Terrorists Win: Deodorant Banned From Airplanes

[JohnnyP]

....

Okay, then start it. Ted Kaczynski put a bomb on American Airlines flight 444 back in 1979.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber


And of course a person who would blow up a bunch of little kids would never think of bombing an airplane.

I think that statement under your username says it all, if this is how you think.

 

[NEDude]

I think that statement under your username says it all, if this is how you think.

You mean the "In Denial"?

Answer me this, how do you know someone is a muslim? When you buy an airline ticket, get a drivers license or passport, open a bank account, or get a job, where are you asked your religion?

Do you know that Arabs make up only 20% of the muslim population? Are you aware that Islamic terrorists have been recruiting non-Arabs? Are you aware that they have been recruiting U.S. citizens?

So tell me, how do you propose we profile muslims? How do you even identify someone as a muslim?

Why would you skip profling others groups or individuals who have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism but may be interested in aviation? Do you propose the DHS follow the path that we so criticize the FAA for and wait until people have died before they take steps to prevent it?

I am all for profiling, I just don't see how you can profile muslims. Nor do I see why you would want to only profile muslims.

I am truly sorry that you think because of that, I am in denial. I think those who feel it is a simple problem with a simple solution are the ones in denial.

 

[brainhurts]

You mean the "In Denial"?

Answer me this, how do you know someone is a muslim? When you buy an airline ticket, get a drivers license or passport, open a bank account, or get a job, where are you asked your religion?

Do you know that Arabs make up only 20% of the muslim population? Are you aware that Islamic terrorists have been recruiting non-Arabs? Are you aware that they have been recruiting U.S. citizens?
So tell me, how do you propose we profile muslims? How do you even identify someone as a muslim?
Why would you skip profling others groups or individuals who have nothing to do with Islamic terrorism but may be interested in aviation? Do you propose the DHS follow the path that we so criticize the FAA for and wait until people have died before they take steps to prevent it?
I am all for profiling, I just don't see how you can profile muslims. Nor do I see why you would want to only profile muslims.
I am truly sorry that you think because of that, I am in denial. I think those who feel it is a simple problem with a simple solution are the ones in denial.

Lets "start" with Arabic looking men from 17 to 45 that look nervous or who are actng weird. Lets look for evidence of a freshly shaven beard, carrying a "martyr's suit", background check of no fly list, etc. These guys should trigger a "modified" El Al style secutity check. When a person makes a reservation, the name could trigger a background check by company security. If there is a question, that person could be "flagged" for extra searching and their checked luggage should be searched when they show up. Last minute passengers that fit the profile should get the same. I don't know, I don't think it is not possible to profile.
Wilkepedia: On the ground

In Israel, they are checked at a security barrier on the road to the terminal. Inside, they and their baggage are checked by a trained team. El Al security procedures also require that all passengers be interviewed individually prior to boarding, allowing El Al staff to identify possible security threats with probing questions such as about their origin, goal and occupation. The likelihood of potential terrorists staying cool under such inquisitive probing is considered low. All passengers are classified on a basic 3 tier threat scale: Israelis and Jews are usually classified as the lowest threat, Westerners are usually classified as medium level threats, and Arabs (particularly males) are usually classified as high threat.
At the check-in counter, ground staff scrutinise the passport and the ticket. They won't accept a ticket without a sticker from the security checkers. Once through passport control, where the person's name is checked through a computer, the person and their hand luggage go through rigorous screening, including hand searches.

Just an idea.

 

[Tejas-Jet]

The fly in the ointment will prove to be redneck copycats trying to get in the news by riding on the terrorism train. Some ignorant non-Muslim yahoo is going to try to blow up a plane just because it's in the news and he wants to go out with a bang. Profile behavior first, ethnicity second.

Like Timothy McVeigh

Tejas

 

[Tejas-Jet]

Not all terrorists are muslim, but muslim terrorists are the most likely threat to US interests.

This madness will continue until the absoute foolishness of the left is exposed,

I agree with the first point. It is Muslim terrorrists that are our biggest threat.

2nd point. I wish the fix was that simple. Remember, the right has had the Presidency and the majority of votes in both Houses since 9-11. And....we still have this sham of an airport security system....political correctness where profiling is concerned...the President breaking bread with Muslims at the White House and his picture holding hands with the Saudi prince....and now 2 new arms of the govt.- TSA and Homeland Security....so much for those who espouse less government.

Tejas

 

[brainhurts]

I think if republicans had more of a mandate, things would change. The reason things are slow is because the nation is split on these issues and our system is built so that issues move slowly. I am pretty conservative, but I do not like the idea of "we just won with a thin majority, so lets change everything". That works both ways. For example, if the Libs win the next election in a thin majority, they could impose their idea of society by forcing everyone to be gay, forcing those who do get pregnant to have abortions, forcing us all to convert to Islam, but replace "Allah" with Bill Clinton and Hillary is his Prophet. I like the slow approach. Sadly, that means its going to take another big strike on the US to drive home the impact to our slow witted liberal countrymen.

 

[NEDude]

I think if republicans had more of a mandate, things would change. The reason things are slow is because the nation is split on these issues and our system is built so that issues move slowly. I am pretty conservative, but I do not like the idea of "we just won with a thin majority, so lets change everything". That works both ways. For example, if the Libs win the next election in a thin majority, they could impose their idea of society by forcing everyone to be gay, forcing those who do get pregnant to have abortions, forcing us all to convert to Islam, but replace "Allah" with Bill Clinton and Hillary is his Prophet. I like the slow approach. Sadly, that means its going to take another big strike on the US to drive home the impact to our slow witted liberal countrymen.

Hmm, more of a mandate? Republicans control the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, arguably have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and even a 28-22 edge in Governorships. News flash, there isn't anything else the Republicans can control. What kind of a mandate do you need? No Democrats anywhere?

I am sorry that for George and company, controlling everything still isn't enough of an edge.

(and note- I really did vote for GWB so consider that when making your comments)

 

[Grinder10]

Profiling or not, Arabs carrying deodorant seems very suspicious.

 

[bubbers44]

Hopefully the next election will help get us going in a better direction. We need a change. Hopefully Katherine will win the Republican Senate side for Florida, then Bill will win for sure. She really has problems. George has lost all credibility and I think he will bring the Republican party down with him. People are distancing themselves from him everywhere.

 

[brainhurts]

Hmm, more of a mandate? Republicans control the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, arguably have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and even a 28-22 edge in Governorships. News flash, there isn't anything else the Republicans can control. What kind of a mandate do you need? No Democrats anywhere?

I am sorry that for George and company, controlling everything still isn't enough of an edge.

(and note- I really did vote for GWB so consider that when making your comments)

I'm referring, you idiot, to the mandate your liberal masters keep refering to. It is your side that keeps claiming that since the numbers are so close--in other words, although we control all bodies of government, the percentages are so close that there is no mandate. This is your side saying this. Just because we have a majority, it does not mean we have a blank check because the numbers show that you have to run a fine line to retain power. With your side using its 38% to 44% of 300 million people, you drag at the party in power not allowing a true conservative platform of ideas. As I said above--this is good, because even though I am conservative and would like conservative ideas put foreward, I do not want them rammed down anyones throat--I want them accepted. Thanks for the news flash loser.

 

[Sparse]

Time for Profiling?​

Is it time for profiling? A touchy subject to say the least, and I know fully well why our nation has resisted the practice and rightfully so. Because of my limited knowledge of the practical aspects of profiling and even less knowledge of the legal aspects surrounding profiling, I am sure there are plenty of experts that can shoot holes all through my position, but in light of recent developments, I think we need to give serious consideration to limited profiling.

What I am about to say will probably strike a nerve with some people. Being a white male it is easy for me to question why some get there panties all in a wad over the subject. What’s the big deal anyway? But then the only profiling I might be subject to is that of being accused of holding conservative Christian values, and belonging to the Republican Party simply because I am a middle aged white male. Proudly I do hold to Christian values and I have to admit I am fairly conservative but I am not a Republican and I am proudly independent. I have never had to worry about driving through a particular area of town and looked upon as one who might be involved in the trading of illicit drugs or prostitution, both stereotypical viewpoints many people hold of young black males. I have never been viewed as an illegal alien, because I am a hard working Hispanic at a construction site. These are prime examples of why our nation has resisted profiling because it could unfairly indict honest, law abiding citizens as lazy, unlawful members of our society based on skin color, socio-economic status, or ethnic background.

On the other hand, we find ourselves in a complicated war, with radical Islam, carried out mostly by young Arab males, usually between the ages of 17-40. They are so committed to their cause that they are willing to use any and all means to inflict harm on our way of life with no regard for innocent life. Thank God for the excellent work of British intelligence, with assistance from the Pakistanis, in foiling what could have been a massive and coordinated effort to down numerous aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean.

Many will agree that while; illicit drug use, prostitution, and illegal immigration may be a drain our society and government resources, they do not threaten our way of life or our democracy. The goals of radical Islam however do. The old saying, “where there’s a will, there’s a way” has to be viewed seriously with this threat. Maybe a better saying is, “where there’s a will there’s another way”.

The terrorists seem to be fascinated with taking down an airplane and we have to stay focused on preventing that. Is it still possible to get a liquid based explosive device onto an airplane? I think so. A couple of months ago, while waiting for a haircut I picked up a magazine to read. It was Sports Illustrated, a magazine I rarely read. There I found an essay on the high price of beer at sporting events and what one fan decided to do about it. The piece was so well written and humorous I was laughing out loud in the waiting area. I started thinking about that article just yesterday as I stood in the “selectee” line at the TSA screening area in Orlando. I travel frequently in my current employment. Up until a year ago, I was a pilot with a major airline, flying to many domestic and international destinations. Since my tickets are mostly last minute and one way, I spend a lot of time in the “selectee” line.

You see this guy in the article had figured out how to smuggle a six-pack of beer into the ball game undetected. He was using a device available on the web for purchase, named the “Beer Belly”, Google it, I am serious, it exist. It is a bladder like device worn on your belly under a loose fitting shirt that can easily go undetected at the gate. It has a tube that runs down into your pants and exits at the fly. It even comes with a cold pack that goes inside the bladder to keep the beer nice and cold. What would prevent a terrorist from using a “Beer Belly” to get an explosive liquid on board an aircraft? The only thing I can think of is at least a pat down, but if you are not singled out for special screening, you won’t get a pat down. Only 80-year-old grandmothers and honest law-abiding travelers, some with TSA approved ID badges routinely get the old pat down. But let‘s just say a sharp TSA person thinks an individual looks a little suspicious with an unusually large gut for a skinny little Arab guy and decides he will single him out for a pat down. Is that profiling? Wouldn’t the fat-people’s movement have something to say about that?

Once again I will refer to the Sports Illustrated article. There’s more. The same guy, the one who didn’t want to pay inflated prices for his beer, also doesn’t want to miss one second of the game. Think about it, it’s the 9th inning of last year’s Braves/Diamondback’s game when Randy Johnson was about to make baseball history, pitching a perfect game and you have to go. What’s a guy to do, especially one with all that brought-from-home, cheep beer? Time for another Google search, enter “The Stadium Pal”. This unique little device is a plastic bladder that straps to one’s leg with a tube routed through the pants leg to a condom like attachment that will provide hours of relief and no interruption in the live action. There is even a “Stadium Gal”. So in the event our young terrorist feels it a bit risky to have an unusual bulge in his belly, a stadium pal like device would certainly go unnoticed and there again, an explosive liquid could get past the TSA. All he needs now is an ignition source (readily available in the many battery powered devices allowed on the aircraft) and boom; there goes a gaping hole in the side of an aircraft.

So how do we battle this problem? We could require the marketers of “the Beer Belly” and “The Stadium Pal” to report all sales to Homeland Security. But these people are pretty crafty at dreaming up ways to bring down an aircraft, I am sure they would develop their own. The only answer I can come up with is “terrorist profiling”. We’re going to have to do it. How many more attempts, or worse yet successes, is it going to take for we as a people to face up to the fact that there is a force that wants to do us harm. They want to kill us without regard to race, religious affiliation, national origin, political affiliation, gender, age, or any other classification you care to mention. They will even kill their own to further their cause. They want to end our way of life, as we know it.

A process for profiling people prone to terrorist acts needs to be developed now. It needs to be developed so the inevitable court battles can begin and hopefully with success we can provide the TSA with another tool to help keep our airways safe.

 

[brainhurts]

I'm trying to market the "Stadium Turd Pal". It involves a shop vac connected to your sphincter.

 

[Arkady]

Oh sure, using El Al as our security model sounds nice... but they only carry a little over 3 million passengers/year with a fleet of just 35 planes (by comparison - last year even Mesaba carried 5.7 million passengers and they are the 12th largest regional airline in the US ....Skywest carried 16.6 million pax). In 2005 there were 745+ million total passengers (660 million domestic) traveling on US airliners - not including all the foreign air carriers visiting each year. There are more people traveling on airlines in the US in 2 days than El Al carries in an entire year.

Perhaps there is hope though - while on a recent trip to the UK there was a segment on the BBC evening news showing a company that makes enhanced software for the screening machines already in use that can detect such things as liquid explosives. We've already wasted billions on the TSA - what's a couple million more amoungst friends.

Anyway, we are all just lucky that the FedEx guy with the hammers didn't finish what he started - if he had then they'd have a special El Al/Spanish Inquisition/Gitmo/latex glove security line reserved just for pilots.

And now there is an even more pressing matter - What are they going to do about All these M-F-King snakes on these M-F-King planes!!

 

[ReverseSensing]

Excellent post, Arkady.

 

[shooter]

...then they'd have a special El Al/Spanish Inquisition/Gitmo/latex glove security line reserved just for pilots.

quote]

I thought thats why you guys get called into the CP's office!?

 

[Sparse]

I'm trying to market the "Stadium Turd Pal". It involves a shop vac connected to your sphincter.

A better name would be the "Brown Bag"

 

[NEDude]

I'm referring, you idiot, to the mandate your liberal masters keep refering to. It is your side that keeps claiming that since the numbers are so close--in other words, although we control all bodies of government, the percentages are so close that there is no mandate. This is your side saying this. Just because we have a majority, it does not mean we have a blank check because the numbers show that you have to run a fine line to retain power. With your side using its 38% to 44% of 300 million people, you drag at the party in power not allowing a true conservative platform of ideas. As I said above--this is good, because even though I am conservative and would like conservative ideas put foreward, I do not want them rammed down anyones throat--I want them accepted. Thanks for the news flash loser.

You know, its funny, I used to be a die-hard Rush Limbaugh fan. I listened to his show, bought his books. I was a member of the Young Republicans. I went to hear William F. Buckley speak on a few occasions. Was a registered Republican and voted straight across the party line. As I mentioned, I even voted for GWB.

I realized one day though, that if you are not a born-again christian business leader, the controlling interests of the Republican party are not your friends. Republicans used to brag about strong fiscal management, smaller government, and a strong faith in the Constitution. Then I woke up one day to see GWB and company overseeing the largest expansion of our government since FDR. I see record deficits. And I see even conservative legal annalysts saying GWB has been violating the constitution. So tell me, where is the smaller government? Where is the good fiscal management? Where is the respect for the constitution? Certainly not with our current administration.

I also realized one day that many on the right don't really have much to say. Sure, there is noise coming out of their mouths. They write stuff on paper, or type it on a computer. But really, when you get down to it, much of what they say is a bunch fluff and name calling. Thank you brainhurts for confirming that.

 

[brainhurts]

You know, its funny, I used to be a die-hard Rush Limbaugh fan. I listened to his show, bought his books. I was a member of the Young Republicans. I went to hear William F. Buckley speak on a few occasions. Was a registered Republican and voted straight across the party line. As I mentioned, I even voted for GWB.

I realized one day though, that if you are not a born-again christian business leader, the controlling interests of the Republican party are not your friends. Republicans used to brag about strong fiscal management, smaller government, and a strong faith in the Constitution. Then I woke up one day to see GWB and company overseeing the largest expansion of our government since FDR. I see record deficits. And I see even conservative legal annalysts saying GWB has been violating the constitution. So tell me, where is the smaller government? Where is the good fiscal management? Where is the respect for the constitution? Certainly not with our current administration.

I also realized one day that many on the right don't really have much to say. Sure, there is noise coming out of their mouths. They write stuff on paper, or type it on a computer. But really, when you get down to it, much of what they say is a bunch fluff and name calling. Thank you brainhurts for confirming that.

Whatever NEdude. Heres some more wasted print. Did something happen between when you voted for GWB the first time and now? Yes--we entered a war unlike any in history where the stakes are very high. A couple planes plowing into a couple major buildings only produced 3,000 deaths. A suitcase bomb in NYC will cause lots more. How do you stop this when nations are co-operating with these ba$tards that have no nation--just a religion? How do you stop this when we live in such an open society? I do not know the full answer the same as you don't. I do know that war is expensive and we have had to spend. I know some "conservative' analyists like Buchanan say Bush is stretching the constitution. He probably is pushing the edges on the war on terror, but how are you going to find the suitcase bomb without a clandestine listening program or a money tracking program? (Like the Brits used to thwart the last attempt) Since you have all the answers, you tell me. Till then I am sticking with the current plan.

 

[SkiFishFly]

Whatever NEdude. Heres some more wasted print. Did something happen between when you voted for GWB the first time and now? Yes--we entered a war unlike any in history where the stakes are very high. A couple planes plowing into a couple major buildings only produced 3,000 deaths. A suitcase bomb in NYC will cause lots more. How do you stop this when nations are co-operating with these ba$tards that have no nation--just a religion? How do you stop this when we live in such an open society? I do not know the full answer the same as you don't. I do know that war is expensive and we have had to spend. I know some "conservative' analyists like Buchanan say Bush is stretching the constitution. He probably is pushing the edges on the war on terror, but how are you going to find the suitcase bomb without a clandestine listening program or a money tracking program? (Like the Brits used to thwart the last attempt) Since you have all the answers, you tell me. Till then I am sticking with the current plan.

Amen to that. Simply being against the current plan does not constitute a plan.

At least W has implemented a broad series of initiatives to protect Americans. One of these happened to be to take the fight to their turf. If you can't see that this has caused them to focus a tremendous amount of their personnel and resources towards the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq thus diverting them away from killing innocent women and children on US soil - then you just don't get it.

Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now will only allow them to rebuild and once again focus on attacking on US soil.

 

[NEDude]

Since you have all the answers, you tell me. Till then I am sticking with the current plan.

Actually if you had bothered to read what I had said instead of running off on a name calling tirade, you would know I never claimed to have had the answers. I simply stated through examples that not all terrorists are Arab Islamic millitants. I also asked a couple of tough questions to which nobody has really answered. So I will state them again

-With only 20% of the Muslim population being Arab, and the millitants actively recruiting non-Arabs and U.S. citizens, how do you simply "profile muslims"? How do you know who is a muslim, and who isn't?

- My second question is why on earth would you want to profile only muslims when other groups or individuals have put bombs on airplanes? Do you want until they kill a certain ammount of people before you profile them as well?

You are the one who took that to mean I was a Liberal and was claiming to have the answers. If I had the answers, I wouldn't have asked the questions.

He probably is pushing the edges on the war on terror, but how are you going to find the suitcase bomb without a clandestine listening program or a money tracking program?

I love the line of reasoning - lets change our values and the way we live so the terrorist can't make us change our values and the way we live.

The U.S. Constitution is the fabric by which our nation operates. It defines our system of values. Ultimately that is what the terrorists hate, our way of life and our values. By our government pushing the edges of the Constitution, the terrorists are winning the war hands down. There was a time when that point of view was considered very conservative. It is sad that it is now considered liberal.

Amen to that. Simply being against the current plan does not constitute a plan.

At least W has implemented a broad series of initiatives to protect Americans. One of these happened to be to take the fight to their turf. If you can't see that this has caused them to focus a tremendous amount of their personnel and resources towards the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq thus diverting them away from killing innocent women and children on US soil - then you just don't get it.

Pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan now will only allow them to rebuild and once again focus on attacking on US soil.

Don't let the revisionist blow hards on Fox News confuse you. Iraq was never about terrorism. Iraq was first and foremost about revenge for Hussein attempting to kill Bush Sr. back in 1993. GWB said so himself back 2001, before Sept 11th. Even after Sept. 11th, when Powell was making the case for the invasion, the argument was not to stop Islamic terrorism, it was to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing WMDs. And Hussein was not in bed with the Terrorists. He was a secular leader who hated the Islamic fundamentalists and was actually fighting against them. It was the toppling of Hussein and poor planning for the power vacuum that existed afterwards which allowed Islamic Terrorists to gain a foothold in Iraq and create the breeding ground we have today. GWBs desire for revenge and access to a large oil supply have created the issue we have there now.

The war in Afghanistan is a just war and one I support fully. The Afghan Taliban government gave shelter and support for a group that attacked and killed thousands U.S. citizens on our own soil. To not go to war would have been inexcusable. In fact I am honestly dissappointed that the U.S. Congress didn't issue a full scale declaration of war. IMHO it would have been the right thing to do.

But all that being said, you have to prepare for the long term effects these wars will have. In the short-term you may have taken the battle to them. But just as the U.S. pressence in Arabia after the first gulf war gave rise to Al Queda, the current occupations will most likely give rise even more terrorists who will become a problem 10-20 years from now. History has shown it will happen, and to bury your head in the sand and think this time it will be different is just foolish.

Did something happen between when you voted for GWB the first time and now?

Yes, I stated much of what happened in my previous post. The Republican party used to be about small federal government, fiscal responsibility and respect for the Constitution. Under GWB we have seen one of the largest expansions of the federal government in history, we have seen reckless fiscal policy leading to record deficits. And we have seen, by your own admission, the pushing of the edges of the consitution.

I also became an airline pilot during that time. My job as an airline pilot provides for my family. My union works hard to help me provide for my family in a safe and fair working environment. My responsibility to my family is more important than anything else. GWB is a labor and union hating president who has been hard at work at allowing foreign companies to access to our airspace. In short, GWB and his policies are a threat to my ability to provide for my family. And it makes me laugh every time I hear a conservative republican pilot complain about TSA, Open Skies, and managements disregard for the union and pilot group.

So that is what happened. That is why I am no longer a GWB fan. He has run away from what used to be Republican values. And I realized as a middle class wage earner and member of a union, GWB is not my friend.

 

[brainhurts]

He probably is pushing the edges on the war on terror, but how are you going to find the suitcase bomb without a clandestine listening program or a money tracking program?
I love the line of reasoning - lets change our values and the way we live so the terrorist can't make us change our values and the way we live.

The U.S. Constitution is the fabric by which our nation operates. It defines our system of values. Ultimately that is what the terrorists hate, our way of life and our values. By our government pushing the edges of the Constitution, the terrorists are winning the war hands down. There was a time when that point of view was considered very conservative. It is sad that it is now considered liberal.

This is the never ending cycle the Islamists want us in. This makes you a "useful idiot" in their eyes.
The war in Afghanistan is a just war and one I support fully. The Afghan Taliban government gave shelter and support for a group that attacked and killed thousands U.S. citizens on our own soil. To not go to war would have been inexcusable. In fact I am honestly dissappointed that the U.S. Congress didn't issue a full scale declaration of war. IMHO it would have been the right thing to do.
So how would you go to war and not spend money? Thats where the money went--the war on terror. A'stan is ok but Iraq is not. Good reasoning.
Don't let the revisionist blow hards on Fox News confuse you. Iraq was never about terrorism. Iraq was first and foremost about revenge for Hussein attempting to kill Bush Sr. back in 1993. GWB said so himself back 2001, before Sept 11th. Even after Sept. 11th, when Powell was making the case for the invasion, the argument was not to stop Islamic terrorism, it was to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing WMDs. And Hussein was not in bed with the Terrorists. He was a secular leader who hated the Islamic fundamentalists and was actually fighting against them. It was the toppling of Hussein and poor planning for the power vacuum that existed afterwards which allowed Islamic Terrorists to gain a foothold in Iraq and create the breeding ground we have today. GWBs desire for revenge and access to a large oil supply have created the issue we have there now.
You sound like Michael Moore. There were WMDS in IRAQ. Thousands of Kurds were killed by them. Saddam was in bed with al Queda and the proof of meetings has been quietly released by the government and quietly reported in the news. The yellowcake connection has been made. Since you obviously do not understand what it is like to make a hard decision, I will tell you about Iraq. Everyone thought Saddam had WMD. Clinton, France, The UN, Briton. etc. etc. There were intel guys on both sides of the fence, but the tough decision was made by Bush: Take out Saddam for being in violation of UN findings that earlier US servicemen had died to establish. You like to quote Fox, now I will label you with a New York Times mentality.
I also became an airline pilot during that time. My job as an airline pilot provides for my family. My union works hard to help me provide for my family in a safe and fair working environment. My responsibility to my family is more important than anything else. GWB is a labor and union hating president who has been hard at work at allowing foreign companies to access to our airspace. In short, GWB and his policies are a threat to my ability to provide for my family. And it makes me laugh every time I hear a conservative republican pilot complain about TSA, Open Skies, and managements disregard for the union and pilot group.
What did you do pre 9-11? I am glad you have been injected with union dogma, but if you want to protect your family, you had better watch out for yourself. Start a business or go in the Guard or Reserve or something because the union pretty much looks after itself. Islam is a threat to your family. A suitcase bomb is a threat to your family. GWB is pursuing a policy that hopefully will protect your family from that.

 

[SkiFishFly]

-

Don't let the revisionist blow hards on Fox News confuse you. Iraq was never about terrorism. Iraq was first and foremost about revenge for Hussein attempting to kill Bush Sr. back in 1993. GWB said so himself back 2001, before Sept 11th. Even after Sept. 11th, when Powell was making the case for the invasion, the argument was not to stop Islamic terrorism, it was to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing WMDs. And Hussein was not in bed with the Terrorists. He was a secular leader who hated the Islamic fundamentalists and was actually fighting against them. It was the toppling of Hussein and poor planning for the power vacuum that existed afterwards which allowed Islamic Terrorists to gain a foothold in Iraq and create the breeding ground we have today. GWBs desire for revenge and access to a large oil supply have created the issue we have there now.

Guess that explains why some of the earliest targets struck in the war included terrorist training camps.

There were WMDs in Iraq. Some have been found and reported. Others were most likely transferred to Syria. Interesting how the likes of the NYT buries or fails to report on such information.

OBTW - if you look at long term strategy (longer than next week) you might also realize that the likes of Iran will have to be dealt with. Sure would be helpful if we had bases in the area to operate from. Wait - I think we have that now in Afghanistan and Iraq. A pretty strong negotiating position if you ask me...

 

[brainhurts]

Guess that explains why some of the earliest targets struck in the war included terrorist training camps.

There were WMDs in Iraq. Some have been found and reported. Others were most likely transferred to Syria. Interesting how the likes of the NYT buries or fails to report on such information.

OBTW - if you look at long term strategy (longer than next week) you might also realize that the likes of Iran will have to be dealt with. Sure would be helpful if we had bases in the area to operate from. Wait - I think we have that now in Afghanistan and Iraq. A pretty strong negotiating position if you ask me...

DITTO

 

[100LL... Again!]

Hmm, more of a mandate? Republicans control the Presidency, the Senate, the House of Representatives, arguably have a 5-4 edge in the Supreme Court, and even a 28-22 edge in Governorships. News flash, there isn't anything else the Republicans can control. What kind of a mandate do you need? No Democrats anywhere?

I am sorry that for George and company, controlling everything still isn't enough of an edge.

(and note- I really did vote for GWB so consider that when making your comments)

You discount the foolishness of a large part of the American public, who demand instant success at everything. The idea of a long battle against a determined enemy is not something they are ready to ponder.

I have argued with many liberals (and some conservatives) who think that we shoud be "doing more" to stop terror, but they are unable to come up with any ideas. This is ignorance and impatience mixed together.

Plus, they are against the NSA program and profiling. They want someone to come up with a 100% effective, politically correct way to stop terror that causes no hard feelings and inconveniences no one.

 

[FN FAL]

I have argued with many liberals (and some conservatives) who think that we shoud be "doing more" to stop terror, but they are unable to come up with any ideas.

Doing more to stop terror would be simple, just stop freaking out.