SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: que seria who wrote (7980)9/16/2001 11:29:16 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 23153
 
Full wrath’ vowed in long, ‘dirty’ war...

Cheney cites links to bin Laden
but warns of networks around globe

MSNBC

Sept. 16 — Vice President Cheney on Sunday warned terrorists to expect the nation’s “full wrath” in a war that would take “several years” and require using “mean, dirty” intelligence tactics not currently allowed. Interviewed on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Cheney said that unlike the Gulf War, where the enemy was clear and easily located, this war includes networks around the world, among them terrorists in Egypt and Uzbekistan.

“WHAT WE have to do is take down those networks,” he said.
Those groups and their supporters, governments among them, should understand, he added, that they can expect the “full wrath of the United States of America.”
He specifically cited the Islamic Jihad in Egypt and extremists in Uzbekistan, formerly part of the Soviet Union.
As President Bush had Saturday, Cheney said the prime suspect is exiled Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden. “I have no doubt that he and his organization played a significant role,” he said.
“There’s a lot of evidence to link his organization ... to this operation,” he added, among them ties to the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen.
But, he emphasized, “that doesn’t mean there weren’t others involved.”
The vice president said that while he would be happy to have bin Laden’s “head on a platter,” that itself wouldn’t end the war against his followers and other terrorists.

WORKING ‘THE DARK SIDE’
Cheney acknowledged military strikes are an option, but he also stressed the role intelligence would play in rooting out terrorists. “We also have to work the dark side if you will, the shadows, in the intelligence world,” he said.
Asked by “Meet the Press” host Tim Russert if that meant lifting current restrictions on who the United States can recruit for intelligence, Cheney said, “I think so ... we need to be able to penetrate these organizations” by using “any means at our disposal.”
Reminded that some past intelligence sources had been human rights violators, Cheney insisted that “we need to have on the payroll some very unsavory characters ... It is a mean, nasty, dangerous and dirty business and we have to operate in that arena.”

‘WILL NOT BE EASY’
Meeting at Camp David on Saturday with his military and diplomatic advisers, President Bush braced Americans for a long, costly struggle against terrorism, warning them, “You will be asked for resolve, for the conflict will not be easy.”
The president directed members of the armed forces to “get ready ... we’re at war.”
And for the first time, Bush singled out Saudi extremist Osama bin Laden as a main suspect in Tuesday’s attacks.
Of bin Laden, the president told reporters: “If he thinks he can hide from the United States and our allies, he will be sorely mistaken.”
He added: “We will smoke them out of their holes. We’ll get them running, and we’ll bring them to justice.”

Asked how long the anti-terror campaign might take, Bush told reporters: “As long as it takes. And it’s not just one person. We’re talking about those who fed them, those who house them. Those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action.”
In his weekly radio address, Bush said those who planned Tuesday’s attacks “will discover what others in the past have learned: Those who make war against the United States have chosen their own destruction.” (Click here for the full address.)

MILITARY OPTIONS
One option for retaliation: kill bin Laden and some of his lieutenants, despite an executive order signed by President Reagan in the 1980s that forbids assassination of foreign political leaders.

Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a former CIA agent, told CNN on Saturday that while he did not anticipate that there would be a specific list of those to be assassinated, “lethal force” might well be used in attempts to arrest those who plotted the attacks.
But NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reported Friday that the United States has lost track of bin Laden’s location in Afghanistan, making him a much more difficult target.

Newsweek poll: 89 percent for Bush

Girding for action at home and abroad, Bush issued a national emergency order that authorized the activation of up to 50,000 military reservists given “the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.”

The Pentagon said it would immediately call up 35,000 troops for “homeland defense,” manning support positions across the country. The United States has about 1.2 million National Guard and reservists.
A new Newsweek poll published Saturday indicated that 71 percent of Americans want the U.S. military to strike against terrorist bases and the countries that support them even if there is a high likelihood that civilians would be killed.

FORCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Since the Persian Gulf War, the United States has positioned large numbers of troops, planes and ships on the land, and waters surrounding friendly countries in the region such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain.
Those 25,000 troops and their aircraft carriers, warplanes and cruise missiles could form the basis of a military force to attack bin Laden’s terror base. U.S. retaliation could occur at any moment, and officials said that when it does, the likely targets would be sites in Afghanistan, where bin Laden supports and trains his forces.
A White House official said Thursday the administration wants an international coalition to be in place before the United States retaliates, even if it means a delay of weeks or months.
But a senior official, speaking privately, told the Associated Press that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld wants to punish the perpetrators as soon as they are identified, regardless of how far along the coalition-building process is.

BIN LADEN AND AFGHANISTAN
Once a U.S. ally against the 1980s Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, bin Laden came to oppose the United States after Saudi Arabia allowed U.S. troops on its soil in preparation for the Persian Gulf War against Iraq.

Since then, bin Laden has been implicated in several attacks, including bombings in Saudi Arabia that killed 24 U.S. service members; the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed 224 people; and the suicide bombing last year of the USS Cole in Yemen, which killed 17 sailors.
Afghan leaders have denied involvement in the attacks. In a radio broadcast, the Taliban’s leader said bin Laden would not be handed over and warned Muslims to prepare for a “jihad,” or holy war.
“You should know that this is not only the issue of Osama, it is opposition to Islam,” Mullah Mohammad Omar said Friday, according to a BBC transcript of the Taliban Voice of Shariat Radio. “Each Muslim should be ready for a jihad against this and be ready for his religion, if there is a need for him to sacrifice himself for Islam and his belief, and make a sacrifice for the symbol of belief in Islam.”

REACTION WORLDWIDE
Still, Afghanistan appears to have lost the support of neighboring Pakistan, which has had strong ties to the Taliban.
Pakistan on Sunday said it was sending a delegation to Kabul. A senior Pakistani government source said on condition of anonymity that the delegation would be demanding that the Taliban hand over bin Laden.
A day earlier, Pakistan agreed to U.S. requests, among them: to allow a multinational force to be based within its borders, to close its border with Afghanistan, to allow its airspace to be used for possible strikes and to cooperate in intelligence-gathering.
Support for U.S. retaliation has come from around the world, including the U.N. Security Council and NATO allies. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak told NBC that he would support “very tough action.”
The government of neighboring Iran said Saturday it would seal its 560-mile border with Afghanistan to prevent an influx of refugees as the prospects grew of a strike against Afghanistan, the official news agency IRNA reported.
But not every Middle Eastern country lined up to support the United States. In an open letter read on state-controlled television, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein blamed the United States for provoking the attack, asking, “Isn’t the use by America and some Western governments of their fire against others in the world including ... the Arabs and the Muslims one of the most important reasons for the lack of stability in the world at the present time?”
And French Defense Minister Alain Richard cautioned Saturday that “armed action is only one of the ways of responding. What is necessary is a way that does not provoke other elements of instability.” More than 5 million Muslims live in France, about 10 percent of the population.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSNBC.com’s Miguel Llanos; NBC’s Jim Miklaszewski, Robert Windrem, Betsy Steuart and Mike Viqueira; The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.



To: que seria who wrote (7980)9/16/2001 3:35:51 PM
From: chowder  Respond to of 23153
 
Hello que seria! >> I’m puzzled how contributors on this thread, none of whom appear to share Congresswoman Barbara Lee’s worldview, can consider her courageous but dismiss the hijackers as cowards. <<

I can't speak for the others but from my point of view, I thought she showed courage, "especially for a politician," because she stood up in front of everyone and voted NO. She didn't hide, she knew everyone would know it was her, she knew she would be held accountable and she did it all by herself. (I'm surprised she hasn't been stoned to death. I'd send the militia to do it, but they won't get on a plane.)

I agree with you, she should be voted out of office and I did say I would never vote for her.

In my view, the terrorists are cowards because they attacked people who weren't able to defend themselves. I haven't seen their group stand up and take credit. In my mind, this is cowardly. (In a time of war, soldiers who are not in uniform when they attack their enemy are killed by that enemy when captured. Ships proudly display their flags, planes boldly display their insignia.)

I was watching a special on the History Channel yesterday wrt the 101st Airborne, the Screaming Eagles. During the Battle of the Bulge, all troops were told to remove all insignia from their uniforms so the Germans wouldn't know which outfits they were fighting. The Screaming Eagles refused to remove their patch. They said it represented who they were, it made them proud to wear them and it made them fight harder. The Screaming Eagles knew that if the Germans found out they were fighting airborne troops, the Germans would've known they weren't heavily supplied. The Army made an exception and the Screaming Eagles were the only outfit that was allowed to wear their insignia.

Maybe I don't understand the words courage and coward. To attack and kill an unarmed person is a cowardly act in my opinion, regardless of beliefs or ideology. A courageous act would be to put one's life on the line to save the lives of others, to go above and beyond the call of duty.

Let me get back to Ms. Lee though. I do believe she showed very poor leadership qualities. A good leader is one who lives outside of themself. A good leader will put their own agenda aside for the good of the whole. In a time when the country needed to unite, she should have put her own agenda aside. That's why I was curious as to what she was thinking. Did she vote NO because she was more interested in her own agenda? Did she vote NO because she wanted to stand out, get attention? Did she vote NO because she wanted to save American lives? Did she vote NO because she didn't think our leaders had the proper plan of action and she wanted to wait until the plan was fully developed?

I suppose the answer to my question might change my outlook. The answer might indicate that she is in fact a coward too. (I tended to agree with Ray that Ms. Lee is incredibly naive.) I really don't know. I do think it was disgraceful of her to not provide her support.

>> However, both Lee and the hijackers acted consistent with their ideology, to the applause of their constituency. <<

I don't think that displays courage. Courage would entail risking the praise of those constituents if you were doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

I'm of the opinion that most politicians lack courage. They may have had that quality prior to going into office, but I think it's a quality that soon goes away. My comment about Ms. Lee having courage was akin to the watered down version of hero. The key phrase was, "courage, especially for a politician."

>> Before anyone takes me for a desk-top warrior/stooge of the right wing conspiracy to defend our nation, <<

que seria, if I lived in Berkely, I wouldn't want people to know I was a member of the right wing conspiracy either! Don't worry, your secret is safe with me pal. I'll take it to my death. <lol>

dabum



To: que seria who wrote (7980)9/16/2001 3:48:33 PM
From: Gottfried  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23153
 
que seria, "Poll: Big majority of Bay Area residents backs military action
Reaction of nation's more liberal region mirrors rest of U.S."

www0.mercurycenter.com

Note that 'Bay Area' includes Ms. Lee's constituency. I consider her vote not an important topic for discussion.

Gottfried