Thread: Right-wing domestic terrorists

Ventura Law,

The attack during the 90s was a failure of intelligence, IMO. Yes, one could say Clinton wasn't as vigilant. But is it Clinton's fault? I am asking a sincere question, when it comes to prevention. There have been more casualties and attack on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan under GWB, obviously because the US is there. (Afghanistan I understand, but not Iraq, but that's another issue).

As for 9/11, Clinton cannot be blamed any more or less than GWB, and the entire lack of awareness of the bureaucratic agencies, including the CIA under Tenet.

Originally Posted by Milkman

Ventura Law,

The attack during the 90s was a failure of intelligence, IMO. Yes, one could say Clinton wasn't as vigilant. But is it Clinton's fault? I am asking a sincere question, when it comes to prevention. There have been more casualties and attack on Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan under GWB, obviously because the US is there. (Afghanistan I understand, but not Iraq, but that's another issue).

As for 9/11, Clinton cannot be blamed any more or less than GWB, and the entire lack of awareness of the bureaucratic agencies, including the CIA under Tenet.

It's not the attack during the 90s, but the attacks during the 90s. Were they Clinton's fault? The first one may have not been. Nor any of the others technically. They were acts of terrorism. However, compare the records; after the first attack during the Clinton administration, the attacks continued. After the first attack during the Bush administration, the attacks ceased. Coincidence? Perhaps. However, how do you explain the failed attempted attacks during the Bush administration - attacks foiled as a result of steps taken by the Bush administration resulting from information gained during interrogations. Condem the interrogation techniques all you wish, but lives were saved when planned attacks in Los Angeles and New York were prevented. Why, as it has repeatedly been demonstrated, that the liberals here continue to ignore these facts is beyond me. I admit that mistakes were made by the Bush administration - and there were many. Why can you not admit that mistakes were made by the Clinton administration? Perhaps it is because during the current BO administration, the preventions put into place by the Bush administration are being dismantled, and therefore many fear (as they should) that America will once again become vulnerable. Once an attack (or international crises, as predicted by Biden during the campain) occurs, who will the liberals be able to blame?

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Perhaps it is because during the current BO administration, the preventions put into place by the Bush administration are being dismantled, and therefore many fear (as they should) that America will once again become vulnerable.

Which 'preventions' VL, could you be specific? I can only think of two, neither relevant at all in my view- these being the abolition of torture as a policy, and the shutting down of Gitmo. The Patriot Act, domestic espionage and so on have not been broached by Obama as far as I am aware- much to the chagrin of the Liberals.

As far as Spooks go, Obama continues to spend loads on intelligence, and is trying to also make the US Intelligence establishment- which is generally conceded to have become somewhat of a fragmented, bickering mess- more coherent and effective. "Defence" spending (which I think should definitely be cut) has not been.

National Security is obviously a prime concern of yours, so I'm curious to hear your views on this.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

However, compare the records; after the first attack during the Clinton administration, the attacks continued. After the first attack during the Bush administration, the attacks ceased.

nonsense.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

However, compare the records; after the first attack during the Clinton administration, the attacks continued. After the first attack during the Bush administration, the attacks ceased.

That is blantantly not true as I've already pointed out in context of the article you posted.

The first attack on the WTC was not followed by any more attacks on US soil.

The attacks that followed were on foreign soil against US targets.

The second attack on the WTC was not followed by any more attacks on US soil.

It was followed by numerous attacks on foreign soil against US targets, ie the counter insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You can't keep crowing your point that it's proof of Bush's superior policy against terrorism, when it's blatantly clear and certainly well documented that the actions of the Bush administration increased terrorist activity after 9/11 and also subscription to terrorist organisations.

If anything, and it irks me to say it, Clinton did a better job.

You are ignoring the planned attacks that I cited that were prevented during the Bush administration. Furthermore, the USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack against a US Navy ship. Although not on US soil, what difference does it make?
I disagree with you that Clinton did a 'better job."

^ typical delusional American

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

However, compare the records; after the first attack during the Clinton administration, the attacks continued. After the first attack during the Bush administration, the attacks ceased.

That is blantantly not true as I've already pointed out in context of the article you posted.

The first attack on the WTC was not followed by any more attacks on US soil.

The attacks that followed were on foreign soil against US targets.

The second attack on the WTC was not followed by any more attacks on US soil.

It was followed by numerous attacks on foreign soil against US targets, ie the counter insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You can't keep crowing your point that it's proof of Bush's superior policy against terrorism, when it's blatantly clear and certainly well documented that the actions of the Bush administration increased terrorist activity after 9/11 and also subscription to terrorist organisations.

If anything, and it irks me to say it, Clinton did a better job.

You are ignoring the planned attacks that I cited that were prevented during the Bush administration. Furthermore, the USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack against a US Navy ship. Although not on US soil, what difference does it make?
I disagree with you that Clinton did a 'better job."

I disagree, I'm not ignoring anything. If anything you are conveniently ignoring the glaring reality that GWB anti terrorist action following 9/11 has resulted in more Americans dying and an escalation of terrorism. If you can't agree with that and continue with your belief that Bush's record is better than Clinton, I don't see any point in discussing this issue with you as you clearly have no grasp of the subject and are obviously unable to think for yourself.

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Originally Posted by ItsRobsLife

Originally Posted by venturalaw

However, compare the records; after the first attack during the Clinton administration, the attacks continued. After the first attack during the Bush administration, the attacks ceased.

That is blantantly not true as I've already pointed out in context of the article you posted.

The first attack on the WTC was not followed by any more attacks on US soil.

The attacks that followed were on foreign soil against US targets.

The second attack on the WTC was not followed by any more attacks on US soil.

It was followed by numerous attacks on foreign soil against US targets, ie the counter insurgency in Iraq and Afghanistan.

You can't keep crowing your point that it's proof of Bush's superior policy against terrorism, when it's blatantly clear and certainly well documented that the actions of the Bush administration increased terrorist activity after 9/11 and also subscription to terrorist organisations.

If anything, and it irks me to say it, Clinton did a better job.

You are ignoring the planned attacks that I cited that were prevented during the Bush administration. Furthermore, the USS Cole bombing was a suicide attack against a US Navy ship. Although not on US soil, what difference does it make?
I disagree with you that Clinton did a 'better job."

I disagree, I'm not ignoring anything. If anything you are conveniently ignoring the glaring reality that GWB anti terrorist action following 9/11 has resulted in more Americans dying and an escalation of terrorism. If you can't agree with that and continue with your belief that Bush's record is better than Clinton, I don't see any point in discussing this issue with you as you clearly have no grasp of the subject and are obviously unable to think for yourself.

I assume from your account of GWB anti-terrorist actions that you are including the decision to invade Iraq, and the deaths of Americans, and alied forces, tallied along with the Americans who lost thier lives during the 9/11 attack. Including war casualties into the mix, you are correct. BTW, I was against the Iraq invasion, but that is not what I thought we were discussing. The interrogation techniques used to prevent the attacks planned against Los Angeles and New York, would not prevent the casualties resulting from the war in Iraq.
I am able to think for myself. Where I differ from you aparently, is that I do not ascribe one side as being significantly superior to the other (Democrats vs. Republicans). I'm neither.

Where I differ from you aparently, is that I do not ascribe one side as being significantly superior to the other (Democrats vs. Republicans).

Well I've already stated that I don't have any support for either party, but when it comes to a comparison between Clinton and Bush, which was your intention, Clinton was certainly the lesser of two evils, and yes I do include the dead in Iraq as a consequence of the actions brought in the name of anti terrorism and as clear evidence of the Republican party's inability to prevent terrorism. Including domestic terrorism, which it's most vocal supporters seem wholeheartedly to be embracing at this time, and which brings us back on topic.

What's missing throughout this thread is the observations that there isn't much difference between establishment whores. Seem to be vacant of curiosities...

an observation that was passed on the other day.....

not all right wingers are racists....but nearly all racists are right-wingers.

Originally Posted by BugginOut

The purpose is to connect them to patriot movements

you mean the teabaggers?

Originally Posted by BugginOut

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

What's missing throughout this thread is the observations that there isn't much difference between establishment whores. Seem to be vacant of curiosities...

Spot on! And whores they are for the bidding they do for mega-corporations and international bankers to utilize the military industrial complex to wage war for profit while the mass media covers the trails of their false-flag operations. It's no wonder that in a profoundly sick society, of which the US is quickly becoming, people are beginning to exhibit desperate actions of disobedience against the government. However, their victims are ill-chosen, as the focus of their psyche is convoluted by financial and emotional despair. The US government is incrementally shifting towards a police state with more and more power being allocated for that purpose. While real people are suffering from record unemployment, pensions are dwindling, the hope of even simple Social Security is becoming a moot point, higher fuel costs, higher food costs, more fines and citations, more taxes, government intervention into the private homes and lives of people, wiretapping, email snooping, and a society that is turning into a nation of finks among many other significant changes to the fabric of our nation, our leaders feel it's acceptable to hand out trillions to the very institutions that should be left to tread the dark waters they've drawn. Well, it's unacceptable. Believe you me. These nuts that are coming out of the woodwork that the media are parading in front of the bewildered herd are going to be the first casualties--lone gunmen--and good riddance. The purpose is to connect them to patriot movements who want to see the end of the Federal Reserve, the IRS, reckless international foreign policy, and the like. Even the Obamanoids are seeing that their short celebration of triumph was premature and that he is, in fact, just another one of the millionaire puppets put in place by the elite who own and manipulate public opinion to control the masses; the bewildered herd. It'll end in tears.

I believe it was Leslie Gelb who recently pointed out that the majority of "journalists" in DC initially jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon because a skeptical approach to the policies of the presidential administration in power at that time was considered a bad career move. There is little reason to think that such attitudes have changed, despite a change in administrations.

Originally Posted by robuzo

I believe it was Leslie Gelb who recently pointed out that the majority of "journalists" in DC initially jumped on the Iraq War bandwagon because a skeptical approach to the policies of the presidential administration in power at that time was considered a bad career move. There is little reason to think that such attitudes have changed, despite a change in administrations.

Good point.

During the run-up to the Iraq invasion I was visiting in the US for a period of a few months. The media regurgitating what Ari Fleischer and the administration kept saying on a daily basis.

And now, it seems to be the same when it comes to the stimulus and other matters.

Mainstream media is pretty terrible, especially television.

Originally Posted by raycarey

an observation that was passed on the other day.....

not all right wingers are racists....but nearly all racists are right-wingers.

Originally Posted by BugginOut

The purpose is to connect them to patriot movements

you mean the teabaggers?

And not all liberals are racists - only those who support affirmative action - that by virtue of one's race, one requires a 'hand up' from society.

Originally Posted by venturalaw

Originally Posted by raycarey

an observation that was passed on the other day.....

not all right wingers are racists....but nearly all racists are right-wingers.

Originally Posted by BugginOut

The purpose is to connect them to patriot movements

you mean the teabaggers?

And not all liberals are racists - only those who support affirmative action - that by virtue of one's race, one requires a 'hand up' from society.

Not exactly on topic, but there is more evidence that xenophobia just might be hard-wired. Not that it makes it excusable- a big part of being civilized is resisting doing things that we are hard-wired to do (i.e., not acting like the animals we are; I think in large part the conservative/progressive, Burke/Paine divide comes down to faith, or lack thereof, in humanity's ability to do so):
Race matters to 3-month-olds, study finds
February 14th, 2006
You should judge someone not by the color of his skin, civil-rights leader Martin Luther King declared 43 years ago, but by the content of his character. Yet new research suggests that to achieve this ideal, you may have unlearn years’ worth of mental habits -- a daunting number of years. Such as your current age, minus three months.

Originally Posted by robuzo

Yet new research suggests that to achieve this ideal, you may have unlearn years’ worth of mental habits -- a daunting number of years. Such as your current age, minus three months.

Yep, always knew libbies were still babies on formula.

^ I doubt he'll do much more than blab some more. He's the right wing Olbermann/Maddows show.

Originally Posted by S Landreth

I highlighted and underlined the disturbing parts of the article. Michael Savage issues threat aimed at staff of Media Matters From a June 24 Examiner.com article:

Right wing talker Michael Savage vowed yesterday during his broadcast that he will retaliate against media watchdog Media Matters for America by posting pictures and "pertinent information" about the organization's staff on his website.

He made the comment almost in passing during one of his infamous rants, but did not explain what he expected his followers known as the "Savage Nation" to do with the information.

that is disturbing.

i've never listened to michael savage, but i know at least one forum member does listen to the show. i don't know if he considers himself to be a member of 'the savage nation', but perhaps he can let us know if this sort of behavior exhibited by savage is common

Originally Posted by attaboy

Boon, Savage Nation radio had a rep from the bridge authority on the show to explain the reason for no marine commercial.

Originally Posted by attaboy

The last time I listened to Savage he was engaged in an insult fest with the San Francisco city council. It was very amusing.

joe 'the plumber' (who isn't really a plumber), on lynching a US senator....

Referring to Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., more than once, Wurzelbacher asked, "Why hasn't he been strung up?"

'Joe the Plumber' shares conservative views

It is hard to read this stuff and not get the impression that The Savage Weiner isn't playing some kind of practical joke on his audience. He can't be serious; from Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
The Washington Monthly
"The fact is, Obama's team is taking out potential [2012] rivals, one after another," Savage argued. "Just last week, the media jumped on the story of Sen. John Ensign (R) of Nevada and his infidelity. He was considered to be a possible Republican presidential candidate in '12. Now Sanford, who had similar ambitions, caught in a similar situation.

"This is politics at its worst, brought to us by the worst administration, the meanest administration, the most closed administration, the most incompetent administration in American history."

Now, listening to the clip, it's a little unclear to me whether Savage thinks Obama made Sanford and Ensign have sex with these other women, or whether Obama was spying on Sanford and Ensign, learned of their adultery, and brought it to public attention.

Sure, either way, this is all painfully stupid, and not to be taken seriously. But even from the perspective of a twisted right-wing worldview, I'm curious about one thing: how does an incompetent administration pull off a feat like this? Wouldn't it take an enormous amount of competence to secretly hatch such an elaborate conspiracy?
- - -
Earlier, Benen offered up a Limbaugh diatribe that has to be read (or heard) to be believed:
The Washington Monthly
Rush Limbaugh, without a hint of humor, argued that South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) cheated on his wife, betrayed his family, and abandoned his professional responsibilities to fly off to Argentina ... and it's President Obama's fault.

"This is almost like, 'I don't give a damn, the country's going to Hell in a handbasket, I just want out of here,'" Limbaugh said. "[Sanford] had just tried to fight the stimulus money coming to South Carolina. He didn't want any part of it; he lost the battle. He said, 'What the hell. I mean, the federal government's taking over -- what the hell, I want to enjoy life.'"

Limbaugh added, "The point is, there are a lot of people whose spirit is just -- they're fed up, saying, 'To hell with it, I don't even want to fight this anymore, I just want to get away from it.'"

A listener apparently sent Limbaugh an email during the program, asking if he was kidding about the White House's economic policies being responsible for Sanford's affair. "No!" he said, adding that the governor may have realized, "The Democrats are destroying the country; we can't do anything to stop it."
- - -
I'm sure all of this makes sense to the kind of idiot who supports "teabagging" (Matt Taibibi has a hilarious post about teabagging Michelle Malkin here Matt Taibbi - Taibblog - Teabagging Michelle Malkin - True/Slant ) or compares Obama to murderous dictators like Stalin or Pol Pot. Deranged musings aside, the unifying trait of the Limbaughs and Savages of the world is whiney self-pity ("Obama is soooo mean!"); they whine about black victimology, and then go on endlessly about how hard it is to be a white male conservative in the lib'rul/feminist/minority-ruled world of their collective imagination. Aaaaaw.

Get ready for 7 1/2 more years of this shit. The somewhat scary thing is the frustration evident in a statement such as "The Democrats are destroying the country; we can't do anything to stop it." When people get that frustrated they tend to get violent; I don't mean people like the Fat Man, who can just sit on his yacht in Bar Harbor and laugh at all the suckers (a friend of mine, now deceased, used to host Limbaugh and his pal F. Lee Bailey on yachting/drinking excursions in Maine- yeah, Limbaugh was buddies with uber-liberal Patty Hearst and OJ defense attorney Flee), but there are thousands more down and out right-wing racist losers like the museum shooter out there.