home

Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid introduced the party's reform agenda today at the National Press Club. He made an interesting observation (received by e-mail):

As of this month, more time has passed since 9-11 than the time between Pearl Harbor and the defeat of Japan. During those three years and eight months – sixty years ago – we invaded North Africa and Normandy. We freed people from the Philippines to France. Hitler lay dead and Tojo was in chains. We had defeated fascism around the world and had begun to build the new United Nations.

But today Osama bin Laden is still on the loose, our homeland is still not secure, we’re still not energy independent, and – in many ways – Americans are less safe than we were before 9-11.

< Joe Trippi Unveils 'Change America' | Al Qaeda Names Replacement for al Zarqawi >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    and yet, amazingly, there have been no repeat attacks a la 9-11. you would almost think that we were doing something right. I see no useful suggestions in Sen Reid's sage words, unless he is suggesting we brutally flatten our enemy as we did in Germany and Japan.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    I'm sure the 1400 Americans dead due to terrorist action in Iraq (since the end of Major Combat, or so we've been told) share the assessment their have been no terrorist attacks against Americans in the last few years. If the Right would only have put half the policial capital they spent on Bill Clinton, into capturing OBL, he'd have been arrested years ago. Instead, the murderer of 3000 Americans is still at large.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#3)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Why would Bushbag & Co want to make America safe? Then they wouldn't have anything to scare folks with. If they can't scare voters they are in big trouble and they know it. It was four years between attacks on the WTC so repugs should stop telling us how safe we have been since 9/11. We have over 1600 americans dead and thousands more in casualties since 9/11 I find it amazing you rethugs don't count these americans as victims of Terrorism when you rethugs go out of your way to proclaim iraqi insurgents are Terrorist affiliats of Osama bin laden's Al Quaida! Also, rethugs have the blood of over 100.000 Iraqs who have been murdered as stand-ins for us, haven't they?! How many times have we heard the wingnuts say "Better there than here". Tells us a lot about how the wingnuts value other's people's lives doesn't it. The Rethugs have made a real mess and the only things they have succeeded in is making excuses, blaming, lieing, and propagandering. And you can bet when they next attack comes it , according to the wingnuts, will be all the Libruls fault.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Funny how the same people who point to "no attacks since 9/11" are the same people who say Clinton was "soft on terror"- even though he went his whole term without an attack on America soil by foreign terrorists (and you can pin the 1st WTC attack on Bush Sr, as Clinton's inaugural ribbons were still up when that one happened). Watch them all fall over themselves in the event of another attack (God forbid), and they'll be hastening to point out that terrorist attacks "are inevitable in a free society." Sitting on both sides of the fence again, but what's new for the 'cons?

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    actually, we will probably note that we did not do enough. the likely attacker will probably be here illegally-we did nothing to protect our borders. he will be caught using illegal documents but let go by a "sanctuary city" police force weeks before the incident. I can think of any number of horror stories. I also envision the crocodile tears before the inevitable "little Eichmann" comments pouring out.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    If America is attacked again, one highly doubts it'll be border-jumpers from Mexico who are ticked off that Taco Bell isn't hiring illegals in San Jose... It'll be another clan of Saudi's whose leader holds hands with the Bush clan down in Crawford, and you're going to see more f#*king jets heading for Riyadh when the smoke is beginning to clear...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#7)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    "A day that will live in infamy" versus "Go shopping" Huh. Who'd have thought the first president would actually get the job done...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#8)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Will some righty please offer me a good rationalization for how big a c*cksucker Bush is for the corrupt, tyrannical, terrorist supporting House of Saud? Please, I'm begging you. Almost all the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and they committed their atrocities to "punish" us for our complicity with that wretched royal family, and for their allowing American troops in the holiest land in all of Islam. So it seems our entire focus might've been on S.A. (Afghanistan another issue entirely). But where HAS our focus been. Everywhere BUT Saudi Arabia. We're still best friends with that awful bunch of family tyrants and blood-drenched hypocrites; and we've made enemies of hundreds of millions, if not billions, or former or potential friends -- known as common folk all over the region. Thanks Dubya. Thanks a lot. And remember this is the Prez who OPPOSES embryonic stem-cell research for EXACTLY the same reason he SUPPORTS war in Iraq. That, my friends, is just f'ing crazy.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    I agree. Shall we nuke them at dawn?

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Ed are you suggesting we nuke the Whitehouse? Hmmm If so Make sure W is not out riding his tricycle while attempting to reading My pet goat.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#11)
    by Mreddieb on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Dadler You sound f*#king angry

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    ED Beckman, Good guess. And I'd ackshully like one of 'em to give me some semblance of an answer, but I'm not holding my breath.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    I presume everyone was making these criticisms of SA prior to 9/11. No? what a surprise given that the country sprang into being following his election. we do have problems separating ourselves from the Saudi's given their oil and money. the above rants certainly point out a real problem-no solution though as is typical. we have withdrawn troops-Islamopsychos still don't like us. Nice rationalization for 9/11-still offers no solution.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#14)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    dadler - The problem we had from day one was that if we attack SA, you will truly have the ME in flames, because of the holy cities. Now, since I am sure you got your panties in a wad over the Koran issue, why would you support an even worse problem? Answer is: Dadler just wants to complain about Bush! Truth be known, we have placed great pressure on SA, and it has moved, grudingly, towards some reforms. But then I guess you don't want diplomacy, just shock and awe.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Yeah, there would be some really p'o'd Muslims, PPJ- it's not like the Rumsfeld Rummagers didn't totally loot Mess'o'Potamia...and since when is PPJ worried about angry Muslims??? Flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    so, everyone here would have been in favor of launching a military attack on SA. would that make things safer today?-NO. If the posters here showed as much ingenuity in solving problems involving the islamic extremists as they put in to blaming all problems on Bush, I would be impressed.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Rather than Iraq, Ed? Let's see...where did the hi-jackers, almost to a man, come from? The question, Ed, is why you're such a Bush cheerleader, to the extent you excuse him ignoring the 9/11 murderers in lieu of kicking some Iraqi ass "because he tried to kill my Dad..."? Give him a pacifier and impeach the bugger, Blagh says...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    So, yes or no on the SA invasion. I have been pretty consistent-I am pleased SH is gone and think the world is safer without him. If you think he was not a funder and backer of terrorism, your head is in the clouds somewhere. I would be just as happy if a democratic president had done so. I am not the Bush obsessive, you folks are.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#19)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Of course most of us realize that it is Pakistan that is one of the main exporters and supporters of terrorism. Many extremist groups including AQ have lived inside their borders for decades. They have also spread nuclear technology around the globe including to states that support terrorism. Yet we give them favored nation status for trade. It has become clear to everyone but the most argent Bush rump swabs that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with the WOT. It had to do with military bases and oil.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    and, yet, we have no oil because the heroic minutemen are doing their best to sabotage the fields. why didn't we just lift sanctions and normalize relations with SH to get the oil. is it because he was heroically resisting us?

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#21)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    I hope this means Harry Reid favors drillng in ANWAR.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    why didn't we just lift sanctions and normalize relations with SH to get the oil. is it because he was heroically resisting us?
    I've explained this multiple times. Saddam had already contracted with China and Russia to refurbish the oil infrastructure. The only thing standing in the way from having the contracts fully executed were the sanctions. That explains why Bush didn't want the sanctions lifted. Saddam also wanted to be paid in Euros which also made Bush mad and would have big consequences if that practice spread to other countries. So since Saddam didn't want to do business with us any more, or if so not as a primary customer, we invaded. Also remember that the Saudis wanted our bases out of their country and they had to go somewhere in order to help keep the crude flowing. The Bush approach to securing oil is almost purely military, establishing bases where ever there is oil, and try to orchastrate a coup when the democratically elected leader doesn't want ot do business with us. China on the other hand is attempting to secure their energy future by mutually benefical development/business contracts. I suspect that Bush believes that at some point in the not too distant future the crunch for oil will be so bad that military action will be the only way to secure enough oil to support the American lifestyle and SUV's And of course the Neocon philosophy is that since we are the last superpower we have the right and the means to protect our "interests" whatever they may be and where ever it takes us

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Ed: Your head is in the clouds if you want to repeat Cheney's talking points about Iraqi terrorism. There WAS no Iraqi terrorism before the invasion- SH was a despot, not a terrorist, and this wasn't a "War on Despots," was it? If it was, what is the Saudi family still doing in power? And Musharaf, the biggest American bootlicking dictator around (pro-U.S., so he's "our bastard," right?) Get real...if there was any justification to invade a country because a dictator was oppressing his people, you've got about fifty countries to go, but you don't seem too worried about the others, now do you? Seems more like a convenient excuse when the real reason blew up your faces? You advocate invading a country that didn't have any part in 9/11, using 9/11 as justification, but you haven't caught the real perpetrator, nor are you trying very hard, and you haven't done a damned thing about the bloody country that spawned them all, including OBL, and you want to say what, exactly? That this is all Kosher?

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    I hope this means Harry Reid favors drillng in ANWAR.
    The ultimate red herring. The oil there would take ten years to reach here and last about six months. In reality, most of it would probably be sold to Japan. So hopefully, Harry Reid supports more R & D money for alternative energy, and conservation measures.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#25)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Seems more like a convenient excuse when the real reason blew up your faces?
    Or didn't blow up, as it were. ;)

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Touché, Ernest-One- eres muy pelegroso...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Peligroso...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    love the oil conspiracy theory. SH was really just misunderstood and the Chinese are the good guys (unfortunately, they establish these mutually beneficial relationships with folks like the rulers in Sudan). SH financed pali terrorists-does this count? terrorists used Iraq for R&R-does this count? where did Zarqawi come from? Oh, I forgot-he is a Bush creation(or was it the Zionists who really flew into the WTC?)

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Al-Zarqawi was in northern Iraq before invasion, but Bush's neocons told him not to cruise the camp as this would eliminate a reason for the invasion at a time they needed every one... So, Ed, after Al-Zarqawi, who do you think Al-Zarqawi's victims' families should be looking at? As for SH giving money to Palestinian terror bombers' families, Ed, are you saying SH was a bigger threat to Israel than Iran is, or Syria, or Lebanon and f*#king Hezbollah? Are you serious?

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    Bag - I'm not worried, I just pointed out what would happen. Plus, I wanted dadler to understand that he is being hypocritical in his positions. Or perhaps he merely hasn't thought them through. As for - "SH was a despot, not a terrorist..." You would have a hard time selling that in Iraq. Especially to the families of the ones he raped and killed. But no, we didn't invade Iraq because of what he was doing to his people. We invaded Iraq because we thought Saddam had WMD's and he was just nutcase enough to give'em/sell'em to al-Qaida. A belief, as you well know, believed by all the world's major intelligence agencies, and the leaders of both parties.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:22 PM EST
    As you know, PPJ, the whole world was saying, "NO, he doesn't have them anymore" at the time the U.S. invaded...stop changing facts after the fact...you can't take a 1999 U.N. statment to prove your fallacious argument when subsequent U.N. statement asserted that Saddam was essentially disarmed...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    ppj - the perpetual lying machine

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#33)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    Bag - No, the whole world wasn't saying that. You know, you have talent.. Why waste it on such outlandish and inaccurate statements? SD - Love you baby!

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#34)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    Ernesto: If it takes ten years to get to the oil, we had better get going now. I happen to think there are more than six months worth out there. If Harry is into finding an alternative energy source, please link some legislation he is proposing to that end. I think he talks an average talk.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    If we had a leader with vision, and one who wasn't in big oil's pocket, he'd start working on finding fuel alternatives. Where have you gone JFK? He said we'd get to the moon, and we got to the moon. If we can get to the moon, we can run a car on something besides oil. But then Bush's buddies wouldn't be making the big bucks, so we will continue to jerk-off the crooked Saudis. Profit before people, it's the Bush way.

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:23 PM EST
    Just to open things out a little on examples of why our name is sh@t in the world, anyone remember this one (PPJ ?) ?. So did we have the '93 WTC attack coming ? And by the way we could have sat there and said "So where are the attacks since then eh ?" for 8 years after that one !! Sea of lies: The USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988 [remainder deleted off topic]

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    Blagh's been thinking it over, and you know what? Blagh agrees with the terrorists... So does Heretik...

    Re: Harry Reid: Americans Less Safe (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    Not sure where this went first time ? Anyone remember this (PPJ) ? Did we have the 93 WTC attack coming (and BTW we could have sat back for 8 years after that one saying 'No attacks since then'!) ? And we wonder why our name is sh*t in the world ! Sea of lies (The USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air Flight 655 on July 3, 1988 ) - The USS Vincennes was the US navy’s most expensive surface warship, designed to track and shoot down as many as 200 incoming missiles at once. - The warship was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot down in clear violation of international law. - Iran Air Flight 655 took off from Bandar Abbas for Dubai. - The pilot had done nothing out of he ordinary and obeyed all rules and regulations, including staying within a 25-mile-wide commercial airline corridor. - The passenger plane was shot down on the orders of a trigger-happy captain. - 290 innocent civilians die. - The US lies to reporters and the UN security council. - Captain Rogers insisted to "Nightline" that he had made the "proper decision." He had opened fire only to protect his ship and crew, he said. - Captain Will Rogers of the USS Vincennes was given the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious conduct - The anti-air warfare officer was granted two Navy commendation medals for his service on the ship - The crew were given combat-action ribbons for their tour in dangerous waters. - The Supreme Court refused to reinstate a lawsuit against the federal government by families of people killed when the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf in 1988. Without comment, the court said it wouldn't hear Koohi v. U.S. (92-1504), in which relatives of those killed argued that the United States wasn't at war with Iran and therefore isn't immune from lawsuits over combat injuries. - Without acknowledging liability, the government paid about $2.9 million to non-Iranian relatives of passengers aboard the plane. It made no payments to Iranians because their country has filed a claim against the United States in an international court, Justice Department lawyers said. - A number of the Vincennes seamen and officers aboard the Vincennes are still in therapy today