posted on September 16, 2007 10:50:32 PM new
LOL....never thought I see the day that these words would be coming out of the mouth of a democrat when so many want us to admit DEFEAT...SURRENDER to AQ in Iraq - and falsely claim the war on terrorism is a joke/a bumper sticker, nothing more.
---
Harman: 'Need to Do More to Stop Al Qaeda'
By Monisha Bansal
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 13, 2007
(CNSNews.com) - The former top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee said al Qaeda is a real and growing threat to the United States.
"This is a very dangerous world. It's an era of terror, and fixing this problem will not be easy," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) at a briefing held by the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday.
"We can see in regions there is now al Qaeda ... there will surely be an umbrella group in Europe and possibly [a group] here," she said, noting that "car bombings and suicide bombings are likely to be in our future."
"Over the last six years and one day, al Qaeda has changed considerably," Harman added. "Instead of a top-down organization, there is a loose horizontal affiliation among many groups, and they are everywhere.
"They have attacked in Europe, and there have been a number of arrests in Europe as well ... but there have been arrests here too over the years," she said. "There have been arrests, but no attacks."
Harman noted that "we are much more capable since 9/11," but the reason we have yet to see terrorist attacks in the United States since 2001 is because "they've been trying to pull off something more spectacular, and that's not proved possible."
But, she said, "I think Iraq has sucked the oxygen out of almost everything.
"I think our preoccupation in Iraq has prevented us from keeping our eye on capturing" Osama bin Laden, she said, adding that "he continues to serve as the inspirational figure in a movement that has metastasized."
Harman also said the United States needed to do more to stop al Qaeda, particularly in Pakistan. The current regime in Pakistan has not done enough, she said, to "capture the al Qaeda presence in the tribal areas."
[my note - Maybe she supports obama in our BOMBING Pakistan???? ]
"Westerners are going there to be trained and then ... join homegrown terror cells," she said. "We need a better policy for finding al Qaeda in these conflict areas."
America also must do more to stop al Qaeda from acquiring a nuclear weapon or even a simple "dirty" nuclear device, said Harman.
"It's very hard to monitor nuclear proliferation," she said. "I truly worry that it isn't that hard to get small amounts of [radiological] materials... and put them with two sticks of dynamite and contaminate two square kilometers of downtown Manhattan."
In a recent press briefing, however, White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend noted that "two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership from 9/11 has been captured or killed."
The U.S. government's focus on the al Qaeda threat "is not new," said Townsend.
The U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years, "because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack, and his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous," she said.
"We have gone on the offensive, attacking our enemies and the things that they need to operate and survive," she said.
"We have strengthened our defenses through a host of homeland security programs, including increasing our intelligence, military and law enforcement resources, ensuring greater information sharing with state and local officials, increasing grant programs, protecting critical infrastructure, and strengthening our border security," Townsend said.
CNSNews.com
==================
Now when I have stated some of the same things harman has stated....the liberals here have had a field day with falsely saying, basically, I'm seeing terrorists where there are none. lol But maybe now that one of their OWN has said the same thing they'll rethink their positions?
Naw...that would never happen. Wishful thinking on my part. What EVER came over me?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 17, 2007 09:29:44 AM new
Well the following was stated by a White House spokesperson NOT a Democrat:
""In a recent press briefing, however, White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend noted that "two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership from 9/11 has been captured or killed."
The U.S. government's focus on the al Qaeda threat "is not new," said Townsend.
The U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years, "because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack, and his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous," she said.
"We have gone on the offensive, attacking our enemies and the things that they need to operate and survive," she said.
"We have strengthened our defenses through a host of homeland security programs, including increasing our intelligence, military and law enforcement resources, ensuring greater information sharing with state and local officials, increasing grant programs, protecting critical infrastructure, and strengthening our border security," TOWNSEND said."""
As to what HARMAN said, I don't see where that's different than what's been said by those on both sides....
She says, """ "we are much more capable since 9/11"""
posted on September 17, 2007 11:31:06 AM new
Cherry picking again:
"I think our preoccupation in Iraq has prevented us from keeping our eye on capturing" Osama bin Laden, she said, adding that "he continues to serve as the inspirational figure in a movement that has metastasized."
posted on September 17, 2007 11:59:22 AM new
No. The reality is even if we captured bin laden...the multiple groups of terrorists that have formed, like those in the UK, won't be dismantled. We'll be dealing with these terrorists for generations to come.
posted on September 17, 2007 07:33:52 PM new
Which side are you on, linduh? You seem to have the values of a terrorist and you believe every word out of bin Laden's mouth....seems you're on their side, sure enough!!!
posted on September 19, 2007 11:42:43 AM new
Linduh says, "my note - Maybe she supports obama in our BOMBING Pakistan????"
Ironic that Linduh misleads Obama's statements??? Nope, that is the dolt that she is. I believe Obama's suggestion was to attack Al Qaeda which may coincidentally be located in the mountains of Pakistan, NOT bomb Pakistan. There is obviously a big difference.
Second, the mere fact that Linduh doesn't get the Harman's comments proves once again how out of touch she really is reality. Harman's comments were aimed at two realities... 1) Al Qaeda has grown in strength... largely because this Administration has taken their eye off of Al Qaeda and focused on Iraq. 2) This Administration has created its own two headed monster... George Bush and Osama Bin Laden. They are both enemies of this country and the world for that matter. Everything that Bush has done only makes Bin Laden and Al Qaeda that much more powerful. When Bush takes away American liberties to spy... Bin Laden wins. When Bush attacks Iraq without any clear focus or plan... Bin Laden wins. When Bush gets more money for the war in Iraq to fight "Muslims"... Bin Laden wins. George Bush is the perfect recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
So, which side are you on Linduh? Obviously, if you support George Bush you support Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
posted on September 19, 2007 12:45:13 PM newNo. The reality is even if we captured bin laden...the multiple groups of terrorists that have formed, like those in the UK, won't be dismantled. We'll be dealing with these terrorists for generations to come.
By the statement above, one would make that more terrorists groups formed after Bush declared "War on terror". Yes, we will be dealing with these terrrorists for years to come because of the mess that Bush has created and his ineffective ways of dealing with them.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 19, 2007 12:50:53 PM newGeorge Bush is the perfect recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Can't disagree there. The terrorists win everytime someone takes everything the terrorists say as gospel. Bin Laden wins everytime he or one of his sidekicks makes a video promoting their latest threat and makes people here in the US fearful that the "threat" will actually come true.
Both Bush and Bin Laden are both like Chicken Little. Bin Laden preaches about what destruction he plans on doing and Bush keeps preaching fear about what the terrrorists plan to do next. They keep feeding off each other, trying to "one up" the fear level. You get rid of one, they other one will disappear as well.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
dave and his radical lefties can deny it all they want to, twist it every which way they try. There's NO DOUBT about what the idiot said.
News reports said all over the WORLD reported on what obama said. But the denial of the radical left is unbelievable.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The FACTS are many, including our own liberal hillary spoke about obama being so juvenile/inexperienced to say something so STUPID as he'd bomb an ally.
This was NOT only an issue for republicans as anyone who actually reads the liberal MSM would know.
Not only did the very liberal hillary comment on obama's statement.....so did the PM of Pakistan. News reports were quite clear that they were NOT taking obama's THREAT to BOMB THEM as a joke, but rather were quite upset about that HOSTILE statement. Their citizens then took to their streets BURNING our America flag.....our State dept. put out a warning to candidates about how they needed to STOP INFLAMING our allies, etc.
But according to dave, obama said no such thing.
READ, dave, READ.....then you will see why your above statement just goes to prove how VERY mis-informed you really are.
Even the wacko liberals on the dailykoz saw obama's threat differently than YOU do. What a surprise lol lol
The clear implication of this foolish speech by the Obama campaign is that (1) Obama would attack inside Pakistan if need be and rub President Musharraf’s nose in this action; and (2) an implicit threat to remove Musharraf and redesign Pakistan’s government. After 8 years of shoot-first, ask-questions-later Middle East foreign policy from an inexperienced President, do we really need another one?
Obama's mind-boggling threat to unilaterally attack Pakistani targets if Pakistan doesn't cooperate with the American military shocked Democrats. Virtually every candidate running for the Democratic nomination -- Christopher Dodd, Joe Biden, Bill Richardson, John Edwards -- pounced on Obama's blunder and denounced it for being reckless and inflammatory:
"It is dangerous and irresponsible to leave even the impression the United States would needlessly and publicly provoke a nuclear power," Connecticut Sen. Christopher J. Dodd said in a statement.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, in a telephone interview, said that Obama’s threat, if acted upon, could inflame the entire Muslim world. "My international experience tells me that we should address this issue with tough diplomacy first with Musharraf and then leave the military option as a last resort," he said.
Former senator John Edwards (N.C.) said in a statement that he would first apply "maximum diplomatic and economic pressure on states like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia" to do their utmost to combat the spread of terrorism. He also challenged both Obama and Clinton to block a proposed U.S. arms deal with Saudi Arabia.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) called Obama’s threat misguided. "The way to deal with it is not to announce it, but to do it," Biden said at the National Press Club. "The last thing you want to do is telegraph to the folks in Pakistan that we are about to violate their sovereignty."
=================
from the Independent
Republicans savage Obama over 'bomb Pakistan' threat
By Tim Reid
Monday August 06 2007
REPUBLICAN candidates for the White House formed an unlikely alliance with Hillary Clinton yesterday when they branded Barack Obama reckless for suggesting he might bomb Pakistan.
"He's gone from Jane Fonda to Dr Strangelove in one week," said Mitt Romney, to applause, during a Republican debate in Des Moines, Iowa. "He went from saying he's going to sit down for tea with our enemies but then he's going to bomb our allies."
But then dave, himself has admitted to being further left than liberal/progressive...so his above denial of the FACTS are not really much of a surprise coming from him.
=======================
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 19, 2007 03:24 PM ]
posted on September 19, 2007 03:29:16 PM new
And in my op I highlighted the parts of harman's statements that I agreed with.
I'm sure the part you three can't handle was when she said:
"The U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years, "because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack, and his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous," she said."
I NEVER said you had to agree with her on THAT. But I find it to be VERY truthful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 19, 2007 03:31 PM ]
posted on September 19, 2007 06:17:28 PM new
Yes, she gave her opinion.
BASED ON FACTS....unlike what most radical liberals base THEIR opinions on.
""The U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years,
IS A FACT
"because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack,"
A statement he has made in public over and over again. ALSO a FACT.
"and his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous," she said."
Her opinion that I fully agree with.
rusty just can't handle any dem/liberal/progressive that doesn't HATE America the way he does/always has. tsk
tsk tsk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 19, 2007 11:46:27 PM new
Poor linDUH, can't even get her own OP straight......better check who said what, linDUH ! LOLLLLLL!!!!
""""In a recent press briefing, however,
White House Homeland Security Advisor
Fran Townsend noted
that "two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership from 9/11 has been captured or killed."
The U.S. government's focus on the al Qaeda threat "is not new," said Townsend.
The U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years, "because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack, and his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous," she said.
"We have gone on the offensive, attacking our enemies and the things that they need to operate and survive," she said.
"We have strengthened our defenses through a host of homeland security programs, including increasing our intelligence, military and law enforcement resources, ensuring greater information sharing with state and local officials, increasing grant programs, protecting critical infrastructure, and strengthening our border security,"
Townsend said."""
TOWNSEND, a spokesperson for the WHITE HOUSE said that NOT Harman !
You are AGAIN caught in a blatant lie !
Dolt!
I guess the answer to "Can this really be a Democrat?" is NO.....LOLLLLLLLLLLLL
linDUH, """READ, dave, READ.....then you will see why your above statement just goes to prove how VERY mis-informed you really are. """
Uh...linDUH, maybe you better try your own advice.....
[ edited by mingotree on Sep 20, 2007 12:10 AM ]
[ edited by mingotree on Sep 20, 2007 07:11 AM ]
posted on September 20, 2007 11:11:06 AM newThe U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years, "because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack,
We havent been attacked in the last six years because the presidents job was to protect the American people...
Where were the president's priorities between January 21, 2001 and September 11, 2001? I guess that period does not count.
The fact is this country was attcked and almost 3000 people died DURING BUSH'S TERM IN OFFICE. So much for protecting the American people during his entire term, not just after 9/11.
Once again people are giving credit to Bush for preventing another attack. I just love the flawed logic by the Republicans. Just because we haven't been attakced again is the result of Bush's policies. They can not show how any of the policies put into place by Bush since 9/11 has direclty prevented another attack. Most of the provisions of the Patriot Attack were already in place prior to 9/11.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 20, 2007 01:33:57 PM new
ld, I believe that EVEN dems/liberals/progressives can easily see that 9-11 was plotted/planned out under the clinton administration - reported as being for the previous TWO YEARS...and HE supposedly WAS watching bin laden/AQ.
But after FIVE attacks by AQ during HIS administration....he did little to nothing. He was WEAK....a COWARD and did not want to take action. THAT is why AQ grew more bold. Paper tiger and all.
Eight months compared to 8 YEARS.....no comparison.
And NOW we have the liberals wanting to WAVE THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER to the AQ we're fighting in Iraq. Cowards still.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
posted on September 20, 2007 01:37:20 PM new
I had no doubt that you would somehow blame Clinton for 9/11 even though it was Bush's responsibility to be protecting America. Nice try.
So Bush was not doing everything he could to proetect America during his first 8 months in office.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 22, 2007 07:18:04 AM new
Yep. We haven't been attacked on our own soil for 6 years, but Americans are being attacked everyday because Bush kept his eye off of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and went for the oil in Iraq.
We also see how "hard" Bush worked to ensure this country would be safe if we were attacked again... FEMA. He put an idiot that poorly managed a Horse Association in charge of our Emergency Response agency. We see where that got Americans. We also see what stealing the National Guard from the states and sending them to Iraq has done to our safety as well.
It doesn't just take a terrorist to threaten America's safety. It is called being prepared, something that is as simple as the Boy Scouts motto. Something Bush was NOT before 9/11 even though he was given the information. If you want to know who the real traitor to America is... it is George Bush. He betrayed our trust in him as President to ensure the safety of Americans. It is his job, and the buck stops at the Desk in the Oval Office. As he said, "He is the decider".
[ edited by shagmidmod on Sep 22, 2007 07:38 AM ]
posted on September 24, 2007 02:00:52 PM newIt doesn't just take a terrorist to threaten America's safety. It is called being prepared,
It is also taking threats seriously. Something Bush failed to do during his first 8 months in office. He was to busy with vacations to worry about the safety of this country.
"In my experience, those who do not like you fall into two categories: the stupid, and the envious. - John Wilmot, the Second Earl of Rochester
posted on September 25, 2007 09:50:50 AM new
HOGWASH, rustygumbo
You need to get a grasp of how many Armed Forces are currently active, how many are on 'reserve' and the total number we have currently serving. THEN compare that to the small number that are currently serving in Iraq.....approx. 160,000. We are NOT being left defenseless.
"We also see what stealing the National Guard from the states and sending them to Iraq has done to our safety as well."
So "WE" see no such thing....only you who are totally uninformed. tsk tsk tsk
======================================
"We also see how "hard" Bush worked to ensure this country would be safe if we were attacked again... FEMA. He put an idiot that poorly managed a Horse Association in charge of our Emergency Response agency."
Again, "WE" see NO such thing. That's also HOGWASH coming from your comparing of apples to oranges. EVEN old liberal/socialist hillary said we ARE safer than we were before. Oh, but I forgot....you've stated you're further left than liberal progressives.
And OF COURSE, you put NO BLAME on the two DEMOCRATS who were in charge of the mess in N.O. LOL LOL LOL NO, they were the ones in the decision making position, but you blame President Bush. LOL LOL Put the blame on those who wouldn't even take care of their own citizens BEFORE the hurricane hit. Nor did they do much after the fact. The DEM governor AND the DEM mayor were totally INCOMPETENT.....and are the ones who are responsible for that mess. FEMA in other states NEVER had the same problems that N.O. had. One of the reasons was because they DID have COMPETENT leaders who KNEW what to do.
The changes that have been enacted HAVE been the reason we have NOT had another attack on our soil. They've arrested MANY suspected terrorists BEFORE they could do their destructive/EVIL deeds on our soil. All the while having to put up with the BS from the radical left about how we're violating the supposed 'civil rights' of those who work to cause another attack.
No ones 'civil rights' have been violated. Not yours rusty, nor those of any other American. It's all BS from the radical left that YOU fall in step with. tsk tsk tsk
posted on September 25, 2007 10:32:55 AM new
Ya, linduh, your posts are SO accurate...NOT! YOU couldn't even READ and COMPREHEND your own OP! And YOU question others?????!!!!!!!
And the following statement from you PROVES how mis-informed you truly are:
"""No ones 'civil rights' have been violated. Not yours rusty, nor those of any other American. It's all BS from the radical left that YOU fall in step with. tsk tsk tsk ""
Now THAT'S hogwash !
But you just keep believing it , linduh, like you believed Iraq had something to do with 9/11
and a Democrat said
""In a recent press briefing, however, White House Homeland Security Advisor Fran Townsend noted that "two-thirds of al Qaeda's leadership from 9/11 has been captured or killed."
The U.S. government's focus on the al Qaeda threat "is not new," said Townsend.
The U.S. has not been attacked in the last six years, "because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack, and his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous," she said.
"We have gone on the offensive, attacking our enemies and the things that they need to operate and survive," she said.
"We have strengthened our defenses through a host of homeland security programs, including increasing our intelligence, military and law enforcement resources, ensuring greater information sharing with state and local officials, increasing grant programs, protecting critical infrastructure, and strengthening our border security,"
posted on September 27, 2007 11:22:10 AM new
"HOGWASH, rustygumbo
You need to get a grasp of how many Armed Forces are currently active, how many are on 'reserve' and the total number we have currently serving. THEN compare that to the small number that are currently serving in Iraq.....approx. 160,000. We are NOT being left defenseless."
The Army Chief of Staff disagrees with you, Linda.
The Boston Globe’s top story is Gen. Casey telling the House Armed Services Committee, in his first appearance as Army chief of staff, that the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces exceeds the sustainable supply. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."
Casey “personally requested the public hearing -- a highly unusual move that military analysts said underscores his growing concern about the health of the Army, America's primary fighting force.”
And “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asked Congress for a record-setting $190 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next year -- nearly $50 billion more than anticipated. Most of the money would go to Iraq. If the request is approved, the cost of the 2003 invasion will top $600 billion.”
[ edited by coach81938 on Sep 27, 2007 12:50 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2007 03:11:23 PM new
"We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies."
Doesn't say we can't. Doesn't say soldiers all around the world couldn't be redeployed.....just not 'as rapidly as'.
And IF as you liberals appear to think, we CAN'T then just whom do you believe the liberals who were calling for OUR troops to be sent to Darfur going to send? LOL LOL LOL THEY wanted OUR troops sent.
Our Armed Forces can meet ANY needs the CIC calls on them to meet. It's how they function.
edited to add: PLUS.....he was speaking to congress about the need for MORE military growth. Some approx. 42 Billion dollars is being requested by the Army to BUILD back up the forces that the cowardly clinton administration cut. We DO certainly need a larger Armed Force. No doubt about that. We'll be dealing with Iran soon, no matter which party wins the election.
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 27, 2007 03:12 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 27, 2007 03:14 PM ]
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 27, 2007 03:26 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2007 04:29:05 PM new
"the Army is "out of balance" and "the current demand for our forces EXCEEDS THE SUSTAINABLE SUPPLY. We are consumed with meeting the demands of the current fight and are unable to provide ready forces as rapidly as necessary for other potential contingencies"
You are hot stuff. Just ignore the fact that he was worried enough to request a public hearing--an ususual move. Talk about denial.
"edited to add: PLUS.....he was speaking to congress about the need for MORE military growth"
My post was in answer to your remark
"You need to get a grasp of how many Armed Forces are currently active, how many are on 'reserve' and the total number we have currently serving" I know you are not worried, but the General sure is. Maybe you should call General Casey and set him straight.
]
LOLLLLLL!!!!