McCain picks woman for VP slot

[bush_cheney2004]

...Obama makes entire speeches about how John McCain and Palin are ignoring the issues and then launches into the same old bit about "Er um, JOhn McCain.....is not the, er um, agent of change we need in this country." By talking about change and how John McCain does not talk about the issues, Obama seems to divert people from the fact that he isnt talking about them either. At least no more than McCain/Palin have thus far.

Correct...the king of image and the cult of personality is none other than Barack Obama, but this is a good thing, right? How dare those Republicans try to steal Obama's mojo!

[Black Dog]

McCain/Palin have the monopoly on the issues too. Obama wants to raise taxes on the people who already pay the highest rates. He thinks people who make over 100 grand should pay even more. That is not going to help stimulate a better economy. Raising the minimum wage at this point in time won't either. It will probably result in higher unemployment rates. He wants to drastically increase the capital gains tax, even though history has shown that lower capital gains taxes actually generate more tax revenue because there is a greater incentive to sell.

Regardless of the soundness of the plan, I'm not sure McCain's continuation of policies that favour the rich (the rest can grab what crumbs fall off the table)-a policy strikingly similar to those of the current administration (what "change?")- will sell better than Obama's middle-class populist pitch.

He wants to further cripple the Patriot Act. I know that is a controversial subject, but I think it would be unwise to do so. Despite the claims that proponents of this are fear-mongering, the reality is that the Patriotic Act has been vital in stopping terrorist attacks since 9/11, though the media largely ignores this. Everyone who drives across the Brooklyn Bridge right now should be grateful for the Patriot Act, imo.

Given the paucity of evidence regarding the Patriot Act's effectiveness in combating terrorism, that's a tack you take at your peril.

[jefferiah]

Given the paucity of evidence regarding the Patriot Act's effectiveness in combating terrorism, that's a tack you take at your peril.

The Patriot Act allowed National Security to intercept the plots to attack Fort Dix, to destroy the Brooklyn bridge, the bombing of Kennedy airport. You don't think thats effective? You would have rather those things happened?

[Black Dog]

The Patriot Act allowed National Security to intercept the plots to attack Fort Dix, to destroy the Brooklyn bridge, the bombing of Kennedy airport. You don't think thats effective? You would have rather those things happened?

What, specifically was the role played by the PA in these instances? For instance, the Brooklyn Bridge "plot" (more of a prank given the implausability of the scheme) was uncovered by of warrantless wiretaps authorized through the President's expansion of NSA's powers, not the Patriot Act.

But that's beside the point. You are suggesting that such operations could not be disrupted without the aid of expanded powers of surveillance such as those prescribed under the P.A.. I think the onus is on you to prove that to be so.

[jefferiah]

What, specifically was the role played by the PA in these instances? For instance, the Brooklyn Bridge "plot" (more of a prank given the implausability of the scheme) was uncovered by of warrantless wiretaps authorized through the President's expansion of NSA's powers, not the Patriot Act.

The "implausibility of the scheme" comes from papers like the New York times. The scheme was highly plausible. When it was pointed by the police that they found a place where a person could work unseen for hours on the suspension cables, the media dismissed that because they said there was no way he could work unseen given all the surveillance on the bridge. This argument reminds me of that song "There's a Hole In My Bucket Dear Liza". The reason the cops were surveying the bridge in the first place was because they were tipped off by the wire taps, not because it was under heavy scrutiny since 9/11.

Here is a profile of Lyman Faris, the guy who was to carry out the attack:

He travelled to Afghanistan to meet with Bin Laden in 2000

He bought airline tickets for Al Qaeda members to travel to Yemen.

He met with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2002 (does that name ring a bell).

Faris was not just some loner. He had contacts with Al Qaeda. The media dismissed him because he was a truck driver?????? Does that matter? Were the 9/11 terrorists all nuclear physicists? Do you think a bunch of journalists know better than National Security about the plausibility of threats? After surveillance had been ordered on the bridge, they found out from the captured Mohammed Khalid Sheik the name of the guy charged with the task of bringing down the bridge. This is the same guy who was connected with masterminding another group of nobodies to crash planes into buildings, something I suppose everyone would be calling implausible had it been intercepted before it happened.

Edited September 9, 2008 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

But that's beside the point. You are suggesting that such operations could not be disrupted without the aid of expanded powers of surveillance such as those prescribed under the P.A.. I think the onus is on you to prove that to be so.

Yeah, you are right. They would have enough evidence about a terrorist attack and who was responsible if they simply let them happen. Or maybe they could open up an bureau where prospective terrorists could go and state their intentions beforehand.

Edited September 9, 2008 by jefferiah

[Black Dog]

The "implausibility of the scheme" comes from papers like the New York times. The scheme was highly plausible. When it was pointed by the police that they found a place where a person could work unseen for hours on the suspension cables, the media dismissed that because they said there was no way he could work unseen given all the surveillance on the bridge.

I guess the fact that the plot was abandoned by the plotters because it wouldn't work escaped your notice.

Faris admitted to travelling to New York City in late 2002 to examine the bridge and said he realised the plot to destroy it by severing the cables was unlikely to succeed because of its security and structure.

In early 2003, he sent a message that "the weather is too hot" - a coded message meant to convey that the bridge plot was unlikely to succeed, the officials said.

the reason the cops were surveying the bridge in the first place was because they were tipped off by the wire taps, not because it was under heavy scrutiny since 9/11.

I thought so too. I was wrong. So are you.

Yeah, you are right. They would have enough evidence about a terrorist attack and who was responsible if they simply let them happen. Or maybe they could open up an bureau where prospective terrorists could go and state their intentions beforehand.

I guess it's too much to ask for something a little more nuanced than this Manichean "thinking." No one opposes surveillance in cases where probable cause has been shown. What is problematic is a situation where the state is given a virtual carte blanche to conduct domestic spying.

[CANADIEN]

I know that is a controversial subject, but I think it would be unwise to do so. Despite the claims that proponents of this are fear-mongering, the reality is that the Patriotic Act has been vital in stopping terrorist attacks since 9/11, though the media largely ignores this.

And Moscow had a lot less crime when Stalin was in power that during the days of Yeltsin. You don't hear often about terrorist acts in North Korea. Amazing how the same people who cry "Freedom, Freedom" are willing to sacrifice it.

[CANADIEN]

The Patriot Act allowed National Security to intercept the plots to attack Fort Dix, to destroy the Brooklyn bridge, the bombing of Kennedy airport. You don't think thats effective? You would have rather those things happened?

You mean that good old police and intelligence work would not have worked? That there is no way that the police could have got a warrant using normal procedures based on what they knew?

Edited September 9, 2008 by CANADIEN

[jefferiah]

I guess the fact that the plot was abandoned by the plotters because it wouldn't work escaped your notice.

No actually it didn't. First off investigators found a vulnerable spot on the bridge where Faris could have worked unseen. Later, when they raided his apartment they found equipment needed for the task, complete with plans which indicated the exact same spot. The fact that they abandoned the task does not mean it was "implausible"--not exactly-- but that it was now implausible because of the increase in surveillance due to the NSA wiretaps. The ensuing wiretaps after the increased surveillance picked up conversations saying it was "too hot" on the bridge.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=...eywords=wiretap

Edited September 9, 2008 by jefferiah

[Black Dog]

No actually it didn't. First off investigators found a vulnerable spot on the bridge where Faris could have worked unseen. Later, when they raided his apartment they found equipment needed for the task, complete with plans which indicated the exact same spot. The fact that they abandoned the task does not mean it was "implausible"--not exactly-- but that it was now implausible because of the increase in surveillance due to the NSA wiretaps. The ensuing wiretaps after the increased surveillance picked up conversations saying it was "too hot" on the bridge.

Source?

[jefferiah]

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=...eywords=wiretap

and

Lyman Faris

Faris' investigations into obtaining the necessary tools for the dual-operation involved asking a friend where he might purchase welding equipment, and researching the structure of the bridge on the internet. He concluded that the operation was unlikely, and sent a message back to Pakistan calling off the plot, stating that "The weather is too hot".

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

[Black Dog]

You know, the idea is to produce evidence that supports your claims. You've failed to do that.

The first link simply reiterates your claims without any supporting evidence that warrantless wiretaps were involved. Others have found evidence to the contrary, evidence that indicates Kalid Shiek Mohammad did the fingering:

The best-known investigation was the case of Faris, a Columbus, Ohio, truck driver and naturalized U.S. citizen who pled guilty in 2003 to an alleged conspiracy that included the purported plot to cut down the Brooklyn Bridge. In interviews with the FBI, he also acknowledged visiting New York and casing the bridge, though later Faris recanted several admissions, including his acknowledgement that he had conducted surveillance of the bridge.

A transcript of Faris's October 2003 sentencing hearing, before Judge Leonie Brinkema in Federal Court in Alexandria, Va., makes cryptic references to two separate sources of intelligence that helped the federal investigation. Prosecutor Neil Hammerstrom Jr. told the judge that on March 19, 2003, two FBI agents and an officer from an antiterror task force went to interview Faris in Ohio following what the prosecutor described as "a call that was intercepted in another investigation." Hammerstrom said he didn't want "to get into too many details in open court." He indicated that when the agents first went to interview Faris, the suspect was not hostile and agreed to talk to them further, so they walked away from the interview without detaining him.

After Faris agreed to let them search his apartment, they came back the next day to do so. Later that day, according to Hammerstrom, the FBI got what he called "overseas source information that Mr. Faris had been tasked to go and look at the Brooklyn Bridge as a possible target of an attack by Al Qaeda."

T

he second: well, it's wikipedia for one thing. For another, there's nothing in there about the magic spot on the bridge you're blatering about (and indeed, of which I've seen no reference to outside this forum) and nothing about him having the equipment necessary, a claim of yours that the DoJ contradicts:

Faris admitted that upon returning to the United States from Pakistan in April 2002, he researched “gas cutters” - the equipment for severing bridge suspension cables - and the New York City bridge on the Internet. Between April 2002 and March 2003, he sent several coded messages through another individual to his longtime friend in Pakistan, indicating he had been unsuccessful in his attempts to obtain the necessary equipment. Faris admitted to traveling to New York City in late 2002 to examine the bridge, and said he concluded that the plot to destroy the bridge by severing cables was unlikely to succeed because of the bridge’s security and structure. In early 2003, he sent a message that “the weather is too hot” - a coded message indicating that the bridge plot was unlikely to succeed.

So far, you're looking pretty full of crap on this.

[jefferiah]

You know, the idea is to produce evidence that supports your claims. You've failed to do that.

The first link simply reiterates your claims without any supporting evidence that warrantless wiretaps were involved. Others have found evidence to the contrary, evidence that indicates Kalid Shiek Mohammad did the fingering:

Why would it matter that wiretaps did not identify Faris and Kalid Sheik Mohammad did? That's a no brainer anyways. Unwarranted wire taps could not be used to even identify Faris, nor to arrest him. That info has to come from elsewhere, anyways.

I never claimed that wiretaps caught Faris himself. I claimed that the NSA found out about the terror plot on the Brooklyn Bridge because of the wire taps. Which caused the police to tighten security and set up cameras. Which caused the operative to make a call to Pakistan saying "The weather is TOO HOT". At this point they did not know who was saying the weather was too hot. The just knew what they were intercepting. I already acknowledged in an earlier post that it was Kalid Shiek Mohammad who gave up his name. That was the "overseas information" which uncovered Faris. That all happened afterward. But the surveillance on the bridge began before he was fingered, and because of the wiretaps!

Edited September 10, 2008 by jefferiah

[August1991]

On the other hand, if you mean, he made the right choice in selecting someone who could take over the reigns of power and steer the most powerful nation on earth through troubled times if anything happened to him - not a chance in hell.

Spiro Agnew helped get Richard Nixon elected.

Gerald Ford became president. If gerald Ford can be a decent president, almost anybody can be a decent president.

Arh=gus, you are making far too much of this. The US Constitution is designed in such a way that it can easily survive a Vice-President Palin.

From the little I know of her, this woman seems to have done well with herself and she seems to have her head firmly planted on her shoulders. One can't say the same of all presidents when they swore the oath of office and she's not aiming to do that.

If I had to think of the next slogan, I'd say that Alaska is the new Texas.

----

Guys - Brooklyn Bridge, Sheikh Yerbouti, wiretaps, evidence, claims, Moscow, Yeltsin? WTF?

Thread drift is one thing but you guy have hijacked this thread to Mars. Please start your own thread with an appropriate title, or something.

Sarah Palin has thrown a big-time scare into Democrats. The GOP ticket received a huge bounce after the convention, according to a USA Today/Gallup poll, and McCain now leads Obama among registered voters, 50 percent to 46 percent. And it's mostly Palin's doing. The "elite media" that Palin and her fellow Republicans so lovingly excoriated in St. Paul, Minn., is reporting that her entrance into the race may have put crucial states like Ohio in play. The tough-talking, gun-toting "hockey mom" who believes that America's wars are God's will has fired up social conservatives, restarted the culture wars so beloved of Republicans, and shifted the election from being about issues into a personality contest.

Salon

Sarah Palin - Moose Dominatrix

Edited September 10, 2008 by August1991

[Pliny]

Saying "you know what, now that Congress won't pay for it, we cannot afford it" would have been one thing. Even saying "shame on those Democrats for opposing a good and useful project" would have been good enough. But she went way further, saying " I said to Congress 'thanks but not thanks' to that bridge to nowhere".

That was the name on her t-shirt - "Nowhere"

I would have to read the whole story from different sources to understand the whole thing but frankly it isn't that interesting to me. I already said that I don't think you have enough information to form a final opinion on the matter. Maybe you consider you have all the information necessary to totally condemn her. if it happened the way you said it happened then I guess she is just another blowhard politician talking through her hat. I too would like all my politicians to be honest, upright and humble servants of the public, like Bill and Hillary or Barack.

In one sentence, she used the same words she had denounced as an insult to Alaska less than 18 months earlier, described as wasteful a project she was praising when she thought that Congress would pay for it. and claimed she stopped Congress from putting money in a project that CONGRESS didn't want to fund.

I didn't quite understand this last half of the paragraph.

[CANADIEN]

That was the name on her t-shirt - "Nowhere"

I would have to read the whole story from different sources to understand the whole thing but frankly it isn't that interesting to me. I already said that I don't think you have enough information to form a final opinion on the matter. Maybe you consider you have all the information necessary to totally condemn her. if it happened the way you said it happened then I guess she is just another blowhard politician talking through her hat. I too would like all my politicians to be honest, upright and humble servants of the public, like Bill and Hillary or Barack.

I didn't quite understand this last half of the paragraph.

My apologies. I said something bad about Saint Sarah. Who is anyone to claim she was flip-flopping when she did it and then... err interpreted the fact in from of a country-wide audience?

[Pliny]

My apologies. I said something bad about Saint Sarah. Who is anyone to claim she was flip-flopping when she did it and then... err interpreted the fact in from of a country-wide audience?

She must have been taking her cues from some of those Alaskan salmon. Maybe she can teach Barack how to do a better job of flip-flopping, he seems so amateurish in comparison - obviously he lacks political experience.

[Guest American Woman]

My apologies. I said something bad about Saint Sarah.

You sexist pig! How dare you say anything critical of Palin! :angry: If you think you can just apologize and everything will be all better, think again. We've got you pegged now. Clearly you have total disrespect for women.

[jefferiah]

You sexist pig! How dare you say anything critical of Palin! :angry: If you think you can just apologize and everything will be all better, think again. We've got you pegged now. Clearly you have total disrespect for women.

I find Canadien's comment kinda weird. It's like he is getting defensive over his criticism of Palin over nothing (and so are you). Because the thing is American Woman, no one actually came after him very hard over criticizing Palin. No one came after him at all. No one is calling him out on anything. It's like he is overreacting to nothing. All Pliny said was that maybe he should have all the information before he condemns her. It's not like he started calling him a rabid hateful misogynist bigot.

When I did the same thing as Canadien ( sarcastically apologizing for calling Barack Barry), I think I had more of a reason than he did. I called Obama Barry (ooooooooooooooo) and you said I had no respect and that it showed my opinions on him are invalid, blah blah blah.

Edited September 10, 2008 by jefferiah

[CANADIEN]

I find Canadien's comment kinda weird. It's like he is getting defensive over his criticism of Palin over nothing (and so are you). Because the thing is American Woman, no one actually came after him very hard over criticizing Palin. No one came after him at all. No one is calling him out on anything. It's like he is overreacting to nothing. All Pliny said was that maybe he should have all the information before he condemns her. It's not like he started calling him a rabid hateful misogynist bigot.

When I did the same thing as Canadien ( sarcastically apologizing for calling Barack Barry), I think I had more of a reason than he did. I called Obama Barry (ooooooooooooooo) and you said I had no respect and that it showed my opinions on him are invalid, blah blah blah.

So good of you to let me know I wasn't called a rabid hateful msogynist bigot. After all, I was so defensive that the thought that Pliny was calling me anything like that never crossed my mind. :lol:

On a more serious note. What she said dring her election campaign about the bridge (supporting) and about the opposition to it (expressing outrage that some would call it a bridge to nowhere) is documented.

What she did and said when she realized that opposition from Congress was such that she couldn't count on federal funding, and that the bridge would cost more than what was budgetted for - she cancelled it, saying that the lack of interest from Congress made it necessary to find "better ways" to serve the needs of the local community - is documented. And mind you, that was her only option.

And the fact that she claimed last week that she had said "no thanks" to Congress (I thought their lack of interest was the reason why she had said no) and used the same term (bridge to nowhere) she used to find offensive is very well documented.

Any other fact to add to the story?

[CANADIEN]

She must have been taking her cues from some of those Alaskan salmon. Maybe she can teach Barack how to do a better job of flip-flopping, he seems so amateurish in comparison - obviously he lacks political experience.

I'll give credit where it's due. It's funny.

[jefferiah]

So good of you to let me know I wasn't called a rabid hateful msogynist bigot. After all, I was so defensive that the thought that Pliny was calling me anything like that never crossed my mind. :lol:

On a more serious note. What she said dring her election campaign about the bridge (supporting) and about the opposition to it (expressing outrage that some would call it a bridge to nowhere) is documented.

What she did and said when she realized that opposition from Congress was such that she couldn't count on federal funding, and that the bridge would cost more than what was budgetted for - she cancelled it, saying that the lack of interest from Congress made it necessary to find "better ways" to serve the needs of the local community - is documented. And mind you, that was her only option.

And the fact that she claimed last week that she had said "no thanks" to Congress (I thought their lack of interest was the reason why she had said no) and used the same term (bridge to nowhere) she used to find offensive is very well documented.

Any other fact to add to the story?

Well, first off, it makes no sense to say "ooo Im so sorry I criticized Palin" when no one actually called you out for it. You make it sound as if someone did.

As for the bridge to nowhere I would say she changed her mind when it became apparent the bridge would cost more than they thought it would. I was going to buy a shirt the other day myself, until I saw the price tag. Then I said "Thanks but no thanks."

Alaskan Democrats gave her credit for killing the project at the time. Now they don't? That's kind of a flip-flop.

Edited September 11, 2008 by jefferiah

[CANADIEN]

Well, first off, it makes no sense to say "ooo Im so sorry I criticized Palin" when no one actually called you out for it. You make it sound as if someone did.

As you said yourself, Pliny was questioning whether or not I should criticize her, in a way that sounded like "if you had all the facts, you would not be critizing her" but without providing the facts I am supposed to miss. Which by the way I found and still find funny. You obviously do not know me if you think I felt targetted, or insulted, or smeared or attacked by what he said.

As for the bridge to nowhere I would say she changed her mind when it became apparent the bridge would cost more than they thought it would. I was going to buy a shirt the other day myself, until I saw the price tag. Then I said "Thanks but no thanks."

And I am sure that if your parents/business partner/spouse etc. told you something like "you know what, this thing you want us to buy together is too expensive, you won't get my money", you would said "you know what, I can't buy it by myself, so forget about it". I also think you wouldn't say later "he/she/they wanted to waste his/her/their money and mine on that thing and I said no". But that's what Sarah Palin did, and that's what have many local Democrats AND Republican fuming.

Edited September 11, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Delete

Edited September 11, 2008 by CANADIEN