That was 32 days before the PDB.

So your claim is just so fake. And you know it. You are just using people's lives to push a political agenda.

"At the special meeting on July 5 were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

Reagan can't be blamed for ignoring the threat of Osama Bin Laden. Not for another few years would any analyst see Bin Laden as a significant player in global terrorism; not till the mid-1990s would his organization, al-Qaida, emerge as a significant force.

However, Reagan--and those around him--can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger. Certainly, the danger was, or should have been, clear. Only a few years had passed since the Ayatollah Khomeini rose to power in Iran--the shah toppled, the U.S. Embassy employees held hostage, the country turned over to the mullahs, the region suddenly destabilized. Reagan beat Jimmy Carter so decisively in the 1980 election in part because of the hostage crisis.

Of course this has to be seen in context.

Reagan--and those around him--can be blamed for ignoring the rise of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan and for failing to see Gorbachev's offer to withdraw as an opportunity to clamp the danger. Certainly, the danger was, or should have been, clear.

The Soviets had been the enemy for years and years. And we had just been using the guerrillas as  surrogates in our war with the Soviets by supplying weapons to them. Suddenly deciding that the Soviets would withdraw and joining them in attacking our previous allies would have been a bit of a reach.

Of course all of this is Monday morning QBing, even the fact Carter is the guy who allowed the Shah to be toppled and started the whole bloody mess.

So no democrats  (5.00 / 1) (#138)
by Redbrow on Mon Dec 07, 2015 at 03:50:20 PM MDT

Support the constitutional roght to bear arms?

Almost no Democrat would continue typing it with a small "d" (the caveat is that not all Democrats are good typists).

If one only leans left, it is unlikely that person would self-describe as "liberal". For reference, look at Zorba's or Anne's or my liberal declarations. There is nothing in there so mealy-mouthed as "leaning".

As I said, most trolls don't have a clue how to maintain the masquerade.

The president, however, in addition to the military and political steps occurring and contemplated, is in a position to identify mistaken and distorted thoughts that generate distress, and then challenge and correct them.

  He needs to repeat often that although terrible terrorist attack have happened, the country is not in peril and such attacks are incapable of destroying us or coming close to ending civilization.  Indeed, it is not a clash of civilizations, since ISIS and what it represents, is not a polar opposite.  

One a brighter topic, our first grandchild is coming into this world tomorrow. (His estimated due date was this coming Friday.) Elder Daughter is presently in The Queen's Medical Center, because she's became very uncomfortable this weekend and started having some small labor pains this morning.

So, after a thorough examination and upon her doctor's recommendation tonight, she's opted to undergo a C-section due to her baby's size, which is presently estimated to be well over 11 lbs., and the fact that he's not shifted into a head-down position, but is instead pressing down butt-first against the birth canal, which has been causing her no small amount of pain and discomfort over the last few days. Her mother flew to Honolulu this afternoon to stay with her tonight, and I'll go there tomorrow afternoon.

While Dad is understandably nervous, both Mom and their soon-to-be newborn son are otherwise doing fine, and all systems are go for 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. And while she's sorry about not going through natural childbirth, she's not regretting her decision to undergo the C-section. As she admitted to me on the phone tonight, she's ready for her pregnancy to be over.

So am I, frankly. She's really ballooned in size over these last few months, and 11+ lbs. seems an awfully big baby for a first-time mother, even if she is 6'1". Her OB-GYN is very good and as she told my wife tonight, she would not have recommended the procedure save for her concern about the baby's breech position in the womb. So tomorrow will be a very momentous day for all of us.

Turkey is perfectly capable of starting $hit all on their own.

And sure, we could disassociate from Turkey, I agree the current leadership is problematic.  But if we won't even associate with Turkey, what country can we still talk to in that region?

He eventually ended up in Sweden with no way to get back to the US.  Found it, it's little more complicated, but basically the FBI uses the list to extort potential informants and if they refuse, bad things happen.

He is not the only one to be coerced into becoming an informant using the no-fly list.

Fikre's claims are not unique--indeed, they are remarkably similar to the accounts of other American Muslims who say they were detained and interrogated by foreign security forces at the behest of the US government. Fikre's story echoes those of Naji Hamdan, Amir Meshal, Sharif Mobley, Gulet Mohamed, and Yusuf and Yahya Wehelie. All are American Muslim men who claim that, while traveling abroad, they were detained, interrogated, and in some cases abused by local security forces; the US government, they say, used this process to circumvent their legal rights as American citizens.

Several FBI officials have confirmed to me (on the condition that they not be named) that the bureau has for years used some of its elite international agents--known as legal attachés, or "legats"--to coordinate the detention of American and foreign terrorism suspects at the hands of American allies. And although the FBI maintains that foreign governments that detain American terrorism suspects are told not to abuse them, many of the countries in question have long histories of abusive detentions.