PDA

View Full Version : Overheard along the way


Roguish Lawyer
06-01-2004, 11:51
Just finished a little trip to attend a wedding and see family on the East Coast. Had to change planes in both directions, and had the opportunity to eavesdrop on political conversations at three different airports in three very different parts of the country.

I kept hearing the same thing everywhere. And I've been hearing it for a while:

"I'm not happy with George Bush, but I don't see a viable alternative."

Anyone care to discuss?

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 19:42
sKerry doesn't really seem to be making much of an impression even among some Democrats that I know. (I know I know...I usually shower after I hang around with them. :D) His flip-flop record is a huge problem and I'm glad to see people that recognize this. Also, he keeps saying he has a plan for this and a plan for that....well I think people are waiting to hear some concrete info which never seems to be forthcoming. Between that and his willingness to put our national security into the hands of an impotent UN and worrying about our reputation in the international community...I only pray people will use their heads instead of "anyone but Bush" as their guide come November.

I was wondering RL, when you overheard this comment were you in traditionally democratic areas? Hopefully these people are in fact voters, and if nothing else will choose President Bush.

DanUCSB
06-01-2004, 19:48
Originally posted by Gypsy
Also, he keeps saying he has a plan for this and a plan for that....well I think people are waiting to hear some concrete info which never seems to be forthcoming.

Absolutely true. I was reading coverage of his latest speech, about his 'plan' to protect the nation from nuclear attack, and the high points of his plan consisted of 'stopping North Korea from producing any more' and 'keeping terrorists from acquiring nuclear material.'

To which my response is, thank you, Capt. Obvious. Have any workable ways to actually make this happen?

The Reaper
06-01-2004, 19:54
Originally posted by DanUCSB
Absolutely true. I was reading coverage of his latest speech, about his 'plan' to protect the nation from nuclear attack, and the high points of his plan consisted of 'stopping North Korea from producing any more' and 'keeping terrorists from acquiring nuclear material.'

To which my response is, thank you, Capt. Obvious. Have any workable ways to actually make this happen?

I thought the exact same thing.

What does he think we have been doing?

TR

NousDefionsDoc
06-01-2004, 19:57
Hillary will be the candidate in '04.

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 19:57
Originally posted by DanUCSB
Absolutely true. I was reading coverage of his latest speech, about his 'plan' to protect the nation from nuclear attack, and the high points of his plan consisted of 'stopping North Korea from producing any more' and 'keeping terrorists from acquiring nuclear material.'

To which my response is, thank you, Capt. Obvious. Have any workable ways to actually make this happen?

I actually heard sound bites from that speech...he thinks that is the biggest threat. No s*** Sherlock. (I like Capt. Obvious better) I actually was "talking" to him from my chair..."like what kind of plans you loser, exactly how do you plan to stop them?" And he thinks President Bush isn't addressing this....WTH?

<---Taking a deep calming breath......

DanUCSB
06-01-2004, 19:58
I reckon he's getting a taste of the 'responsibility blues'. That is, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and sharpshoot a guy making decisions. It's a lot harder when you have to provide better ones instead of just bitching and moaning.

My guess? His proposed 'plans' towards most foreign affairs issues are going to be suspiciously similar to the ones we're already executing.

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 19:58
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Hillary will be the candidate in '04.

Please God NOOO.

You really mean '04?

DunbarFC
06-01-2004, 20:08
It's just more of the same with lil John John

He's really earning his nickname of "Liveshot" now. Have camera, will go on and on and on about nothing

Roguish Lawyer
06-01-2004, 20:10
Originally posted by Gypsy
I was wondering RL, when you overheard this comment were you in traditionally democratic areas?

Airports. I think they still allow Republicans. LOL

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 20:11
Originally posted by DanUCSB
Capt. Obvious.

On second thought I think Capt. Oblivious is more apropos.

:lifter

Roguish Lawyer
06-01-2004, 20:11
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Hillary will be the candidate in '04.

Don't think so. '08, sure. Not '04.

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 20:12
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Airports. I think they still allow Republicans. LOL

LOL silly me...I meant geographical areas....

Roguish Lawyer
06-01-2004, 20:14
Originally posted by Gypsy
LOL silly me...I meant geographical areas....

Well, these were big cities and city folk tend to be Democrats, but Republicans will come in when they have to catch a plane. LOL

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 20:16
BRAT! :D

NousDefionsDoc
06-01-2004, 20:17
Originally posted by Gypsy
Please God NOOO.

You really mean '04?

Of course. Think about it - Kerry starts to look like he will lose. The libs cry out "Who will save us?!"

Hillary steps up (roll theme to Under Dog cartoons) "Here I come to save the day!"

Clinton needs to be begged and hear the cries of the people. Think Eva Peron.

The Reaper
06-01-2004, 20:17
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Don't think so. '08, sure. Not '04.

Concur.

I think this has the Dems in a hurry.

If Kerry becomes the nominee, how can Hillary run against him as an incumbent in '08?

It would tear the Party to shreds, and Big John has too big an ego to step down.

If something happened to him (like many of the Klinton's other enemies), his Veep would still be on the inside track for the nomination.

Only way Hillary can run is if Bush wins, and then she can win the Party nom more easily to run against a new Republican nominee, rather than the incumbent President.

If Kerry wins and survives, she has to wait till 2012.

NDD:

Can't happen unless Kerry, as the Primary winner refuses the nom. Think he will do that?

TR

Gypsy
06-01-2004, 20:19
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Of course. Think about it - Kerry starts to look like he will lose. The libs cry out "Who will save us?!"

Hillary steps up (roll theme to Under Dog cartoons) "Here I come to save the day!"

Clinton needs to be begged and hear the cries of the people. Think Eva Peron.

Oh I loved Under Dog! Wanted to marry him when I was about 4 years old.

I'm sure this scenario has merit, but again God help us.

Don't cry for me...America. Nahh doesn't have the same ring to it.

ghuinness
06-01-2004, 20:24
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Hillary will be the candidate in '04.

Wish I didn't agree.....

Funny how the Clinton memoir release date has been pushed forward.

Clinton made some comment about the first female president a few weeks ago. Don't recall the audience. I know he gestured to Carol Mosley Braun but that's not who he was referring to.

Ambush Master
06-01-2004, 20:28
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Don't think so. '08, sure. Not '04.

Concur here also. I've been saying for quite a while now that I bet that the Klintoons are going to pull all kinds of crap out of the closet to keep John Boy out of office. Hillary needs a clear trail in '08 and in no way would she want to take on the problems that are manifesting themselves now !!!

NousDefionsDoc
06-01-2004, 20:39
Can't happen unless Kerry, as the Primary winner refuses the nom. Think he will do that?

Have to wait to see what skeletons come jumping out of the closet.

1. We will get UBL before the election.
2. Evidence of WMD or SH ties to AQ will come out before the election.

When that happens, Kerry, being the political animal he is, will drop out to save face. Hillary will come out, because she is the only one with a chance, even if all the other things happen.

Just my nightmare scenario. Of course I could be completely wrong.

mffjm8509
06-01-2004, 21:09
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Have to wait to see what skeletons come jumping out of the closet.

1. We will get UBL before the election.
2. Evidence of WMD or SH ties to AQ will come out before the election.



You know, I've thought the UBL scenario is the plan for some time now. Even to the point that we may be keeping him at bay, and tracking his movement until the right time to be politically exploitable.

I'm probably way off base here, but I've seen it before in Yugo, when K-man was well within our grasp, only to be called off.....WHY?

mp

Sdiver
06-01-2004, 21:12
Up here in Hippie land (aka Seattle), the sad thing is, these flower childern are just running around saying...A.B.B.
Anyone
But
Bush

They don't care about the countrys safety, or theirs for that matter. They just want to go back to the good 'ol days of Klinton and their cronnies.

Sacamuelas
06-01-2004, 21:23
Originally posted by mffjm8509
You know, I've thought the UBL scenario is the plan for some time now. Even to the point that we may be keeping him at bay, and tracking his movement until the right time to be politically exploitable.


You know... it is one thing to hear political conspiracy and cover-up theories come from whackjobs who hate federal LE, FBI, or the ATF ... but I admit it ACTUALLY concerns me to hear guys like you and NDD find potential truth in this type of scenario.

Are you serious? :munchin


*** let me clarify what I mean, it seems this could be read the wrong way. I respect the opinions of guys like you and if you are willing to admit possibilities such as this could occur with our military and civilian leadership... that is what is astounding to me.

Sigi
06-02-2004, 12:00
Originally posted by mffjm8509
You know, I've thought the UBL scenario is the plan for some time now. Even to the point that we may be keeping him at bay, and tracking his movement until the right time to be politically exploitable.


I will be extremely angry if this is true. Good men dying for political expediency. Wouldn't be the first time. :rolleyes:

pulque
06-02-2004, 12:10
Originally posted by mffjm8509
You know, I've thought the UBL scenario is the plan for some time now. Even to the point that we may be keeping him at bay, and tracking his movement until the right time to be politically exploitable.

I'm probably way off base here, but I've seen it before in Yugo, when K-man was well within our grasp, only to be called off.....WHY?

mp

:mad:

I dont like that plan.

Sacamuelas
06-02-2004, 13:05
One thing about what my intentions were in my post that needs to be explained clearly...

IMO, there are VALID reasons for doing just what has been suggested concerning OBL. Obviously, national security concerns about possible planned attacks might warrant delayed capture while tracking/monitoring the Intel traffic that comes to/from him and his senior Lt's. I honestly do not think that OBL is planning or even supporting any NEW terrorists operations for AQ in his current predicament. The only benefit I see that he serves is as a positive morale influence on his martyrs and as a figurehead for the group. So delaying his capture could have significant potential for benefit if we were able to monitor him with very little strategic downsides to his being allowed to exist in seclusion and under constant harassment to prevent further support for AQ. If we can't gain any foreseeable benefit to his delayed capture, then it would be immoral to delay execution of the plan til the right time "politically".

So, I have no problem with a decision being made to not get him until after we are sure that we have learned everything we can about already enacted plans for Terrorism within the US or against our assets overseas.

The unnerving aspect of these suggestions is that experienced men who have a much better understandings of these things (and actual experience in these type tactical and/or strategic type decisions) actually entertain the idea for this type of possibility to take place for NON-strategic reasons.

I am unnerved, b/c I sort of had the naive thought that the Military leadership and even ground commanders would never allow for such threats to exist if for only a petty reason (politics). I had more faith in the military than some others more experienced with her workings seem to. That isn't a bash... that is just expressing my ignorance and naivety about the situation.

There are so many people that would be "in the know" that I would imagine it difficult to prevent a retired General who is a yellow dog democrat from coming out with innuendo about the cover-up on CNN, which would lead to a congressional investigation.

:munchin

Roguish Lawyer
06-02-2004, 13:16
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
I am unnerved, b/c I sort of had the naive thought that the Military leadership and even ground commanders would never allow for such threats to exist if for only a petty reason (politics). I had more faith in the military than some others more experienced with her workings seem to. That isn't a bash... that is just expressing my ignorance and naivety about the situation.

It is naive, IMO. Recall that the military is under civilian control. My understanding, which admittedly is based on second-hand information, is that military leaders continue to be -- as they have been for decades -- restrained for political and often senseless reasons from acting on their best judgment. For example, I understand that potential operations in our national interest often have been called off due to unrealistic demands by the civilian leadership, such as zero possibility of U.S. casualties. So you are targeting the wrong decisionmakers.

I am sure someone more knowledgable will correct me if I am wrong.

Sacamuelas
06-02-2004, 13:41
I understand and understood what you are saying in your post RL. It is not that I don't realize that this can occur when national security or international relations difficulties(state dept) are involved.

I may have posted that in a way that makes me look to naive. I am just shocked that someone with this particular target's history/profile would be allowed to exist without there being some sort of very REAL national security interest in keeping him out there.

Its one thing to let some war crimes fugitive that committed no direct acts against OUR national security to remain free when our troops are already part of a UN political force and command. IT is entirely different, IMO, to allow a known threat with past attacks on US assets, civilians, and soldiers to live without capture w/o very valid benefit to our future security.


I doubt the guys who are still active will chime in with their opinions, and I understand that. Maybe others not expected to be as "reserved" in comment can further clear me up.

:munchin