Suspect in Madrid Bombings Was Under Scrutiny in 3 Countries

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Mar 16, 2004.

  1. zimv20 macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002

    (emphasis mine)

    all right, this is really frustrating to me. like many others, i believe the real fight against terrorism must take place w/ intelligence and police techniques. in this case we have a suspect that aroused a lot of interest, but there just weren't enough resources available.

    is it at all conceivable to the bush administration to take maybe one or two billion earmarked for iraq and pump it into intelligence cooperation? or logistical support for other nations? seems that this approach is getting short shrift.
  2. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Jul 4, 2003
    Terlingua, Texas
    "Short shrift"? How would we know? Our only information comes from the media, and I really doubt that official pronunciamentos--beyond what we've seen--will increase. I doubt that it's wise to shout from the rooftops just what's being done. Anything we learn will also become known to the Bad Guys. The terrorists have a lot going for them, already, insofar as hiding and evading; witness the article's comment about the very large black market in false IDs, and one-time cell phone use.

    It's the same media today as it was when they were asking about the date and time of day for the beginning of Desert Storm, and what were our battlefield tactics going to be. What with it being an election year, with the usual twisting of any and all statements for political gain, I'd doubt the Bushies will say "Boo!" about what's being done, beyond some sort of "We're making progress."

    I imagine there's a helluva lot of "warfare in the shadows" that never makes it into the news. I also figure we're gonna be in the dark on a lot of stuff for another five or ten years--if not longer.

    Remember, we're having to make a very large effort to get back to Humint instead of Elint. Kerry's vote in favor of the CIA being disallowed from using crooks and criminals helped put us in the shape we're in insofar as knowing who's doing what to whom. People will do anything for money, including betrayal. (You think the people in the U.S. who are in the false ID business care whether it's "merely a wetback" or a terrorist? Do they ask?)


  3. numediaman macrumors 6502a

    Jan 5, 2004
    Chicago (by way of SF)
    See, this is the kind of thing that pisses me off. One Senator casts a vote, along with 100% of his colleagues, and the White House uses it to launch an outrageous attack. The vote in question had nothing to do with the use of criminals. That vote you mentioned took place years ago and concerned the discovery in the 70's that the CIA had been involved in illegal assassination plots, was using criminals to sway events in countries supposedly aligned with U.S. In other words, it reigned in the CIA -- thank God.

    Concerning the 1995 vote:
    The truth is, the cuts passed by voice vote with no opposition, including such radical "left-wingers" as Republicans Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum and Don Nickles. The so-called "cuts" then became law, without a single Republican complaining about the measure for the nine years prior to the 2004 Presidential campaign. Fred Kaplan, writing for Slate, makes this point: "Kerry's proposal would not have cut a single intelligence program." What the Republicans don't want you to know is that John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years - a 50 percent increase since 1996.

    There are lies, damned lies and Bushisms – Mark Twain (slightly revised)

    Why isn't Bush running on his record instead of running a dirty campaign? (rhetorical question)
  4. Sayhey macrumors 68000


    May 22, 2003
    San Francisco

    read this article on Kerry's vote on the intelligence budget by Fred Kaplan over at Slate. It is helpful to have the facts so one doesn't swallow the disinformation of the Bush Campaign whole.
  5. zimv20 thread starter macrumors 601


    Jul 18, 2002
    you are absolutely correct that i don't know the full picture of what's being done, intelligence and police-wise, to combat terrorism. but i still think what's being done either isn't enough or isn't being emphasized by the administration. so what factors lead me to that conclusion?
    • the lack of resources available to catch the spanish bombing guy
    • from WH statements, etc, the complete over-emphasis of war
    • the colossal difference in budget
    • the WH's tendency to be wholly uncooperative w/ foreign agencies, particularly those of countries against w/ bush holds a grudge
    • the fact that non-sexy things like beefing up security at chemical plants in the US is being all but ignored
    • the history of this administration using its own intelligence mechanism and excluding others
    • a nearly complete lack of mention of intelligence cooperation from any WH official
    • the announcement the other week that the search for UBL had just gone 24/7
    yeah, i have no hard evidence, but in light of the above, it's very difficult for me to imagine that intelligence/police actions are receiving the full interest and attention from the WH that it deserves, or that it's getting its due. iow, "short shrift"
  6. mactastic macrumors 68040


    Apr 24, 2003

    Hmmm, funny that when it's us criticizing Bush you are always cautioning us against attacking just for the sake of attacking someone, but now that the shoe is on the other foot you have no problem disregarding your own advice. I'm sure you can come up with a justification for it, but this kind of statement is nothing more than the type of thing you rail against.

    And wasn't it just the other day you were telling us how the POTUS can't really effect change in things like sex-ed, yet here you claim a single senator is responsible for gutting the security of the United States. Sounds like fuzzy logic to me.

Share This Page