For the second time in a week, Dobson suggested the loss of U.S. cities to an Islamic terror attack
On the May 16 edition of his Focus on the Family radio show, Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson broadcast an interview with evangelical pastor Michael Youssef, founder of The Church of The Apostles and host of the syndicated radio and TV program Leading the Way, from an earlier event held in Naples, Florida, in which the two discussed "Insights on Radical Islam." During the broadcast, Dobson said that "it's a matter of time" before a terror attack destroys "a city or two or three or four." Two days earlier, Dobson had cited the "danger" posed by Iran and the possibility of subsequent "pile on" attacks by "North Korea and Russia and China."
Youssef cast the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks as a vindication of his critique of radical Islam, describing the attacks as the moment when "the lights came on." He continued, "Now, finally, what I've been trying to do since the early '80's is gonna happen. People are gonna wake up."
On May 14, Dobson described a meeting he had with President Bush and a dozen other right-wing Christian leaders to discuss what Dobson called "Iraq, Iran and international terrorism." Dobson added that, during subsequent conversations with Christian right leaders in Washington, he grew concerned about the threat from Iran. From the May 14 article on the Raw Story website:
"I heard about this danger [from Iran] not only at the White House but from other pro-family leaders that I met during that week in Washington," he said. Foreshadowing his remarks on May 16, Dobson added, "Many people in a position to know are talking about the possibility of losing a city to nuclear or biological or chemical attack. And if we can lose one, we can lose ten.
"If we can lose ten we can lose a hundred," he concluded, "especially if North Korea and Russia and China pile on."
From the May 16 Focus on the Family broadcast:
DOBSON: Look at the mess we're in. I mean, it takes my breath away, especially because we're not hearing it. We don't hear it from any of the media or a very, very small portion of it, but you've got that whole threat that comes from what we've been describing.
YOUSSEF: Right.
DOBSON: We're likely to lose a city or two or three or four.
YOUSSEF: Right.
DOBSON: It's a matter of time.
YOUSSEF: It's a matter of when.
DOBSON: We had better be on our knees.
YOUSSEF: Amen. I couldn't agree more. And I really think that sometimes I get frustrated when I try to communicate that huge burden that I carry and -- the average evangelical kind of out to la-la land, you know, in -- in September 11, I thought the lights came on and I thought, "Ah, it's the alarm bells." Now, finally, what I have been trying to do since the early '80's is gonna happen. People are gonna wake up. But I think the vast majority of people just pushed on the snooze button.
DOBSON: We had better be on our knees.
Ugh...didn't need that visual.
A man with no sense whatever. You! not Dobson.
""I don't believe in inevitability. But I think it's pretty close to being inevitable," says Scheuer. A nuclear weapon? "A nuclear weapon of some dimension, whether it's actually a nuclear weapon, or a dirty bomb, or some kind of radiological device," says Scheuer. "Yes, I think it's probably a near thing." "
Expand your horizons.
MediaMatters decry these warnings when they come from conservatives, but it is A-OK for 60 Minutes to run a piece on this very topic which sayus the exact same thing. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Fear, Fear Fear.
Terrorism Terrorism Terrorism
What will the republicans and evangelicals have to speak about if we are not afraid.
For the Republicans I would suggest Poverty, Health care, Education and The Middle class.
For the evangelicals I would suggest Poverty, Faith, Loving not judging, Helping those who are less fortunate.
I know the power and pay aren't as good but what will it hurt if you try it?
I thought it was the Democrats who continuously say we're less secure than we were before 9/11. Make up your mind. Are we safe or are we in danger.
Regardless, fear solves nothing.
Is Pearlene a Democrat? What position does she hold in the party?
When setting up a straw man, Kevin, it's helpful if it at least makes a lick of sense...
You need to be a party official to be a Democrat? I thought it was sufficient merely to register to vote as a Democrat or enroll in the party with a small contribution.
Maybe the all-seeing, all-knowing Valentinian has not considered this possibility?
You better be a Democratic party official if you claim to speak FOR Democrats and if you DONT then what you say doesnt reflect one way or another ON Democrats. For instance I am not a Democrat at ALL. So my lefty views are NOT the responsibility of the Democratic party.
"Fear, Fear Fear"
Ah yes. We should never be concerned about people who are trying to kill us and end our way of life. And anyway, 9-11 was just an inside job right? The Bush administration used a remote control to guide the airplanes into the twin towers, and their goal was to create a non-existent enemy which would give us an excuse to go to war. We simply went to war in Iraq to make Halliburton rich and get oil, despite the fact that the Iraq War has decreased our supply of oil rather than increased. Makes a lot of sense. So don't worry about the terrorists! They are only imaginary forces made up by the Bush Administration!
iraq has made us less safe. let's fight the terrorists and not have our army in the middle of a civil war. put down the kool-aid.
Do I sense sarcasm in your comment? Subtle. 9/11 did show that there is a very real threat to Americans. The question is from whom. Either you believe it was 19 Arabs with boxcutters who never even learned how to fly a Cessna, who inexplicably defeated the world's best air defenses and caused steel buildings to turn to fine powder, or you believe something more was required. 9/11 was a crime. There has been no official investigation, and Rudy Giuliani removed and destroyed the evidence. Who did it? Follow the money.
Yes we should be concerned with threats but the potential FOR a threat is not the same thing AS a threat I could just as easily make up a scenario about rightwing hategroups bombing a dam and destroying an American city. Its made up. Making something up in your imagination is NOT a threat, its trying to create the illusion of a threat and a benifit from the resulting fear.
You are missing a key point about the oil. Saying its about the oil resource NEVER meant it was about getting you or I cheap gas, its about the profits from the politically powerful oil companies and decreased oil plays right into that agenda and when the dust settles you can bet American oil companies will have the contracts with Iraqi oil resources they were shut out of BEFORE the invasion.
Dobson at the Reichouse- yet again... What can Dobson offer as to international politics and policies... besides fear-mongering and hyperbole...
Let's see. Fear-mongering...check. Opining about foreign affairs...check. So, is there anyone out there who still thinks James Dobson is NOT a political figure?
God works in mysterious way, maybe this is the Rapture, they are all so eagerly awaiting.
This is why Osama Bin Laden went into retirement.
The American Right is doing his work for him.
DOBSON: We're likely to lose a city or two or three or four.
100% true. Is it a doctrine of fear? Yes. But it is healthy to have some fear of evil, esspecially after it's already shown us that we are vulnerable. You do lock your doors at night do you not? If you do I'm pretty sure it's to keep bad people out, not your family in. Yes, sometimes fear is a healthy emotion.
Yes, sometimes fear is a healthy emotion.
Huh? The three devils of man are fear, superstition and ignorance. Dobson hits all three in a single paragraph.You swim at all hoss ?
You got a better chance of being bit by a shark than attacked by a terrorist, but I bet you still hit the beach.
Fear is silly like that.
And you have a better chance of getting killed by a terrorist than you do from spotaneously combusting from global warming. What's your point? You want to get rid of sharks? To say we shouldn't be wary that people want to kill us is ridiculous
We don't tell our kids to fear the beach because of sharks
We don't tell our kids not to ride bikes because something MIGHT happen
We don't hide indoors on the oft chance of lightning
But we get hit by terrorists ONCE on our soil, one time, and we fall apart as a nation and become cowards...not me bub
and you did know what my point was
P.S. it may be more likely to combust than get killed by terrorists, but it doesn't have a wit to do with global warming
well your 'point' was pretty pointless anyway. Please cite any scientist who has claimed we will 'spontainiously combust' from global warming. As noted above if you are constructing a strawman, it should have at least a little fact behind it.
Or at the very least made sense
It's called hyperbole.
First of all, we do make our kids ride helmets on bikes right? I'm not saying to be all consumed by fear but to have a healthy fear is good. BTW, your analogy of shark attacks is HILLARIOUS! Over 3,000 innocents died on 9/11. How many have died in American shark attacks since then? My analogy about global warming was used because many libs are seem to be much more concerned with that potential problem than they are with one that has actually pr4oven to be a reality
and again you know just what I'm getting at
You go ahead and cower in your basement, me, I'll take my chances and not jump at shadows
Yeah, I pretty much never said we should "cower". My point is that, because islamic terrorists have hit us before that we should be aware that it might happen again (and that they will definitely try) and should, therefore be careful to do everything we can to not let this happen. You do check your reaview before you back out right? Why do you do that? Answer, you're worried there might be somone coming down the street. My point is do you actually think we should have NO fear of these people? If you've lived your life with absolutely no fear you probably wouldn't be alive today.
It's irrational to fear the obscure, rare and unlikely
On 9-11 the terrorists killed 3000
On 9-12 America changed; we became suspicious of our neighbors, willing to trade liberty for safety, we turned on each other and divided the country in colored halves
I dunno, you tell me
Well, I guess it affected you more than me because I'm neither suspicious of my neighbors nor have I lost any liberties, maybe it's you who lives in fear. I have, however, come to the relization that their are motivated, intelligent people who would like to kill me and as many Americans as they can. No matter how you slice it that is a fact. To this end I have become more aware of my surroundings. Was it a bad thing the clerk at that video store turned in those six radicals? To be so nonchalant is insane
Liberties? Look again brutha, I never used that term but it reveals your hole card
I'm sure you have a ready made argument bullet pointed as to how if you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide from the government
Not a very conservative stance
It's also dishonest to say that nothings changed in our society and as you well know a divided country is a weak one
are you here to debate son or are you just looking for someone to agree that fear is good, the great eye is good...if the latter is the matter go listen to the low end of the am dial but if you are hear to debate than get serious and lose the intellectual dishonesty kay?
willing to trade liberty for safety, - you
While you didn't say we've lost liberties you implied it. What liberties HAVE you lost "brotha" (oh, and btw, am I your brotha or son, I'm not sure since you called me both in your last post, blogging from kentucky perhaps?). You keep implying that I'm somehow a fearmonger for simlpy stating the logical fact that we should have a realistic concern (healthy fear) of events around us in order to try to avoid a future attack. What planet do you live on that no fear is actually a good thing? Why do you not touch a hot pan? The fear of being burned. Why do you not make toast in the shower? Fear of electrocution. To assume that we should have absolutely no fear of more attacks on our soil and accect it as an inevitablity is the most illogical thing I think I've ever read on this site (that's really saying something).
You there dad? Er, I mean, brotha....no wait, I mean dad....could you please make up your mind how we're related (or simply stop using condesending titles when referring to me). Anyways, hope your brain doesn't pop while you're trying to come up with what I'm sure is a brilliant response. BTW
Mahatma GandhiFear has its use, but cowardice has none.
My point is that it's simply healthy to have a degree (re: small amount of) fear. Not to be "cowering" as you suggested. Then again, maybe you think Gandhi was a moron.
Fear has a limited utility, much like pain
After it does what it needs to it should be disregarded
We were attacked one time, that's it and the body count is irrelevant
The Israelies must think we are a bunch of pansies, they see 9 11 a few times a day and the trains still run on time...Boston got shut down for a day over a Cartoon Network marketing stunt, i'd say we are pushing it with the threat level nonsense
again, you are more likely to die driving to work
Well, thanks for mentioning Israel
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/
I especially like the part that says
Officials constantly monitor behavior, alert to clues that may hint at danger: bulky clothing, say, or a nervous manner.
Duh...I wonder if the actions of the muslims in question in Minnesota would've made there flight out of Israel....nope. And to compare the regularity of attacks in Israel to those on us is ridiculous. Israel is SURROUNDED by enemies while we have more countries around us that are considered allies. BROTHA!
"Why do I not make toast in the bathtub?"
Because my toast will get SOGGY! And I'll have to go to the bathtub each time I make toast, and then walk back to the kitchen to eat it!
"Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering." -Yoda.
I quote Gandhi, you quote yoda...'nuff said
Well, edenscape, that's all for me tonight....you now have over 24 hrs to come up with a legitimate response and........GO!
Edenescape doesn't answer well-reasoned points. He is a drive-by poster.
You USED to have the right to a speedy trial. Ask Jose Padilla about that one. You used to have the right to be secure in your home, now the FBI can come in WITHOUT having obtained a warrant, search your house and NEVER TELL YOU THEY WERE THERE. You used to have a right to have a lawyer present when questioned NOW you dont. Just because you dont CARE your liberties have been attacked doesnt mean they havent.
On September 9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without charges,
Abdullah al-Muhajir is being held legally!!! He does not have the right you claim!! And because singular instances happen (legally) that make YOU think rights are being dragged through the mud does not mean they have. You are well known for your illogical and incorrect rants, this is just another one of them.
Do I lock my doors? Yes
Do I when boarding a plane while traveling look at every person who may or may not be Muslim and think terrorist? No
Do I think that when "homeland security" raises the "threat" level that I should watch each and every person who looks Muslim? No, when "homeland security" raises the "threat" level I wait for the next Bush scandal. They have perfected the art of "wag the dog"
They have perfected the art of "wag the dog" - you
Well, they had a good teacher (Bill Clinton), you do remeber Bosnia don't you? I've been going over my comments and....nope, I never said you should be wary of every muslim. The truth is, not every muslim is a terrorist, unfortunately in recent events the majority of terrorist atacks have been carried out by muslims. Do you think the passengers on that plane in Minnesota were wrong for reporting the anti-american statements and pro bin laden statements that six muslims made while boarding a plane?
Come on you were suppose to "restore dignity" to the oval office, remember? If you were going to copy Bill, maybe you should have keep his cabinet. We would not have had Brownie at FEMMA, Nicholson in Veterans Affairs, Gonzalez at Justice, Rice as Sec. of State (frequent fly-er miles but no deals). Yeah there are some things you could have copied.
No you're right you didn't directly say Muslims.
No I would not have notified airline security about someone making anti american comments or comments about Bin Laden. But what you don't say is that the people who notified airline security were notifying them because they appeared to be Muslim while making the so called comments. You see, you don't have to say it to imply it. It could have been someone commenting on foreign policy of America and this administration but they appeared to be Muslim therefore terrorist. That's what fear and ignorance does to you.
So the fact that muslims who were anti-american and associated with Bin laden flew rwo planes into buildings and killed thousnds of americans wouln't persuade you to be wary of these particular individuals? That's simply illogical. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. What would the question be had the muslims in question parked that particular plane in another US building? Answer, it would be "Were there any warning signs?" and "Could this have been avoided"?
Why should we be wary of muslims when 9 of 11 of the hijackers were saudi's? Bush dances with the saudi king like tinky winky and po in la la land, so why should I cower in fear of saudi's?
You do know that it was radical islamics that hit us on 9/11 don't you? I never said we should be wary of ALL muslims, I implied that if muslims are speaking in support of Bin laden and saying hatful things about America and praising allah loudly on an AIRPLANE (you know, those things that hit the wtc and pentagon) then yes, we should be wary of them.
yes, I know it was radical saudi's that hit us on 9-11. I also know saudi arabia is a huge hotbed of terrorists. Just let me know when bush is gonna attack the right hotbed so he can claim he is really fighting that phony war on terror.
Soooo a small group of Saudi's couldn't possibly have acted on their own because of a radical ideaology and attacked us? You can try to avoid the fact that some muslims want westeners (and especially jews and americans) dead but I don't think it would help you if you went to a hamas rally in Iran. Or do you think Saudi Arabia (who we buy massive amounts of oil from) somehow is our greatest threat?
at least you now understand the concept that a small group of people want to do harm to the us. Too bad you are too ignorant to understand that doesn't mean we should automatically haul anyone who confesses to being a muslim into a modern day japanese internment camp.
You can try to avoid the fact that some muslims want westeners - ME
Wow, you're right that is exactly equivilant to me saying that we should "round up all the muslims". I'm beginning to wonder what level of reading comprehension you're working with their, snoop. I've never said we should round up all muslims.
You can try to avoid the fact that some muslims want westeners dead- ME
Sorry, scrwed up om my last post....that's the full qoute....which still doesn't suggest we round up all muslims now matter what spin you try to put on it.
no, you are just being literal with my statements is all. Paybacks are h-e-l-l, aren't they?
Maybe you can use your concern to explain why Bush armed the extremest militants now fighting in Lebanon?
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hersh_Bush_arranged_support_for_militants_0522.html
Or perhaps you can comment on why Bush pays Pakistan a billion dollars a year to outsource the hunt for bin laden?
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/05/22/bush-outsources-the-task-of-catching-bin-laden/#more-17567
He is obviously not as concerned as you are. Go talk to him 1st.
Belive me, if I could talk to Bush it wouldn't be long and I'd get arrested (didn't vote for him...twice, don't know me as well as you think, do you?). But going off topic (the topic IS about a possible attack not about Bush's ineptitude, right?), isn't going to solve anything. If you want to bash Bush, go ahead but it still doesn't change the fact that radical muslims (which make up a small part of a very large group) have executed the greatest foreign attack on the continental US since the war of 1812.
thank you for finally being clear on your intent. I won't argue about extremists, totally agree. Just sometimes the way you post, no one gets it. It's not clear if you are suggesting profiling, or a mass roundup, etc etc etc (get my drift?). We tend to respond in kind here, not that it's right, but it is as it is.
Point taken, but I did say various times that only a small group of muslims should be viewed as suspicious.
so perhaps tomorrow we have the discussion on how best to do that. Cool?
"at least you now understand the concept that a small group of people want to do harm to the us."
A new Pew pokk found that 25% of Muslims under 30 in the U.S. believe suicide bombings can be justified under certain circumstances. While that's a minority within a minority, it would be quite a large group.
"Too bad you are too ignorant to understand that doesn't mean we should automatically haul anyone who confesses to being a muslim into a modern day japanese internment camp."
The Japanese-Americans we interned by FDR, the man who said, "The only thing to fear is fear itself."
Please keep in mind that many people in the world think the greatest threat to world peace is...the United States.
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind behind the 9-11 attack is not a Saudi, now is he? Mohammed Atta, the field leader of the attack was an Egyptian, was he not?
The actions of the Saudis who participated in the 9-11 attack were considered crimes by the Saudi government. Had the attackers survived, they would have been wanted men in their own country.
So what is your rationalization for attacking Saudi Arabia? Where is the casus belli?
Seb, as an African American if I allowed fear and ignorance to rule my life I would be afraid each and every time I saw a white person. You see my history with white folks should not allow me to trust anyone white.
That statement shows ignorance just like your statement about Muslims shows ignorance. Bin Laden has won when we as Americans cannot live our daily lives without fearing each and everyone we cross who is different from us. The reason that Republicans have had such control is because they tell you each and every day, several times a day that we should be afraid. People who travel look at everyone who's on board and if they speak with any accent and are not white and blonde beware. We need security in this country (12 to 20 million illegal immigrants) but we do not need to look at each and every person and demand that they prove that they are "with us and not against us". If I don't agree with the tactics that this administration uses that does not mean that I don't love my country and want it's citizens to be safe. What evangelicals should tell us is to be thankful each day that you wake up. Enjoy this day because tomorrow is not promised. And that does not mean that the "Muslims are coming to get us either".
I was raised in a democracy where speaking your opinion did not make you a traitor and I long for those days again.
Pearl,
nice summation. Leave it to you to put such a succinct reply to a lengthy argument! ;)
Snoppy, unfortunately history does continue to repeat it's self.
You're right, Pearl. Wonder why so many fear education? I can't understand why the only way possible to educate us on the mistakes of the past is considered the most vile thing to so many. The right says let me make my own mistakes, but then says I don't want to know (see comments on education, fairness doctrine). Sad, no?
Sad sad sad.
I have sat back over the last 6 years and wondered when people would wake up and look at what is happening to us as a nation. Unfortunately when I see Seb, MSavagefor Pres, Wesley and others I wonder what has to happen to make us stop and take a long look at what we are doing and how we are conducting ourselves.
Seb, as an African American if I allowed fear and ignorance to rule my life I would be afraid each and every time I saw a white person.
Why? Do you live in south africa?? Are you so living in the past that you fear white all white people?? Wow!
Pearlene's post makes sense. It's meaning couldn't be more clear.
Next time you open the dictionary, I'd suggest you find the definition of the word" IF".
Maybe YOU live in a fantasy land, Autolycus, but where we come from, groups such as the KKK and Neo-Nazis are merely underground, not fairy-tales from bygone days.
It would be a highly irrational fear, but that's Pearlene's point.
And that keeps her from walking out of her house fearing every white person in the world?? Get a life! If she feared white people so much she wouldn't be living here. If YOU think those fringe groups have so much power that they instill fear in every black person in America then YOU are a loser! L
"And that keeps her from walking out of her house fearing every white person in the world??"
Wow, you really don't know how to read. As someone else just pointed out to you, she said "IF" - what part of that two letter word do you not understand?
if I allowed fear and ignorance to rule my life I would be afraid each and every time I saw a white person
Neither do you or worrierking. She said "if" she allowed fear and ignorance to rule her life. She is not saying that she isn't afraid every time she sees a white person, she said if she let it rule her life. She just doesn't let it rule her life. The fear and ignorance is still there.
So the fact that muslims who were anti-american and associated with Bin laden flew rwo planes into buildings and killed thousnds of americans wouln't persuade you to be wary of these particular individuals? That's simply illogical.
And that is why liberalism is a mental disorder. They don't get the obvious and demand the irregular to achieve the unatural.
Good one, Autopsycho! Did you copy that from one of those church signs with the clever messages on them?
No, we ought to be wary of Ben Laden and his organization also those associated with it NOT MUSLIMS. I was once beaten and robbed by three black guys, didnt make me think every black guy I saw was going to beat and rob me. That is an excuse for bigotry. We definitly have a problem with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. We ought to go after them. What we SHOULDNT do is look at every Muslim like he is a terrorist nor should we have made things worse by invading the most secular Islamic Nation in the region using terrorism as an EXCUSE.
No I dont lock my doors at night. I never have. And you can say we WILL lose a few American cities? Your amazing precognition comes from WHERE? Your I Ching? Your Ouiji board? Let me guess you pulled that directly out of your ass for ideological purposes just like Dobson.
No I dont lock my doors at night. I never have.
Is that because your 10ft fence is topped with barb wire?
And you can say we WILL lose a few American cities? Your amazing precognition comes from WHERE?
Reality! The enemy we are fighting is claiming willingness to try every concievable method to attack our nation. You doubt the power of our enemy? If so, you're a moron with no clue and a loser with a big L. Since you are 'safe' behind your fence, playing with your trains, fearing black robbers you do not see the reality the rest of the world does.
One down, one to go... compliments of Yes!
Aw.... LEAVE IT!
Jericho, CBS, Wednesday evenings (?). Should we be quaking in our shoes? No! Should we be aware of what is going on around us, ala the Video Store Clerk in VA? Sure! Will the terrorist attack be from within (Oklahoma City) or without (WTC, Pentagon)? Who knows. Should we have a "hissy fit" because one man is saying "Some day......."? Or in other words, as Tommy would say, "Why is this here?"
"Why is this here?" is the question we should be asking Dobson, who last time I checked, was no national security specialist.
But he is an expert on fleecing the gullible. I assume he's also an expert on the "End Times" fairy tales that these troglodytes use to keep their bank accounts overflowing.
Well, for once, Dobson may be right. The longer we continue Bush's policies, the more and more likely it becomes.
In the (snort) spirit of the much anticipated return of the fairness doctrine. A rebutal from the early 70's. Procter and Bregman's What this Country Needs/ Is a good 5 cent joke.
The Real Reverand Sport Rendelburg!
Good morning.
Good afternoon.
Good evening.
My my, how difficult it is.
To know what time it is.
When we're trapped in a dark room, with artificial lights!
But don't worry about it because He dosen't know what time it is either.
And He's got the stop watch!
Let me scare you with a little story.
A former Priest under went a sect change operation, and became a nun.
Well everyday she/he went for a swim in the high speed drainage canal outside the nunistary.
Till one day, forgetting to kick! her habit, she was draged down by the heavy garments and drownd.
Only to be found by a fisherman of a differant faith, er face who happenned by.
He was a comon man!
And when he asked is god or devil why this had to happen to him. He got no reply.
And so he took her shoes and walked away. Preferring not to get involved.
What then are we arfraid of ?
Fear, like pain, maybe just his way, of hurting us!
Ank you, Good Bless you and God Night.
I think al Qaeda has expressed a desire to destroy U.S. cities, so what's the controversy here? Are Brock et. al. so blind that they see to threat from the terrorists.
BTW, William Cohen, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense went on national television in late 1997 and suggested that 5 pounds of anthrax could wipe out most of Washington, D.C. Of course, he was talking about the threat Iraq posed, but terrorists could certainly get their hands on anthrax.
Cohen was giving a warning, not a prophecy.
Too bad most liberals and their leadership were too scared to do anything about it, cowering in the corner like little girls. There are plenty of quotes about the danger of OBL by democratic leaders after the first world trade center bombing (some don't realize there are two attacks on that building) unfortunately, Slick willey didn't feel a need to find OBL or his cohorts. Perhaps he didn't think they were a real danger...much like most liberal think today! Somebody just said; history repeats itself. It sure didn't take long for liberals to think there is no danger in OBL or terrorism....again!
bin ladin was not connected to the first wtc attack. the people who did carry it out are all in jail, thanks to the fact that: "the fbi and the justice dept. did excellent work investigating the bombing.", 9-11 report page 72. "during 1995 and 1996, president clinton devoted considerable time to seeking cooperation from other nations in denying to sanctuary to terrorists.", page 101. then you have bush, who told bob woodward he was "not on point" about bin ladin, and who let him slip away at tora bora. the 9-11 report said of the summer of 2001 "the system was blinking red". bush decided to devote "considerable time" to clearing brush at his ranch.
"bin ladin was not connected to the first wtc attack."
Ramzi Yousef and KSM are cousins, so there was indeed an al Qaeda connection to the first WTC bombing.
"the people who did carry it out are all in jail, thanks to the fact that: "the fbi and the justice dept. did excellent work investigating the bombing.",
Also credit the invasion of Iraq since one of the terrorists responsible for the first WTC bombing was not captured until after the 2003 invasion. A Manila policewoman had more to do with ending Yousef's career as a terrorist than anything Clinton did.
"9-11 report page 72. "during 1995 and 1996, president clinton devoted considerable time to seeking cooperation from other nations in denying to sanctuary to terrorists.",
Didn't work well did. Clinton essentially thrww bin Laden into the briar patch in Afghanistan and Iraq was teeming with terrorists.
"then you have bush, who told bob woodward he was "not on point" about bin ladin, and who let him slip away at tora bora."
No one let bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora and it is an insult to our troops on the ground at the time to even suggest it. At least Bush went after bin Laden. Sudan offered him up to Clinton on a silver platter and Clinton instead ask them to send bin Laden to Afghanistan. If Clinton had taken bin Laden into custody in 1995, bin Laden would not have been at Tora Bora in 2001.
"the 9-11 report said of the summer of 2001 "the system was blinking red". bush decided to devote "considerable time" to clearing brush at his ranch."
Would you prefer that he was having sex with an intern in OUR White House?
"Would you prefer that he was having sex with an intern in OUR White House?"
I know that Rush Limbaugh keeps telling you that Clinton was worse than Puddinhead George, but here's a surprise for you...Rush is lying to you. Don't feel bad, you're not the only one he's suckered.
alert, fire danger, strawmen abound. you said "there were plenty of quotes about the danger of osama bin ladin by democratic leaders after the first wtc bombing". absolutely false. 9-11 report page 71, on the response to that bombing: "president bill clinton ordered his national security council to coordinate the response. government agencies swung into action to find the culprits. the counterterrorist center at the cia combed it's files and queried sources around the world." page 110: "sudan's minister of defense, fatih irwa, has claimed that sudan offered to hand bin ladin over to the united states. the commission has found no credible evidence that this was so." and you better read what i said one more time. i didn't blame the troops for bin ladin getting away at tora bora, i blamed bush. we left the border unguarded and he slipped in pakistan. and your garbage about clinton and monica just proves you have no answer to what i said about bush ignoring the threat in 2001. sip some more of that kool-aid.
"i didn't blame the troops for bin ladin getting away at tora bora, i blamed bush. we left the border unguarded and he slipped in pakistan. and your garbage about clinton and monica just proves you have no answer to what i said about bush ignoring the threat in 2001. sip some more of that kool-aid."
Our troops were in charge of the border area. Our military leaders--and not Bush--drew up the plans to get bin Laden. Do you think Bush was standing on the border? As I said before, you criticize the troops when you bring up that nonsense about letting bin Laden slip away at Tora Bora.
The "Monica thing" is very relevant. The record shows that Clinton was much more interested in pursuing bad girls than in pursuing bad guys. That's why his legacy is two holes in the ground in New York City.
and who is the commander in chief? and why did we go to afghanistan, if not to get bin ladin? if bush was not keeping up on the current information about him, and we were pretty certain where he was in tora bora, then ultimately it's bush's fault. and i guess your brain is unable to wrap itself around the fact that clinton was out of office for 8 eight months on 9-11. all the info that there was going to be some kind of major attack began bubbling up in the summer of 2001. 9-11 report page 256: "threat reports surged in june in july, reaching an even higher peak of urgency," page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat." in sum. bush did nothing, nada. have another sip.
"and who is the commander in chief? and why did we go to afghanistan, if not to get bin ladin? if bush was not keeping up on the current information about him, and we were pretty certain where he was in tora bora, then ultimately it's bush's fault."
You're still blaming the troops, who were taked with getting bin Laden. If bin Laden were easy to get, Clinton would have gotten him. He had eight years to do so.
"and i guess your brain is unable to wrap itself around the fact that clinton was out of office for 8 eight months on 9-11. all the info that there was going to be some kind of major attack began bubbling up in the summer of 2001."
9/11 years before it took place and the 9/11 pilots were in the country before Bush was even elected president (see p. 223 of the 9/11 Commission report). Atta and Shehhi were allowed to enter this country again in January 2001 (before Bush was president) without proper documentation (see pp. 227 and 228 of the 9/11 Commission report). How do you give Clinton a pass for missing all of that?
"9-11 report page 256: "threat reports surged in june in july, reaching an even higher peak of urgency," page 265: "in sum, the domestic agencies never mobilized in response to the threat." in sum. bush did nothing, nada. have another sip."
There was no specific threat during the summer of 2001. Was the White House supposed to issue a general warning? When that has been done since 9/11, Keith Olbermann and other moonbats say the White House is trying to scare people for political reasons.
The 9/11 Commission determined that Clinton missed more opportunities to get bin Laden than Bush did. That makes sense since Clinton had right years while Bush had less than eight months. Clinton's failure should not be pinned on Bush. If Clinton had done his job, bin Laden would have been killed or in custody years prior to 9/11.
we did not have troops on the ground in afghanistan with clinton. we did with bush and he did not follow through. the phoenix memo, a warning about the students in flight schools, came in july 2001. ignored by the bush administration. it's amazing how everything is clinton's fault, but absolutely nothing is bush's. face it, your lush hero couldn't handle anything more than his afternoon nap. if bush was so involved, explain why he told bob woodward that he was "not on point" about bin ladin.
"we did not have troops on the ground in afghanistan with clinton."
Exactly. You just made my point.
"we did with bush and he did not follow through. the phoenix memo, a warning about the students in flight schools, came in july 2001. ignored by the bush administration."
There was nothing in the Phoenix memo concerning a specific threat.
"As its author told investigators, the Phoenix memo was not an alert about suicide pilots. His worry was more about a Pan Am Flight 103 scenario in which explosives were placed on an aircraft. The memo's references to aviation training were broad,including aeronautical engineering. If the memo had been distributed in a timely fashion and its recommendations acted on promptly, we do not believe it would have uncovered the plot." - 9/11 Commission Report
"it's amazing how everything is clinton's fault, but absolutely nothing is bush's. face it, your lush hero couldn't handle anything more than his afternoon nap."
Was Clinton on point regarding bin Laden? If so, how do you explain the bombing of our embassies in Africa in August 1998 (even after a disgruntled al Qaeda operative told us about the plot), the bombing of the USS Cole (after we were warned of the vulnerability of ships at port in Yemen), and 9/11?
As the record shows, Clinton spent more time pursuing bad girls than he did bad guys.
and where was the clamor from the republicans, who controlled congress, to go after bin ladin? oh that's right, there wasn't any. and when we did have the troops there, and knew where he was, bush did not follow through. and you left out the last sentence in your paragraph from the 9-11 commission. [must have been a mistake?] "it might well have sensitized the fbi so that it might have taken the moussaoui matter more seriously the next month". there were several plots stopped during clinton's term. you talk about "the record", there is no record for bush. none, he did nothing.
Poor AutoPsycho...so many talking points, so little time. According to Richard Clarke: "Because of the intesity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in "Wag the Dog" tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life."
I know it's fashionable among Republicans to ignore Clarke, since Rush LImbaugh is so much more reliable.
"According to Richard Clarke: "Because of the intesity of the political opposition that Clinton engendered, he had been heavily criticized for bombing al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, for engaging in "Wag the Dog" tactics to divert attention from a scandal about his personal life."
That's from page 186. Of course, Clarke was lying again. No one in the GOP leadership accused Clinton of "Wagging the Dog." Speaker of the House Gingrich, Majority Leader Lott, and even Governor George W. Bush supported Clinton's move to retaliate againist al Qaeda.
A CNN poll conducted on August 20, 1998 found that only 36 percent of those polled believed the strikes were designed to divert attention away from the Monica Lewinsky controversy. Two-thirds of those polled approved of the strikes, while just 19 percent disapproved of them. If Clinton had decided to launch stronger and effective attacks against al Qaeda during the remainder of 1998, it is unlikely that Congress and the American people would not have been behind him. Instead, Clinton in December 1998 decided "to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." A few months after that, he launched an illegal war of choice on Kosovo.
The "Wag the Dog" charge was more accurate when Clinton launched a preemptive strike against Iraq during his impeachment.
Nerzog? Mefirst? Come on, usually you guys are so prompt at dispelling conservative myths. Why have you stopped responding so quickly? Cat got your tongue?
did you respond to my post at 805 last night? if you address something to me i will respond.
Regardless, Kevin I assume you are a Christian and isn't the New Testament full of good news and love? As a Christian, it seems odd that Dobson uses fear and suspicion to galvanize his followers
"As a Christian, it seems odd that Dobson uses fear and suspicion to galvanize his followers."
Yes, there's nothing about fire and brimstone in the Bible.
Are you saying there is nothinh to fear or suspect regarding terrorists?
Please provide a new tactic. Your strawmen have become wearisome.
"Please provide a new tactic. Your strawmen have become wearisome."
Translation: "Your logic and facts trump my moonbat talking points. Please give me a break."
While you're at it, quit your ad hominem attacks, too.
If ad hominem attacks were eschewed, 90%+ of the liberals here would be rendered speechless.
Kevin,
The Old Testament God sent His Son for our sins and now is a God of love, remember?
Hey Dobson, Why are you whining about this? Aren't you and your butt-buddies happy that the rapture is near, and you won't have to live here anymore? I welcome the rapture! Because it will take you and your hateful ilk outta here leaving the world free for the rest of humanity... PS: Why aren't you wailing and rending your garments in grief for Falwell??? Too busy? Yea, right.
To those who suggest they are brave because they dont fear terrorrism and they are not willing to react in any way disfavorable to islam, I suggest you read the quran and hadith, and look at islamic history from muhammeds time to the present and see if its possible that vigilance is smart. Islam is an empire , its an ideology and then its a religion. It is opposed to democracy , that is its calling, that is its history. By fighting it in the middle east we are taking it back to its origin. it still takes place in out country on a small scale but people are looking out for it more, as am I.
Feel free to go on business as usual, but the conservatives in this country will go out to defend us while you go to starbucks. That is your right, and we will risk our lives to defend that right. This is not doomsday talk , this is people getting sick of islamic imperialism from the crusades, to the hindu wars with Islam, to jeffersons fight against the barbary (muslim states). People are united against the evil of islam, and the rest of you refuse to take notice of what is at stake. At your own peril!
Big Gee, in your history lesson, did you run across the history of the 70s and 80s and how we helped create Bin Laden, and cozied up to Saddam, and helped create the problems in Iran? "Good" and 'Evil" are good concepts for scaring the knuckledraggers who put money in Dobson's pocket, but they're useless in formulating intelligent foreign policy. Unfortunately, the world is a little more complicated than that. Just ask JamesBondKevin...he went to Spy School.
Due diligence? By all means. But, that's not what Dobson's up to here. He knows that fear is the only card the Republicans have left, and he has every reason to want Republicans in power. The Democrats, corrupt as they are, don't seem so disposed to kiss the Religious Right's arse, and that drives Dobson crazy.
Big laugh of the day
Big G: Feel free to go on business as usual, but the conservatives in this country will go out to defend us while you go to starbucks. That is your right, and we will risk our lives to defend that right.
I'm sorry, but that's too ridiculous to let go. So you're equating conservatives with the troops, are you? Could you please explain a few things, then? (1) The great preponderance of chickenhawks among the rightwingers in position of power and influence; (2) the large number of military veterans among the Democrats in power; (3) that several veterans of the Iraqi conflict have run or have announced that they will run for public office, and virtually all of them are Democrats?
Just out of curiosity, are you a veteran yourself? If so, then why couldn't you convince your fellow conservatives to think the same way you do? If not, then you are the biggest hypocrite on the planet.
Another thing that may be going on here...Dobson is probably in frequent contact with the White House. Bush desperately needs something to (A) Divert our attention away from the putrid stench of the scandal which has infested his administration from the start (B) Divert our attention away from the disaster he has created in Iraq (C) Let him become the "War Prezdint" again and (D) Increase the chances that enough Americans will be scared enough to vote for a cretin like Giuliani in 08. The best way to do this? Start a war with Iran. Dobson is laying the groundwork among his addlebrained followers for an American attack on Iran.
Jesus wants you to vote Republican! The whole right wing philosophy is based on fear. Rather than support the war or religion in general through reasonable arguments they promote obedience to their leaders by stoking fear of THE OTHER GUYS.
Dobson is also using a time-worn Troglodyte technique here. He's making numerous dire predictions, just in case one of them comes true. If it does happen, he can say "See, God told me this was going to happen", which will compel armies of little old ladies to send him money. If it doesn't happen, he'll eventually die and no one will care. It's a pretty good racket, actually. Con men like him have been predicting the imminent return of Jeeezzzzuuuuuusssss for centuries, and making lots of money doing it.