That's the problem, they can't attack Fitzgerald...sm
Posted By: Democrat on 2005-10-31
In Reply to: Yes, AJ, don't forget the - always popular--sm- Starcat
I liked when one of the reports suggested that he would be seen as a political hack and he responded *to which party?* I think it's good that this not be a politically motivated special prosecutor just one who wants justice. I like Fitzgerald I think with his attitude and integrity he would make an awesome president!!!
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Why do you feel the desperate need to attack, attack, attack....
what IS it about Obama that inspires this kind of thing? I guess you don't get it when someone is being facetious do you? Read the whole thread...including the part about celestial choirs, which was said by one of Obama's supporters.
The smoke machines and strobe lights was definitely a joke, one can only hope they would not do something so ridiculous but who knows....Britney Spears' set designer designed that set.
So much for no celebrity status. LOL.
Fitzgerald Launches Web Site
washingtonpost.com
Fitzgerald Launches Web Site
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, October 21, 2005; 1:00 PM
Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has just launched his own brand-new Web site.
Could it be that he's getting ready to release some new legal documents? Like, maybe, some indictments? It's certainly not the action of an office about to fold up its tents and go home.
Fitzgerald spokesman Randall Samborn minimized the significance of the Web launch in an interview this morning.
I would strongly caution, Dan, against reading anything into it substantive, one way or the other, he said. It's really a long overdue effort to get something on the Internet to answer a lot of questions that we get . . . and to put up some of the documents that we have had ongoing and continued interest in having the public be able to access.
OK, OK. But will the Web site be used for future documents as well?
The possibility exists, Samborn said.
Among the documents currently available on the site:
* The December 30, 2003, memo from then-acting attorney general James B. Comey establishing Fitzgerald as an independent special counsel with all the authority of the Attorney General with respect to the Department's investigation into the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity.
* A Feb. 6, 2004, follow-up confirming that his mandate includes the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation.
The Web site is bare bones and is still a work in progress, Samborn said. We have some document formatting issues that we're still resolving. As a result, the site has not yet been officially announced -- although there is a link from Fitzgerald's home page as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois.
Up until now, the only official repository for documents related to the special counsel's investigation had been a page on the U.S. District Court's Web site. But it only included court motions and rulings.
Incidentally, if you call the number the new Web site lists for Fitzgerald's D.C. office, the phone is somewhat mysteriously answered counterespionage section.
But as Samborn explained to me, that's because the special prosecutor is borrowing space in the Justice Department's Bond Building from the counterespionage section. The office of special counsel doesn't really have its own dedicated space, he said.
From the way Fitzgerald spoke in the press conference...sm
S. Libby has A LOT to be worried about. It seems he's a bald face liar, and I think what would be interesting to find out is why would he lie and say he didn't even know who Plame was under oath having been briefed on her at least 4 times before coming to court. I smell smoke...
Isn't Fitzgerald's grand injury investigation into Rove, et al.
about to come to an end soon?
I think October is going to be a very interesting month. 
Hurry up Fitzgerald..Im waiting to throw a party!
It's Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby
By Frank Rich
The New York Times
Sunday 16 October 2005
There hasn't been anything like it since Martha Stewart fended off questions about her stock-trading scandal by manically chopping cabbage on The Early Show on CBS. Last week the setting was Today on NBC, where the image of President Bush manically hammering nails at a Habitat for Humanity construction site on the Gulf Coast was juggled with the sight of him trying to duck Matt Lauer's questions about Karl Rove.
As with Ms. Stewart, Mr. Bush's paroxysm of panic was must-see TV. The president was a blur of blinks, taps, jiggles, pivots and shifts, Dana Milbank wrote in The Washington Post. Asked repeatedly about Mr. Rove's serial appearances before a Washington grand jury, the jittery Mr. Bush, for once bereft of a script, improvised a passable impersonation of Norman Bates being quizzed by the detective in Psycho. Like Norman and Ms. Stewart, he stonewalled.
That stonewall may start to crumble in a Washington courtroom this week or next. In a sense it already has. Now, as always, what matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.
Mr. Wilson and his wife were trashed to protect that larger plot. Because the personnel in both stories overlap, the bits and pieces we've learned about the leak inquiry over the past two years have gradually helped fill in the über-narrative about the war. Last week was no exception. Deep in a Wall Street Journal account of Judy Miller's grand jury appearance was this crucial sentence: Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group.
Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.
Of course, the official Bush history would have us believe that in August 2002 no decision had yet been made on that war. Dates bracketing the formation of WHIG tell us otherwise. On July 23, 2002 - a week or two before WHIG first convened in earnest - a British official told his peers, as recorded in the now famous Downing Street memo, that the Bush administration was ensuring that the intelligence and facts about Iraq's W.M.D.'s were being fixed around the policy of going to war. And on Sept. 6, 2002 - just a few weeks after WHIG first convened - Mr. Card alluded to his group's existence by telling Elisabeth Bumiller of The New York Times that there was a plan afoot to sell a war against Saddam Hussein: From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.
The official introduction of that product began just two days later. On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud, and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in A Pretext for War, writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage.
The administration's doomsday imagery was ratcheted up from that day on. As Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post would determine in the first account of WHIG a full year later, the administration's escalation of nuclear rhetoric could be traced to the group's formation. Along with mushroom clouds, uranium was another favored image, the Post report noted, because anyone could see its connection to an atomic bomb. It appeared in a Bush radio address the weekend after the Rice-Cheney Sunday show blitz and would reach its apotheosis with the infamously fictional 16 words about uranium from Africa in Mr. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address on the eve of war.
Throughout those crucial seven months between the creation of WHIG and the start of the American invasion of Iraq, there were indications that evidence of a Saddam nuclear program was fraudulent or nonexistent. Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence to back up uranium claims, took place nearly a year before the president's 16 words. But the truth never mattered. The Bush-Cheney product rolled out by Card, Rove, Libby & Company had been bought by Congress, the press and the public. The intelligence and facts had been successfully fixed to sell the war, and any memory of Mr. Bush's errant 16 words melted away in Shock and Awe. When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took responsibility for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG.
It was not until the war was supposedly over - with Mission Accomplished, in May 2003 - that Mr. Wilson started to add his voice to those who were disputing the administration's uranium hype. Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut him down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us.
It's long been my hunch that the WHIG-ites were at their most brazen (and, in legal terms, reckless) during the many months that preceded the appointment of Mr. Fitzgerald as special counsel. When Mr. Rove was asked on camera by ABC News in September 2003 if he had any knowledge of the Valerie Wilson leak and said no, it was only hours before the Justice Department would open its first leak investigation. When Scott McClellan later declared that he had been personally assured by Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby that they were not involved with the leak, the case was still in the safe hands of the attorney general then, John Ashcroft, himself a three-time Rove client in past political campaigns. Though Mr. Rove may be known as Bush's brain, he wasn't smart enough to anticipate that Justice Department career employees would eventually pressure Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself because of this conflict of interest, clearing the way for an outside prosecutor as independent as Mr. Fitzgerald.
Bush's Brain is the title of James Moore and Wayne Slater's definitive account of Mr. Rove's political career. But Mr. Rove is less his boss's brain than another alliterative organ (or organs), that which provides testosterone. As we learn in Bush's Brain, bad things (usually character assassination) often happen to Bush foes, whether Ann Richards or John McCain. On such occasions, Mr. Bush stays compassionately above the fray while the ruthless Mr. Rove operates below the radar, always separated by a layer of operatives from any ill behavior that might implicate him. There is no crime, just a victim, Mr. Moore and Mr. Slater write of this repeated pattern.
THIS modus operandi was foolproof, shielding the president as well as Mr. Rove from culpability, as long as it was about winning an election. The attack on Mr. Wilson, by contrast, has left them and the Cheney-Libby tag team vulnerable because it's about something far bigger: protecting the lies that took the country into what the Reagan administration National Security Agency director, Lt. Gen. William Odom, recently called the greatest strategic disaster in United States history.
Whether or not Mr. Fitzgerald uncovers an indictable crime, there is once again a victim, but that victim is not Mr. or Mrs. Wilson; it's the nation. It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another victory for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war.
Fitzgerald renews interest in Rezko-Obama deal...
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=83760
attack once again
I am not bitter, I am not hateful. I know what is good for the country and it isnt what is in Washington, DC right now. The proof is there by the way this country is going to hell in a handbasket. I want this country to turn around and become the country I grew up with, the country I was once proud to be a part of. Im fighting to turn the craziness around for future generations and the way to do it is to speak and debate and let the people know there is another way to run this country other than what we have right now. You are the one who is getting so hot headed and attacking me and calling me vile, hateful, etc. Im just debating and stating my political stance and putting the blame where it belongs..on this administration. When something is wrong, I say so. I do not give my respect blindly. The administration, whether republican or democrat, earns my respect and this administration has not earned my trust, loyalty or respect. The 1990s were a great time, we had a surplus, no major terrorist war going on, no terrorist breeding ground of our own making as we now have, Saddam was contained and his people at least had electricity, jobs, food, a stable life, we had low unemployment. The 1980s were a great time too. The reality now is we are in a terrible situation in this country and we are not respected around the world. We really have no friends that will help us in Iraq, the ones that are there are pulling out..Italy in 09/2005 and now the talking heads are stating the British might just put pressure on Blair to start pulling out. We are in a situation of this administrations doing and Im not willing to just sit quietly and let the powers that be continue to drive us deeper and deeper into world wide insanity.
why must you ALWAYS attack?
How does it feel, MT? How does it feel to be painted in the same picture as terrorists? Not too nice, hun? Well, that is how I felt when you said I would chain myself to the gates at the WH and blow myself up (not exact words), when you grouped me in with terrorists. You have a big habit of calling people insane, crazy, lunatic and this makes me wonder if your sanity is intact as when others post, they do not attack personally but you always do. If the poster does not agree with you or posts something that you do not like, they are labeled insane or other not so nice words. Cant you debate without attacking?
You have done nothing but attack
every single poster on this board. You are rude, crude, obnoxious, insulting and totally intolerant. I realize these are considered compliments in your narrow-minded circles, but most reasonable Americans don't care for people who behave as you insist on behaving.
How's it feel to be treated the way you treat others?
Nuff said.
once again a mad dog attack by the right
You dont think rationally. Where on this board did anyone state Bush caused the hurricane? Just fling your hate towards the liberals and your baseless arguments. First of all, Bush isnt doing anything to help the victims of the hurricane, the workers are, the police, fire fighters, government workers, etc.
Attack?
This is a bit of a quandry. Again, you feel the need to label me. What if I am none of those things? I have never attacked, used a harsh word, made an accusation, nor called a name on this board. I HAVE made observations based on what I see. I am not sure how you conduct discourse with people in your life outside of this board, but I would like to assume that others are allowed their own set of values and facts without being labeled and without specious statements being made against them.
to attack, I would have to
consider you a threat. Unfortunately, I just find your repetitive posts mind-numbingly feeble. You look up a word on Google like socialist, read the two-line definition and then post it over and over and over. You have no depth of knowledge on any of the subjects discussed here and so your posts are absolutely worthless. It is like having to tolerate a homely little first-grader at a book club discussing Shakesphere. You think you are cute and smart, but the adults loathe you.
Only the ones who continually attack and lie.
You're disturbed because I proved (yet again) that she's a liar, but you're not disturbed that she maliciously attacks each and every single poster who dares to even THINK about disagreeing with her?
Tells me pretty much all I need to know about you. 
If you like liars and bullies, go back to the Conservative boad.
May God help us all if we get another terror attack.
This president has ignored every single thing ever suggested to him, even as it regards terrorism. I wonder what the terrorists will be planning for us in the future and how much information and knowledge they've learned from this about our weak spots. They must see American frustration with Bush's incompetence, and they must really be enjoying that. This is AMERICA. We're supposed to have our act together.
I don't see this as an attack and obviously neither did Lurker. sm
Please look to your own back yard.
It was not meant as an attack, I
that it might not be the wisest idea to go to a *liberal* board and call yourself something that runs counter to their belief system, and then expect to be treated like a long-lost son.
Further, I said the Democrats frustrate me to no end, and it is precisely for the very reasons you stated. They were too afraid of being branded as **unpatriotic** and **unsupportive of the troops**, blah,blah,blah. In their defense, however, sometimes they simply have not had the votes to over ride the president's agenda. Thank goodness for people like Murtha.
I apologize if you felt I was attacking you, as I think we have found some common ground. I think the other thing that happens is that sometimes words, if not chosen extra carefully, can come off sounding what they are not.
see...that's the thing. It's your right to attack if you want....
and I defend that right. But your way of handling opposition is akin to jack-booted thugs and arm-twisting. If that is the way you choose to voice your opposition, more power to you. Don't understand it, but don't have to. It is certainly your right. Whatever floats your boat.
I don't care how much you attack me....
go ahead. Apparently that is what gets your ticker going. Knock yourself out.
attack the messenger
Here we go again - Rove's tactic of personal attacks on those who bring forth damaging information. Media matters states inaccuracies of the press on both sides. They back their statements up with proof and facts. You can argue they are "left" "right" "middle" or "ovoid" but they still present information and back it up with verifiable facts.
If you can't refute, attack.........nm
nm
If you can't refute, attack. lol. nm
nm
When you can't refute, you attack. lol. nm
nm
Again, you can't refute, so you attack....
which reflects more negatively on you than on me.
Your posts provide no useful information...you employ the Alinsky method, if you don't know anything about the subject you just attack. If you knew anything about socialism, about black liberation theology, had bothered to read Obama's agenda and still concluded he was not a socialist you are so far in denial a backhoe could not dig you out.
Actually, it is Shakespeare. Perhaps you would be better served to pay more attention to the homely first-grader...you adult, you. lol.
Sounded like an attack to me. And in the..
grand scheme of things, why is it important to you that I admit I am something I am not??
ACK! HEART ATTACK!
Did someone just apologize on this board?!?!??!
By golly I think we are gettin somewhere! Maybe we ain't all rurnt!
(South Georgia :-D )
You people who attack
Sarah Palin for her lack of experience just kill me here. You discredit all the experience she has by saying that being governor means nothing when previous presidents were governors prior to their presidency. She has run a state and has done a successful job at it and yet you Obama supports refuse to see that. You feel more compelled to discuss her clothes or how she should stay home with the kids instead of running for office. Which is a horribly sexist thing to say.
You refuse to see anything positive she has done in her career and cry that she lacks experience and yet you are so blind to see that Barrack Obama has very little experience himself. He has climbed the ladder through the help of various radicals and crooks. Obama has all these associations with radicals and racists people and you see nothing wrong with that? He has requested more spending for earmarks and pork in 4 years than John McCain has during his whole career. Obama wants to spend more of OUR money.
Government has really messed things up. Why do we want bigger government when government has already failed us? Yet here we are putting our trust in a man who has questionable associations just because he promises change.....change that he can't possibly deliver on and if he does......there goes the country. He wants more government spending, higher taxes, and bigger government.
I'm sorry but I want smaller government, less government spending, and don't raise taxes during a recession.
Or another terror attack. Or a
biological attack. Or a flu pandemic. Lots of scenarios available for his use. 
I share your fears 100%.
You must mean a terrorIST attack, because sm
We are attacked by people who call themselves terrorists. Unless of course, you have terror attacks like some people have panic attacks.
A financial attack?
Tell that to the thousands who lost their lives or their loved ones that day. Wow, how cold can you be?
Cyber attack has hit
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/11/20/pentagon-cyber-siege-unprecedented-attack/
The Pentagon has suffered from a cyber attack so alarming that it has taken the unprecedented step of banning the use of external hardware devices, such as flash drives and DVD's, FOX News has learned.
The attack came in the form of a global virus or worm that is spreading rapidly throughout a number of military networks.
"We have detected a global virus for which there has been alerts, and we have seen some of this on our networks," a Pentagon official told FOX News. "We are now taking steps to mitigate the virus."
The official could not reveal the source of the attack because that information remains classified.
"Daily there are millions of scans of the GIG, but for security reasons we don't discuss the number of actual intrusions or attempts, or discuss specific measures commanders in the field may be taking to protect and defend our networks," the department said in an official statement.
Military computers are often referred to as part of the Global Information Grid, or GIG, a system composed of 17 million computers, many of which house classified or sensitive information.
FOX News obtained a copy of one memo sent out last week to an Army division within the Pentagon warning of the cyber attack.
"Due to the presence of commercial malware, CDR USSTRATCOM has banned the use of removable media (thumb drives, CDRs/DVDRs, floppy disks) on all DoD networks and computers effective immediately."
how was that a personal attack?
telling you you aren't better than everyone? At least I'm not callng people mentally challenged. yes i know that wasn't you, you are the friend that just laughs along with the bully...
and if you wanna point fingers about me not responding the way you think I should have, i dont see you responding to the person giving their opinion on what trickle up means...
give it a rest it's freaking Christmas time
you obviously HAVE to have the last word so i'll let you have it. pretty pathetic that you spend your time trying to cut other people down... is that also a personal attack?
Right. Where they can plot again to attack us.
nm
It was more of an attack of the protestors by the
xx
No one seriously questions that the attack on
Actually, I'm embarassed that our notion of "torture" is so wimpy. "You can put a caterpillar in his cell, but you must inform him that it is not a stinging caterpillar". PUHLEEZE.
What is pathetic is you liberals calling any of this torture - which you are doing purely to make political points, pure and simple. How people like Jews who survived the Holocaust and who have really been tortured must laugh at your quaint ideas!
"Oooh - they gave a prisoner a nasty look! Oooh - they spoke loudly to a prisoner! Oooh - they piped bad music into their cells! Oooh - they burned the prisoner's toast! Oooh - they didn't fluff the prisoner's pillows! Oooh - they opened the prisoner's mail! Oooh - they didn't give the prisoner a second helping of Beef Wellington!"
You people make me sick, and it makes me sick to think that, thanks to Obama, what AL Qaida actually knows is that our notion of torture amounts to nothing more painful than making them watch old episodes of "I Love Lucy" (with a doctor in attendance, of course, in case the prisoner faints from boredom).
I just hope we can all survive it and that the next attack isn't
smallpox, because after 4 years, we STILL don't have enough vaccines to protect Americans. That's something that should have been a priority, but you're right. He doesn't care how many people die under his watch. He said so himself regarding his legacy: He'll be dead.
I'm sure not celebrating what he does. All I can do is hold my breath for the next 3 years and hope he can do no further HARM of a permanent nature.
I wonder how many American deaths he's going to be responsible for through neglect and obsession with Iraq before the end of 2008.
And yes, I'm angry because I think we're morally STUCK in Iraq. Bush broke it, and we will all be fixing it for generations to come.
Better than a yellow dog attack by a liberal. SM
And if you would look, Cindy Sheehan and Robert Kennedy Jr. said it.
How about stepping out of attack mode for just one sec. sm
You can't even put aside your Bush hatred. You use it to decry a human diaster just a few days old. I picture you perched on the edge of your DE-VAN, head thrust forward, scanning the channels for stories you can plug into the DU, get the info, and post it here. PEOPLE ARE DYING, SUFFERING. What is WRONG with you!!!!
lets debate, not attack
Do I, really? I only attack when I am attacked and anyone looking over the posts, archives and all, will see that..Post something to debate and I will debate, however, dont start throwing insults during the debate if it isnt going your way..which has happened..I can remember a debate on Global Warming..We debated, as soon as it was looking good towards my opinion, I was told I knew nothing, I was stupid, etc..You want a debate..lets do it..I belonged to the debate club of my college, I love debates..Come on..introduce something to debate on and I will debate you, as I bet so will other liberals..Lets debate and stop attacking..attacks gets us no where, debates just might open a few eyes..
You consider *it would be so nice if you weren't here* an attack? sm
Wow.
An example of your attack.. See below where I posted an editorial
w
Her true reason is to attack.
She made that abundantly clear in her post. I'm just ignoring her from now on. She's not worth the hassle.
I think he is bracing himself for the attack dogs first.sm
Like everyone else, he knows what the consequences are for speaking out. I'm sure the MSM have a smear campaign planned if he does.
An example - UW professor still under attack for beliefs.sm
http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/local/index.php?ntid=90930&ntpid=1
This post was not an attack against Bush...sm
Even though WE were the slow on the draw, and I think the pres needs to work on that.
Your response was not so typical (well maybe) because I don't see where Bush is getting bashed here, but if you feel you must bring that up he should be working on a Crisis Intervention Task Force - a group who can think fast and make sound, quick decisions in times of crisis involving American Citizens.
Quite frankly, the media is being VERY unfair to the people who were trapped in Lebanon calling them whiners, ingrates, etc. When they speak they are not singling out people who complained (which I don't care if they complained, and why should you?), they speak as if the whole group was ingrateful, complained, and deserved to stay in the middle of a war zone.
Why don't watch the clip in the link above? You might get a different perspective yourself.
Their best defense is an ad hominem attack against us. sm
That's the most I will say. I don't want them running to the moderator. 
What I said was hardly a personal attack, Fern. sm
It was an observation. I think I know who you are, hiding there behind all those forest nicknames.
Attack versus observation
So if someone called me a big, fat, smelly, ugly, loud-mouthed, foul hag that could qualify as an observation (in your words) and would therefore be acceptable? I mean, technically someone could say they OBSERVED these traits in me. When does something cross the line and become a personal attack?
My take on all this is that if it originates from one of the C-posters it's an observation. If it originates from an L-poster it's an attack. Not always, but in general. Could be due to the whole political board system have a very very far right-leaning slant........
Clarification...when one perceives attack I should say...
but then she views anything a conservative posts as an attack. Even when I tried to basically get along...and I did try. At least one of you on this board recognized that.
Have a good day, kam. :-)
Personal attack politics. You really don't know any other way...do you?
Says more about you than me.
I think his dad died of a heart attack at 70? nm
.
You will be glad they are there if we have a major attack...
like a gas attack, a major bombing, dirty bomb, etc. They are trained to handle that situation. The National Guard is not...hence what happened at Kent State. If you would prefer, lobby your congress to have your national guard trained to do this RATHER than the army. Did you ever stop and think this is yet another deterrent to any terrorists who might think about attacking us again? They have faced our military and our military put them on the run. I think it is a great idea. The army are not a bunch drooling bully wingnuts out to strip your civil liberties. They are trying to PROTECT your rights and your physical personf or that matter. They are invested in protecting this nation. they are better equipped to do that than the national guard is.
|
