BuffettNews.com

Quiet and Shy wrote:Ultimately, it's all about risk management. There's never a 100% security guarantee. So, how and where can available resources be effectively "invested" to minimize the risk? Foreign policy, military actions, national security, etc. all include actions aimed at mitigating the terrorism risk. Assuming the current administration is following existing laws (which is in some doubt), are they doing a good job at minimizing the terrorist risk given the existing resources...?

Given that CONUS has not been attacked since September 11, the answer to your question is YES!!!

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:Ultimately, it's all about risk management. There's never a 100% security guarantee. So, how and where can available resources be effectively "invested" to minimize the risk? Foreign policy, military actions, national security, etc. all include actions aimed at mitigating the terrorism risk. Assuming the current administration is following existing laws (which is in some doubt), are they doing a good job at minimizing the terrorist risk given the existing resources...?

Given that CONUS has not been attacked since September 11, the answer to your question is YES!!!

If that's your measure of success, your answer is correct. However, I'd suggest that one measure provides a very narrow and short-term view. The world is just more complicated than that....

Quiet and Shy wrote:If that's your measure of success, your answer is correct. However, I'd suggest that one measure provides a very narrow and short-term view. The world is just more complicated than that....

How, in your opinion, is it a "narrow, short term view." This is the end purpose of our government. Protect the citizenry from all enemies. I would also say that the last 4 administrations failed in this, in regards to terrorism, but none so much as Clinton. His failures to defy terrorism is what enabled, psychologically, politically and economically Al Queada to organize and attack this country on a scale that had never before been attempted or carried out.
Clinton, on foreign policy, took the view that the world is too complicated and that there must be consensus, and trust. What did that get us? 3000+ dead in NYC, Arlington VA and Shankesville PA. Not to mention a US warship attacked and US sailors killed. Two US embassies (US territory) bombed and US citizens and employees killed. US military barracks bombed with US servicemembers killed. All of which resulted in NO meanignful retaliation which told the terrorists to do what they want, to the US cause they won't do anything in return. Yeah, that is a world view worthy of emulation. (please note the heavy sarcasm of the last statement)

green1 wrote:

Quiet and Shy wrote:If that's your measure of success, your answer is correct. However, I'd suggest that one measure provides a very narrow and short-term view. The world is just more complicated than that....

How, in your opinion, is it a "narrow, short term view." This is the end purpose of our government. Protect the citizenry from all enemies. I would also say that the last 4 administrations failed in this, in regards to terrorism, but none so much as Clinton. His failures to defy terrorism is what enabled, psychologically, politically and economically Al Queada to organize and attack this country on a scale that had never before been attempted or carried out.
Clinton, on foreign policy, took the view that the world is too complicated and that there must be consensus, and trust. What did that get us? 3000+ dead in NYC, Arlington VA and Shankesville PA. Not to mention a US warship attacked and US sailors killed. Two US embassies (US territory) bombed and US citizens and employees killed. US military barracks bombed with US servicemembers killed. All of which resulted in NO meanignful retaliation which told the terrorists to do what they want, to the US cause they won't do anything in return. Yeah, that is a world view worthy of emulation. (please note the heavy sarcasm of the last statement)

I don't feel a personal need to bash Clinton here, but regarding the view of terrorists, green1 is right on the mark.

We're at war against a system of beliefs. They believe terrorism is a legitimate means to an end and that killling civilians is ok.

We don't.

No amount of compassion/understanding/consensus/whatever will work to dissuade a terrorist from killing you if he can. The only effective method of persuasion is to make them dead.

Eventually (long-term, maybe very long term) IF WE REMAIN COURAGEOUS, VIGILANT, AND PRO-ACTIVE in making terrorists dead, those who might consider terrorism in the future will see it doesn't work and pursue other methods to achieve their goals.

People (even whackos) eventually quit doing something that doesn't work.

I bet British intelligence wish they were listening to these guys' conversations about a year ago.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... i-news-hed

It's not that hard to imagine that happening right here in Chicago where hundreds of thousands use public transportation every day.

flyboy55 wrote:Can't find bin Laden? That's OK - spy on Americans instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

It wasn't a requirement for telecommunications companies to provide information, although it likely put future government contracts at risk. (sorry for the long link)

http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGN ... 89c01ca7bf

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Can't find bin Laden? That's OK - spy on Americans instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

It wasn't a requirement for telecommunications companies to provide information, although it likely put future government contracts at risk. (sorry for the long link)

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

flyboy55 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Can't find bin Laden? That's OK - spy on Americans instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

It wasn't a requirement for telecommunications companies to provide information, although it likely put future government contracts at risk. (sorry for the long link)

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

Qwest executives were to busy overstating financials and dumping stock to be concerned with national security.

I'm going to weigh in here and ask a simple question to those who think that it is okay for the President to knowingly and willingly violate his oath of office and order the NSA to violate the very law that created the NSA. How would you feel about this if it were President Hillary Clinton ordering the creation of the database without oversight and in violation of the law?

The Lost Manatee wrote:I'm going to weigh in here and ask a simple question to those who think that it is okay for the President to knowingly and willingly violate his oath of office and order the NSA to violate the very law that created the NSA. How would you feel about this if it were President Hillary Clinton ordering the creation of the database without oversight and in violation of the law?

I am thinking that the best of the worst of the rabid right's attacks on Bill would look like a Sunday School picnic. But that is me.

If you are stupid enough to say all of that in a phone conversation--you should be willing to pay the price.

For those of you who dont know-the government listens to all of your phone call - and even if you use a Cell phone---- your phone has GPS so they can get you easily.


So watch what your sayin on the phone from now on

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Can't find bin Laden? That's OK - spy on Americans instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

It wasn't a requirement for telecommunications companies to provide information, although it likely put future government contracts at risk. (sorry for the long link)

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

Qwest executives were to busy overstating financials and dumping stock to be concerned with national security.

Didn't Nacchio end up dropping more than 75% of the value of the company on his watch?

monitoring our calls seems to work as good as monitoring our borders.

btw
I've purposely said some pretty extreme stuff on the phone so, so much for that.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Here's a question for those who are opposed to these programs.... Hypothetical, certainly, but....

If you *knew* that this analysis was going to stop a terrorist attack that was going to kill one or more of your loved ones, would you still be opposed to it?.....

If Bill Clinton KNEW that bin Laden was going to kill Americans, don't you think he would have defied legal opinions from the United States Department of Justice (as well as Congressional critics and Republican witch-hunters) to send more than oh, let's just say handfuls of cruise missiles and steamer trunks of smart money after him?

Prescience... ya can't beat it.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Analysts trying to identify terrorists don't give a sh*t about people's personal conversations.... they care about identifying and stopping terrorist attacks.....

True and true, but these fine folks have been known to ***** up a time or two*. And they NEVER get a final say in how their intel is used (see "WMDs in Iraq"). So their own personal morals don't matter much in this conversation. The personal morals that matter belong to the POTUS and more importantly, his inner circle. Rove, Rummie, Wolfie, et al.

HELL YES, I'M SCARED.

*Remember that schmuck, I believe he was a German citizen or legal resident, who shared the same basic name as a Middle Eastern bad-guy? He was tracked by the CIA until he left Germany on vacation. They kidnapped him in the Balkans, spirited him out of the country and took him to a secret prison in Afghanistan when he was interrogated for weeks. His poor wife fought for a long time before he was returned without so much as a "sorry"

He was the WRONG GUY!

Wino you know wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:You should know better. This issue goes beyond partisan politics. The surveillance tools being forged right now will be in the capable (and we hope benevolent) hands of any future administration, whether Republican or Democrat or Amerika First.

I DO "know better."
If any future administration DOES get the survellience tools they need, due to the fact that I have nothing to hide, I'm not the least bit worried about it.

Wino, I have more respect for your morals and common sense than just about anyone else I can name. (It's just one of the reasons i can argue with you and pholks like you -- I don't feel like I'm getting dumber by osmosis.)

In your line of work, did you ever put the cuffs on somebody who turned out to be clean? Maybe they weren't perfect, hell who is, but they didn't do what you wanted them for? You can open the cell, give them their stuff, slap them on the back and say Sorry. A team of deltas hunting a terrorist don't often have that option. Remember the guy who got shot to death in London after the bus bombings? He was the wrong guy. He was clean. He didn't do what they thought he did... and now he's dead.

Even if you have nothing to hide, you still have the responsibility of protecting your liberties. And it's always going to be a group effort.

flyboy55 wrote:Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-36.htm

Being indicted certainly might enhance one's appreciation for the LAW.

I guess y'all know that thanks to USA Today's spectacular reporting (betrayal of national security), QWEST is now the preferred long-distance provider for Al Quaeda, the Taliban, and nearly all of the world's terrorist organizations (the bad guys.)

Brilliant piece of work (for Osama bin Laden.) Thanks for doing your part to keep America safe (from mid-level beaurocrats who are probably playing Solitaire instead of checking phone calls anyway.)

(Subtitles provided to enhance clarity of meaning for those of you who think Bush and crew are actually the ones perpetuating evil. )

RinglingRingling wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:

buffettbride wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Can't find bin Laden? That's OK - spy on Americans instead.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

It wasn't a requirement for telecommunications companies to provide information, although it likely put future government contracts at risk. (sorry for the long link)

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

Qwest executives were to busy overstating financials and dumping stock to be concerned with national security.

Didn't Nacchio end up dropping more than 75% of the value of the company on his watch?

Damn close to. I was one of the 25% that helped it survive.

Elrod wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio - someone in corporate America with balls, and fine appreciation for the LAW.

http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2005-36.htm

Being indicted certainly might enhance one's appreciation for the LAW.

Nacchio has no appreciation for anyone but himself.

The Lost Manatee wrote:I'm going to weigh in here and ask a simple question to those who think that it is okay for the President to knowingly and willingly violate his oath of office and order the NSA to violate the very law that created the NSA. How would you feel about this if it were President Hillary Clinton ordering the creation of the database without oversight and in violation of the law?

Do you mean liek Bill Clinton did? I was OK with it then. But I do notice that all of you screaming about this now were silent on it when it began in the 90's.