Serious question about a homeland attack...

[DemWitch]

With all the crap that's being handed out by BushCo. about how we are a safer nation because of our actions overseas, I find it odd that we are now under a constant barrage of warnings of impending attack.

IF we are attacked, wouldn't that prove out what we've been saying all along that we are in worse danger now than before? And wouldn't that cause some seriuos problems for BushCo.? The first questions to be asked would be "didn't you say we were safer"? And after all the foul ups that have come to light, wouldn't the following questions be about intel, or lack of?

I know BushCo. wants to keep the threat level up so people will not want to "change horses midstream". But if something did happen, I think it would be a much more serious blow to them than to the Dems.

Just one of those wandering thoughts... Back to C-Span... Elizabeth is on!!!

[SoCalDem]

1. Our "defense" has been a joke for years..decades..

When the most "powerful country on earth" has its military headquarters (the Pentagon), its financial hub (WTC) and potentially the capitol (seat of legislature) hit my 19 men who were willing to die...that pretty much says it all..

We cannot defend against everything, and for years we have deluded ourselves..

The BIG WAR theory was always M.A.D. They nuke us, we nuke them right back and we are all dead.. That war "could" be defended against, because the outcome was one that NO ONE wanted to endure.....so we were lulled..

The "new" irregular war is a kamizake guerrilla war, and we are not able to defend against it.. No matter how many bombs, and metal detectors we employ.. It cannot be done..The rest of the world already knows this, and has experienced terrorist "attacks" for YEARS..

We thought it could never happen here.. we were wrong.. We were not safe before...just lucky.. we will NEVER be "safe"..

It's like the herd of antelope who must go to the river to drink..; Every day the lions will get some of them...but not all..

We have been the lion...now we are the antelope..:(

[olacan]

2. Something

that is hard for a of Americans to remember is that Sept. 11th was an attack in along string of attacks. Look back over the years Iran when Carter was pres., the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the TWA airplane over Scotland, and many more. I am not trying to blame anyone just want everyone here to remember Sept. 11th was not the first and it will not be the last no matter who or which party is in the White House. Reaching for my flame proof suit.

[drumwolf]

3. some MAJOR factors that separate 9/11 from all of the other attacks

(1) The sheer scale of it. 3,000 killed as opposed to a couple hundred at most.

(2) It was right here on our own soil.

(3) Not only were so many people killed and injured, but a major American landmark was destroyed. The symbolic value of the attack literally added insult to injury.

[olacan]

6. I should

have noted the fact that Sept. 11th was the worse as fair the number killed. But remember that the attacks against our embassies are the same as on our soil. The attack against the Cole was just as serious. As far as the comment about Lebanon that was part of the of point I was trying to make that the attacks cross different administrations.

[Bridget Burke]

7. Attacks are a constant threat--and must be fought the right way.

Defending our country (& our embassies, etc.) is important. Reagan was warned the marines were not safe in Lebanon. Suicide attacks were expected & they would have been more secure offshore. But he ignored the warnings and 241 Americans died.

Clinton fought against terrorist attacks & apparently frustrated a few. He tried to communicate his concerns to the next administration.
September 11th demonstrated just how little Bush did to protect us.

[MildyCC]

10. Let's be fair here,

we DID have terrorist attacks under Clinton as well; both foreign and domestic. We can't foil every attack. That said, for every attack that does "succeed," we foil hundreds. As an IRA spokesman once said after an attack on the British Conservative Party convention in Brighton, "You have to be lucky all of the time, we have only to be lucky once."

[thebigidea]

11. Yeah, heaven forbid Bush gets any blame for anything...

... particularly his droppping the ball completely on terrorism.

Apparently its fashionable to claim that Clinton did just as poorly.

[MildyCC]

12. I did not mean to imply

that this Admin deserves no blame...they do. Sorry if that is the way I came across.

[thebigidea]

13. its just that its the same exact wording we've heard from the RW

It gets tiresome, this ridiculous insistance that Bush and Clinton were exactly the same and that we shouldn't assign blame.

Anyway, what attacks were foiled?

I don't buy that 100s of them were foiled and they're just so secret, they can't tell us about them.

Bush, keep something like that hidden? Christ, he'd put it in his campaign ads.

Are there any attacks other than the Millenium thing that was foiled?

[SoCalDem]

5. Lebanon was under St. Ronnie of Reagan

He tucked tail and ran..of course a while later he attacked the fearsome nation of Grenada..scared all the sunbathers too :)

[lectrobyte]

8. You're leaving out a building in Oklahoma, and some clinics in Atlanta

and probably a few other things. I think it boils down to if someone is crazy and smart enough, they can do what they want to do, and locking down society ala 1984 is probably not the right response.

[drumwolf]

4. If people actually used some logic,

then yes, another 9/11-scale attack would hurt the GOP more than the Dems. That's a big IF, though.

Remember, you have a lot of ignorant simpletons who would think that, yes, we just had another attack on our country, so that means we absolutely must keep a neanderthal "tough guy" like Bush in office as opposed to Kerry who would take a "wimpy" (i.e. more intelligent and not hot-headed) approach to the "terra'ists".

These idiots are the kind of people who, if there was a vicious dog in their neighborhood, would try to deal with the threat of the dog by attacking it with a baseball bat. Then, when they get bitten by the dog while attacking it, they'll say to their liberal friend, "See? It bit me. That shows you, that dog is dangerous. That's why we must keep attacking it."

So, I think that another terrorist attack on these shores would be a huge wild card that could affect the election in either direction.

At any rate, I'm all for seeing Bush's chances hurt badly, but not at the price of experiencing another 9/11-scale attack.

[mopaul]

9. these concepts are designed for children & the dumb to understand

they hate us for our freedoms, we must fight them over there to avoid fighting them here, the american people are safer, another horrible attack is imminent, and of course, we've liberated iraq.

i wonder sometimes how they pull it all off. but then, it's so obviously easy to do, just say some bullshit thing and enough dumbasses will go along for the stupidity to work. go figger.