Yes, Yes, We Know

Ah--The Magic Garden. I loved watching that show with my kids. We even took them to a live show once to see Carol and (oops, what was the other ones name?)

I'm trying to remember -- but I still know some of those songs (can you sing for me, lalalalalala), and loved that Chuckle Patch.

those are yahoo ads.

our national intelligence agency sure is sharp. sounds like work a first grader could do, or did bush write that himself?

In an assessment issued Tuesday, the National Intelligence Estimate says an al-Qaida plot against the U.S. would likely focus on prominent targets. It says an attack would have the goal of causing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and fear.

Yeah, no shit! Hasn't that been Assumption Numero Uno since 9/11?

Hey, Chertoff, tell us something we don't know, like, "where in the world is Osama bin Laden"?

You know, the mastermind behind 9/11 of whom George Bush said he would get "dead or alive" like what, 6 years ago??

You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie!!

It's a summary written by the Emergency Email & Wireless Network (a private "venture").

I'll bet you bring such "sharp" analytical skills to everything you read, eh?

did i touch a sore spot ROC? are you a bush supporter?

and where did the Emergency Email & Wireless Network get their summary? The National Intelligence Estimate.

The other one's name was Paula, I think.

Ah yes, Paula and Carol (the cuter one). Love the chuckle patch, I can still hear them chuckling. Hello and how are you? I'm fine, me too, we're fine and how are you?

I guess this terror watch has gone from a "gut" feeling to an actuality in a short week.

I for one, am bemused that after all of the money we have spent and all the people that have died in this "War on Terror" we have failed to find any weapons of mass destruction or Osama. And are we actually making progress? While we have been wasting our time and money over there, Al Quaida has been stepping up the planning to get us again. Shocking! Not really. What an utter waste. And while we're on it, when do the soldiers decide this is waste of their time too and hop a flight home?

Ah yes, Paula and Carol (the cuter one).

The "trippy" '70s:
http://myspace-394.vo.llnwd.net/01417/49/37/1417807394_l.jpg
Neither is "cute" anymore.

"and where did the Emergency Email & Wireless Network get their summary? The National Intelligence Estimate."

Uh, no. They read the estimate and pieced together the summary from quotes and added their own summary material.

Here's a clue Easy. The summary say thing like "The report says"; "The report is" etc.

and their summary is just about as brilliant as the work they copied it from, the national intelligence estimate. which could have been written by a first grader, or even you

Check out the google ads while you're there for sleeplessness, hot flashes and menopause, mesothelioma attorneys and other upbeat stuff.

Makes me want to run down to this Baristanet advertiser and stock up!

Bush Admin I has a "War on Drugs": Schools ramp up anti-drug education programs (D.A.R.E.), government sponsored rehab for people who can't afford private rehab, stricter penalties for selling drugs, and other programs (mainly) designed at fighting the drug problem in the US. Drug usage in the US is currently lower than it was in the 1970s & 1980s. More or less a success (although not a total victory).

Bush Administration II (electric boogaloo) declares a "War on Terror": Billions of dollars are spent on sending troops to Afghanistan to root out the terrorists and capture Osama bin Laden. Many troops die and bin Laden is still at large. When he can't be found, Bush declares war on Iraq because Sadam has WMDs. We spend billions of dollars on that, kill Sadam (not that he didn't deserve it), and thousands more of our troops die. No WMDs show up. Whenever people start to clamor for an end to this war, a report like this gets issued.

I think W's daddy forgot to tell him that when you declare ware on an abstract concept, you don't actually send soldiers to fight said concept.

This is a diversionary tactic because conservatives like Bruce Fein are advocated impeachment of the president and vice president. Former Reagan staffer Paul Craig Roberts even suggested that the president would stage a false flag event.

I think well see a draw down on the war in the next couple mouths and then moves toward impeachment next year with conservatives holding the right flank.

Sounds like the planned demolition of the Trade Towers and demolition of part of the Pentagon was not enough to convince people to support a war on terror. Now "The Administration" seems to be warning people that another "planned" disaster is about to take place. Hopefully, this time, the disaster( see Jerico reruns) will be big enough that people mindlessly support "The Adminstration" and never again question it's motives.

Walleroo would like to ask Deb if she heard these announcements in the middle of Captain Kangeroo as well.

We offered the world...order!-George Bush

"Ah yes, Paula and Carol (the cuter one).
The "trippy" '70s:
http://myspace-394.vo.llnwd.net/01417/49/37/1417807394_l.jpg
Neither is "cute" anymore."

Oh man, they fell off....

I would like a draw down on just one mouth here, that of mikeyboy.

Summerschool clearly didn't help with your command of English gramnmar, eh, mikey?

And if a bomb were to go off today or tomorrow, would at least some of the sneering about the "War on Terror" cease?

On July 4th, as I hope posters above recall, a Air Force guard was shot (wounded, but recovering, thank goodness) at a gate of McGuire AFB in this very state by an assailant who then killed himself. He left a note making his intention to "do something" very clear, but the incident has hardly received much publicity.

Cathar,

With all due respect and ignoring any conspiracy theories about the current admin bringing down the towers, blood for oil, etc; the "War on Terror" is being operated much the same way tigers were hunted to near extinction in India in the late 19th / early 20th century.

Just because one tiger killed several men in a town 60 miles away, every tiger in the surrounding country side needs to be killed to prevent it from happening again.

Due to one large event (9/11), we are now going around trying to eradicate any group or individual who may pose a threat to us down the road. However, with the noted exception of 9/11, terrorist attacks on American soil have amounted to a minor annoyance at best.

If the government spent a mere fraction of the war budget on increasing domestic security and the various agencies handling counter-terrorism information actually worked together (the primary excuse given for why 9/11 happened is a lack of shared info) then we would be much safer than sending our troops to countries who seem to be mostly content with blowing themselves up.

As it stands, we do risk having the terrorists “follow us home” as Bush constantly puts it… I’d say mainly because we’ve spent the last decade occupying their countries. What would we (America in general) do if a foreign power came in, killed our leader in the name of freedom, and then imposed curfews, travel restrictions and random searches for half a decade, and on top of everything else gave away billions of dollars of work to people from the invading country?

But, after that initial backlash (which I think we’ll have no matter when we leave and the longer we wait the worse it will be), things will return to much the way they were pre-9/11: A select few nut-jobs in the world will hate us for what we are and the rest of the nut-jobs will continue blowing up their neighbors over blood feuds started hundreds of years ago.

last decade

last HALF decade... sorry.

Generically..., while I am by no means in favor of the extinction of tigers worldwide, I have read enough Jim Corbett and John Masters in my day to feel for the poor Indian villagers when a large feline starts eating them, and to understand the necessity then of hunting them down.

But with al Qaeda and the "insurgents" in Iraq and the wonderful jihadists in the UK and Spain and here, we don't have the option, as they still do in India, of relocating these fierce creatures to a presever elsewhere. (Not even Saudi Arabia really wants them back.)

So I respect their abilities and fear their fangs and rejoice when members are captured or killed. To excuse the depredations of native-born or locally-residing jihadists because we occupied "their" countries, however (and only one country at that), is simply too much fashionably lefty guilt for me to share.

The truth is that "they" would hate us under any circumstances, so strong is their yearning for the restoration of the Caliphate. Even for the appearance of the Mahdi. Jihadists still remain upset they were repulsed at Tours in the 8th century, Malta in the 16th and Vienna in the 17th, thes defeats for radical, by the sword Islam and many similar others are constantly referenced in both their tracts and the sermons of their imams. They see the world as one where every knee shall bow to Allah. (And, I have to remind, in Europe at least they have comparative fecundity rates to help them achieve this goal.)

Things, too, will not "revert" to the post 9/11 state of seeming somnolence if we withdraw from Iraq. Like tigers that have tasted human flesh and so don't flee even from the sound of a 30-ought-six round, Islamist fanatics have learned to like the smell of blood and the infliction of pain.

They are not simply "nut jobs" and they see their political aims as achievable. So they will keep at things. To believe otherwise is very foolish, however much it fits in nicely with the political fantasies of, say, John Edwards.

Also, Generically named..., you never mentioned what YOU make of the attack on McGuire AFB on Independence Day, or the London subway attacks of a few years ago, or even the attempts of 2 weeks ago to kill Christian women (it was "ladies' night" at the London disco) in large numbers or air travelers in general in Glasgow after the London try at mass murder failed. Can you really dismiss these actions as mere actings out by a few nut jobs? Don't they at least suggest to the rational among us that heightened security concerns are valid? Are in no way equivalent to the cravenly chic sneering evidenced in the original item above?

Well said, as usual, Cathar. They people like to hold grudges, even grudges that go back hundreds of years.

They=these

I realize that they are going to keep trying, hence my desire to have a reasonable amount of the war chest converted to true Homeland Security causes.

In regards to the examples you gave:

In London they were very quick to apprehend the people responsible for the attacks of a year ago and implemented measures that successfully thwarted the more recent attempts.

With regards to the McGuire AFB attack: While it is unfortunate that a guard was shot, he was shot guarding the base. It was in his line of duty and he should be commended and ultimately a sign that things are working the way they are designed with regards to military security.

Re the nut jobs: They are religious zealots who are twisting and distorting their religious views to serve their own purposes. The argument can be made that this all started with the Crusades way back when (which were started by Christian zealots doing the same thing). To say that because of the religious zealots in that region of the world are trying their hardest to turn the country against us makes them all zealots is akin to saying the Religious Right’s attempts to ban same-sex marriage and abortion means everyone in this country believes the same.

By leaving Iraq we will not make the zealots stop hating us. But, we will be making it that much more difficult for them to cause the large scale American casualties they are currently inflicting (on our troops).

Much the same way daddy Bush’s war on drugs did not do a lot to stop Columbian drug lords from trying to get cocaine in our borders, but focused primarily on keeping the stuff off of the streets.

The administration is using the fear of terrorism by Al Qaeda to convince law makers to stay in Iraq. This is false and many important experts disagree with the presidents assertions.

LM,

Please, for the love of god, don't try and help my argument.

I said in 2 lines what you meant to say in 20. Who needs help?

Mikey, what is an "important expert?" As opposed to an unimportant expert?

And I realize you like to see yourself as adding something to every debate, laserboy. But just because it's always "something" doesn't mean it's that certain something. Ever. I honstly do think you're much out of your depth on anything more involved than memories of Sesame Street.

Generically named Mike, while I agree that the wounded airman at McGuire was, as you said, just doing his job, it remains that his job is suddenly much more dangerous than ever before. So perhaps we should have even better-armed and staffed base security than we do now, no? And that pokey Burlington County is suddenly a place where we can't even trust local pizzamakers should give all of us pause.

As for London, that the terrorists were unsuccessful because of their own sloppiness (recalling what Brit security forces used to dismiss foolishly as the "Paddy factor" in many failed IRA bombings) does not mean the threat they pose is any less real. Outside both the London disco and at Glasgow Airport (a place I've been to several times myself), the jihadists showed a contempt for others' lives (but not their own this time, suicide bombers these scumbags were not) that shows just how little effect the threat of arrest may actually hold for them.

Historically, by the way, you're way off base. Islamic-Christian conflict goes back much farther than the time of the Crusades, which one might even view sympathetically as an attempt by Christian Europe (mainly France, actually, and gone are the days...) to REGAIN control of lands that had been held by a valid Christian empire (the Byzantines) and thus even to help reunify Christianity. But Islamist fanatics have retained a sense of grievance and entitlement that has allowed them to dwell emotionally at least 7-800 years ago, in a mindset that allows them to see Islamic expansion as "right," Allah-willed and hence not to be thwarted. This is why they talk so longingly of restoration of the Caliphate, and the Caliphate is meant to include both al-Andalus (Iberia) and southern France and Sicily. Anything else - Holland, say, or England (Scotland is out of reach so far) - is just gravy. But they loooovve gravy!

You talk (wistfully, I suggest) of somehow limiting jihadists to lands they already are a majority in. I doubt this can be done anymore. As for the issue of how many zealots exist in those lands as opposed to the bulk of Muslims who simply do want peaceful co-existence, it doesn't matter if the zealots can, as they always do, intimidate others to shut up and sit down.

Personally, I find Salman Rushdie absolutely unreadable, a very bad, pretentious writer. But the zealots nonetheless succeeded in having assorted fatwas issued which call for his death. As an example of the West's own cravenness in this matter, several well-known intellectuals then chimed in (John Le Carre comes to mind here, for example) that while, no, of course they don't support the death penalty for Rushdie, he was basically asking for it by making fun of the Prophet in "The Satanic Verses" in the first place. This was said by many in a literary environment where no such intellectuals are similarly outraged by screeds against Christianity or Judaism, of which there are many lately. (And let us not get started on consideration of the dhimmi and dhimmitude, which if implemented anywhere other than Muslim nations would provoke justified yowls of discrimination and oppression from human rights activists.)

Last, and most trivially, is the attitude of blithe dismissal of threat which is displayed by the very Baristanet item which sparked out debate here. This site has probably always been nothing more than trivial at heart, but of late the crafted flipness represents, time and again, not much more than a failure of nerve (and of genuine journalistic enterprise). Should conquering jihadist hordes ever march into Montclair, I hope they will feel very much welcome to it, and I would even suggest they should make their hq at Crisco Court.

Bush Distorts Qaeda Links, Critics Assert

These experts.

PS. important experts are the ones that get it right.

Oh mikey, tell me, do your feathers ever dry? You really are a petty-minded fellow, you know.

cathar,

YOU are an unimportant expert you windbag!

Hiding is a caustic and useless homophobe! Mean nasty hater she is

Hiding In...posts at 5:35 in the morning? I'm sure she wasn't up so early to get out on the tennis courts. Lass (and I use the term hopefully), you've simply got to have more happening in your life. (Perhaps chess by email with laserboy?)

I've got to start my work day, so I'm just going to do a quick point-by-point rebuttal:

So perhaps we should have even better-armed and staffed base security than we do now, no?

Absolutely. See my original argument about reallocating funds to true Homeland Security issues.

As for London, that the terrorists were unsuccessful because of their own sloppiness

That may ultimately prove to be the case, but it is unfair to British intelligence to ignore the fact that they were right on top of these people... I dare say much more so than we were with the above mentioned AFB attack.

This is why they talk so longingly of restoration of the Caliphate

If that is the reason we are still in Iraq then by that same logic we should coral a large chunk of Mexico and wipe out the Native Americans completely as both groups feel they are destined by whatever gods they have to take back what is currently the US of A.

As for the issue of how many zealots exist in those lands as opposed to the bulk of Muslims who simply do want peaceful co-existence, it doesn't matter if the zealots can, as they always do, intimidate others to shut up and sit down.

The only solution to this problem would be to completely wipe out every man, woman, and child who is already of the zealot mindset. The paradox of this, as we are finding out in Iraq, is that the more zealots we kill, the more border-line people will rally behind the cause. So, the only real answers would be a) to kill an entire people to ensure none of them will continue this mindset into the future or b) maintain a constant occupation at the cost of unfathomable lives and billions (eventually trillions) of dollars.

Our "esteemed" Commander in Chief (or "The Commander guy" if you prefer his own terminology) has assured us the second is not his goal and the first would put us on the exact same level as the Nazis.

The best option that we have is to save as much face in the international community as we can while pulling our troops out as quickly as we can and shore up our defenses against the inevitable backlash.

I maintain (and until I see a jihadist tank rolling down Bloomfield Ave, always will) that 9/11 is a once in a lifetime attack. The last time I can think of a single attack on US Soil being nearly as effective was when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.

blithe dismissal of threat which is displayed by the very Baristanet item which sparked out debate here.

That might have something to do with the seeming fact that whenever the war approval polls drop 10%, the terror level ramps up a color. This apparent strategy worked for much longer than I gave it credit for. But, now it seems that people are wise to what has become a national joke.

I would even suggest they should make their hq at Crisco Court.

Hey, any excuse to blow up those houses is ok by me. :-P

I don't know if you remember this film, but the scenario you speak of at the end of your last post makes me think of an updated version of Red Dawn.

I can not remember any thing from the 70tys, and you want some thing from the 1950tys??? Come on... I have brain lock. Ok! who was the hostess of romper room.

I can not remember any thing from the 70tys, and you want some thing from the 1950tys??? Come on... I have brain lock. Ok! who was the hostess of romper room.

ClaraBelle?

The hostess (star?) of Romper Room was Miss Somebody-or-other. But then, back then it was always Miss Somebody-or-other. We should all, by way of penance, now sing "Do Be A Don't Bee, Don't Be a Do Bee."

Generically Named...., that the July 4 attack at McGuire seems to have been an isolated incident (so far...) in no way blocks us from asking the question, what if that jihadist crazo had gotten PAST the gate? What did he have in mind by way of "something?"

I don't get the sense that Brit intelligence was "right on top" of the disco-Glasgow terrorists. I do know that intelligence agencies are very good at claiming they were right on top of something after it doesn't come off the way terrorists had planned. What the Brits do seem better at than their U.S. counterparts is coming up very quickly with past histories of suspects.

The solution is not to wipe out zealots. It is to search with the faith of Islam itself and in the Muslim world in general for the voices who will counter those of the fanatics, and then to encourage them to speak up, to remind their fellow believers of what they share with other "people of the book," to urge others to re-view the history of Islam which jihadists twist to their own rotten purposes. But even as this search continues, it also helps to use military force to tamp down those who would hear no such thing and would happily kill others who propagate such pacific feelings towards other religions.

As to blithe dismissals, really, GNM, it is hard for me to accept that it's okay for the proprietors of this site to constantly make light of terroristic threats when EVERYBLOODYTHINGELSE arouses such unnecessary displays of passion. Condo developments, plastic shopping bags, the concept of copyright, parking in vacant lots, it all becomes immediate cause for massive community coughs of choler. (And yet, no one on July 4 or afterward saw fit here to note the sacrifice and heroism of the airman at McGuire, the posts focused instead on what people liked or disliked about the town parade.) Really, there has to be some sense of proportion, which usually is utterly lacking on Baristanet. So if there is another domestic terrorist atrocity, the joke will only be on ourselves.

Lastly, I too generally dismiss "Red Dawn" as John Milius's indulgence in fevered fantasizing. But then I think, now, if I had been a young Afghan in a similar situation some years ago, it might not have turned out to be mere imagining. And just the thought of a Molotov cocktail-wielding lasermikey clambering on top of an Iranian-built tank, that one keeps me amused for, oh, five seconds.

And if you need an even better bit of cinematic fantasy than "Red Dawn" offers, GNM. try and see "Invasion USA," in which Chuck Norris takes on hordes of Russkies, Cubans and their jihadist kinfolk (you can tell because they're the guys in red and white checked kaffiyehs), who invade south Florida and promptly begin their "takeover" by shooting up a shopping mall.

"Invasion USA," yes, I remember that one well.

But, gee, I cannot for the life of me recall the Miss Somebody's name on Romper Room. But I DO remember the Do Bees and Don't Bees! LOL!

And this just had me guffawing out loud: "community coughs of choler."

Miss somebody once saw me in the magic mirror (she used the formal "appleAnthony", but I was sure it counted)!

I have to say, you have smeared me completely. You are so good at the lies. Tell me more.

http://www.tvparty.com/lostromper.html

Bingo! Miss Nancy!

Some little known facts about Mr. Chuck Norris:

Chuck Norris was originally cast as the main character in 24, but was replaced by the producers when he managed to kill every terrorist and save the day in 12 minutes and 37 seconds.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.

On a high school math test, Chuck Norris put down "Violence" as every one of the answers. He got an A+ on the test because Chuck Norris solves all his problems with Violence.

Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting implies the possibility of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.

Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.

The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.

I think George Bush thinks he is Chuck Norris. If it wasn't for the lack of balls and rugged good looks, he would be Chuck Norris' doppleganger. But alas, he looks more like(and acts like) Alfred E. Newman than Chuck Norris.

And he sounds like the manager of a Bob's Big Boy in Lubbock, TX.

Whatever else anyone wishes to say about Chuck Norris, he is, almost solely among Hollywood tough-guy actors (now that Lee Marvin and Charles Bronson are dead), the "real thing." The scary real thing.

Years and years of for-real bareknuckle karate bouts for survival money. And a time as as Bruce Lee's instructor! When he finally appeared with Conan O'Brien, after all those years of Conan making fun of "Walker, Texas Ranger," you could tell that even Conan was somewhat in awe of him.

And mikey, how could I have possibly "smeared" you? Did I call you a neo-Nazi? A Nazi? a fascist? A racist? Rather, I commended you for your probable abilities as a guerilla fighter. But if you wish to retreat turtle-like into the carapace of your bruised self-esteem over the shame of that one, feel free!

And, Khan, it is, and has always been, Alfred E. "Neuman." (With more than a passing resemblance to. among many, Ted Koppel and/or Ron Howard back when he had hair.)

Cathar,
You have supported torture, kidnapping, spying on Americans, and wars of aggression. You really should change your mind about those supporting those practices and work to end them.

That being said, forgive me for judging you. I will try to not to judge you in the future. Don't judge others in kind.

...about supporting those practices...

Mikey, here is where your low intelligence and absolute lack of reading comprehension have always failed you: you have always assumed I "support" torture, spying on Americans and all that other good stuff. But you have no real idea, merely a constant state of disgruntlement with anyone who dares disagree with you here. And/or suggests that the "precepts" you seem to live by also seem to be just a mite irrational and one-note.

You personally, for example - and I am dead sure of this one - are not remotely worth spying on. (Not even by foreign agencies!) Because nothing of import ever occurs in your weary existence that would scare household pets, let alone alarm the Pentagon.

So feel free to go right on judging me (my but we're sounding Biblical today!), it will just ring as if it's that famous tale told by an idiot, "full of sound and fury."