PDA

View Full Version : Repubs Good On Protecting U.S.????



Gayle in MD
03-13-2010, 08:06 AM
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1518

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1903

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1509

wolfdancer
03-13-2010, 04:55 PM
hey, they can't even protect their own....every other day, one of gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar, and it's not always to get his cookies, although when they ain't lining their own pockets....

eg8r
03-15-2010, 11:50 AM
Well, the Dems are doing just great on the protection front. Three terrorist attacks on our soil in the first year, wow, what a pillar of success.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-15-2010, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, the Dems are doing just great on the protection front. Three terrorist attacks on our soil in the first year, wow, what a pillar of success.

eg8r </div></div>

What a ridiculous premise. Absurd on it's face. You obviously don't have a clue about the attacks, nor about who was responsible in each case.

G.

eg8r
03-15-2010, 12:28 PM
It does not matter who was responsible, all three happened on Obama's watch. On top of that TWO of them had to do with airplanes. Only freaking Obama would not believe a terrorist would not be using planes in their attacks. Again, 3 terrorist attacks in the first year. Quite sad. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-15-2010, 12:51 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It does not matter who was responsible, all three happened on Obama's watch. On top of that TWO of them had to do with airplanes. Only freaking Obama would not believe a terrorist would not be using planes in their attacks. Again, 3 terrorist attacks in the first year. Quite sad. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">LMAO, like I said, twisint, twisting, and more twisting....just because you write something, doesn't give it any credibility.

It is the Military senior officers who are being investigated for Ft. Hood, both in the medical field, and on the base.

The number of people on the watch list, has been doubled. So, the ari security left by Bush, has been altered, to be more safe, and your premise, is absurd. Everyone in the field of National Security knows, that only one president had unprecedented wrnings of a coming attack, and did nothing to prevent it, and that was Bush, who chose to stay on vacation, and chop wood, instead of calling together the agency head, in which case, the attack may well have been prevented. What can a president do about an attack, when there is no advance warning/ You blame the wrong person, you should be blaming military officers for Ft. Hood, and you should blame Bush's airport safety, for the underware bomber.

I don't know where you get three attacks????</span>

eg8r
03-15-2010, 12:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the Military senior officers who are being investigated for Ft. Hood, both in the medical field, and on the base.</div></div>Great news, but it does not change the fact that it happened on Obama's watch and he allowed it to happen. If you guys want to act like W allowed 9/11 to happen then cannot ignore your responsibility with the three attacks this year. Hard for you to admit the truth so I will state it here for you...Your guy is dropping the ball on EVERY SINGLE FRONT.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know where you get three attacks????
</div></div>Well, one is easy to forget since it did not impact very many people, but I consider flying a plane on purpose into the IRS building a terrorist attack. Also trying to blow up a plane is considered all over the planet as a terrorist attack. Yes I know, people like you don't like to count that as a terrorist attack because the bomb fouled and your man was vacationing.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
03-15-2010, 01:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the Military senior officers who are being investigated for Ft. Hood, both in the medical field, and on the base.</div></div>Great news, but it does not change the fact that it happened on Obama's watch and he allowed it to happen. If you guys want to act like W allowed 9/11 to happen then cannot ignore your responsibility with the three attacks this year. Hard for you to admit the truth so I will state it here for you...Your guy is dropping the ball on EVERY SINGLE FRONT.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know where you get three attacks????
</div></div>Well, one is easy to forget since it did not impact very many people, but I consider flying a plane on purpose into the IRS building a terrorist attack. Also trying to blow up a plane is considered all over the planet as a terrorist attack. Yes I know, people like you don't like to count that as a terrorist attack because the bomb fouled and your man was vacationing.

eg8r </div></div>

Ed,
Your opinions on these matters are ridiculous, and cannot be compared to the franchising of al Qaeda, huge increases of terrorist attacks all over the world, thousand of American soldiers killed, Iran and North Korea, becoming more and more brazen, and all of the other terrorist attacks if you include domestic terrorist in your equasion, that happened under Bush, including 9/11, for which you blamed Clinton! Eight months into Bush's administration.

You're premise is too ridiculous to address. Dr. Diller, for example, was killed on Bush's watch. The killing and attempted bombing at the Halocaust Museum, under Bush's watch. The Shoe Bomber, on Bush's watch, 9/11, all of the terrorist attacks on our people in Iraq, and Afghanistan, under Bush's eight years, then would also be counted????I could go on, but it's not worth it to me, given your premise is so flawed in the first place...

G.

eg8r
03-15-2010, 04:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your opinions on these matters are ridiculous</div></div>All I am doing is taking your logic and using in the current situation.

eg8r

pooltchr
03-15-2010, 05:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your opinions on these matters are ridiculous</div></div>All I am doing is taking your logic and using in the current situation.

eg8r </div></div>

Logic only works when you use it in discussions with logical people.

Steve

Qtec
03-16-2010, 01:26 AM
eg8r,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Three terrorist attacks <span style='font-size: 17pt'>on our soil</span> in the first year, wow, what a pillar of success.

eg8r </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know where you get three attacks????</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, one is easy to forget since it did not impact very many people, but I consider flying a plane on purpose into the IRS building a terrorist attack. Also trying to blow up a plane is considered all over the planet as a terrorist attack. Yes I know, people like you don't like to count that as a terrorist attack because the bomb fouled and your man was vacationing.

eg8r </div></div>


LMAO. After claiming 3 attacks you could only account for 2.....LOL.......and both of those are wrong.

The first example [ guy flys plane into IRS building ] was not a terrorist, he was a follower!
He was someone who believed the G Beck BS and the Tea P message that Govt is the enemy. Geez, where have you been? Don't you know that the POTUS is not even an American? He is a Muslim who wants to take over the country by offering the less well off basic HC at a affordable price. This guy was not a terrorist , he was a freedom fighter.

The second guy was an enemy combatant not a terrorist...and the incident did not take place on American soil.
For the last 8 years Bush and the GOP have claimed that Al Q is <u>continually</u> trying to kill Americans, so why blame Obama? You can't stop them trying !

Flashback.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. <u>During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. </u>"You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."

And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed. </div></div>

Q

wolfdancer
03-16-2010, 01:46 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the President at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."
</div></div>
If I had a conspiratorial mind....I'd say that this absence allowed the vacationers...to claim plausible denial...
Evidently Herr Bush was not clued in by "our" intelligence agency, of any hint of a terrorist attack....however,we don't know if any foreign Gov'ts , or business associates.... "dropped a dime".
Just may have been "good timing".....

Qtec
03-16-2010, 04:19 AM
Ventura claims that you can't question the Govt,s story on 9/11 without being attacked.
Lets see.

Flashback.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
By JOHN SOLOMON The Associated Press

11:55 a.m. CDT, September 14, 2001

* EmailE-mail
* printPrint
*
Share
* increase text size decrease text size Text Size


WASHINGTON
The Justice Department on Friday released the names of the 19 hijackers involved in Tuesday's terrorist attacks. Many of the 19, several of whom are believed to have had pilot's training, apparently had lived in Florida, New Jersey, Massachusetts.

All had Middle Eastern names.

Among them was Mohamed Atta, 33, of Hollywood and Coral Springs, Fla., identified by German authorities as being tied to an Islamic fundamentalist group that planned attacks on American targets. The Justice Department said Atta was aboard American Airlines Flight 11 that took off from Boston's Logan Airport and crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.

The Justice Department <u>had originally said there were 18 hijackers,</u> but there were five hijackers instead of four on American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon. </div></div>

So that now makes <u>3 planes with 5 hijackers and one with 4.</u> Surely the logical conclusion would be "we are missing a hijacker. Obviously one guy didn't make the plane."

Can you remember the man hunt for the missing terrorist?


Q.......fact was, he was already in custody. To reveal that would show that the tragedy could have been prevented.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">On August 16, 2001, Moussaoui was arrested by Harry Samit of the FBI and INS agents in Minnesota and charged with an immigration violation[19]. Materials itemized when he was arrested included a laptop computer, two knives, flight manuals pertaining to Boeing's 747 aircraft, a flight simulator computer program, fighting gloves and shin guards, and a computer disk with information about crop dusting.[19]

Some agents worried that his flight training had violent intentions, so the Minnesota bureau tried to get permission (sending over 70 emails in a week) to search his laptop, but they were turned down.[20] FBI agent Coleen Rowley made an explicit request for permission to search Moussaoui's personal rooms. This request was first denied by her superior, Deputy General Counsel Marion "Spike" Bowman, and later rejected based upon FISA regulations (amended after 9/11 by the USA Patriot Act). Several further search attempts similarly failed.

FBI watchdog Sen. Chuck Grassley, Republican-Iowa, later wrote to FBI Director Robert Mueller:

If the application for the FISA warrant had gone forward, agents would have found information in Moussaoui's belongings that linked him both to a major financier of the hijacking plot working out of Germany, and to a Malaysian al-Qaida boss who had met with at least two other hijackers while under surveillance by intelligence officials.

Ahmed Ressam, the captured al-Qaeda Millenium Bomber, was at the time sharing information with the U.S. authorities, in an effort to gain leniency in his sentencing. One person whom he was not asked about until after 9/11, but whom he was able to identify when asked as having trained with him at al-Qaeda's Khalden Camp in Afghanistan, was Moussaoui.[21] The 9/11 Commission Report opined that had Ressam been asked about Moussaoui, he would have broken the FBI's logjam.[21] Had that happened, the Report opined, the U.S. might conceivably have disrupted or derailed the September 11 attacks altogether.[21] </div></div> link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Capture)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Flight School Warned F.B.I. of Suspicions

By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 � An instructor at a Minnesota flight school warned the F.B.I. in August of his suspicion that a student who was later identified as a part of Osama bin Laden's terror network might be planning to use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon, a member of Congress and other officials said today.

The officials, who were briefed by the school, said the instructor warned the Federal Bureau of Investigation in urgent tones about the terrorist threat posed by the student, Zacarias Moussaoui. Mr. Moussaoui, a French citizen of Morrocan descent, was indicted last week on charges of conspiring in the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Representative James L. Oberstar of Minnesota, who received the briefing and is the ranking Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, said the instructor called the bureau several times to find someone in authority who seemed willing to act on the information.

Mr. Oberstar said the instructor's warnings could not have been more blunt. The representative said, "He told them, `Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?' " </div></div> link (http://www.prisonplanet.com/flight_school_warned_fbi_of_suspicions.html)


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Administration, agencies failed to connect the dots

By John Diamond and Kathy Kiely, USA TODAY

By Tim Sloan, AFP
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said the threats were vague and uncorroborated.

A few short phrases in a top-secret intelligence summary given to President Bush at his Texas ranch in August 2001 have eroded the notion that the White House had no prior warning of the Sept. 11 attacks and threatened to undermine the president on Capitol Hill. The briefing, which warned that Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization might try to hijack U.S. airliners, wasn't the first such alert. Administration officials disclosed Thursday that the CIA warned Bush as early as last May that al-Qaeda might hijack planes as part of its campaign against the United States.

"Most people thought we didn't have a clue. Now it appears we had a clue," said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb. "We obviously didn't do enough with it."

In isolation, the few terse lines in the loose-leaf briefing book Bush read at his Crawford ranch Aug. 6 might not prove anything. The White House spent much of the day Thursday struggling, amid a flurry of second-guessing, to show how one vague warning fell far short of the kind of specific alert that could have thwarted the terror of Sept. 11.

But word of the Bush briefing follows a series of disclosures indicating that the government had substantial information pointing to a coming assault. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>Official Washington is still reeling over news that an FBI agent in Phoenix specifically warned superiors about suspicious Arabs in Arizona flight schools and urged a nationwide check of other flight schools two months before the terrorist attacks.
</span>
Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill., called the first paragraph of the FBI agent's memo "heart-stopping." A month after the memo was written, Zaccarias Moussouai, a French-Moroccan attending a flight school in Minnesota, was detained by federal authorities. The arrest came 10 days after Bush's briefing and prompted an FBI agent to speculate in case notes that Moussouai might be training for a suicide hijacking mission at the World Trade Center.

Adding to the impression of a disjointed intelligence apparatus, federal law enforcement officials said Thursday that the Justice Department and the FBI received only general information similar to Bush's briefing, rather than the specific memo. A Justice Department official said Attorney General John Ashcroft was focused on warnings about possible terror attacks and hijackings overseas </div></div>
Q

Chilled
03-16-2010, 04:55 AM
Qtec....to an outsider reading this thread eg8r seems to have meant "Ft Hood" as the third incident as GayleMD had already referred to it in her exchange with him. I'm not agreeing with him just pointing out what seems pretty clear from the thread content.

On a separate note, would you agree that the 4 x 5 man team terrorists aspect plus just about everything else you've posted in this thread as evidence tends towards refuting the argument of some 9/11 truthers that the Govt carried out this atrocity and supports the mainline contention that it was probably exactly what it says on the tin ie an attack by muslim extremist terrorists?

That of course wouldn't preclude the possibility that the Govt may have made mistakes and/or may have covered up some mistakes.

Qtec
03-16-2010, 05:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Qtec....to an outsider reading this thread eg8r seems to have meant <u>"Ft Hood" as the third incident</u> as GayleMD had already referred to it in her exchange with him. I'm not agreeing with him just pointing out what seems pretty clear from the thread content. </div></div>

Was there an attack on Ft Hood?
Was there an incident?

Also, eg8r never mentioned the Ft Hood 'incident' as his 3rd example when he had the opportunity to.

Anyway, everyone knows the Ft Hood attack story is a joke.

Q

Chilled
03-16-2010, 06:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Qtec....to an outsider reading this thread eg8r seems to have meant <u>"Ft Hood" as the third incident</u> as GayleMD had already referred to it in her exchange with him. I'm not agreeing with him just pointing out what seems pretty clear from the thread content. </div></div>

Was there an attack on Ft Hood?
Was there an incident?

Also, eg8r never mentioned the Ft Hood 'incident' as his 3rd example when he had the opportunity to.

Anyway, everyone knows the Ft Hood attack story is a joke.

Q

</div></div>

Looking at it coldly without any prejudices or agendas I think most people would probably give eg8r the benefit of the doubt as regards being able to count to three and so with that background in mind and seeing the other thread content, it was pretty clear to me that he meant Ft Hood. I don't appear to have been alone in that assumption.

You gave the impression that you actually wanted to know what the missing third item was, so being one of the few online I just pointed you towards the existing thread content which already suggested to me what the third item was, that's all, with no comments on any rights or wrongs of either of your views.

If the Ft Hood incident transpires to not be the third item which eg8r meant you have my sincere apologies for misleading you.

In case you missed it first time round I'll repeat........"I'm not agreeing with him".

Qtec
03-16-2010, 07:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Looking at it coldly without any prejudices or agendas </div></div>

Exactly as I have done . Again, there was no terrorist attack on Ft Hood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think most people would probably give eg8r the benefit of the doubt </div></div>

I value your input but you don't know eg8r as I do.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You gave the impression that you actually wanted to know what the missing third item was </div></div>

No. I shot down eg8r,s two examples, I am now waiting for 3 examples.

The point is, eg8r's examples are phoney.

He said,
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Three terrorist attacks on our soil in the first year,</span> wow, what a pillar of success.

eg8r </div></div>

Q...........what 3?

pooltchr
03-16-2010, 08:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Anyway, everyone knows the Ft Hood attack story is a joke.

Q

</div></div>

As a proud American, and supporter and former member of the US armed forces, I find that comment quite disturbing. Any attack against our troops is not a joke in my mind.

You have just given us more insight into your feelings about our country.

Steve

Chilled
03-16-2010, 10:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Anyway, everyone knows the Ft Hood attack story is a joke.

Q

</div></div>

As a proud American, and supporter and former member of the US armed forces, I find that comment quite disturbing. Any attack against our troops is not a joke in my mind.

You have just given us more insight into your feelings about our country.

Steve </div></div>

That comment from Q came up in an exchange of posts with me and my first reaction was WTF! similar to yours. However, after thinking about it for a bit it did not seem likely to me that Q, who is clearly not a fool, would ever consider American service people being murdered a joke.

The overall context in which his remark was made suggests that maybe what he was trying to say wasn't that the shooting incident itself was in any way a joke but rather that in his opinion categorising of the shooting spree as a "terrorist attack" was a joke.

I realise that this interpretation of what he meant limits a golden opportunity for jingoism in reply to him but to be fair it is surely the most realistic one.

Gayle in MD
03-16-2010, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your opinions on these matters are ridiculous</div></div>All I am doing is taking your logic and using in the current situation.

eg8r </div></div>

No you aren't. You're twisting the reality completely. The underware guy, for example, was trained by a terrorist who was released by George Bush!

There is no comparison between Bush's expansion of terrorists, and terrorism caused by his policies, his failure to do a damn thing in response to unprecedented warnings of 9/11, and these other failed attempts, you mentioned, one of which eminated from a terrorist released by Bush, dont begin to add up to all the domestic terrorism under Bush, including the Antrax attack, and all of the domestic attacks during Bush's regime.

You are twisting the reality.

G.

pooltchr
03-16-2010, 11:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
maybe what he was trying to say wasn't that the shooting incident itself was in any way a joke but rather that in his opinion categorising of the shooting spree as a "terrorist attack" was a joke.

</div></div>

Perhaps, but when someone who had demonstrated very close ties with muslim extremists decides to go to a military base and start shooting people, while shouting extremist rants, and considering the last events of the last nine years, I don't think a terrorist designation is too far from a given. Either way, I don't think it's a joke.

I await his apology.

Steve

Gayle in MD
03-16-2010, 12:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the Military senior officers who are being investigated for Ft. Hood, both in the medical field, and on the base.</div></div>Great news, but it does not change the fact that it happened on Obama's watch and he allowed it to happen. If you guys want to act like W allowed 9/11 to happen then cannot ignore your responsibility with the three attacks this year. Hard for you to admit the truth so I will state it here for you...Your guy is dropping the ball on EVERY SINGLE FRONT.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't know where you get three attacks????
</div></div>Well, one is easy to forget since it did not impact very many people, but I consider flying a plane on purpose into the IRS building a terrorist attack. Also trying to blow up a plane is considered all over the planet as a terrorist attack. Yes I know, people like you don't like to count that as a terrorist attack because the bomb fouled and your man was vacationing.

eg8r </div></div>
http://washingtonindependent.com/46673/doj-abortion-violence-suits-cratered-under-bush
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">6/12/09The fatal shooting allegedly by a <span style='font-size: 20pt'>known white supremacist at the Holocaust Memorial Museum Wednesday in Washington is the second murder apparently motivated by a hateful ideology</span> that’s come to national attention in the last two weeks. James W. von Brunn, the 88-year-old suspect and convicted felon, was well-known for sending mass e-mail messages such as “It’s time to kill all the Jews” and promoting elaborate conspiracy theories on his Website. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Similarly, Scott Roeder, the 51-year-old accused of murdering abortion provider Dr. George Tiller in his Wichita, Kans. church, had a long history of ties to a violent right-wing extremist group, had previously threatened another abortion provider, and had just that week vandalized Tiller’s clinic.</span>

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin
Just as federal law specifically penalizes hate crimes, the law also makes it a federal crime to threaten or commit violence against abortion providers, or to vandalize their clinics. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Yet as TWI revealed last week, the criminal law was not being enforced. The day after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, TWI obtained data revealing that under the Bush administration, criminal enforcement of the federal law designed to protect abortion providers and clinics had declined by more than 75 </span>percent over the last eight years.

But there’s also a civil component to that federal law, known as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE Act. That part of the law allows the attorney general to seek an injunction and compensatory damages for anyone who’s been harmed by any activity that violates the law. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>And it turns out that the Department of Justice over the last eight years didn’t use that part of the law to protect abortion providers, either.</span>
Under the FACE Act, in addition to criminal charges, the Justice Department can obtain damages and an injunction against anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intimidate or interfere with” anyone who provides or receives reproductive health services. It also allows the government to prosecute and sue anyone who “intentionally damages or destroys the property” of an abortion clinic, because they are frequently vandalized as part of protesters’ intimidation tactics. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>The clinic where Dr. Tiller worked, for example, was repeatedly vandalized, including just days before his murder.</span>
Yet despite these broad powers that Congress granted the attorney general in 1994 to prevent and combat violence against abortion clinics and providers, the Bush administration almost never used them. From 2000 until 2008, during the eight years of the Bush administration, the Justice Department filed only one civil case under the FACE Act. From 1994 until 1999, in contrast, in just five years of the Clinton administration, the Department filed 17 civil cases under the FACE Act — in addition to its much heavier load of criminal cases that we’ve reported before.

It’s possible, of course, that the law was so effective in its early years that it deterred all future violations. “I do think that the statute was very effective,” and “for the most part there were fewer complaints coming to us,” said Cathleen Mahoney, vice president and general counsel of the National Abortion Federation and director of the Justice Department’s Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers until 2006.

But crime statistics provided by the National Abortion Federation show that violence did not stop when the Bush administration came into office. The group reports 3,291 acts of violence against abortion providers in the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2008 – and that’s only the number of incidents they know about. (The total number of incidents in the U.S. alone was not available.) The group warns on its Website that “actual incidents are likely much higher.” That number does not include threats, vandalism and harassment, which are also violations of the FACE Act.

The NAF — the organization that most closely tracks such data in the United States — <span style='font-size: 20pt'>also reports that between 2000 and 2008 there were at least 17 cases of “extreme” violence against abortion providers in the United States, such as arson, stabbing and bomb attacks. At least 607 letters threatening Anthrax contamination (they did not actually contain anthrax) were sent to abortion providers between 2000 and 2002 alone. During the entire eight years of the Bush administration, the federal government prosecuted only 11 individuals for any acts of violence against abortion clinics or providers.</span>Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, although opposed by many abortion-rights advocates for his vehement opposition to keeping abortion legal, did prosecute the infamous anti-abortion activist and convicted felon Clayton Lee Waagner for the anthrax threats, which attracted significant public attention because they were sent just after lawmakers and news organizations received letters containing anthrax spores, prompting nationwide fears of deadly biological terror attacks.

Waagner was an easy target: a fugitive who’d escaped from jail in February 2001 while awaiting sentencing on federal weapons charges, he was already on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted List, the U.S. Marshals Service Fifteen Most Wanted List, and the Ten Most Wanted List of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>He was arrested in November 2001 and promptly claimed responsibility for over 550 anthrax threat letters sent to abortion providers in October and November. The letters were signed by the Army of God, an extremist anti-abortion organization that openly advocates violence against specific physicians who provide abortions. Waagner’s supporters in the Army of God, however, were not prosecuted or even sued for civil damages or injunctions under the FACE Act, although the group was responsible for distributing a manual that supplies detailed instructions for attacking abortion clinics, manufacturing bombs and cutting off the hands of abortion doctors, according to SourceWatch. The FBI has characterized the prosecution of Waagner as a “counterterrorism case,” suggesting that the “Army of God” is considered a domestic terrorist organization by federal law enforcement.</span>
Yet despite the prosecution of Waagner in 2001, the Army of God today continues to do much the same thing. The group and its members continue to support and advocate the murder of abortion providers. Its Website, for example, on Wednesday celebrated the Tiller murder in this banner headline: “The lives of innocent babies scheduled to be murdered by George Tiller are spared by the action of American hero Scott Roeder. George Tiller the Babykiller reaped what he sowed and is now in eternal hell.” It commends previous convicted murderers of abortion doctors as “heroes,” and continues to host the “Nuremberg Files,” a notorious list of the names of abortion providers and recipients, with a line through those that have been killed and names grayed of those who have been murdered. (The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002 found that these constituted threats to the doctors.) As Rachel Maddow recently described the Army of God’s current Website on MSNBC: “You can actually scroll through pages and pages of mug shots and descriptions of bombings and shootings and murders and attempted murders — all praising the perpetrators, and even suggesting ways to get away with the same types of crimes that these people committed but you could do it without getting caught.”

Although such conduct has in the past led to violence, the threats are often not prosecuted by local police. According to Dr. Susan Robinson, who used to perform abortions at the same Wichita clinic as Dr. Tiller did before it was closed: “they allow the anti-abortion protesters to set up dozens of crosses and leave them all day. Dr. Tiller went to the city attorney over the crosses, and complained that people block the clinic driveway,” she told journalist Amy Goodman. “He told me that the city attorney said, ‘I would rather be sued by George Tiller than the anti-abortion folks.’ ”

The federal law was enacted in part to fill in the gaps when local authorities refused or lacked the resources to bring charges. “Often local police won’t enforce the local laws against trespassing,” explained Mahoney, the former federal prosecutor. “It’s politically charged and local police want to stay out of it.” <span style='font-size: 20pt'>During her tenure at the Department of Justice, Mahoney said it was the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department that was charged with enforcing the FACE Act. That’s the same division that Inspector General reports and Congressional hearings eventually revealed repeatedly made hiring and enforcement decisions based on conservative political ideology rather than merit.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>In the one situation in the last eight years that the Bush Justice Department decided did merit a lawsuit, in 2007, the charges were so serious that it’s not clear why the administration filed a civil suit rather than criminal charges. </span>The federal government sought only an injunction – essentially, a court order telling the defendant to stop.

But this was no mere schoolyard-style harassment. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>According to the legal complaint filed by the Justice Department, John Dunkle, another member of the “Army of God”, had been publishing a monthly Web newsletter “encouraging readers of his publications to use deadly force against specifically identified reproductive health clinic physicians and staff, providing instruction on how to employ deadly force tactics; provoking physical and verbal confrontations with reproductive health clinic physicians, staff and patients at various clinics” and “publishing internet postings containing photographs and the home addresses of reproductive health clinic physicians and staff,” among other things.</span>
The government also claimed that he “threatened a specific female clinic physician until she ceased providing reproductive health services in fear of the Defendants’ threats to her life.”

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Those threats included “explicitly encourag[ing] his readers to kill the targeted individual by shooting her in the head”; publishing her name, photo and home address on his Web page and blog; and publishing instructions “regarding the specific means to kill the targeted individual, as well as how to escape detection upon the commission of her murder.” Such postings dated back more than two years, identifying the same person.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>There is no question that such threats are criminal under the federal law, say legal experts. “Physical obstruction is not protected, violence is not protected and true threats are not protected,”</span> said Louise Melling, Director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, which has submitted several amicus briefs to courts defending the constitutionality of the federal law. A “true threat” has been defined by the courts has a threat that would reasonably be interpreted by the person hearing it as a serious threat to their safety.

Yet in the case of John Dunkle, whose threats caused a reproductive health provider to quit her profession, the government did not seek criminal penalties or even any monetary damages to compensate the victims and deter future crimes; it simply asked the court to tell him to stop.

Department of Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar said that department officials decide whether or not to prosecute or seek damages in cases “on a case-by-case basis, and a number of factors are taken into account, including — among others — whether there is an identifiable subject and whether the matter is being pursued by local officials.” He was not aware of whether Dunkle had been prosecuted for related acts under state law, and there was no indication in the documents filed in the federal case that he had been.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Threats against abortion providers appears to have had a serious impact on the availability of the procedure, and particularly on the ability of women to obtain legal later-term abortions, even when the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life.</span> According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, only two percent of all abortion providers in the United States currently provide such procedures, which are most heavily targeted by extremist anti-abortion groups. <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Women most commonly seek such abortions due to abnormalities of the fetus and threats to a woman’s health or life, </span>and in many states they’re only legal if the woman’s health or life is in danger. Dr. Tiller and his clinic were therefore frequent targets of both violent threats and actions, up until the day before his death.

The FACE Act was adopted to prevent and prosecute this sort of violence, in part because Congress concluded that existing state laws and local law enforcement were unable to do the job on their own.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>When President Clinton signed the FACE Act in 1994, he said: “We simply cannot – we must not – continue to allow the attacks, the incidents of arson, the campaigns of intimidation upon law-abiding citizens that (have) given rise to this law,” citing the murder of Dr. David Gunn in Florida in 1993, and the shooting of Dr. Tiller in both arms outside his clinic in Wichita that same year.</span>“No person seeking medical care, no physician providing that care should have to endure harassments or threats or obstruction or intimidation or even murder from vigilantes who take the law into their own hands because they think they know what the law ought to be.”

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>The statistics on enforcement of the FACE Act by the Justice Department suggest that during the Bush administration, protecting those physicians was no longer a high priority.</span>

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

eg8r
03-16-2010, 06:05 PM
So you agree with me that Obama has dropped the ball. I know simple answers are tough when ranting is your forte.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2010, 06:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
LMAO. After claiming 3 attacks you could only account for 2.....LOL.......and both of those are wrong.</div></div>You are one seriously dumb schmuck. You idiot, Gayle had already stated one her in post. It was the one that she kept referring to. As far as your little brain not being able to understand the other two, oh well.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2010, 06:10 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was there an attack on Ft Hood? </div></div>Yep, you just proved why you are the resident village idiot. I did not have to mention it since Gayle already did. Chilled could figure it out but your simple little mind.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2010, 06:13 PM
You really are a fool.

eg8r

eg8r
03-16-2010, 06:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No you aren't. You're twisting the reality completely. The underware guy, for example, was trained by a terrorist who was released by George Bush!</div></div>It does not matter who trained him, it was still a terrorist attack. If we leave it up to people like you, all our terrorist prisoners will be released after their trip to NYC for a court date.

eg8r

Qtec
03-17-2010, 01:24 AM
My mistake. I was thinking of the Ft Dix six escapade.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Any attack against our troops is not a joke in my mind. </div></div>

I agree.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You have just given us more insight into your feelings about our country. </div></div>

I thought you knew me better than that.

Q

Gayle in MD
03-17-2010, 01:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So you agree with me that Obama has dropped the ball. I know simple answers are tough when ranting is your forte.

eg8r </div></div>
Pretty absurd response to my last post.

We had far more terrorist attacks during the Bush Aministration, domestic and al Qaeda related...far more, than ever before, or after Bush left office.


That's it for you, again... Ed. I should have known you would not be able to debate without the usual republican tactics, lies, twisting of facts, relentless personal attacks.

If that was appealing to me I could turn on Beck, Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly.

C ya.

pooltchr
03-17-2010, 07:42 AM
Apology accepted.

Steve