructure.

And yes, I agree with you that Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs for a longterm strategy to kick our nation's addiction to oil. He really needs to start talking about it.

But yes, sadly, we must stay in the ME until then...and my prediction is 20-30 years.

"Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs "

Enough? He hasn't done ONE THING since he entered office... 3 and a half years since Iraq started and not ONE THING...

And we do NOT need to stay in the ME... If we simply stay away from them, and reduce our oil(which could have been done YEARS AGO) needs, we would be free from terrorist threats.

I thought you claimed no one else had a plan... so much for that! Our plan simply doesn't involve attacking everything in sight.. therefore you aren't on board.

President Pushes Alternative Fuel Development

Bush Presses Congress for Increased Support of Alternative Fuels

Alternative Fuel Use Will Aid Security, Environment, Bush Says

Bush pushes for green fuel

Bush: Raise fuel-efficiency standards
Excerpt:

"At the president's request, I hereby ask that the Congress take prompt action to authorize the U.S. Department of Transportation to reform fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles," Mineta wrote.

"Along with other previously announced energy policies, the president believes these actions are critical to promoting our nation's energy security and independence."

and...

Republicans proposed an amendment Thursday that would give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.

It would also provide most American taxpayers with a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline. (Full story)

However, the GOP energy package might face tough sledding because it also includes a proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Need I go on? You see, the dems (and some ignorant republicans) blocked all of Bush's efforts to initiate policies that would enforce energy efficiency standards in automobiles. the reason? their precious ANWR... they'd rather worry about a few animals in BFE, Alaska, than the cost of oil at the pumps.

So whose fault is it that we're getting nowhere in terms of our dependency on oil? oh ya...

And as for the Dems and their precious ANWR, I give you this:
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
excerpt:

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

You simply choose to wear partisan blinders and believe everything moveon.org or Bill Mahr tells you. President Bush is NOT the reason we are dependent on oil. That dependency has been developing for more than 100 years. And I think the links and quotes above are enough to show you that Bush has not ignored the problem; and, in fact, he's attempted several times during the last 6 years to do something about it! Every one of his efforts has been blocked by Dems who are more concerned about the herds in ANWR than they are about oil independence.

wake up and quit blaming Bush for everything. educate yourself...

 

[Todd33]

Bush has done nothing to curb oil use. He gives lip service during speeches on occasions. The facts remain that Bush has close ties to the oil/gas industry who donate heavily to the GOP. The secret energy meetings that Cheney held were with energy companies who help write their energy policy. This is one of the most un-green administrations ever, so stop with the phoney "educate yourself" crap, you are spining harder than Tony Snow. Drilling in ANWR is so far from a solution it's not funny, we need a real government program or real industry incentives. Right now Detroit and the oil companies own the WH and they will never bite the hands that feed them.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A good idea on the side? Are you joking? What about the whole idea that we should NOT be interfering in the ME and OIL is the ONLY reason we CONTINUE to do so!

If we get off oil and leave the ME alone do YOU think we would continue to be a target for terrorists?

And no one has even named ONE FRIGGIN THING that Bush has done to get us off oil after his big speech declaring we relied too much on oil... I'll be waiting!

Of course getting off of oil solves everything, but doing so may take 20-30 years, or more! So yes, it's a great idea to dump money into alternative fuel research and prepare for that future, but at the same time, we must deal with terrorism and the ME for 20-30 years. We cannot eliminate our involvement in the ME until AFTER we have a viable and cost-effective alternative fuel infrastructure.

And yes, I agree with you that Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs for a longterm strategy to kick our nation's addiction to oil. He really needs to start talking about it.

But yes, sadly, we must stay in the ME until then...and my prediction is 20-30 years.

"Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs "

Enough? He hasn't done ONE THING since he entered office... 3 and a half years since Iraq started and not ONE THING...

And we do NOT need to stay in the ME... If we simply stay away from them, and reduce our oil(which could have been done YEARS AGO) needs, we would be free from terrorist threats.

I thought you claimed no one else had a plan... so much for that! Our plan simply doesn't involve attacking everything in sight.. therefore you aren't on board.

President Pushes Alternative Fuel Development

Bush Presses Congress for Increased Support of Alternative Fuels

Alternative Fuel Use Will Aid Security, Environment, Bush Says

Bush pushes for green fuel

Bush: Raise fuel-efficiency standards
Excerpt:

"At the president's request, I hereby ask that the Congress take prompt action to authorize the U.S. Department of Transportation to reform fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles," Mineta wrote.

"Along with other previously announced energy policies, the president believes these actions are critical to promoting our nation's energy security and independence."

and...

Republicans proposed an amendment Thursday that would give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.

It would also provide most American taxpayers with a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline. (Full story)

However, the GOP energy package might face tough sledding because it also includes a proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Need I go on? You see, the dems (and some ignorant republicans) blocked all of Bush's efforts to initiate policies that would enforce energy efficiency standards in automobiles. the reason? their precious ANWR... they'd rather worry about a few animals in BFE, Alaska, than the cost of oil at the pumps.

So whose fault is it that we're getting nowhere in terms of our dependency on oil? oh ya...

And as for the Dems and their precious ANWR, I give you this:
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
excerpt:

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

You simply choose to wear partisan blinders and believe everything moveon.org or Bill Mahr tells you. President Bush is NOT the reason we are dependent on oil. That dependency has been developing for more than 100 years. And I think the links and quotes above are enough to show you that Bush has not ignored the problem; and, in fact, he's attempted several times during the last 6 years to do something about it! Every one of his efforts has been blocked by Dems who are more concerned about the herds in ANWR than they are about oil independence.

wake up and quit blaming Bush for everything. educate yourself...

Perhaps you missed the part where I asked what bush has done to reduce our dependence on oil.. not what he SAYS... IN EVERY ONE of your links including the text you quoted, he TALKS about alternative fuel... ANYONE CAN TALK...

Look at your list..

President **Pushes** Alternative Fuel Development

Bush **Presses** Congress for Increased Support of Alternative Fuels

Alternative Fuel Use Will Aid Security, Environment, Bush ***Says***

Bush ***pushes*** for green fuel

He just keeps talking while doing the opposite! Remember the tax breaks for oil companies? WHere are the tax incentives for alternative fuel being passed under his watch?

Of all of those links, the only thing actually DONE was to improve standards for one department.. Yeah, that will really speed us along to get us away from oil!

You posted about opening up drilling in the U.S... how does this reduce our oil dependence? We need to get away from oil...

Seriously, what do you not get? Bush has not pushed ONE SINGLE BILL in congress pushing for alternative energy. He gave billions in tax cuts to oil companies though.. how does THAT help our oil independence?

You of course do the whole attacking me accusing me and others of being partisan.. what am I partisan to? How many times do I need to declare myself independent? I challenge you to post ONE quote from me SUPPORTING even ONE Democrat... I haven't... I don't like Liberman, Hillary, Dean, or Kerry.... Besides for Murtha in the headlines, I am not even familiar with any more democrats!(well, clinton and gore for obvious reasons).

The only time I even mentioned clinton was to correct a glaring factual mistake Pabster made deliberately in another thread! I could quote about 500 posts of yours in which you defend every Republican on the planet including people like Tom Delay.. yet you have the audacity to claim IIIIII am partisan! What a joke...

It isi mportant to be critical of every single part of our government.. as an American, you SHOULD know that... I will be critical of any republican, democrat, or other in EVERY office and hold them to the same standards. Bush should be heavily giving tax incentives to alternative fuel sources... instead , he gives breaks to oil companies and has not produced ONE legislative act helping the U.S. get away from oil!

You think this is intelligent use of the presidential office when faced with ME terrorists?

 

[piasabird]

If the report is not public, how can you say that you know what it says?

You are obviously taking a third person report like it is the report itself. Basically you are going on hearsay.

Besides, it is a government report. Do you trust the Government that much?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Todd33
Bush has done nothing to curb oil use. He gives lip service during speeches on occasions. The facts remain that Bush has close ties to the oil/gas industry who donate heavily to the GOP. The secret energy meetings that Cheney held were with energy companies who help write their energy policy. This is one of the most un-green administrations ever, so stop with the phoney "educate yourself" crap, you are spining harder than Tony Snow. Drilling in ANWR is so far from a solution it's not funny, we need a real government program or real industry incentives. Right now Detroit and the oil companies own the WH and they will never bite the hands that feed them.

tinfoil rulez!

ANWR was simply one small part of Bush's proposed amendment to the energy legislation. Lip service? he even stated the same in his SOTU speech!

He has attempted EVERY YEAR to push for budget increases in alternative fuel research and other methods of reducing our dependence on oil. Unlike you, he recognizes that drilling in ANWR is one small part of the overall solution needed to decrease our dependency on oil.

so yes, educate yourself and remove the tinfoil beanie!

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
A good idea on the side? Are you joking? What about the whole idea that we should NOT be interfering in the ME and OIL is the ONLY reason we CONTINUE to do so!

If we get off oil and leave the ME alone do YOU think we would continue to be a target for terrorists?

And no one has even named ONE FRIGGIN THING that Bush has done to get us off oil after his big speech declaring we relied too much on oil... I'll be waiting!

Of course getting off of oil solves everything, but doing so may take 20-30 years, or more! So yes, it's a great idea to dump money into alternative fuel research and prepare for that future, but at the same time, we must deal with terrorism and the ME for 20-30 years. We cannot eliminate our involvement in the ME until AFTER we have a viable and cost-effective alternative fuel infrastructure.

And yes, I agree with you that Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs for a longterm strategy to kick our nation's addiction to oil. He really needs to start talking about it.

But yes, sadly, we must stay in the ME until then...and my prediction is 20-30 years.

"Bush is not doing enough to emphasize our needs "

Enough? He hasn't done ONE THING since he entered office... 3 and a half years since Iraq started and not ONE THING...

And we do NOT need to stay in the ME... If we simply stay away from them, and reduce our oil(which could have been done YEARS AGO) needs, we would be free from terrorist threats.

I thought you claimed no one else had a plan... so much for that! Our plan simply doesn't involve attacking everything in sight.. therefore you aren't on board.

President Pushes Alternative Fuel Development

Bush Presses Congress for Increased Support of Alternative Fuels

Alternative Fuel Use Will Aid Security, Environment, Bush Says

Bush pushes for green fuel

Bush: Raise fuel-efficiency standards
Excerpt:

"At the president's request, I hereby ask that the Congress take prompt action to authorize the U.S. Department of Transportation to reform fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles," Mineta wrote.

"Along with other previously announced energy policies, the president believes these actions are critical to promoting our nation's energy security and independence."

and...

Republicans proposed an amendment Thursday that would give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries.

It would also provide most American taxpayers with a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline. (Full story)

However, the GOP energy package might face tough sledding because it also includes a proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose.

Need I go on? You see, the dems (and some ignorant republicans) blocked all of Bush's efforts to initiate policies that would enforce energy efficiency standards in automobiles. the reason? their precious ANWR... they'd rather worry about a few animals in BFE, Alaska, than the cost of oil at the pumps.

So whose fault is it that we're getting nowhere in terms of our dependency on oil? oh ya...

And as for the Dems and their precious ANWR, I give you this:
TOP 10 REASONS TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT IN ANWR
excerpt:

8. No Negative Impact on Animals Oil and gas development and wildlife are successfully coexisting in Alaska 's arctic. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou Herd (CACH) which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3000 animals to its current level of 32,000 animals. The arctic oil fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas.

You simply choose to wear partisan blinders and believe everything moveon.org or Bill Mahr tells you. President Bush is NOT the reason we are dependent on oil. That dependency has been developing for more than 100 years. And I think the links and quotes above are enough to show you that Bush has not ignored the problem; and, in fact, he's attempted several times during the last 6 years to do something about it! Every one of his efforts has been blocked by Dems who are more concerned about the herds in ANWR than they are about oil independence.

wake up and quit blaming Bush for everything. educate yourself...

Perhaps you missed the part where I asked what bush has done to reduce our dependence on oil.. not what he SAYS... IN EVERY ONE of your links including the text you quoted, he TALKS about alternative fuel... ANYONE CAN TALK...

Look at your list..

President **Pushes** Alternative Fuel Development

Bush **Presses** Congress for Increased Support of Alternative Fuels

Alternative Fuel Use Will Aid Security, Environment, Bush ***Says***

Bush ***pushes*** for green fuel

He just keeps talking while doing the opposite! Remember the tax breaks for oil companies? WHere are the tax incentives for alternative fuel being passed under his watch?

Of all of those links, the only thing actually DONE was to improve standards for one department.. Yeah, that will really speed us along to get us away from oil!

You posted about opening up drilling in the U.S... how does this reduce our oil dependence? We need to get away from oil...

Seriously, what do you not get? Bush has not pushed ONE SINGLE BILL in congress pushing for alternative energy. He gave billions in tax cuts to oil companies though.. how does THAT help our oil independence?

You of course do the whole attacking me accusing me and others of being partisan.. what am I partisan to? How many times do I need to declare myself independent? I challenge you to post ONE quote from me SUPPORTING even ONE Democrat... I haven't... I don't like Liberman, Hillary, Dean, or Kerry.... Besides for Murtha in the headlines, I am not even familiar with any more democrats!(well, clinton and gore for obvious reasons).

The only time I even mentioned clinton was to correct a glaring factual mistake Pabster made deliberately in another thread! I could quote about 500 posts of yours in which you defend every Republican on the planet including people like Tom Delay.. yet you have the audacity to claim IIIIII am partisan! What a joke...

It isi mportant to be critical of every single part of our government.. as an American, you SHOULD know that... I will be critical of any republican, democrat, or other in EVERY office and hold them to the same standards. Bush should be heavily giving tax incentives to alternative fuel sources... instead , he gives breaks to oil companies and has not produced ONE legislative act helping the U.S. get away from oil!

You think this is intelligent use of the presidential office when faced with ME terrorists?

I hate to be the one to school you on how our government works, but all Bush is allowed to do is "push" and "encourage" and "present policies." Bush has done so every year since taking office, and the Dems have blocked every attempt. (It takes 60 votes to pass the proposed amendments to the energy bill).

Only Congress can make law, not Bush. All he can do is mention it every month, and "push" it as part of his agenda. Congress has to listen and allow it to happen!

Drilling in ANWR is one small piece of the overal strategy to become energy independent. Bush's proposals to Congress have included many other items that would also get us there; including tax rebates for everyone using alternative fuels and hybrid vehicles.

you ARE blind.