oh, that’s right. Jack Straw forgot to pee his pants and run around in fear, grabbing duct tape and plastic sheeting on the way.

PUHleez.

Londoners have dealt with bombers a heckuva lot longer than people in the US - and there’s a reason for the “stiff upper lip” reputation. They give terrorists the two fingers and get on with their day. As the chief of police said, the threat from terrorism is here, but you stay alert and just get on with your life. THAT is courage - cowering under your bed with your duct tape and plastic is cowardly.

“oh, that’s right. Jack Straw forgot to pee his pants and run around in fear, grabbing duct tape and plastic sheeting on the way.

PUHleez.”

Right. Because that was his only other possible course of action. It was either treat a foiled-by-pure-luck bomb attack as equivalent to a blizzard, or go into a blind panic.

PUHleez.

Hopefully, Londoners have dealt with bombers longer than anyone in the US ever will, too — because hopefully, the kind of “courage” that mandates a shrugging, whistling-past-the-graveyard acceptance of evil isn’t part of the American psyche just yet. Try as liberals might to make it happen, we’re not quite that jaded by our own fecklessness just yet.

Do you expect him to tell the truth and say that three years of fighting in Iraq and many dead soldiers have not made England one whit safer from terrorists?

The problem here is that there really is very little that any government can do to prevent small groups or individuals acting alone from planting bombs in parked cars. What are you gonna do - ban cars?

Try as conservatives might, I don’t think most Americans want to trade freedom for fear just yet, but I would bet that conservatives will get their wish for a police-state after the next attack on American soil.

A foiled bomb plot in London has all the networks on wall-to-wall coverage but a real bombin in Baghdad that kills dozens of people maybe gets a 3 second mention. After all, who really cares if the brown people die?

Mike and JIC -

I’ll take the “just get on with it” attitude of the UK over the overhyped “ohmygod, we think that terrorists MIGHT have been taking pictures of the Citi building in NYC 4 years ago” breathlessness that the current administration espouses ANY day.

And, Mike, you’re making the mistake of confusing “acceptance of evil” with not letting it control your life. We in the UK don’t accept terrorism, but we sure as heck don’t let FEAR of it control our actions.

I’ll translate for USinUK: “We Britons are weak and are afraid to anger the islamists in our midst. As a result, we tell ourselves that it is an act of courage to be stoic and unmoved as we are attacked over and over again.”

Good luck with that. The Islamists are not going to stop no matter how courageously you ignore them.

Another example of the MSM attempting to keep YOUR eyes on THEIR network (Paris Hilton anyone?). Nothing more, nothing less. These ‘plots’ always seem to come up when bad news for Bush is on the horizon. I would expect to see many more examples of this as his approval ratings disappear into the fog of history. Nothing more to see here folks…Move along now.

The UK had to live with the threat of the IRA for 30 years. Well, they didn’t have to, but they did. I think it distorted their view of normalcy somewhat.

And as far as the phlegmatic attitude of the Brits - that would be a more believable argument that attitude extended to guns or knives. The hysteria they generate over tools of violence is irrational and unceasing.

oh-so-gallant of you to offer to translate. too bad you’re so inaccurate.

As for stoic and unmoved, we’ve had a few high-profile arrests (not to mention convictions) recently that should prove to even mighty tough cowboys like your big, bold self that we’re not sitting idly by, letting the terrorists do what they will. We’re fighting them at home and abroad -

Lest your little mind forget, the UK has a number of brave men and women fighting next to the US in Afghanistan and Iraq - and we have lost a number of them to sloppy friendly fire incidents with the US - so you can just shut your piehole with the “we Britons are weak” comments.

The UK got lucky this time. Damn lucky. Had these men been better at this we’d not have time to argue points, we’d be counting the dead.

USinUK—

Hey, that’s OK, little buddy! You’re a good helper!

USinUK - there isn’t much of that.

You should be proud of Briton’s fighting men and women. Cheers to them. Thank god not all Brits are as enervated as you are.

As to fighting them at home.…huh? “High profile” arrests after the fact is not fighting - its playing defense and it won’t do Britain any good against islamists who are willing to die to kill you.

All I can say is at least there isn’t much UKinUS (not yet).

I’ll translate for Brian, “I am afraid the brown people are going to get me so I think we should kill them all. Well…not actually “we” so much, but you or your kids. I’ll be under my bed..with my keyboard, fighting the good fight against the bad guys here.”

You’ve been tagged by a peacenik for no good reason. Love your blog title, BTW.

He said that because it has happened - they were at war with the IRA for years and dealt with similar threats. They dealt with the Blitz (and as I recall their leaders did not run and hide like Bush and Cheney on 9/11) when the buzz bombs came.

Because the Brits are tough. Stiff upper lip and all. Unlike American Republicans they don’t become drama queens and whine and cry and blame the opposing party as soon as something bad happens or when they’re threatened. Or when they drop the ball and get 2 major American cities smacked(NYC and New orleans).

They deal with it, and they move on. That’s how they beat the Vikings, Napoleon, Hitler, and the IRA. It’s how they’ll beat terrorism.

Just because they did not wet their pants and shut down half the country, like your president would’ve had this happened in the US, is no reason to trash a proud and grown-up response.

The attitude you deride is actual toughness. Unlike the “American toughguy act” that people like Fred Thompson put on (and you buy). Fred is a career lawyer and bad actor. He’s a beltway dandy and sissy. But he has leathery skin and a bad accent…so he’s tough I guess.

Get a clue.

Hey Dandyman, how come its only the leftists who refer to Islamists as the “brown people” (you and carol H here)? For all of your supposed care for others you sure comfortable thowing around derogatory racial terms.

The term that describes the people who are trying to kill you and me (remember - this post is about an attempted car bombing - the threat is not a figment my imagination) is “Islamists”. Its about time you Brits got a little more concerned with them. If you keep fixating on the “brown people” you will waste a lot of effort on innocents.

Oh, and about the fighting, I won’t need to worry about it with people named “dandyman” out there to protect me.

HP

“They deal with it, and they move on”. An interesting choice of words.

It reminds me of the meaningless saying “don’t worry it will all work out”. Of course it will “work out”! Time marches on and events unfold relentlessly. Sometimes the way it “works out” is really f___ing bad. You have to do you best to try to have it work out well for you.

They “deal with it”. How? If dealing with it involves only defense or absorbing the blows — is that courage or just fatalism? I do not think that Churchill would call that courage.

If “dealing with it” means taking proactive action then a little anger (and a little less stiff upper lip and all that) might light a fire under your politicians asses to actually do something about the dangerous Islamism they are enabling in your Muslim communities.

You would surely respond that its too “American cowboy” to get angry over something like this. To which I say - they will not stop and your passivity emboldens them. They thrive on it and matters will only get worse. Either get mad now when the problem is more manageable or wait to get mad later when it may no longer be correctable.

Despite the massive world wide increase of terrorism since the US kicked the UN out of Iraq and invaded , despite the huge successes of Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain — even Russia — with capturing and foiling terrorist plots by the use of cooperation and espionage, despite the fact that the US has destabiilized the entire Middle East by choosing invasion and war over diplomacy, so many posters seem to believe the failed policies of the US are “brave” even as they fail and plunge the world into a new dark age.

It’s pathetic to see anyone defend the cowardice of the US as they invade tiny nations (Greneda, Panama, Iraq) leave thousands of mutilated citizens in the wake of their “collatoral damage” and consider this brave and effective. Fortunately, from the polls, 2 of out 4 (closing in on 3 out of 4) Americans agree with the rest of the world that their policies are abject failures that have flushed the world’s good opinion of it down a toilet called Abu Gharib, torture, extraordinary rendition all while trashing their constitution quicker than Germany did after the burning of the Reichstag.

Britain will not be persuaded to panic. Unlike the US, we will find the guilty, try them and lock them away as we have several times in the past five years. We will not abandon the priniciples of decency, liberty, habeus corpus, — for those are the values for which Britain still stands — and these values are WHY Britain is still standing.

I believe the United States will once again find its soul, but not until the present, grossly unpopular regieme is gone.

“flushed the world’s good opinion of it down a toilet called Abu Gharib, torture, extraordinary rendition…”

That’s a funny name for a toilet.

and as I recall their leaders did not run and hide like Bush and Cheney on 9/11

Are you really this stupid? Bush and Cheney don’t call the shots when it comes to executive security. There is a plan in place at all times to get them to a secure location if their safety is threatened. As their should be.

And you can tour the bunkers in London where the British leadership hung out during air raids. Which was, again, what they were supposed to do.

Do they teach reading comprehension in the red state? Or did that go away after “no child left behind”. How could you be so clueless as to infer that I suggested there was no action necessary. Your problem, that I criticizem, is th need for empty rhetoric and the ritual of phony toughness. My point is that your post attacked language that you viewed to be non-symbolic. You need the bullhorn, you need a coward pretending to be a tough guy. You cannot accept that someone deals with problems in a pro-active manner without a dog n pony show. And you need the dog and pony show. You need Paris Hilton to Guiliani or some circus to entertain you.

Do you really believe that anyone blew this off? Or that the comment - by Straw or me - suggests a ho-hum attitude? Do you know what the Uk is doing? At all? Do you know they’ve instituted policies that so infringe on civil libs that they’d never even get passed in South Carolina? They are doing something, but it is not flashy enough for you I guess. Or did I miss the thesis on UK defense and anti-terror policy in the original post?

Again, substance over style. But substance does not get votes in the US, style does. The drunk that went AWOL beats the actuial Vietnam war hero because “we’d rather have a beer with W”. Never mind that anyone who ever had a beer with W never wanted to again, because he was incapable of holding his liquor. He can’t have a beer!

As for beiing resolute vs being fatalistic. Fatalism is the Japanese response to the American march across the Pacific. Victory is not an outcome one expects. Resolute is about not letting them see you sweat, taking the first punch, and then winning the fight with (A) the tools you have and (B) in a way that works. How would you suggest the UK do that? By bombing a random country or talking about “putting a boot in someone’s ass”? Look how well that’s worked for America and Israel. America has a military that can punch and breaks things, and we attack countries that have nothing to break. Israel can no longer beat its enemies down, and has no plan b. Stellar!

As for being resolute, maybe you should learn something about Churchill and WWII. He did something that would amaze you and your president, he actually retaliated by bombing the Reich - as opposed to giong atfer a nation that did not attack him. Like Sweden.

And as for anger, I was told that I was TOO angry. Because I said that I was pissed off that the president stopped looking for Osama Bin laden. Sad it was no longer important. It was too much work, too hard for a guy that never held a serious job in his life. Conservatives told me then that I was letting my emotions get away with me by demanding the head of OBL. He wanted me to get mad and I was playing into his hands. That is was more important to follow the GOP bleeding hearts and bring freedom to those less fortunate in Iraq.

Because you and your party change the argument, move the goal posts, based on the issue that specific day. Because you don’t believe in aything other than keeping the GOP in power.

And here is a prediction to prove my last point. You, I imagine, claim to love the heros of 9/11. Not the fake ones like W and Guiliani, I mean the FDNY and NYPD. Well, guess what? They HATE RUDY! And the Int’l Brotherhood of FF will run airtime bringing to light his bungling of 9/11. When they do that, you will turn on them and trash them on this blog. I guarantee it.

Because, like the Soviets, there are no true heroes to the GOP. Only useful symbols for the cause.

RE: and as I recall their leaders did not run and hide like Bush and Cheney on 9/11

I am wrong about W running away. You are correct. Now I remember that he did sit there and read the caterpillar story for 7 minutes before getting around to dealing with the attack on America. And then he ran and hid as America pleaded for leadership.

The President did what he wanted to. He flew around aimlessly and then had his staff lie about a terror threat to Air Force One. Granted the real president - Cheney - needed to be tucked away safely, but I am sure someone told Rudy to get in a hole. And despite his clueless bungling of everything pre-9/11 he stood up and tried to assure the American people that day.

How long did W wait to visit the Twin Towers or New Orleans? How many days?

I aliken W to Stalin when the Germans were advancing on Moscow and he ran to the dacha east of the city to cry.

Posted by geoff on June 29, 2007 1:49 PM

Ooops - that should be “As there should be.”

despite the huge successes of Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain — even Russia

This has to be irony, doesn’t it? After the disasters in those countries? You’ve crippled your own lame argument.

with capturing and foiling terrorist plots by the use of cooperation and espionage

That’s kind of the point - those approaches are completely useless when regimes are supporting the terrorists. Hence the Afghanistan invasion and the preemptive Iraq invasion.

He flew around aimlessly and then had his staff lie about a terror threat to Air Force One.

You’re an idiot. He flew to Omaha to the command center there.

How long did W wait to visit the Twin Towers or New Orleans?

Twin Towers? 3 Days

New Orleans? 2 Days

GEOFF…

Oh, Iraq was responsible for 9/11 again? I am going to teach you, give you a little terror 101.

Define Shi’ite and Sunni. Define secular regime vs Islamic state. Define infidel.

Now, apply those terms to Saddam’s Iraq and OBL’s Al Qaeda. Cross reference. And then tell me how likely it is they’d be allies. Your own president admitted that the ties between the 2 were BS. The 5 times he’s talked to the media since the Supreme Court appointed him.

This also works to show that Iran would never arm the insurgency. Why would Iran want to arm a Sunni insurgency looking to overthrow a Shi’ite dominated government? Explain. Since your president handed Iran the state of Iraq on a silver platter. How much oil does Iran now control? Do you like $4 a gallon for gas? Americans are dying to advcance the cause of Iran, I’m sure they cannot thank you enough.

I am an idiot? And yet about 65% of the country now agrees that I am right and you are clueless.

Now, back in 2002, you would have said that someone like yourself - anyone who had such a low level of support - should stop being ignorant and shut up. So, based on classic Republican and Fox News rationale you should stop spouting nonsense.

Every belief you have on terror, the war, and foreign policy has been thoroughly discredited.

Mayve you should take up painting or somethiing you maybe have talent for.

Wrong again. He waited 2 weeks to visit New Orleans. As per Fox News!

He flew over it on the way back from vacation, but that is hardly what anyone would describe as leadership.

Oh, Iraq was responsible for 9/11 again?

Where, in what I wrote, could you possibly have gleaned such a far-fetched attribution? Did I say that or anything like it? If you want to argue with fantasy creatures, feel free - if you want to address the monstrous holes in your arguments, then you’ll have to actually respond to what I said.

Now, apply those terms to Saddam’s Iraq and OBL’s Al Qaeda.

Why? Is Al Qaeda the only terrorist group that we oppose? Not at all. Did Saddam work with other terrorist groups? Oh yes. And it’s quite clear that Saddam and Al Qaeda were talking, and that Saddam was not antagonistic to Al Qaeda.

This also works to show that Iran would never arm the insurgency.

You can rely on the Sunni/Shi’ite rivalry if you wish. I prefer the testimonials of US military officers and even Moqtada al Sadr to your elementary and wishful analysis.

“Every belief you have on terror, the war, and foreign policy has been thoroughly discredited.”

Hmm, yeah, must be why those car bombs keep going off in Indiana and England hasn’t ha…oh.

He waited 2 weeks to visit New Orleans.

No, in the first two weeks he visited New Orleans 3 times and flew over once.

The timeline:

8/29: Landfall 8/31: Bush surveys damage from the air 9/2: Bush visits New Orleans 9/6: Bush returns to New Orleans 9/8: Cheney visits New Orleans 9/12: Bush makes his third ground visit to New Orleans - this is called his first “detailed survey” of the damage.

Since your president handed Iran the state of Iraq on a silver platter. How much oil does Iran now control?

Man, just a few weeks ago you guys were arguing that either we were taking Iraq’s oil, or that we were letting Big Oil rape Iraq. Now it’s Iran? Dizzying.

Do you like $4 a gallon for gas?

You should follow the background of oil pricing a bit more closely.

Geoff, you just contradicted yourself in the same post. Paragraphs one and two are at odds. “They were not responsible for 9/11 before they were responsible for it.” The attack on Iraq CAUSED terrorism, it did not prevent it. Reagan would tell you that it is always better to have the military strongman than the mullahs. That is why your party gace Saddam all of those chemical weapons to kill all those Kurds. Great shot of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam. That is also why your preisdent asked Colin Powell to give a medal to the Taliban back in 2000. He liked them preventing the farmers from growing heroin, and Halliburton was ngotiating with the Taliban to build a trans-continental gas pipeline.

Oh, rely on the generals? You mean the ones who are where they are because they are political creatures? Is that why we had a general, Casey, running the war despite having NO combat experience. So, we throw out thousands of years of history because some partisan hack looking for a job at the AEI when they retire thinks all Arabs are alike?

Learn about the history of Shi’ites and Sunnis. They have fundamental differences that, when politicized, stir up trouble. The Shi’ites also remember when Saddam;’s Sunni govt kep them down and bombed Shiite holy cities in the 1980’s war. Or are they undermining their natural allies to make you and your party look bad? Underminig their own interests cause they just do not like you?

This is your problem, you just accept whatever talking point comes on your TV.

I wish Iraq was in a state where we could exploit its oil. But the program is so badly mismanaged that is impossible. Iran and Iraq will be partners. No question. What % of Iraq’s pop is Sunni vs Shiite? Do the math. Again, they thank you - couldn’t have done it without you.

Actually, gas should be more expensive since it is a non-renewable resource that gets rarer every day. Lower supply + higher demand = ? Now, the oil producing nations keep supply higher so that prices do not go crazy.

But what if Iran, an enemy of America, just got lots more oil by gaining a friend in Iraq? Think they might work together with their Shiite brothers?

And what if, by some chance, the Russians got PO’d at America? Over some missile shield maybe.

And what if the Saudis were sore over us letting their Sunni pals in Iraq get ousted in favor of those nutty Shiites?

And then what if Venezuela was run by an Anti-American poplulist?

Get the point? And China is always everyone’s friend, and they pay retail.

Man, way to manage those relationships!

If the GOP ran the funeral homes, no one would die!

Geoff, you just contradicted yourself in the same post. Paragraphs one and two are at odds. “They were not responsible for 9/11 before they were responsible for it.”

I don’t even know what you’re talking about, but if you’re happy, that’s great.

As to the rest, its similarly retarded, but I’ve gotta go. Suffice to say that you’ve cherrypicked a few incidents completely out of context to build your shaky case. Do some real reading.

“That is also why your preisdent asked Colin Powell to give a medal to the Taliban back in 2000.”

Why would Bill Clinton want Colin Powell to give the Taliban a medal?

I think that is the Gulf Coast, not New Orleans. I am pretty sure 9/2 was the “brownie” moment.

This happened way back, I am lloking for the story now.

Bush decied to give one of those BS awards to the Taliban after he came into office. They made some commitment to eradicate poppy production and he liked them. The taliban diplomat came over to accept, and acted like a jackass to Condi. Something about not wanting to have women in the room - so enlightened, the Taliban. It all ended very badly.

HP I think your brain is broken.

Go back to Fox News, it’ll sooth the pain. If not, drink 8 shots of tequila and clear some cedar brush, like your president does every 3 days or so.

It was a pleasure to watch you quit. You lack any underdtanding of politics, economics, or any type of policy. Go vote for Guiliani without knowing what he stands for, just like the rest of your ignirant party. You people cannot even read up on your own candidates.

You offered no rebuttals to any point I made, you just said “nuh uh, you’re wrong” and called me an idiot. It’s almost like you have no facts at hand.

That kind of viewpoint makes it so easy, doesn’t it?

We’re happy to entertain you, HP. If you’d like to offer an argument or two instead of just “you hate brown people and believe everything on your TV!” we might even try to rebut it.

“you just said “nuh uh, you’re wrong” and called me an idiot.”

Hey, you’re right! We did!

First, I never said the first comment. Second, everyone now agrees me with me. So, I’m the mainstream and you are the wacky fringe. Deal with it.

When someone grabs the standard of an argument and then cannot answer basic questions about the situation on the ground - historical, economic, demographic, cultural - then I have to believe that person is mimicking talking points they got from Fox News.

It is ignorance. Just promise me you’ll learn something about your candidates this time, OK?

Like you didn’t foresee W pushing immigration!?!?!? Who did you think you were voting for.

This is why you’re losing the war. Cluelessness.

And I want you to think of me, in 10 years, when you lie to someone and tell ‘em you hated W and never voted for him. Because you will.

In 10 years we’ll all be dead. (Global warming, remember?)

I have read with interest some of the comments by Geoff and other Right Wing Republicans.

Their views are representative of the general view held among Right Wingers and Neo-Cons that they, and only they hold the key to defeat terrorism, and to bravery. Never mind that the entire world looks at them like .… What they are. A bunch of delusional, arrogant, and incompetent loud mouths.

Have they produced anything out of all their talk? Yes, more terrorism, more Muslim hate toward the West, more chaos broken Army, 500 billion with nothing to show, etc. That’s the extent of their accomplishments. Any other group of with that kind of tragic record to show for their efforts, would have had the desency to just shut up. But instead these cluless Right Wingers keep on marching on telling the rest of the world how they are supposed to react to terrorist attacks!!!!

The British people have been dealing with terrorism since before there was even a Republican Party. But you think you know better than them because you turned Iraq into a mess from hell??? Are you stupid or something? Are you delusional or you simply can’t see that you have NO CREDIBILITY LEFT?

Frankly people make you a favor even to answer your posts. Sometimes I feel I am arguing with people in dear need of mental help.

I have read with interest some of the comments by Geoff and other Right Wing Republicans.>

Well, for starts I’m not a Republican.

that they, and only they hold the key to defeat terrorism, and to bravery

We’d be entirely open to your suggestions of better, proactive ways to defeat terrorism, if you’d offer any. All we see coming from the libs is: “you’re doing it wrong!” That, and a “hide your head in the sand” attitude similar to that typified by Brown’s comment.

Yes, more terrorism, more Muslim hate toward the West, more chaos broken Army, 500 billion with nothing to show, etc. That’s the extent of their accomplishments

Do really think our actions in the Middle East have caused the terrorism in the Philippines, India, or Thailand? The terrorists were always there, with growing financial and logistics networks, and your complacency allowed them to get this far. Thanks for that.

The British people have been dealing with terrorism since before there was even a Republican Party.

Really. That doesn’t sound very likely. But even if it were, their sufferance of these attacks props them up as a prime example of what not to do.

Like you didn’t foresee W pushing immigration!?!?!? Who did you think you were voting for.

Oh, we knew that he wanted to do something about illegal immigration, we just thought he’d take no for an answer the first time. Or the second time. Of course, it’s not like the Dems ran a candidate who gave us a reasonable alternative, either.

I like this: I give you Bush’s itinerary to New Orleans, and you say:

I think that is the Gulf Coast, not New Orleans.

You think? Nice fact! Then you say this:

It’s almost like you have no facts at hand.

Pinhead. Here are the “facts” that you’re missing (from Wonkette, 8/31/05):

Air Force Col. Mark Tillman, the chief pilot of Air Force One, routed the Waco-to-Andrews flight along the southern edge of the United States to give POTUS a bird’s eye view but at points he and his crew brought the plane so low that it was barely above the skyscrapers of New Orleans. POTUS moved over to the left side of the plane where his Secret Service detail normally sits and watched intently out the window during the 35-minute flyover. His tour took him over New Orleans and then along the coast over Slidell, Waveland, Pass Christian, Gulfport, Biloxi and Pascagoula, before the plane climbed back to normal altitude, veered north and headed toward Washington.

It’s the same story every year.

Each spring, just before the summer driving season, gasoline prices skyrocket. And every year, these four words appear in news reports nationwide as a big reason for the runup: “lack of refining capacity.”

Then experts call for more refineries, politicians pledge to make the dirty behemoths easier to build, but guess what? Nothing really happens. Next year, repeat story.

So why hasn’t a new refinery been built in the U.S. since 1976?

“There have been calls every year this decade for new refining capacity, yet no new projects initiated,” said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for AAA, the motorist organization. “Refining capacity has not kept pace with demand for gasoline.”

Now go forth and apply what you’ve learned to propagate fewer untruths. Like your Katrina canards, your “run and hide” lies, your Iranian oil nonsense, and your confusions over the oil market.

Like you didn’t foresee W pushing immigration!?!?!? Who did you think you were voting for.

Oh, we knew that he wanted to do something about illegal immigration, we just thought he’d take no for an answer the first time. Or the second time. Of course, it’s not like the Dems ran a candidate who gave us a reasonable alternative, either.

I like this: I give you Bush’s itinerary to New Orleans, and you say:

I think that is the Gulf Coast, not New Orleans.

You think? Nice fact! Then you say this:

It’s almost like you have no facts at hand.

Pinhead. Here are the “facts” that you’re missing (from Wonkette, 8/31/05):

Air Force Col. Mark Tillman, the chief pilot of Air Force One, routed the Waco-to-Andrews flight along the southern edge of the United States to give POTUS a bird’s eye view but at points he and his crew brought the plane so low that it was barely above the skyscrapers of New Orleans. POTUS moved over to the left side of the plane where his Secret Service detail normally sits and watched intently out the window during the 35-minute flyover. His tour took him over New Orleans and then along the coast over Slidell, Waveland, Pass Christian, Gulfport, Biloxi and Pascagoula, before the plane climbed back to normal altitude, veered north and headed toward Washington.

It’s the same story every year.

Each spring, just before the summer driving season, gasoline prices skyrocket. And every year, these four words appear in news reports nationwide as a big reason for the runup: “lack of refining capacity.”

Then experts call for more refineries, politicians pledge to make the dirty behemoths easier to build, but guess what? Nothing really happens. Next year, repeat story.

So why hasn’t a new refinery been built in the U.S. since 1976?

“There have been calls every year this decade for new refining capacity, yet no new projects initiated,” said Geoff Sundstrom, a spokesman for AAA, the motorist organization. “Refining capacity has not kept pace with demand for gasoline.”

Now go forth and apply what you’ve learned to propagate fewer untruths. Like your Katrina canards, your “run and hide” lies, your Iranian oil nonsense, and your confusions over the oil market.

A fine, macho American leader wouldn’t stoically shrug his shoulders OR pee his pants and run around in panicky circles. He would instead leap on the opportunity to whip up fear and xenophobia in everyone ELSE, and try to make US run around, pee our pants, etc. etc. Then, of course, he would insist that we needed to invade Nepal and handing huge bid-free contracts to his good buddies, and of course imply that anyone who questioned any of this wanted the terrorists to win.

handing huge bid-free contracts to his good buddies,

Another stupid canard. Do you know why the gov’t issues no-bid contracts? Because the normal procurement cycle takes 6 - 9 months. Have you also noted the lack of protests by other contractors concerning the awards? If a company feels that it has been unfairly denied a chance to bid, it can protest the award. Haven’t heard anything from the rest of the industry - just noise from people who don’t understand federal contracting.

HP, don’t waste your time arguing with idiots like geoff. He’s one of the dead-end 29 percenters who won’t give up on Bush no matter how incompetent he proves himself to be.

I think HP has plenty of time to waste. It’s time to do research that he’s lacking. So far he’s been wrong on every other “fact” that he’s cited.

Gus’s comment is particularly ironic, given that the discussion is being held at JYB. It’s not like we went to some liberal site and started dumping lame drivel on one of your threads. It is you libs who came here and started your incoherent and completely unnecessary defense of what was just a humorous throwaway post on Gordon Brown’s reaction.

Of course, along the way we got to hear nearly the entire panoply of liberal whines, starting from the year 2000. As in every discussion with HP’s breed, they have to throw in everything in order to make their precious point. Maybe that approach works among liberals - it certainly earns them senseless cheerleaders like Gus and Gil.

It is really irresponsible reaction from Jack Straw.If he declare these things as a inevitable one,then what for the government running and spending huge billions for security.. Green Flag

Geoff.

“For starters I am not a Republican”

No Geoff you are a Right, Wing Neo-Con. I am more a Republican than you’ll ever be.

“You are open to suggestions on how to defeat terrorism”

Don’t ever follow Neo-Con Right Wingers advice on how to fight terrorism. The results are demonstrable terrible. Do follow experienced countries such as England. Do not give terrorists a platform from where to promot their cause. That’s what you do when you go un and stand in “triumph” in an Aircraft Carrier and then.…. 5 years after you are still asking for time. You don’t promote terrorism by starting wars with countries that had no terrorists. You fight terrorism in obscurity, in stealth using brains, and patience as your weapon not grandstanding, and histeria.

The Neo-Con actions in the Middle East have caused more terrorism. That is a fact accepted by all of our Intelligence Agencies. Terrorism in India, or Burma, or Mars has nothing to do with it. It is Muslim Middle Eastern terrorism that has gone up thank toNeo-Cons prescription for fighting terrorirst. What Neo-Cons do is kill one terrorist, and make 10.

The British people have been fighting terrorists since the times of Cromwell i the Middle Ages. So have the Spaniards, the French, the Italians, and most of the world. You don’t see England invading Syria becuse they were attacked do you? You don’t see Spain invading Moroco because they were attacked do you? What would be of the world if every Country that has a problem with a group of fanatics feels free to invade real or immagined countries that help them????

Neo-Cons and Right WIngers thank God are about to evaporate into the footnotes of history as bad dream.

Do follow experienced countries such as England.

Forgive me if I don’t follow your argument that well, since England is our ally in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It appears that the experienced terrorist fighters thought that invading Iraq was the right thing to do.

You fight terrorism in obscurity, in stealth using brains, and patience as your weapon not grandstanding, and histeria.

That’s certainly appropriate when terrorists don’t enjoy the support of entire nations, where law enforcement and covert operations are inadequate to address the issue.

That’s what you do when you go un and stand in “triumph” in an Aircraft Carrier and then.

No, that’s what you do when you’re announcing the end of major combat operations against Saddam’s regime, celebrating the accomplishments of the US military against the Iraqi military. Perhaps you meant to refer to the “Bring it on” statement that has ruffled so many liberal feathers. That’s what you say when you want to convince the enemy that you are an invulnerable, implacable foe, and that the enemy’s efforts are pointless. Of course, with the liberal backlash in this country, that message was quickly diluted.

You don’t see Spain invading Moroco because they were attacked do you?

No, we saw them fold like a card table in the face of Islamic terror. I don’t think submitting to the demands of terrorists is a very productive strategy. But the fact that you do is telling.

You don’t see England invading Syria becuse they were attacked do you?

We’re hoping that it’s on their agenda.

Hasn’t Jack Straw ever heard of “Shock and Awe”? Haven’t we shown the world that that’s how you put an end to terrorist bombings?

So 2 days after Brown takes over for Blair in the UK, the UK is attacked by terrorists. Many thought Brown was going to start pulling his troops out of Iraq.

Why you’d almost think the terrorists wanted the war in Iraq to continue because it plays up their recruiting.

Q. Who’d a thunk it?

A. Anyone who has payed an iota of attention.

Maybe Brown should pull his troops out of Saudi Arabia to appease his business partners?

Oh, wait…

I realise America is still an infant-nation, you’re only in your low 200’s now so the response to a little graze is the same as an infants— a thunderous cry and belief that this is the end— how can anything possibly be worse that this?! Luckily as your grow into your adulthood, you can ignore the scrapes and bruises and realise that they just don’t matter that much.

We’ve lived through intense bombing during the second world war, we’ve survived an organised terrorist presence (the IRA) and any number of ‘independents’. A few inept terrorists won’t stop us from living our lives. Sorry if they stop yours.

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

London is a city of what, 14-20 million people? Anyone out at any time of day has got bigger worries crossing the street then succumbing to a terrorist attack, yet people cross the street every day, madness! We’ll keep paying our investigators, and they’ll continue to stop the vast majority of crackpots, but there will always be someone bored enough to try and create a frenzy that will slip through the gaps, so as Jack Straw said, these things happen.

You want to deal with terrorists? Don’t be terrorized.

We realize that UK is an elderly nation, so that it less inclined to get up out of its rocker and deal with its problems, so the response to an attack on your populace is the same as an octagenarian’s - a small sigh and a lulling back to sleep.

Anyone out at any time of day has got bigger worries crossing the street then succumbing to a terrorist attack, yet people cross the street every day, madness!

Not an accurate analogy. The difference between an accident and malevolent intent is one of quality as well as quantity.

We’ll keep paying our investigators, and they’ll continue to stop the vast majority of crackpots

Yeah, we do that too.

but there will always be someone bored enough to try and create a frenzy

Hah! That’s funny. You think “boredom” is the cause of these events? Was the fellow in Glasgow shouting, “I’m bored, I’m bored!” every time he punched somebody?

You want to deal with terrorists? Don’t hide your head in the sand and make up silly excuses for their behavior.

Geoff, the comfortable rocker also tends to hint at our life-long experience. We’ve dealt sucessfully with organized terrorists, the IRA no longer bombs our people and places, it was a painful road and one we’re still walking down, but the end is somewhat clearer now.

We have a good intelligence service which does it best to reduce our risk, but it’s impossible to bring such a risk to zero, without hurting the citizen’s freedom and rights to a horrific extent— any sane person would realise that. So we live our lives with risk attached, the same as we did last year and the same we did five hundred years before.

The word boredom was merely a glib generalisation, I apologize if you didn’t realise that. Should I list all the possible motivations? Homophobia was certainly one in the Camden nail bombing, but the thing about terrorism is there are hundreds of potential reasons— desperation, racial, political, religous, paranoia are only a minute sample of them. The overall point I obviously failed to make was that there will always be someone with a motivation we can’t read, or guess upon. There can always be a crazy crack-pot with the wherewithal to make a bang. What an intelligent society does is focus our attentions where we can make the biggest impact, and judging by the relatively small events that happen here, we’re doing well.

You say we’re sitting rocking away, which is false, we’re tracking down connections and making arrests where appropriate but the very action of not getting too wound up about an action is something in itself. We could proclaim that we’re all going to die in a multitude of various pains imminently, but what good would that actually do Geoff? Does that reduce the risk?— of course not. Should we declare war on.. well.. what would we declare war on? A noun?

What’s the alternative? A soldier on every street corner, the negation of everything we hold dear and private? Thanks, but no. I’d happily run the one in a trillion risk if I can avoid having my freedoms infringed upon. Perhaps some are happier to give up their freedoms, but if that’s the case, what are they actually fighting for?

We’ve dealt sucessfully with organized terrorists, the IRA no longer bombs our people and places,…

See, we don’t call suffering terrorist attacks for 30 years “dealing successfully” with the problem. That’s what we would term “a feeble and ineffective response.”

The overall point I obviously failed to make was that there will always be someone with a motivation we can’t read, or guess upon.

Sure. Of course. But random, isolated actors are not the enemy we’re talking about here. The enemy we’re talking about is a global organization seeking to promote Islamic fundamentalist rule using violent means.

we’re tracking down connections and making arrests where appropriate

Too often that occurs after the fact, and it doesn’t deal at all with the root cause of the problem. Right now you’re just betting that you can catch these guys before they cause too much harm, but you have no plan for stopping the pipeline. That approach means you have to be lucky every time, and nobody is that lucky.

We could proclaim that we’re all going to die in a multitude of various pains imminently

Don’t think anybody criticized Gordon Brown for not proclaiming that you’re all going to die. He was criticized for his complacency in saying “shit happens.”

Should we declare war on.. well.. what would we declare war on? A noun?

That is one of the stupider arguments over the GWoT. “How do we make war on a noun?” C’mon, don’t play those hackneyed nonsense games. Can you really not identify the players in global terrorism? I give you far more credit than that. And then, having identified them, is your best response, “Oh well, nobody can be perfectly safe all the time?” I think you can do better.

What’s the alternative? A soldier on every street corner, the negation of everything we hold dear and private?

London already has that, with every security camera serving as a soldier, negating privacy throughout the city. You’ve already given up your privacy for security. I’d rather the US didn’t take that draconian route. Thus far the infringements on our civil liberties are trivial compared to that alone.

I’d much rather see us continue our current policy: using every law enforcement, military, covert, economic, and political resource we have to eliminate the threat.

If that’s the case Geoff, how would American have dealt with the IRA? I really do want your opinion, we managed to reach a peaceful agreement and they’re now involved in the political process. I’d be really interested to hear your course of action.

“Right now you’re just betting that you can catch these guys before they cause too much harm, but you have no plan for stopping the pipeline. That approach means you have to be lucky every time, and nobody is that lucky.”

Investigation and intelligence are the best weapons, but it can’t be perfect, so what plan does America have? You mention your policy at the bottom: “using every law enforcement, military, covert, economic, and political resource we have to eliminate the threat.” Any country does the same, but of each of those elements have a different weighting. Most people would agree that America is heavily weighted to the militaristic point and looking towards Iraq, I don’t think that’s helped terrorism numbers in the slightest, do you? Do you actually believe that you can reduce the risk from religious fanatics to absolute zero? If not, then shit does indeed happen. If you truly believe you can kill or arrest them all, then you’re living in a fantasy world.

No, you can’t identify all the players in terrorism, if you could then you would have won your war by now, do you think its possible for the military to have the names and faces of all people involved? We know a few names, but you kill (martyr) them and it only generates more anger and more appear, look at the violence in Iraq for proof. You’ve lost over 3500 soldiers now, tens of thousands, some say hundreds of iraq citizens are dead, what percentage were terrorists?

On the subject of CCTV cameras in London (And across England) you’re quite correct, I consider them a step in a bad direction. The number I’ve heard thrown about is 4 million cameras in London, that number does include private cameras however, which are the vast majority, I have no problem with a shop having a hundred cameras if needed (I know a small Walmart in the states has 256 cameras), nor public transport (I despise vandals), nor tracking cars passing the congestion zone barrier (I enjoy the cleaner air!). My major problem with cameras is that I would prefer a couple of policeman strolling his little community rather then having cameras do the job, which is something that we’re too slowly bringing back with community policing. I’d be interested to see the numbers of cameras in a city the same size as London (twice the size of new york) in the states, you might be surprised.

But how can you say your government hasn’t taken draconian steps with a straight face? You can hold your own citizens indefinately without any charges, you spy on your own people- both via the telephone networks and internet unlawfully and that’s only the tip of a very large iceberg. I’d rather my actions be viewed when I’m in public then my private converstations (vocal or electronic) heard and recorded, though in a perfect world I would prefer neither. Luckily I’m working abroad at the moment in a place that grants me both those freedoms.

If that’s the case Geoff, how would American have dealt with the IRA? I really do want your opinion, we managed to reach a peaceful agreement and they’re now involved in the political process.

I don’t really know. The UK was in a difficult position, risking further alienation of Northern Ireland if they cracked down, but further violence against innocents if they didn’t. In that case, I would always opt for protecting the innocents, but there aren’t any obvious “nice” solutions. The UK opted for sacrificing the innocents.

But I wouldn’t hold up the handling of that situation as some sort of model for response to terrorism. As shown, compromise and half-measures served only to perpetuate the violence, forcing a population to live under seige for almost 3 decades.

If you truly believe you can kill or arrest them all, then you’re living in a fantasy world.

I think I already said that you’d have to be incredibly lucky to do that, and that nobody was that lucky. The point here is that law enforcement can’t shut down mosques and madrassa, or deport venomous Imams. Law enforcement can’t stop Iran from training and arming terrorists, or the Taliban from sheltering al Qaeda. Only governments can do that, through an escalating series of diplomatic, economic, and military options.

We need to interdict the jihadi machine at all points in its life cycle. That includes the earliest education, where children are taught to love jihad, to hate the Jews, and to look upon kufrs as inferiors. If we can stop the poison at that stage, the problem evaporates. But that will take decades, if not generations.

That brings us to Iraq, which is difficult to discuss briefly, of course. Suffice to say that if the goal of a reasonably secular democratic government was realized in Iraq, it would change the dynamic in the Middle East in a positive and lasting way. It would also serve as living proof to those children I mentioned that there is another path to follow. That prospect is much more attractive than the bloodier long-term alternative.

I’d be interested to see the numbers of cameras in a city the same size as London (twice the size of new york) in the states, you might be surprised.

Supposedly there are something like 900 in downtown Denver (metro population ~ 2.5 million), while London proper has about 200,000 (it’s 4,000,000 for the entire country). But you’re right, we’re heading down the same path. Being imaged 300 times a day by cameras is not my idea of privacy or liberty, and is far more intrusive than having the government monitor my occasional phone calls with terrorists.

“The UK opted for sacrificing the innocents” - What? How would you crack down? I’m not sure if you ever visited N.I during the IRA era, but the military presence around the border towns was huge, helicopters flying over-head, barbed walls, huge guard towers, jeeps toting mounted guns driving around the town. Places of importance had random car screenings for bombs, it was a huge operation. Can you provide a single example of when the government didn’t opt to protect its citizens? Could we ever seriously have attacked southern Ireland and expecting the problem to diminish?

I totally agree we need to hit the route causes and change thinking ideally at a young age, but again, there will always be religious fanaticism while there is religion. Someone will always take it at its word and warp that to fit there current problems and there will always be heathen non-believers to correct. Then of course even when religion is taken out of the picture, you’ve still got at least political motivations. Does that mean we do nothing?—No, we do what we can, but we have to realize no matter how absolutely magically good we are, shit will still occasionally happen.

Also, with regards to Denver, you’re comparing apples and oranges, you mention 900 cameras in Denver total? From a quick search you’ve got over 100 McDonalds alone. Each one at minimum would have three cameras (multiple facing employee tills, drive-thru, one recording customers incase of incidents).

I would guess that each mall in Denver has a huge number of cameras, multiple in the car-parks, one or more inside each shop, a handful monitoring walkways. How can even begin to believe that 900 is an accurate number for the entire city? And that’s not even including the thousands of shops, banks, hospitals, highways, train stations, etcetera. 900? Seriously?

Can you provide a single example of when the government didn’t opt to protect its citizens?

Well, I was talking about things like this:

Blair has consistently appeased the IRA by delivering a stream of concessions to them — the release of several hundred convicted IRA murderers, the “reform” of the police to reduce their numbers and to weaken their intelligence gathering, the appointment of senior Sinn Fein-IRA leaders to high government office — while turning a blind eye to the mounting evidence that the IRA was continuing to use terrorist methods to strengthen its political position.

But I will admit that the UK took many active measures to try to control the violence.

Also, with regards to Denver, you’re comparing apples and oranges, you mention 900 cameras in Denver total?

Not really. London’s 200,000 camera stat includes only public surveillance cameras installed by the government, not private cameras found in businesses. Denver has only about 900 public surveillance cameras.

*************************

I think part of the difference in views stems from the difference in time perception between America and Europe. Our relatively brief history means that 30 years seems like an unacceptably long time to resolve a problem. I suspect that to Europeans, 30 years doesn’t amount to much.