OT: Bhutto Assassinated

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Jeff L,

You and I may disagree on things but even I don't think the World Trade Center collapse was because of an inside job.

Also, I had written a LONG response to tell my side of things but decided to delete it. I did this because talking about Bush, the terrorists and the unneeded war and deaths of US troops REALLY upsets me. Some of the things I said would definitely enflame and anger more people on this baord more than they already are. That is something I don't want to do. It is bad enough that MY blood pressure is increased, I don't need to raise anybopdy else's.

The last thing I am going to say is this. YOU as a New York City resident should be one of the first people screaming for Bush's impeachment and the arrest and imprisonment of his cronies, no matter what your political background is.

Because of what Bush has (and has NOT done), your Federal, state, county and city taxes have probably gone up.

NYC is just as likely to be attacked again because Bush didn't follow through in Afghanistan.

When you look at Bush's invasion of Iraq (something the extremists can use as a recruiting tool - "see, America DOES hate the Muslims") it has made MORE enemies of America and the liklihood of an attack is increased.

Bush has trampled on the Constitution and Democracy (he thinks he is King George and can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants) yet he sends troops overseas to die in the NAME of Freedom and Democracy. THAT is complete hypocrisy.

Finally, with our Civil Liberties eroded, what happens if (when?) another attack occurs on the US? We will be LESS free, our debt (to foreign nations like China) will be higher and we will STILL have been attacked. Add to this higher oil prices (which affect every citizen) and the weaker US dollar (because of the lack of trust in OUR Government) and THAT is a LOT of BAD things that Bush has brought on this country.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Steve,

Does your son know yet where he's going to do his Peace Corps service? My oldest boy left this past June and is in Central Ghana.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

David, I actually agree with some of what you say -- though then I think you reach wrong conclusions on certain issues which I identified. I'm not a real big Bush supporter for a number of reasons, mainly because I feel he should accept responsibility for the defective intelligence that led to the Iraq invasion. Sadly, because of the capital spent on that war we are unable to deal with a more evil situation which exists in Iran. All that being said, Saddam was an evil man who deserved to go. I was happy to see him go. I also think that for whatever the reason we are in Iraq (oil not being one of the reasons) we need to deal with that situation effectively. We cannot let Iraq fall into the hands of the demonic Muslim fascists who spend their days thinking of ways to kill us.

I also think you need to be more realistic to how easily America could turn into Israel, i.e., a daily barrage of suicide bombers trying to walk into banks, restaurants, supermarkets, etc. with simple bombs strapped onto their backs: bombs filled with explosives and ball bearings and nails -- all designed to rip as much flesh as possible from their victims. I can tell you that as a New Yorker we feel this threat every single day. On the subways, on the streets, in all sorts of public places. And we expect it to return at some point soon. That it hasn't happened already is a minor miracle in my eyes. However, there has been terrorist killings by Muslim fanatics in other parts of the country since 9/11: Seattle, Los Angeles Airport, etc. Don't diminish the threat just because you don't deal with it every day.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Ken, Steve: you must be very proud of your kids. I only hope my boys would follow that lead.

[Archive]

Posted By: DMcD

I read somewhere that surveys taken in the Moslem world show that a great majority of the people there think that the Jews were behind 9/11 and it is widely believed that all Jewish employees were advised to take the day off beforehand. Utter rubbish, of course, but apparently it has a lot of traction amongst the Arab masses. I also have seen on numerous occasions cars bearing bumperstickers claiming "9/11 was an inside job." I'm with Barry (and I'm not be glib, either) in wondering who these inside perpetrators are supposed to be. I don't like Bush one bit ("I'm a uniter not a divider" still sticks in my gut all these years later like a bad meal) but I am not nearly cynical enough to think he and Cheney were in on the plot. Patently idiotic. Money bankers? Sieg heil, baby. And what's with all the friggin' apostrophes?

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Some comments on the exchange above on the difference between living in NYC and living inland.

Maybe I will be the first and only one to admit this, but as someone living in the Midwest I don't think I have the same fear or appreciation of the threat as those that live in the high-target areas.

And before I get blasted with responses and emails, let me be clear in saying I was horrified that day as was everyone. I don't think anyone doesn't "get it" so to speak - just as, as Jeff said, a resident of NYC could feel for the victims in OKC. So it's not that I am indifferent to it.

But in my everyday life, I honestly don't really fear for my safety because of a terrorist attack. I am not sure that the very visceral sense of constant exposure can resonate with people on the interior the same way it does for those in the more at-risk cities.

I think David ctown is right in that the targets that day were symbolic and not designed necessarily to maximize casualties, and most symbolic targets tend to be on the coasts and/or in big cities.

The WTC was the most prominent symbol of US capitalism and economic advancement. The fact that it was filled with people was probably at least partly a coincidence. They didn't fly into it at 4:00 a.m. because I don't think there are a lot of planes flying anywhere into the area at 4:00 a.m.

They picked the targets, times and flights based on the airline schedules, not the work habits of Manhattanites. They intentionally picked cross-country flights because they would naturally have the most fuel onboard. They didn't take the very first flights out of NY (that would have left more around 5:30 or 6:00 a.m.) because they wanted to go through security at smaller airports and then catch connections out of NYC. So the fact that they hit around 9:00 a.m. was probably more because of logistics, not intent. In fact, I think at the time the commentary was that it was lucky it was before 9:00 and not later in the morning because once the WTC got humming there may be as many as 50,000 people in the towers.

Also, the PA flight was destined for either the White House or Capitol. Both are very much symbols of the US, and definitely not places where maximum number of deaths would be a priority. Same with the Pentagon.

So I think there is a good argument to be made that symbolic targets are important to them - or at least some combination of symbolism, number of people killed, and overall dramatic effect - and that any future incident would be similary targeted.

This thinking would tend to concentrate targets along the coast, and to recognizable structures or places. Just based on that, I don't know if a Midwesterner can really stand in the shoes of a New Yorker in terms of thinking that any hour of any day you could be in danger just by going to work.

Not saying it's right or wrong or good or bad - just that it's probably reality until they hit something like Toledo or Tulsa or Pierre or Muskegon or Little Rock. Now THAT would equally and collectively scare the crap out of all of us b/c it would introduce the factor of randomness of target.


Joann

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

David,

Though Americans should entertain and express the sorts of concerns you raise, I respectfully submit that you lack historical perspective. Attempts among the the three equal branches of government at agrandisement of power at the expense of the others is part and parcel of our history. If anything, you should probably be incensed at Congress for shrinking before its constitutional prerogatives and duties - mainly war powers and general oversight. Even if Bush is as bad as you say, a view that I personally do not hold though he leaves much to be desired, I feel certain that the country will continue to thrive. Even if he is as big a usurper as you profess, I am confident that the genius of the Founding Fathers in the form of the system of Checks and Balances will carry the day as it has in the past.

Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

Joann -

I have a question for you and/or the other legal minds. This is not a challenge to your views, just a straightforward question.

Are there any Bush Administration practices in combatting terror that have been ruled constitutionally invalid by the Supreme Court - yet are still being continued following such a ruling? In other words, is the Administration in defiance of any court edicts?

Ken

PS - How I got here from Ms. Bhutto I can only wonder.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Kenneth,

The Founding Fathers expected the Congress, Senate and Judicial system to have some say in matters. With Bush, he has put his cronies in charge at the Justice System (Alberto Gonzalez) and used "matters of National security" and "Presidential prerogitive" (I can not think of the actual term right now) to hide informatioin from not only the public but also the Congress and Senate.

Yes, I think the Congress and Senate are partially to blame for NOT having the balls to stand up to the President BUT when he hides most everything and very few people have all the facts and can not see the total picture, they can only see what the President wants them to see, it is hard to fight against that and to get the American public behind the idea the President is wrong. That is why I hope the next President opens up most everything Bush has kept secret and shows what ALL really happened.

David

Edited to add this.

Furthermore, looking at what Bush has done (usurped powers that previously Congress and Justice has had) it sets bad precedent for FUTURE Presidents. What I mean by this is; if Bush feels he has the right to waterboard detainees (even though it is against our laws and, I think, the Geneva Convention, what stops future Presidents from doing it and worse? what stops them from taking the next step and using it against American citizens or politicians they don't agree with? Bush said the waterboarding took place overseas in secret military prisons, so what if a future President wants to take an outspoken US citizen overseas to one of these prisons?

What if a future President wants to illegally eavesdrop on an outspoken citizen or political opponent and use that info against them to shut them up?

Bush is using these tactics in the name of fighting terrorism but what if a future Presidnet uses them because of personal bias? What if Southern Baptist Mike Huckabee wins and decides to use these tactics against people of other religions who don't believe in the God that he believes in or against Atheists?

What if Hillary uses these tools against Republicans or men? What if Obama uses them against women or whites?

Once a President starts down this hill (doing whatever he/she wants, whenever they want, whether it is legal or not just because they want to or feel they have the right to because they are President) where does it stop??

Going down this path, I could become President and illegally eavesdrop on everyone on this board and find some dirt on you and use it to acquire cards and/or memorabilia I want to own. Heck, if the cards are stored in a bank, I could have the safety deposit boxes opened up under the guise that whatever was in those boxes was a threat to National Security. I could have you arrested and use Presidential need to know as the reason and to also keep you imprisoned for as long as I like with you NEVER going to trial.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

David -

I believe the term you're looking for is Executive Privilege. The only remark I'd like to make is that none of what you just mentionned is really historically unprecedented in relations among the 3 branches. Doesn't mean you have to like it, but it's nothing new.

Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Did someone mention "oversight"? Heh! The chairman of the Oversight Committee is Joe Lieberman - So far he has conducted ZERO investigations into the Bush administration. Pelosi and Reed are the worst congressional leaders the Democrats have EVER had.

[Archive]

Posted By: David Smith

Dan,

Two possible reasons for that.

1) They have NO BALLS to do what is right

2) Bush, through illegal eavesdropping, has gained dirt on them and they want to keep their jobs.

David

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

They're all worthless...Repubs and Dems alike. Good thing the Republicans didn't kill the filibuster a few years back like they wanted because they sure are fond of it nowadays (setting records for filibustering they are http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13977.html )....and to let them do with a cloture vote?? Disgusting.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Did we ever find out who the "bankers" were?

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Geez Jeff, seeing all those rare Cobb cards flowing into your collection I thought you were ON that banking committee.

[Archive]

Posted By: howard

C'mon, Jeff...you know who the bankers are. Didn't your father give you a bank for your Bar Mitzvah like mine gave me?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Dan, Howard, you guys must be part of the Tribe. Everyone knows that we control the banking industry (and the media, too -- you know the ones that are keeping the Truth from us.). We're the only people that get blamed for 9/11 more than Bush!

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

"Bush, through illegal eavesdropping, has gained dirt on them and they want to keep their jobs."

Come on, David. Now you're getting into Bill L. territory!

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenneth A. Cohen

When I was Bar Mitzvahed I was promised a seat on the Trilateral Commission when I grew up. Unfortunately it fell through when some dude from the Elders of Zion took precedence.

BTW, not to hijack the thread, but I actually went to a card show today.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"Bush, through illegal eavesdropping, has gained dirt on them and they want to keep their jobs."

This is true: Bush has info that the Speaker of the House wears women's underwear.

[Archive]

Posted By: Brad

Did we ever find out who the "bankers" were?

Jeff, here's your answer again!

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe D.

I married a banker, and I am pretty sure she was not involved.
I am pretty sure none of my banker-in-laws were involved either.

btw... when did this become an 'All in The Family' thread? - I thought this was a Seinfeld crowd

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Joe, very sad. Most amazing is that the bigots don't even try to hide it! I'm thinking it might be best to stick to cards from now on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Joann

Yeesh. That video leaves me to pondering what interest Chase Manhattan could possibly have in carrying my insigificant little mortgage.

Kenneth - honestly I don't know the answer to your question about the SC rulings. They have struck down some of his practices related to the detainees in Cuba, but I'd have to try to look it up to see if any of the surveillance/FISA etc kinds of practices have even made it to the SC. I don't think anything is being done that was specifically struck down, but I think the more important point might be the extent to which the administration will force people and organizations to have to go that long and expensive route just to get a ruling.

I also completely agree with you about Congress. Regardless of the role of the courts, I don't know how much of this could have happened with a stronger Congress. But we had a Vice President that was bound and determined to explore and expand the power of the Executive Branch, while at the same time we had a Congress that was pretty much a 870-legged lapdog of the President. Not a good combination, and you are right - I do forget the extent to which the mysterious 6-year disappearance of Congress contributed to Bush's excesses.

Joann

Oh - Joe D - got your email, and I'll try to find where I got that from, but I do see your point. For what it's worth, your views are among those I specifically have in mind when I say that I am able to see valid thinking among those that I truly respect, even though our opinions diverge at some point.