Friday, March 17, 2006
HATING GEORGE W. BUSH AND WISHING FOR AMERICAN DEFEAT
Some day, the terrorists will likely be successful exploding nuclear or chemical weapons on American soil. They've been working towards this goal for decades, and the technology and technical expertise exists to make it happen. A briefcase size device would be enough to destroy New York City, killing millions in one stroke and thrilling the America-haters around the world.
Could Russ Feingold and Joe Wineke possibly understand this? They visibly root for bad news from Iraq, and continually provide aid and comfort to the enemies in the hills of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq. And Feingold keeps fighting to weaken our defenses, and prevent the monitoring of conversations with expected Al Quaeda terrorists. When the major attack one day arrives, how will Feingold, Wineke and any remaining Democrats defend their behavior?
I know you hate George W. Bush, but do you hate the people of New York City or Washington, D.C. as well? Perhaps Dem headquarters could join in a celebratory dance with Zarqawi, Mullah Omar, and Osama Bin Laden when the horrific day finally comes. After all, aren't you guys all rooting for the same thing? Face it, the Bush hatred and rooting-for-defeat leaves you with a lot in common with the murderous Islamist freaks.
One of the President's primary responsibilities is to protect the American people from attack. September 11 should have led politicians of all stripes to join the President in that commitment. If they were able to accomplish that work, then an even greater attack must be considered as a very real threat. Do Democrats still believe that the President should be focused on the common defense? Or do they prefer the limp-wristed squishiness of the Clinton years?
Why don't the American people trust the Democrats on the issue of national security? That should be obvious to everyone, as we read Joe Wineke's celebration of U.S. difficulties the 3rd anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. That should be obvious to everyone, as we listen to Neville Feingold call for our commander in chief to be censured for aggressively protecting American soil. That should be obvious to everyone who sees the We-Hate-Bush bumper stickers on the cars of failed Kerry supporters.
Republicans may have hated Franklin Roosevelt, but they never rooted for American defeat by Japan or Germany when he was President. At a time when Republicans are not right on all of the issues, Joe Wineke and Russ Feingold give me some reason to feel good about being in the Grand Old Party. I hope we never have to live with the consequences of the current Democratic irresponsibility.
Comments:
<< Home
The problem is, we will have to live with it. Washington is about power and damaging the "other" side. It's not about American ideals. There are still some that are American first, but that number dwindle's every election cycle. What's the old adage? We get the Government we deserve"?
A briefcase size device would be enough to destroy New York City, killing millions in one stroke and thrilling the America-haters around the world.
I am no nuclear physicist, but I am enough of a nerd to know that this is an incorrect statement. A device the size of a briefcase would not be nearly powerful enough to destroy NYC.
You did a patent neo-con thing here, whether you meant to or not. You greatly exaggerated something (some call it lying) to strike fear into people so that you have them in an emotional state that you can use to manipulate them.
It's quite simple and the staple of the Bush administration. Step 1: shock the people, scare the people, strike fear in the people. Step 2: while they are still reeling from the fear, make your point in a manipulative way that feeds off that fear they now have in them.
Textbook.
Way to not further any reasoned debate.
P.S. Lie #2 in your post:
Feingold keeps fighting to weaken our defenses, and prevent the monitoring of conversations with expected Al Quaeda terrorists.
Feingold supports monitoring any and all conversations with expected Al Queda terrorists... he just thinks we should get court approval first rather than have an unchecked Executive branch. By the way, if it is urgent (the "24" scenario), you are allowed to start monitoring first and then retroactively get the court approval within a set number of days.
P.P.S.
Why don't the American people trust the Democrats on the issue of national security?
You obviously haven't seen the latest national polls. More Americans trust Congressional Democrats to handle national security than they do the Bush Administration.
I am no nuclear physicist, but I am enough of a nerd to know that this is an incorrect statement. A device the size of a briefcase would not be nearly powerful enough to destroy NYC.
You did a patent neo-con thing here, whether you meant to or not. You greatly exaggerated something (some call it lying) to strike fear into people so that you have them in an emotional state that you can use to manipulate them.
It's quite simple and the staple of the Bush administration. Step 1: shock the people, scare the people, strike fear in the people. Step 2: while they are still reeling from the fear, make your point in a manipulative way that feeds off that fear they now have in them.
Textbook.
Way to not further any reasoned debate.
P.S. Lie #2 in your post:
Feingold keeps fighting to weaken our defenses, and prevent the monitoring of conversations with expected Al Quaeda terrorists.
Feingold supports monitoring any and all conversations with expected Al Queda terrorists... he just thinks we should get court approval first rather than have an unchecked Executive branch. By the way, if it is urgent (the "24" scenario), you are allowed to start monitoring first and then retroactively get the court approval within a set number of days.
P.P.S.
Why don't the American people trust the Democrats on the issue of national security?
You obviously haven't seen the latest national polls. More Americans trust Congressional Democrats to handle national security than they do the Bush Administration.
I neither hate George Bush nor wish for American defeat (I heartily support the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq (and don't forget to vote 'NO' on April 4th, by the way...)), yet I generally support Feingold's censure motion, whatever his motives. I honestly don't understand why conservatives wouldn't want some kind of oversight over the Prez's wiretapping program - I thought you guys were limited-government types? Yes, yes, extraordinary circumstances and all that, I get it. But each time you argue for expansion of executive power, each time you ignore corner-cutting on civil liberties, each time you excuse a white lie or bent rule on the part of the Bush administration, just remember: President Hillary thanks you!
Ignorance is apparently bliss at the Wisconion. Do a web search on nuclear suitcases and get an education.
Ragnar--
Uh, okay. Thanks for refusing to give a substantive answer to any of your commentators. Rock on, d00d!!
Uh, okay. Thanks for refusing to give a substantive answer to any of your commentators. Rock on, d00d!!
Okay Dan and Max, I'll even do the research for you.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76990,00.html
Who Has Them?
Usama Bin Laden allegedly has already purchased a number of nuclear suitcase bombs from Chechen organized crime groups and there have been reports that he has backpack bombs.
Some nuclear suitcase bombs may have been developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. There is a fear that some of the devices may be sold to terrorists. Russian scientists have testified they are "absolutely sure" suitcase bombs were created, though the Russian government has steadfastly denied their existence.
Former Russian National Security Adviser Alexandr Lebed in 1997 alleged that up to 100 portable bombs that looked like suitcases were unaccounted for since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. He said the devices have an explosive capacity of one kiloton — the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT — and could be activated by a single person, killing as many as 100,000 people.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76990,00.html
Who Has Them?
Usama Bin Laden allegedly has already purchased a number of nuclear suitcase bombs from Chechen organized crime groups and there have been reports that he has backpack bombs.
Some nuclear suitcase bombs may have been developed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. There is a fear that some of the devices may be sold to terrorists. Russian scientists have testified they are "absolutely sure" suitcase bombs were created, though the Russian government has steadfastly denied their existence.
Former Russian National Security Adviser Alexandr Lebed in 1997 alleged that up to 100 portable bombs that looked like suitcases were unaccounted for since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. He said the devices have an explosive capacity of one kiloton — the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT — and could be activated by a single person, killing as many as 100,000 people.
Ragnar,
Using Fox News as your source is not a great way to engage a hippie, liberal, granola-eating, tree-hugger like myself; but I'll play your game.
Let's review from Fox News:
Briefcase Bomb Yield: 10-20 tons, or 0.01-0.02 kilotons
Backpack Bomb Yield: 3-5 kilotons
It appears the reason for a large difference is an a-bomb needs a larger sphearical shape for a larger blast. A briefcase has a very narrow depth, putting a limit on the sphearical size of the core. A backpack, however, can have a much larger core.
For reference:
Nagasaki: 20 kilotons; Deaths: 70,000
Finally, I also found this here through the wonders of google.
If a bomb in the 10- to 20-kiloton range (the likeliest terrorist bomb) were to be exploded near ground level or in a ship in the harbour, the areas of blast, heat, and burn damage would be much smaller, perhaps reaching out to only one-tenth of the distances estimated for the one-megaton air-burst. The numbers of immediately killed and severely injured people would be counted in thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
Exploded on land, the bomb would vaporize all people and buildings in the immediate vicinity, and make a crater that might be as much as one hundred metres in diameter. If in the harbour, there would be a crater in the harbour floor and a tidal wave. The outstanding feature would be a radioactive downpour because much of the water in the harbour would be made radioactive and thrown high into the air as fine and coarse spray.
The explosion at ground level of this type of bomb would probably not cause a firestorm, so rescue operations for the injured might have some degree of success.
Now let's look at what you said:
A briefcase size device would be enough to destroy New York City, killing millions in one stroke
So no, I will not apologize. I am standing by my decision to accuse you of greatly exaggerating something for the purpose of striking fear into people.
A briefcase size device would be lucky to wreak havoc on a single city block at 0.01-0.02 kilotons. A backpack device as described by Fox News at 3-5 kilotons would be smaller than anything we've ever seen, and it would kill people in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands and certainly not millions as you suggest.
Do your research and pick your words more carefully. There is a big difference between saying "thousands could die" and saying "millions could die."
Using Fox News as your source is not a great way to engage a hippie, liberal, granola-eating, tree-hugger like myself; but I'll play your game.
Let's review from Fox News:
Briefcase Bomb Yield: 10-20 tons, or 0.01-0.02 kilotons
Backpack Bomb Yield: 3-5 kilotons
It appears the reason for a large difference is an a-bomb needs a larger sphearical shape for a larger blast. A briefcase has a very narrow depth, putting a limit on the sphearical size of the core. A backpack, however, can have a much larger core.
For reference:
Nagasaki: 20 kilotons; Deaths: 70,000
Finally, I also found this here through the wonders of google.
If a bomb in the 10- to 20-kiloton range (the likeliest terrorist bomb) were to be exploded near ground level or in a ship in the harbour, the areas of blast, heat, and burn damage would be much smaller, perhaps reaching out to only one-tenth of the distances estimated for the one-megaton air-burst. The numbers of immediately killed and severely injured people would be counted in thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
Exploded on land, the bomb would vaporize all people and buildings in the immediate vicinity, and make a crater that might be as much as one hundred metres in diameter. If in the harbour, there would be a crater in the harbour floor and a tidal wave. The outstanding feature would be a radioactive downpour because much of the water in the harbour would be made radioactive and thrown high into the air as fine and coarse spray.
The explosion at ground level of this type of bomb would probably not cause a firestorm, so rescue operations for the injured might have some degree of success.
Now let's look at what you said:
A briefcase size device would be enough to destroy New York City, killing millions in one stroke
So no, I will not apologize. I am standing by my decision to accuse you of greatly exaggerating something for the purpose of striking fear into people.
A briefcase size device would be lucky to wreak havoc on a single city block at 0.01-0.02 kilotons. A backpack device as described by Fox News at 3-5 kilotons would be smaller than anything we've ever seen, and it would kill people in the thousands, not hundreds of thousands and certainly not millions as you suggest.
Do your research and pick your words more carefully. There is a big difference between saying "thousands could die" and saying "millions could die."
Sounds like we have a liberal, hippie, tree hugger that is an apologist for terrorists and minimizer of the threat they pose. To argue, as you do, that nuclear terrorism would cause only the loss of a few thousand lives is somewhat bizarre coming from someone who clearly supported the nuclear freeze movement. Something tells me that prior to 9/11, you were absolutely certain that my friends who died there were not at risk from hijacked airliners. Your squishy defensiveness is exactly the reason for the initial post. You don't get it, and will never get it. Thank goodness you and your buddy Russ will never be in charge of the country.
You are quite the stickler for over-generalization. Let's look again at what you have just now said:
To argue, as you do, that nuclear terrorism would cause only the loss of a few thousand lives
I never said that, and I would disagree with that statement. Nuclear terrorism could cause the loss of countless lives. What I am arguing about was your original statement, that a briefcase size nuclear device could destroy all of NYC. That is patently false.
A 0.02 kiloton bomb detonated at ground level would cause a loss of lives in the thousands. Quote me on that. Don't generalize my comments that "nuclear terrorism" would have such little damage. Under "nuclear terrorism," there is an all-too-likely possibility that terrorists could obtain a weapons-grade and military-sized device to detonate. Who knows, maybe even in the megaton range.
Nuclear terrorism could cause a massive loss of life, and I am not defending such reprehensible actions.
I am simply sick and tired of neo-cons manipulating language to play with people's emotions. To suggest that a van-size bomb could destroy all of Manhattan is vastly different than to suggest that a briefcase size bomb could destroy all of NYC. It strikes a different chord in people, and puts people in an emotional state that is quite different. The sad part is you know this because in your line of work it is your job to know this.
When you decide to make inflammatory comments, pick your precise words very carefully. You failed to do so, twice now. I mean, from a campaign standpoint, you picked the perfect words. If I was a right-wing strategist I might be complimenting you for a job well done. You are quite good at manipulating the truth and stretching it just far enough to really get people going but avoid being called an out-right-liar.
And finally, notice that when I argue your points I at least quote what you said then argue against it. You however, generalize and misquote me in your counterargument.
To argue, as you do, that nuclear terrorism would cause only the loss of a few thousand lives
I never said that, and I would disagree with that statement. Nuclear terrorism could cause the loss of countless lives. What I am arguing about was your original statement, that a briefcase size nuclear device could destroy all of NYC. That is patently false.
A 0.02 kiloton bomb detonated at ground level would cause a loss of lives in the thousands. Quote me on that. Don't generalize my comments that "nuclear terrorism" would have such little damage. Under "nuclear terrorism," there is an all-too-likely possibility that terrorists could obtain a weapons-grade and military-sized device to detonate. Who knows, maybe even in the megaton range.
Nuclear terrorism could cause a massive loss of life, and I am not defending such reprehensible actions.
I am simply sick and tired of neo-cons manipulating language to play with people's emotions. To suggest that a van-size bomb could destroy all of Manhattan is vastly different than to suggest that a briefcase size bomb could destroy all of NYC. It strikes a different chord in people, and puts people in an emotional state that is quite different. The sad part is you know this because in your line of work it is your job to know this.
When you decide to make inflammatory comments, pick your precise words very carefully. You failed to do so, twice now. I mean, from a campaign standpoint, you picked the perfect words. If I was a right-wing strategist I might be complimenting you for a job well done. You are quite good at manipulating the truth and stretching it just far enough to really get people going but avoid being called an out-right-liar.
And finally, notice that when I argue your points I at least quote what you said then argue against it. You however, generalize and misquote me in your counterargument.
I see, you were just quibbling about the suitcase thing. Point taken, perhaps it was an exaggeration. An exaggeration that does nothing to diminish the meaning of the post or the risk we face. Our more meaningful disagreement is about more substantive matters. Dodge them if you must by quibbling over a minor point, but you continue to downplay the risk we face. That is the meaningful disagreement, not some petty gotcha argument over projected casualties. Now, please give it a rest, and get some work done on your own blog.
Post a Comment
<< Home
