Colonel suspended for bad-mouthing Bush

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Andrew1999


And we all know Congress would never be stampeded into giving the executive broad new powers without even considering them. Oh, wait, they did that last fall with the "USA Patriot Act."

No they wouldn't, not to the extent of allowing the executive branch to cancel the Constitution. Besides, even the Surpreme Court decides the constitutionality of acts and can strike them down. The President does not have true emergency powers.

[Ned]

Vel, what a link! Reminds me of a similar "conspiracy" newsletter I read years ago about the Nixon presidency.

On the officer in question, his serious lack of judgment in criticizing his commander-in-chief is bad enough, but what he said is worse in that the he jumped the ultimate conclusion that Bush deliberately permitted the attacks on United States. This is something that is currently under investigation, not something that we "know." I think there something seriously wrong with this gentleman. I don't think he should be allowed in the military let alone be a Colonel.

[Velociryx]

Thanks guy...yeah....it's made the rounds a few times before, but I thought it was worth bringing up again...

-=Vel=-

[Frankychan]

Whoa, I just thought I'd bring up some discussions my classmates, friends and I talked about over the past coupla weeks. Well, I am a little biased against the U.S. current administration......but I still like America.

One other little debate we had was that Dubya's main reason for wanting to get rid of Saddam was that he (Saddam) insulted his father and Bush sr. couldn't get Hussein out of power. The whole "War on Terror" is another smoke screen to fulfill Bush jr.'s own agenda.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by frankychan
Whoa, I just thought I'd bring up some discussions my classmates, friends and I talked about over the past coupla weeks. Well, I am a little biased against the U.S. current administration......but I still like America.

One other little debate we had was that Dubya's main reason for wanting to get rid of Saddam was that he (Saddam) insulted his father and Bush sr. couldn't get Hussein out of power. The whole "War on Terror" is another smoke screen to fulfill Bush jr.'s own agenda.

Franky: Could it be possible that the whole war on terror thing has something to do with what happened on Sept 11?

[Frankychan]

Whoa Spray, I'm just stating what others are saying about Dubya's actions. Even though I don't like Bush, I think he's doing a relatively good job trying to get rid of terrorism. But others in my class think its one big "Roswell/Area 51" conspiracy theory.

Myself, I think that he's doing the best he knows how to handle things. I don't think any person should go through making the decisions he's having to make right now.

I'm sorry if I sound "DOWN WITH INSTITUTION!" but I'm just trying to see what other people think about my classmate's idea's.

[Sprayber]

I must have misunderstood you then. I've been up all night sick and I have to head out on the road later today.

A person should not be called un American for pointing out problems in the goverment or being concerned about the possiblity of the goverment going too far. But many let their mind out pace the facts too often and it ends up that they think Bush allowed this to happen. Even a highjacking on American soil would have been disastrous to a president who protrayed himself as tough on crime and the defender of American values. Sure there were probably memos about possible terrorist attacks and there may have been breifings. But don't forget that without something concreate the Bush administration would have been accused of over reacting or simply using the threats to undermine our individual liberties by many of the same people who are now so outraged by this. Also dont' forget that many of the people complaing about the CIA and the FBI are the same people who would have cried bloody murder if they had cracked down before this happened.

It's pretty much the same people that wanted to limit the FBI and CIA before 9 -11 who are now complaining that they didn't do enough. The FBI has become an agency that everyone loves to hate. *much to the relief of the ATF*

[Frankychan]

Nod. Thanks for understanding me! Hope you feel better and have a safe road trip.

I agree that there are those people out there that are totally hypocritical. First they say, "You wanna take away our rights!" and when something happens, turn around and say, "Why didn't you try to do something???". These people make me sick.

I think that you also bring valid points about the CIA and FBI. These agencies have had a bad rap because of all the myth that goes around them. One agency does something wrong and everyone is quick to point out their faults. What people don't see is all the good deeds that they (the FBI & CIA) accomplish. People forget that the FBI has helped in solving numerous kidnappings and such....but bad news makes interesting news.

It sucks but that's how these agencies are portrayed in the media...

[SpencerH]

Its strange to me that some people here think that GWB is too dumb to tie his own shoes, but is capable of arranging of devious plot to boost his popularity and gain more presidential powers.

[Roland]

"Even a highjacking on American soil would have been disastrous to a president who protrayed himself as tough on crime and the defender of American values."

All a matter of blame-gaming and spin control (Clinton, democrats, civil rights advocates, and, of course, pacifist europeans in some way). If 9/11 wasn't desastrous for his reputation...

"but is capable of arranging of devious plot to boost his popularity and gain more presidential powers."

Government inertia does not require much plotting.

[SpencerH]

Government inertia does not require much plotting

this is meaningless.

[Roland]

Not at all. A passive plot on tacit understanding not to do anything is a lot easier to achieve than an active plot requiring detailed planning.

I do not claim it happened. I only say it is a plausible possibility as far as a "normal" terror attack is concerned.

[chequita guevara]

You know, Sprayber, there is a big difference between the FBI acting competently, and the FBI abusing Constitutionally protected freedoms. The Bush uber allis crowd seems to forget that it wasn't that the FBI didn't have the information that something big was going on, it was that they ignored it. There is a major difference between surveiling groups which have ties to suspected or known terrorists, and with spying on every Arab male.

For whatever reason, the FBI choose not to follow up on leads the anti-terorism unit was generating about possible threats. What pisses me off is the the FBI still had enough people to harrass and intimidate legitimate internal political dissent in the US, but had their head up their ass when while legitimately suspected terrorists were up to an awful lot of suspicious stuff.

SpenceH, just cuz I think Dubya is a moron doesn't mean I think his staff is. The people he has working for him are exceedingly smart. Which is not to say that I believe that there's a conspiracy on the part of the Administration, at least not yet. It remains to be seen what the Administration knew and when they knew it.

If, on the wild chance, they knew something was gonna happen, they may well have trusted in their ability to keep it secret, as the Bush Administration has been doing everything it can to limit any information since the week Bush took office. And they've done a pretty good job of it, defying court orders to turn over documents and the like. Even now they are defying a Congressional subpeona. Which is not to say that they knew something was up.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Velociryx
giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first having to offer evidence of potential criminal activity.

I just thought that I would mention something that wasn't made clear in your article Vel.

The new guidelines say that FBI agents now have the authority to enter public places and forums (ie internet sites, libraries, etc.) to observe, develop leads and investigate. Religious institutions aren't even mentioned in the change.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Roland
Not at all. A passive plot on tacit understanding not to do anything is a lot easier to achieve than an active plot requiring detailed planning.

I do not claim it happened. I only say it is a plausible possibility as far as a "normal" terror attack is concerned.

As a plausible possibility OK, its worth discussion, but not much more. The problem with a "tacit understanding not to do anything" is how many people will know about it this understanding. In this case you'd have to guess the cabinet, the national security advisor and senior staff, the higher ups in the intel world and FBI. Any operatives who collected the original information or those analysed it.

Its virtually impossible that GWB or those close enough to the president were given any information that could have been used to actually prevent the attacks and have them succesfully deny any knowledge. The government would have to be totally corrupt in order for that to happen. Its kind of like the OJ conspiracy, sure it could have happened but is it likely that so many people were corrupt.

Any failure has to lie with the coordination between the many many intel orgs and the capabilities of those who are supposed to be able to analyse the data and create accurate intelligence assesments that can be understood by those who are supposed to make the decisions.