This is how the GOP is providing "national security"

Sounds like the headlines from the spy scandle from the Clinton Administration. Funny how history repeats itself.

there's some worse things, believe it or not:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976831712
The U.S. government conducted a series of secret war games in 1999 that anticipated an invasion of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, and even then chaos might ensue.

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976831689
A suspected terrorist who spent years in a secret CIA prison should not be allowed to speak to a civilian attorney, the Bush administration argues, because he could reveal the agency's closely guarded interrogation techniques.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061106/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/fbi_prosecutions&printer=1
The Justice Department increasingly has refused to prosecute FBI cases targeting suspected terrorists over the past five years, according to private researchers who reviewed department records.

The government says the findings are inaccurate and "intellectually dishonest."

The report being released Monday by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University raises questions about the quality of the FBI's investigations.

Prosecutors declined to bring charges in 131 of 150, or 87 percent, of international terrorist case referrals from the FBI between October 2005 and June 2006, according to the report. The study was based on the most recent data available from the Justice Department's executive office for U.S. attorneys.

That number marks the peak of generally steady increases from the 2001 budget year, when prosecutors rejected 33 percent of such cases from the FBI, according to the report.

and i don't even want to start on homeland security.

Psssst Troublemkr.... there is no homeland security! don't tell anyone.

The Bush Admin. have had several security breaches.
Negropone posted classified documents on a web
site trying to secure votes for the GOP.
The informations was pulled because it provided
instructions on how to build a nuclear bomb.

If we had posted the info we would be in
police custody & on our way to prison.

Perhaps you are to youing to remember the headlines 25 years or so ago. A college graduate wrote his thesis on nuculear weapons and in it described in detail how to do build a nuculear device. He was arrested and investigated at the time by the FBI. His source for the nuculear information was the Library of Congress. Natch he was released.

Hmmmm...the "national security party" spokespersons seem entirely disinterested in the fact that their "national security pretendident" has given away nuclear weapons technology to whomever wished to have it. Sorta makes one re-think the whole "GOP is the national security party" line of BS, donut?

Come guys everybody knows security in America is a joke and has been since the early 70s. Anybody who wants to build a nuculear weapon can get the info free of charge. The trick is to get the material, put it together, and explode it somewhere at will. Up untill know that ability was held only by world powers that had an understanding of the consequenses of that action thanks to a first hand look at the results courtesy of the USA. The plotters of the next wave of nuclear destruction sitting in thier caves in remote areas of the world could care less about the consequenses Neither do the varied small potatoEs dictators of third world countries. Even Americans do not truely understand the power of our weapons today and implications of another blast the magnitude of which would make 9/11 seem like a backyard firecracker and Hiroshima like an OK City bomb. And the combination of all of those factors raises the danger level of the world situation way beyond the the "red" zone. America better wake up and smell the coffee.

What exactly is the mission of the Office of Homeland Security again? The only thing it's good at is keeping us scared. Is "Security" a euphemism for it's true purpose such as Changing the name of the Department of War to the Department of Defense? Is Security to Insecurity as Defense is to War? What is today's threat level anyway?

High if you are flying. Elevated otherwise.

Does it make a difference?

Thanks, I just forgot to check how scared I am supposed to be.

Voted a (10) because it's safe to vote absolutely anything Clark Kent says with a (10).

Especially when he is responding to Charles N!

So don't be afraid to pick up that habit today ...

Regarding 'so called' security:

Vote your conscience, people. - Clark Kent

And if you are not frothing with anguish, you have not been paying attention. And you probably should not be voting until your attention deficiency has been psychotropically medicated. - LoTek

LoTek

truthfor911.gather.com

I have often wondered how many people have changed their perspective after reading what Clark has to say.

Better yet, Kristina, wonder how many followed the link to confirm what Clark had to say, and then got really scared. Those would be the wise ones, I think.

You don't really think anyone takes Clark seriously do you?

Clark is witty, well informed and persistent and I find what he says and the sites he makes referrals to worthy of serious consideration. So yes, I do think people take him seriously.

"Come guys everybody knows security in America is a joke and has been since the early 70s."

This is "pre-9/11" mentality. I thought the GOP was the only party that could "protect us?" If so, why have they offered this information online, and why are you, a GOP supporter, brushing that aside as unimportant?

It may be unimportant if the GOP hadn't been spending the past 5 years trying to convince those ignorant enough to vote republican that only the GOP can provide security. However, since they have decided to use this as a political tool and weapon, it's entirely valid to ask why on earth, if this is the "national security party," would they have allowed this to happen? I don't give a shit if the information has been available previously or not, and it appears that some of the information that was offered at this site was NOT previously available, so that's probably a moot argument anyway.

The fact is, this is a white house and a political party that has based its entire existance upon the fantasy that they, and only they, can provide national security, and yet they've chosen to post this potentially damaging information for all to see.

You couple this with the fact that virtually NOTHING has been done in terms of real national security over the past 5+ years, and throw in the fact that this white house allowed 9/11 to happen under their watch while they sat on their thumbs, and toss in the fact that some 3,000 illegal aliens are pouring across our border every single day, and you can see that the GOP is the furthest thing around from being the "national security party." They're record on national security is attrocious, and only gets worse.



"You don't really think anyone takes Clark seriously do you? "

I welcome you with open arms to refute anything and everything that I post, assuming you can back what you say. Never, ever take my comments at face value. Look everything up for yourself, and, if you can find documentation to refute something that I say, bring it on. I encourage that discussion.




Thanks, Kristina. I appreciate your gracious, generous comments.

I take facts seriously. Clark comes with them. I find that refreshing in this age of "truthiness". I often agree with his conclusions, but not always.

Contrast that with the knee-jerk defenses of whatever the President wants to do coming from the neo-con side. After seeing what has happened to the country in recent years, I know who not to trust with our future.

Well said, Thomas.

It is important to remember that there were experts warning us of the need for security at our airports long before 9/11. They were ignored because the airline industry did not want to do it. So, Homeland Security is the same kind of joke because it costs money to keep our ports and entities secure. There is the rub. If it costs money - our Republican Congress doesn't want to spend it. Unless of course, President Bush asks for it - then it's hand it over even if we have to borrow it. Disgusting.

Clark et al,
Before one can show you the error of your ways/logic/facts one would need for you to define some basic english words as you understand them. Based on some of your past statements [Clark] one particular word you seem to use in error is lie or lied. It appears that most Americans these days buy into all the rhetoric from both sides of an argument as unbendable dogma and few are willing or able to look at the real truth and past history to form opinions based on fact and intellect rather than hype and emotion. I find that a tragic commentary of a population that used to be able to pride itself on its higher standard of education.

JIm,

You forgot shaking down Vice President Gore at the airport!

Jim did you know that as an immediate response to 9/11, LIGHTERS were originally banned from planes until the tobacco lobby got the President to change that? Even after they busted the shoe-bomber, it was still OK. Now we can't take liquid on the airplanes because of the foiled terror attempt. I think next move of the formally Republican Congress was to ban planes from flying into buildings.

I am not sure in which direction the country may be moving, but the neo-conservatives definitely just got neutered. And where was Rove -- it sounded like they let Dubbya off the leash yesterday without a script, it is an embarrassment to the nation when they do that. I mean the Pelosi measuring drapes comment -- Rove what were you thinking?

Why is it that democrats like clark hate the truth and always try to change history for their own advantage. This is sad and immoral in my opinion.

"Why is it that democrats like clark hate the truth and always try to change history for their own advantage. This is sad and immoral in my opinion. "

Refute away or shut your pie hole, little one.