Bush's 'war on terror' comes to a sudden end

[BMT (RIP)]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28807952

:munchin


BMT

[gagners]

I am not qualified to respond intelligently on matters of national security or methods used by the CIA. I would like to give a gut reaction to that article though:

I'm sure the CIA does things that would make "normal" people squeemish. Is it necessary? I don't know. Like I said, I'm not qualified to answer that. It does make me think of my childhood though and a specific instance:

1- There was a "rather friendly" girl in high school who would leave suggestive letters in my locker, telling me where to find her during the weekend, etc... Unbeknownst to me, my parents would read these notes, which I left on my dresser, and have stuff planned for the weekend (or outright tell me I couldn't go somewhere "because I said so"), ultimately ruining my chances for "meeting" that girl. Was it an invasion of privacy? Yes, I'm sure some parents would be appalled that they did that. Was it the best thing for me, even though I would have been pissed had I found out. Absolutely. And I thank them for it.

Bottom line: My parents did things that others wouldn't approve of because they knew it was in my best interest. I'm sure there are people still doing things like that for me somewhere in the world. Will I question how they do it? No, but I'd like to tell them "Thanks".

[Red Flag 1]

And so it begins! In the wanning days of his administration, Pres Bush admitted he erred in putting up the banner he did as a backdrop to a speech on an aircraft carrier. The war was not over; hostilities continued; terrorists just kept on. How does POTUS after G.H.Bush even begin to believe that he can end a war by what looks to be a simple desire to do so????:confused:

This is a banner day for terrorists world-wide. By "ending" the war, it suggests we need not be as vigilant. Programs designed for national defence can become unfunded, unsupported, and unneeded. How long before a repeat of 9/11?

On 9/11 war was declared against civillians in the USA. President Bush took the war to the enemy, and kept it there. Now that POTUS after Bush has declraeded "peace", the war has nowhere else to go except back to the civillian population of the USA.

I am in no position to comment on CIA ops of any kind. I do recall POTUS after Ford mucking about with the CIA with no good outcome for our intel folks.

As an aside, any bets on how long it will be before Israel goes after Iran?
The legacy of POTUS after Ford has life anew,IMHO!:mad:

:munchin


RF 1

[The Reaper]

With the dismantling of security measures and softening of our defenses, I strongly expect a major terrorist incident in the near future.

Everyone would be well advised to review their disaster plans, to include PACE for family commo in a sudden emergency.

Make sure of your rally/RV/link-up plans as well.

God Bless America.

TR

[SF_BHT]

I feel so bad that we made some Nut Jobs a little uncomfortable during their quest to Kill Us.:confused: I guess I should go to Church and be forgiven by my priest so I can start again on Monday with a clean slate........:D

These new ass hats are only lowering our defenses so we can be hit again with a major terrorist attack.

[greenberetTFS]

And so it begins! In the wanning days of his administration, Pres Bush admitted he erred in putting up the banner he did as a backdrop to a speech on an aircraft carrier. The war was not over; hostilities continued; terrorists just kept on. How does POTUS after G.H.Bush even begin to believe that he can end a war by what looks to be a simple desire to do so????:confused:

This is a banner day for terrorists world-wide. By "ending" the war, it suggests we need not be as vigilant. Programs designed for national defence can become unfunded, unsupported, and unneeded. How long before a repeat of 9/11?

On 9/11 war was declared against civillians in the USA. President Bush took the war to the enemy, and kept it there. Now that POTUS after Bush has declraeded "peace", the war has nowhere else to go except back to the civillian population of the USA.

I am in no position to comment on CIA ops of any kind. I do recall POTUS after Ford mucking about with the CIA with no good outcome for our intel folks.

As an aside, any bets on how long it will be before Israel goes after Iran?
The legacy of POTUS after Ford has life anew,IMHO!:mad:

:munchin


RF 1

RF1 is right on with his assessment of this situation. It's a sad day..........:(

GB TFS

[Dozer523]

Okay class. . . , lets read the entire article, not just the headline and lead.

Bush “War on Terror” Comes to a Sudden End.
Obama signals that America’s reach in battling enemies will not be limitless.

WASHINGTON - President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad.
But, if Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, where is the part that says ""We Quit, you win."?
Th article goes on to highlight tactics that the Bush administration has suspended, the "secret structure developed under Bush that were highly controversial " --
GITMO;
denial of Habeas and due process,
denial of POW status;
secret arrests of citizens from non-beligerent and even allied countries;
secret prisons;
torture;
death.
These are not good things, we haven't toterated them of others in the past, they have not been demonstrated effective in the War on Terror nor in the historical record.
The article points out that "On Sept. 6, 2006, Bush . . . suspended the CIA program, but defended its utility and reserved the right to reopen it. So apparantly, President Bush had already moth-balled the "war".
And finally, "in his inaugural address Tuesday, Obama used a different lexicon to describe operations to defeat terrorists. "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said. ". . . And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." Where in "our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." is "We Quit, you win."?

[echoes]

RF1 is right on with his assessment of this situation. It's a sad day..........:(
GB TFS

Sirs,

This article's topic must seem like a slap in the face to ALL the brave soldiers who have fought through blood, sweat, and tears to keep America safe from terror since 9-11.

Yet, those soldiers are my heroes, and can only hope that history will remember their bravery, courage, and sacrifice.

In my camp anyway, we will never forget, and will never quit in our support of America's bravest!

Edit to add: READ post #4. Now, Re-read post #4!

Holly;)

[SF_BHT]

Okay class. . . , lets read the entire article, not just the headline and lead.

Bush “War on Terror” Comes to a Sudden End.
Obama signals that America’s reach in battling enemies will not be limitless.

WASHINGTON - President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless. Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad.
But, if Obama says he has no plans to diminish counterterrorism operations abroad, where is the part that says ""We Quit, you win."?
Th article goes on to highlight tactics that the Bush administration has suspended, the "secret structure developed under Bush that were highly controversial " --
GITMO;
denial of Habeas and due process,
denial of POW status;
secret arrests of citizens from non-beligerent and even allied countries;
secret prisons;
torture;
death.
These are not good things, we haven't toterated them of others in the past, they have not been demonstrated effective in the War on Terror nor in the historical record.
The article points out that "On Sept. 6, 2006, Bush . . . suspended the CIA program, but defended its utility and reserved the right to reopen it. So apparantly, President Bush had already moth-balled the "war".
And finally, "in his inaugural address Tuesday, Obama used a different lexicon to describe operations to defeat terrorists. "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals," he said. ". . . And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." Where in "our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." is "We Quit, you win."?

OK Do you really trust what the article says? Did we stop? Did he Quit? Might want to think a little....... How many times did you tell your parents that you stopped something while you just got sneakier at how you did it. Quit talking while the crumb's fell out of your mouth?:D
Should we stop some of those items that have proven effective at gaining Intel that stopped attacks.....hummmmmm Think about it.....:munchin

[Red Flag 1]

Dozer,

It is my humble opinion that the spirit to go on fails if the body is broken. Is POTUS after Bush breaking the body:confused:

I have to believe that POTUS after Bush is doing what "he" thinks is right for the nation. I do hope that in the end "he" is right. Time will tell. This just does not feel very good to me! I believe that POTUS after Bush is unwittingly, I hope, breaking the body that the spirit needs!

I do hope we will survive all this.

As an aside, look at abortion/right to life! Perhaps we should all move to the left coast and embrace their views, to seek understanding.

TR is spot on!!!! Do not loose SA.


RF 1

[Sigaba]

For what it is worth, I found Ms. Priest's analysis to be more of a badly written editorial than anything else. First, Priest displays a short-sighted grasp of American history. She would have readers believe that Bush the Younger was an aberration in his use of his executive authority to fight a war. However, bookshelves groan under the weight of books that show otherwise.

Second, her grasp of President Bush's approach to GWOT is also flawed. While Bush the Younger defined GWOT as an ideological conflict that is global in scope and generational in length, and while he allowed the use of controversial methods, neither the scope or the methods were 'limitless.' Most notably, the Bush administration did not do what his predecessors had done during the Cold War: use nuclear weapons to deter aggression. Nor did the president adhere to what the late Russell Weigley termed "the American Way of War" in either Iraq or Afghanistan. (That is, the armed forces did not annihilate the enemy.)

Her understanding of the incumbent president's intentions do not inspire confidence in her grasp of that man's view of terrorism. As QP Dozer illustrated in his post, the president seems to be modifying the tools of war that he will use rather than abandoning the war as many of the president's supporters would like him to do. (It remains to be seen if such is the case.)

Most galling is her parroting of the assertion that President Bush made a "false the choice between our safety and our ideals." This statement is enjoying great currency in the afterglow of the president's inauguration but it is false.