Juval Aviv was the Israeli Agent upon whom the movie ' Munich ' was based. He was Golda Meir's bodyguard, and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games.
In a lecture in New York City he shared information that EVERY American needs to know -- but that our government has not yet shared with us.
He predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week. At the time, O'Reilly laughed, and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show. Unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack had occurred.
Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East ) to the Bush Administration about 9/11, a month before it occurred. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. Congress has since hired him as a security consultant.
Now for his future predictions. He predicts the next terrorist attack on the U.S. will occur within the next few months.
Forget hijacking airplanes, because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as they know the people onboard will never go down quietly again. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke -- that we have been reactionary rather than proactive in developing strategies that are truly effective.
For example:
1) Our airport technology is outdated. We look for metal, and the new explosives are made of plastic.
2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire. Because of that, now everyone has to take off their shoes. A group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives. Now we can't bring liquids on board. He says he's waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on his underwear; at which point, security will have us all traveling naked!
Every strategy we have is reactionary.
3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates.
Aviv says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times on the front end of the airport when/where people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink, and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. In Israel , security checks bags BEFORE people can even ENTER the airport.
Aviv says the next terrorist attack here in America is imminent and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places where large groups of people congregate. (i.e., Disneyland, Las Vegas casinos, big cities (New York, San Francisco, Chicago, etc.) and that it will also include shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, etc., as well as, rural America this time. The interlands ( Wyoming , Montana , etc.).
The attack will be characterized by simultaneous detonations around the country (terrorists like big impact), involving at least 5-8 cities, including rural areas.
Aviv says terrorists won't need to use suicide bombers in many of the larger cities, because at places like the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, they can simply valet park a car loaded with explosives and walk away.
Aviv says all of the above is well known in intelligence circles, but that our U. S. Government does not want to 'alarm American citizens' with the facts. The world is quickly going to become 'a different place', and issues like 'global warming' and political correctness will become totally irrelevant.
On an encouraging note, he says that Americans don't have to be concerned about being nuked. Aviv says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons. They like to use suicide as a front-line approach. It's cheap, it's easy, it's effective; and they have an infinite abundance of young militants more than willing to 'meet their destiny'.
He also says the next level of terrorists, over which America should be most concerned, will not be coming from abroad. But will be, instead, 'homegrown', having attended and been educated in our own schools and universities right here in the US . He says to look for 'students' who frequently travel back and forth to the Middle East . These young terrorists will be most dangerous because they will know our language and will fully understand the habits of Americans; but that we Americans won't know/understand a thing about them
Aviv says that, as a people, Americans are unaware and uneducated about the terrorist threats we will inevitably face. America still has only a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks, and Aviv says it is critical that we change that fact SOON.
So, what can America do to protect itself? From an intelligence perspective, Aviv says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence. We need to, instead, follow Israel 's, Ireland 's and England 's hands-on examples of human intelligence, both from an infiltration perspective as well as to pay attention to, and trust 'aware' citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens; however, our U. S. government continues to treat us, its citizens, 'like babies'. Our government thinks we 'can't handle the truth' and are concerned that we'll panic if we understand the realities of terrorism. Aviv says this is a deadly mistake.
Aviv recently created/executed a security test for our Congress, by placing an empty briefcase in five well-traveled spots in five major cities. The results? Not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago , someone tried to steal the briefcase!
In comparison, Aviv says that citizens of Israel are so well 'trained' that an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds by citizen(s) who know to publicly shout, 'Unattended Bag!' The area would be quickly & calmly cleared by the citizens themselves.
Unfortunately, America hasn't been yet 'hurt enough' by terrorism for their government to fully understand the need to educate its citizens or for the government to understand that it's their citizens who are, inevitably, the best first-line of defense against terrorism.
Aviv also was concerned about the high number of children here in America who were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11, who were 'lost' without parents being able to pick them up, and about our schools that had no plan in place to best care for the students until parents could get there. (In New York City , this was days, in some cases!)
He stresses the importance of having a plan, that's agreed upon within your family, of how to respond in the event of a terrorist emergency. He urges parents to contact their children's schools and demand that the schools too, develop plans of actions, just as they do in Israel .
Does your family know what to do if you can't contact one another by phone? Where would you gather in an emergency? He says we should all have a plan that is easy enough for even our youngest children to remember and follow.
Aviv says that the U. S. government has in force a plan, that in the event of another terrorist
attack, EVERYONE's ability to use cell phones, blackberries, etc., will immediately be cut-off, as this is the preferred communication source used by terrorists and is often the way that their bombs are detonated.
How will you communicate with your loved ones in the event you cannot speak to each other? You need to have a plan.
If you understand, and believe what you have just read, then you must feel compelled to send this to every concerned parent, guardian, grandparents, uncles, aunts, whomever. Don't stop there. In addition to sharing this via e-mail, contact and discuss this information with whomever it makes sense to. Make contingency plans with those you care about. Better that you have plans in place, and never have to use them, then to have no plans in place, and find you needed them.
If you choose not to share this, or not to have a plan in place, and nothing ever occurs -- good for you! However, in the event something does happen, and even more so, if it directly affects your loved ones, then this e-mail will haunt you forever
Telling yourself after the fact, "I should have sent this to so and so, but deleted it as so much trash from old Bill Jones, plus, I just didn't believe it", will not change anything. You were alerted, had the chance to do something, and instead of erring on the side of caution, you chose to disregard, if nothing else, a sensible, valuable warning.
How about the debate statement? No one takes that statement seriously either, you're a joke dude 100% JOKER.
I have never in 12 months of posting here heard you debate one single person!
If you really want to debate, I challenge your sorry ass to a debate on the impossiblity of small government and your retarded desire to force Government in between a Doctor and patient on abortion matters.
How about freedom of choice and freedoms in general with regards to forcing a pregnancy upon a woman, impossible!
You people are the biggest hypocrits on the planet and your too damn dumb to even think past your retarded nature and realize the consequences of what would really happen if abortion
was enforced the way you wish it to be. Legal abortion means pro choice,(FREEDOM) I'm pro choice in everything! You however are not, You claim to be a freedom loving American, you are not.
Your just another RRW spewing your retardedness everywhere. So there you have it, small government mantra out the window and freedom out the window if Roe v Wade was overturned as your dumb party keeps squaking. Put up or shut up debate me on this or...
Shut the fuck up and quit your fucking lying.
***************************************************************************************
First of all, to CL Denver; Who asked ya?
The differences between me and the Evolvtard the Marxist are clear:
I want debate over the issues.
The Marxist says the debate is over.
I want Congress to read the bills before they sign them.
The Marxist doesn't want them read, just passed as quickly as possible before someone does read them.
I tell the truth.
The Marxist is a liar.
I'm an Independent Conservative.
The Marxist is a liberal Marxist.
I believe that Americans' safety comes first.
The Marxist believes that terrorists should be Mirandized.
Though I'm an Independent Conservative, I usually vote for Republicans over Democrats because the Repubs are closer to my political ideology than the Dems. The choice is Progressive light or far left, radical, nutjob, Progressive hard. My vote lately has been the for the lesser of two evils.
The Marxist alway votes for Democrats because they are closer to his radical ideology of Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism and Communism. His vote is always the greater of two evils.
I love America.
The Marxist hates America.
I want to preserve America's language, traditions and culture.
The Marxist wants the county destroyed and rebuilt into a Marxist utopia from the ground up. In his king's words; "To fundamentally transform the United States of America."
I believe in capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, smaller federal government, and lower taxes.
The Marxist believes in communism, one world order, an America that capitulates to our enemies, an impotent military, government controlling everything and 100% tax rates to pay for it.
I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.
The Marxist believes the Constitution is an evolving document that needs constant changing to fit the liberal agenda.
I'm a heterosexual.
The Marxist is a homosexual.
I'm a Capitalist.
The Marxist is well, a Marxist.
As far as welfare is concerned; I believe in giving a hand up. Teach a man to fish and he feed himself for a lifetime.
The Marxist believes in giving hand outs. Give a man a fish and he feeds himself for a day.
I believe everyone is equal and no one deserves special treatment. Not racist.
The Marxist believes that minorities need special treatment because they aren't smart enough to get a job or go through school on their own. A racist by every definition.
I believe in protecting unborn children from murder and that convicted murders and terrorists are the ones that should be put to death.
The Marxist has no problem killing unborn children yet would fight tooth and nail to save a convicted murderer or a terrorist from the electric chair.
I believe Barack Hussein Obama is the worst President this country has ever seen.
The Marxist blindly believes he's the best.
The National Operations Center, in fact, functions largely in name only, and current operations apparently have diminished its ability to respond to terrorist threats.
These assessments are presented in a redacted report from the DHS Office of Inspector General released in November and entitled “Information Sharing at the National Operations Center.”
“The overall focus of the NOC shifts between emergency management, terrorism prevention, and law enforcement,” the report said.
“However, following Hurricane Katrina, the NOC began to dedicate most of its resources to emergency management rather than terrorism prevention. Many NOC staff contend that this shift in focus is detrimental to NOC intelligence and law enforcement functions,” the report added.
The center’s mission is “to facilitate information sharing and operational coordination with other federal, state, local, tribal, non-governmental, and private sector agencies, as well as to provide situation awareness to senior DHS and White House leadership,” the report said. The Center does this by operating 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, and is separated into two sections: Intelligence and Operations.
The Operations side focuses on law enforcement and emergency management activities while the Intelligence side focuses on classified [secret] information – using that information to support and inform the Operations side.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security seal
Despite a legislative mandate to coordinate the country’s homeland security functions, the inspector general’s (IG) report found that the NOC must “politely request” cooperation and information from other agencies. The NOC “is functional only in name,” the report stated.
“According to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, NOC is the principal DHS operations center and provides situational awareness for the federal government and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate, during a natural or manmade disaster or act of terrorism,” the report said.
“The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 also requires the NOC to ensure that critical terrorism and disaster-related information reaches government decision makers,” it added.
“One NOC official said the center is operational only in name, and does not have the capabilities or authority to direct DHS component resources or personnel,” the report stated. “He added that the NOC is responsible for coordination and must politely request information from DHS components.”
One reason the NOC functions in name only is because of an apparent focus on disaster management rather than terrorism prevention. The report found that following Hurricane Katrina, the NOC has “become an arm of the Federal Emergency Management Agency [FEMA],” which has “diminished” its ability to respond to terrorist threats.
“Following Hurricane Katrina, the NOC’s main mission focus shifted to emergency management,” the report found. “One NOC desk officer told us that after Hurricane Katrina, everything turned to disaster assistance and recovery, and described this change as a ‘pendulum swing effect.’”
Another reason the NOC is “unable” to do its job is a schism between the Operations and Intelligence sides of the Center. A bureaucratic problem in many areas of national and homeland security, this split between intelligence and law-enforcement professionals has paralyzed the NOC, according to the report.
“Despite the need for Operations Side and Intelligence Side personnel to work in tandem to achieve all-hazards NOC readiness, a disconnect exists because of an unclear chain of command and the inability of the Operations Side to obtain higher-level security clearances,” the report stated.
In fact, the Senior Watch Offices (SWO) that manage the NOC are not receiving the intelligence they need to coordinate the nation’s activities and inform senior DHS staff.
“As stated earlier, the SWOs manage and supervise the activities of the NOC and are responsible for maintaining awareness of all intelligence and operations being managed by DHS and NOC components,” the report said.
“The SWOs are also responsible for briefing DHS senior leadership regarding potential or actual incidents, both domestic and international that may affect national security,” it added.
“We determined that some SWOs were not receiving the necessary information to brief DHS senior leadership on emerging issues,” the report stated. “Not everything the SWOs need to receive is being passed through the correct channels. Another desk officer said the Intelligence and Operations sides play in different worlds, and 90% of what I&A [Intelligence and Analysis] knows, the SWOs do not know.”
A third problem at the NOC, according to the IG report, is an inability to hire qualified people, forcing the agency to rely heavily on private contractors. This reliance on contractors has forced the NOC to use privately supplied employees to fill senior positions. One contractor fulfills seven NOC functions, including one so secret it had to be redacted from the report.
As it states: “Some contractors may be performing inherently governmental functions. For example, one contractor has program manager responsibilities and oversees seven NOC functions: the fusion desk, the Tracker, the Knowledge Management Officer, the [redacted] representative, the Secretary’s Briefing Staff, the chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear desk, the explosive incidents desk, and the state and local law enforcement desks.”
This reliance on contractors accounts for $11.2 million of the NOC’s budget, or 62 percent of its total funding.
These deficiencies, along with out-of-date technology and a lack of standard operating procedures to guide employees’ actions, led the DHS inspector general to conclude that the NOC was “unable” to successfully do its job.
“Organizational, administrative, infrastructure, IT, and staffing obstacles continue to hinder NOC information sharing and collaboration,” according to the report.
“Federal laws such as the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 require the NOC to serve as the principal DHS operations center and provide situational awareness for the federal government and for state, local, and tribal governments as appropriate,” the report added.
“However, because the NOC does not possess the operational capacity or authority to require DHS components and other watch centers to channel information through the NOC Watch to key decision makers, it is unable to meet these requirements,” the report stated.
The inspector general recommended that key Obama administration officials, particularly DHS leadership, provide more effective support to the National Operations Center.
I want debate over the issues.
The Marxist says the debate is over.
I want Congress to read the bills before they sign them.
The Marxist doesn't want them read, just passed as quickly as possible before someone does read them.
I tell the truth.
The Marxist is a liar.
I'm an Independent Conservative.
The Marxist is a liberal Marxist.
I believe that Americans' safety comes first.
The Marxist believes that terrorists should be Mirandized.
Though I'm an Independent Conservative, I usually vote for Republicans over Democrats because the Repubs are closer to my political ideology than the Dems. The choice is Progressive light or far left, radical, nutjob, Progressive hard. My vote lately has been the for the lesser of two evils.
The Marxist alway votes for Democrats because they are closer to his radical ideology of Liberalism, Socialism, Progressivism, Marxism, Fascism, Nazism and Communism. His vote is always the greater of two evils.
I love America.
The Marxist hates America.
I want to preserve America's language, traditions and culture.
The Marxist wants the county destroyed and rebuilt into a Marxist utopia from the ground up. In his king's words; "To fundamentally transform the United States of America."
I believe in capitalism, anti-communism, American exceptionalism, a strong military, smaller federal government, and lower taxes.
The Marxist believes in communism, one world order, an America that capitulates to our enemies, an impotent military, government controlling everything and 100% tax rates to pay for it.
I believe the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America.
The Marxist believes the Constitution is an evolving document that needs constant changing to fit the liberal agenda.
I'm a heterosexual.
The Marxist is a homosexual.
I'm a Capitalist.
The Marxist is well, a Marxist.
As far as welfare is concerned; I believe in giving a hand up. Teach a man to fish and he feed himself for a lifetime.
The Marxist believes in giving hand outs. Give a man a fish and he feeds himself for a day.
I believe everyone is equal and no one deserves special treatment. Not racist.
The Marxist believes that minorities need special treatment because they aren't smart enough to get a job or go through school on their own. A racist by every definition.
I believe in protecting unborn children from murder and that convicted murders and terrorists are the ones that should be put to death.
The Marxist has no problem killing unborn children yet would fight tooth and nail to save a convicted murderer or a terrorist from the electric chair.
When a reasonable person looks at the scientific evidence of thousands of years of history, they must say, the climate varies from time to time. FOLLOW THE MONEY, as always. If someone stands to financially or politically gain from spreading fear and angst, they are probably not telling the truth. Look at history, it happens over and over and over again. And people like us, keep falling for it, over and over and over again.
The sighting comes at an opportune time for the wolverine, as USFWS is reconsidering its ESA status as part of a settlement stemming from a 2008 lawsuit. The suit was filed challenging the agency’s decision not to extend Endangered Species Act protections to wolverines after a Freedom of Information Act request uncovered documents that supported listing. (The suit was filed by Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Northwest, Friends of the Clearwater, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Idaho Conservation League, Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Wyoming Outdoor Council.) The documents suggest that biologists within the agency concluded that protection for wolverines was warranted, but were overruled by political appointees within the Bush administration seeking to prevent a second species receiving ESA protection due to climate change. (The polar bear was the first species listed due to the effects of global warming).
The wolverine occupies Arctic and Arctic-like habitat at higher elevations and is dependent upon snow for its survival, making it particularly at risk of further habitat loss due to climate change. Wolverines rely on persistent spring snowpack for their dens, however scientific data indicate a chronic, earlier spring snowmelt in many parts of its range. The settlement calls for FWS to consider the projected effects of climate change on the wolverine’s habitat, including the Rocky Mountains and the North Cascades.
Honestly.......how old are you? Now go play with your new Christmas toys.......the adults would like to have meaningful discussion.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Well, I associate your overly macho handle with a typical republican's refusal, (excuse me, independant) to admit homosexuality.
Its ok. many of your kind don't know how to properly admit your sexuality, that's why many of you molest and rape and become overly religous or macho, to overcompensate your
conflicting feelings about what the bible tells you and what you really are feeling about craving cock.
If your gonna attack me, please expect the same butter cup. I mean.. mr wolverine.
If you can dish it out you can EAT IT!
(wolverine)
Sweetheart Evolved - I have zero problems or hang ups with my sexuality, nor anyone else's, hence the attitude of acceptance of others lifestyles. I’m not overly religious. I'm not the closet type. I do what I want and my conscience and records are quite clear.
It's a reference to that silly eighties movie, Red Dawn, where the Ruskies invade America and a group of teenagers form a rebel group and call themselves 'wolverines' after the local high school sports team. Stars Patrick Swayze.
Keyboard Kommandos of a conservative bent love that movie. It fulfills all their little paranoid wet dreams.
For normal people though, it's just one of the many dumb films of the eighties.
(wolverine)
No wonder, Evolved, an eighties brainiac with no brain. Maybe you could send me your VHS tapes some time so I could see what current topics you are interested in and learn where you went to school.
As for Patrick Swayze, only movie I liked with him was ‘Roadhouse’ just so I could watch the pussy fight scenes and listen to Jeff Healey‘s guitar work.
You can be sure my reference to wolverine is much more broad based in reality and reasoned considerations.
If your gonna attack me, please expect the same butter cup. I mean.. mr wolverine.
If you can dish it out you can EAT IT!
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Date: 2010-01-06, 12:51PM MST
Reply to: comm-mkf2x-1540322680@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to ads?]
(Evolved) What kind of an overly macho handle is that?
(wolverine) The truth
(Evolved) I suspect its an attempt at hiding your homesexuality.
(wolverine) Why is it no surprise to me that your first thought after asking about my overly macho ’ handle’ was - homosexuality? You are way to easy . . . I meant mentally, I couldn’t even imagine the other but to each their own Evolved.
It's a reference to that silly eighties movie, Red Dawn, where the Ruskies invade America and a group of teenagers form a rebel group and call themselves 'wolverines' after the local high school sports team. Stars Patrick Swayze.
Keyboard Kommandos of a conservative bent love that movie. It fulfills all their little paranoid wet dreams.
Sitting here in the 'Mountain Sun' on Pearl, drinking a half dozen Quinns Golden Ales, while killing off two orders of Blackened Chicken Quesadillas.
Burp!
One person, of course, cannot flag you off the board; you need many people to do that. Mr. Swingle, however, refuses to believe that. He believes that I have the power, all by myself, to flag him off the board. Mr. Swingle, for some reason, has decided that I am the only person who is flagging him. In the last few years, he has posted literally thousands of attacks on me, mostly in California, but in close to every city in the United States. He always says that I flag him. He also adds crazy hallucinations of his own, attacking me. As a final twist, whenever anyone replies to his crazy posts, he always assumes that the person replying to him is really me. He thus has taken to claiming that I use dozens of false names. He claims that I spend 15 hours a day, following him around the country, flagging his stuff off on Politics boards on Craigs List in virtually every city in America. For example, in Denver, he claims that I have posted under the handle "Retired Military." As always, with Mr. Swingle, this is not true. I have never been in the military, and I do not post on the Politics board in Denver. Why would I? I live in Los Angeles.
Mr. Swingle, of course, never posts using his own name. He always post anonymously. For a long time, I had no idea who this person was, who was posting these crazy attacks on me. Ultimately, I sued over this, and used the subpoena power of the Court to identify this person. That is how I learned that he is Justin Swingle. The matter is still pending in Los Angeles Superior Court. Swingle, of course, is defending by claiming free speech rights. The man is a stalker. I do not know what motivates him.
I am posting this, simply because Mr. Swingle put a huge amount of effort into attacking me on this board.
And your first words in response are; "That's right"
You really are a dope!
_________________________________________________________
How dumb can dumb get? Just look at one of non libtard's obsessive posts about me.
Thank you for proving me right dumb ass, I said you were childlike and you proved me 100% correct.
You sound like a 3rd grader.
Let me clarify for your extraordinarily dumb ass, I said "thats right" about the GW debate being over, you had no intelligent arguement to counter with so you posted back with some nanny nanny boo boo post? Thats all you bird brains are capable of, look at your butt brother wolverine he finishes his post of with "you are the biggest loser" oh wait wolverine claims independant. uh huh ya right
I wonder who he voted for?
You also claim to not be republican libtard, who did your vote for? thats right you vote republican just like a good ol boy.
Heat island effect - I'm not talking about impacting local instruments - I'm talking about millions of miles of asphalt, steel and glass raising the temperature of our surroundings. A heat island can raise the temperature 6-19 degrees F. Well, look at a map of our nation - there are a whole lot of big cities - is that enough to raise the temperature of the planet a bit? Coincidentally, the rise of our modern cities coincides with these temperature increases over the past 150 years. Is this variable accounted for in AGW? NO ONE can even write in and say yea or nea.
I don't feel what I am asking are high level, super technical questions - these are things that should be easily answered by any proponent of AGW.
I don't know what any of the answers are - if I did, I'd be rubbing them in the AGW crowd's face - but I do know enough to ask about different variables and to ascertain their impact on the situation. It really blows my mind that anyone calls this "science" - its not - it is junk. Maybe one day, it will be solid science, but now it is not and for anyone to say it is science is incredulous. One thing I have learned in life is that the variables you don't account for are often the ones that pop up and bite you in the ass. "Well, trust me" is about the best the AGW crowd can come up with. Would you trust a cop on the stand saying that? No way. Why will liberals overturn a conviction because of shoddy evidence, but feel it is ok to overturn a society on shoddy evidence? That doesn't make any sense - particularly when taken with the zeal with which AGW proponents trumpet the issue.
His name was William Ayers he was a weatherman,
When it comes to predicting cold fronts, he could not lend a hand,
But he's good at making pipe bombs, and verses about Karl Marx,
So BO went and found him. Cause as an author he's a farse,
Yippe tay yay, yippee BO, Ghost writers in the sky
Her name is Hillary Clinton, she's married to a guy named Bill,
In her life she has done nothing, because shes married to Bill,
She tried to pass us healthcare, 1994 it was the year,
She went and found an author, now the Clintons have no fear,
Yippee tay yay,yippee BO, Ghost writers in the sky,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, piqued with White House pressure to accept the Senate health reform bill, threw a rare rhetorical elbow Tuesday at President Barack Obama, questioning his commitment to his 2008 campaign promises. A leadership aide said it was no accident. Pelosi emerged from a meeting with her leadership team and committee chairs in the Capitol to face an aggressive throng of reporters who immediately hit her with C-SPAN’s request that she permit closed-door final talks on the bill to be televised.
A reporter reminded the San Francisco Democrat that in 2008, then-candidate Obama opined that all such negotiations be open to C-SPAN cameras.
Yes, I am wordy, but I’m saving paper by doing this online. Well, actually, I’m using electricity – based on fossil fuels – to do this, so maybe I’m not having any kind of positive carbon footprint.
I'm not interested in any of your opinions on global warming itself...and in any case, I don't feel you are a credible source. Aside from being biased, you don't reason very well. So in fact, you are wasting your time posting your global warming stuff to 'the class.'
Well, “the class” has done a piss-poor job of answering my questions, but alas . . .
What I am interested in is how a conservative government responds to a problem...global warming is simply the example problem...no need to discuss it much, especially since I am phrasing my question as a hypothetical.
Unfortunately, the current crop of conservative “leadership” seems to be a bunch of spineless, candy-ass chicken shits. Do you know why they all stay together? Because they share a common fucking backbone. Of any event, this is my delusional view of how “things oughta be”
Here again are my hypothetical parameters:
1. Global warming (caused by human activity) is proven beyond a doubt.
2. Dramatic reduction in our carbon emissions is required in the very near future...ten years at most.
3. Doing nothing is not, I repeat NOT, an option.
4. Failure means catastrophe for our children, grandchildren, and beyond.
Fair enough, I’ll try again.
And here is what you've said so far:
(me, me, me, me) Anyhow, getting off the track, back to the original question – “what do we do, TODAY, to stop global warming and CO2 emissions?” Three parts:
Address current CO2 levels in the air
1 – sounds trite, but trees are the answer – large scale tree plantings are very doable, have a long history in this country, there is an established industry and populace knowledge base that gives rise to a high probability of success, have limited cost, limited negative costs (if any), have numerous benefits in addition to removing CO2 (wildlife, pollinators, aesthetic, etc.), have limited negative impact on land use and can be done NOW
2 – alter our land use – large, dense cities are not conducive to a host of socioeconomic and environmental positives\
Address future CO2 levels
1 – trees
2 – develop large-scale carbon sequestration techniques
I thought #1 was pretty clear.
Ok, so you say that trees, altering land-use, and developing carbon sequestration is your answer.
Yep.
However, you offer nothing concrete that a conservative government would actually DO.
I’ll try to do better . . .
Would you mandate planting X number of trees per square mile? Would you mandate that cities tear up their neighborhoods, evict people, and force them to live in small towns?
Alrighty, specifics time. Just brainstorming some possible ideas:
1 – to my knowledge, the best and most practical CO2 scrubber for the atmosphere we have available are trees. Other sequestration technologies are just too far off in the future.
2 – Simply reducing current emissions is not enough – particularly if something “must” be done in the next 10 years
3 – trees are a “technology” that works from day one (not three years from now)
4 – the forests surrounding Denver, for probably a solid 200 mile radius into the mountains are heavily overgrown – i.e. unhealthy (USFS says that for a 10-inch diameter tree, there should not be another tree for 30 ft in all directions. Probably 90% of the trees around me could be removed to make the local forest healthy by said standards).
5 – we have an overgrowth of trees in one area – that will die if left alone
6 – Federal government is the largest landowner in the US – 650 million acres of land. Governments at all levels own land in every ecosystem in the US.
7 – Coincidentally, we have a lot of able bodied people right now in the US that have some free time on their hands due to either the economy or our penal code (some both – I’m sure some people would PAY to see Bernie Madoff on a shovel for 8 hours – if he could last that long).
8 – We have trees, we have land, we have labor. What more do we really need? Leadership, oh shit, damn, there goes that idea all to hell
9 – large scale public works projects like this already have a huge precedent in this country – Depression and Arbor Day are but two examples.
10 – Planting a tree is a relatively low-skill project – it’s not like putting a man on the moon. The key is in maintenance.
11 – Perhaps we should consider simply planting trees on brownfields – no other remediation right now, due to cost – just plant the trees – hey, give the owners a tax credit for just planting the damn things. Figure out the other brownfield issues later – just utilize the land, now.
12 – no one should be evicted from their homes, we have plenty enough vacant and underutilized land as it is
13 – how about a tax credit for every tree planted? Boulder already has “green credits” for contractors for recycling, waste diversion, donating reusable building materials, etc. Offer a $100/tree tax credit up to 10 trees per year and I can guaran-dame-tee you that there will be 100 million trees planted every year. Maybe make it on government land, under supervision to verify it.
14 – as to land use – I don’t think we need to make a special effort to rip up cities – just rip up our land use guidelines. Detroit has plenty of fucked up places we can start with.
15 – the interstate system comprises 46,000 miles – let’s make a goal of planting 10 trees per mile – multiple benefits – living snow breaks, reduction in road noise, make it look better, etc.
16 – how about a special tax break for urban tree plantings? Trees reduce stormwater run-off, reduce cooling costs, reduce the heat island effect, etc. – see above link.
17 – 100% tax credit for passive solar air or water projects, including heating water, sun rooms, etc. that reduce heating/energy bills – not to include photovoltaics.
18 – 100% tax credit on all insulation, new windows, energy efficient appliances and weatherization
19 – back to trees – the Department of the Interior has largely been a useless agency since the parks were established. This may be a turning point for the agency as the steward of so much federal land holdings. Perhaps put the DOI in direct charge of this federal tree-planting idea.
21 – all the tax credit ideas have to have some allowance for the use of recycled materials – such as from ReSource (Boulder) or Bud’s (Denver) or Habitat for Humanity’s ReStores.
I am not looking for vague "it would be a good idea to..." answers.
But I am so much better at being vague . . .
I want to know, SPECIFICALLY, what policies a conservative government should enact (in your opinion) to solve the problem I have laid out for you....reducing our carbon emissions dramatically in ten years time.
This is a very interesting sentence you posted above and really should be brought up frequently. That said, Copenhagen and the IPCC have ZERO place in this sentence. Nothing they are doing or proposing to do will impact CO2 emissions in ten years – so why are we wasting our time with them? Tick, tock, tick, tock.
You don't need to address the carbon already existing or anything else....because this scenario is HYPOTHETICAL. Please just address the issue as described.
Trying, but it is so much easier to just be vague.
I am an independent who usually votes for the liberals because the liberals will at least recognize and take on a problem. I might not always like their solutions, but at least they are trying to solve problems. I rarely vote for conservatives because it seems like your ideology is so strict that it leaves you incapable of responding to crises.
This is where you are wrong. I have spent the vast majority of my life doing environmental clean-ups – I’ve watched Superfund and other programs just drag on and on and on and on and on and on, oops, new person joined the office/agency, got to start over. Liberals and the government do not solve anything. Government by its very nature restricts, restrains and regulates. It does not create nor construct.
I am presenting you with a hypothetical crisis. I want to know what specific steps a conservative government would take to solve the crisis. Please try not to read anything else into it.
Really kind of a fun exercise – there are all kinds of things that could be looked at – but the 10 year time frame really restricts them. Fun – thanks for the mental exercise.
As simply as possible:
I’m not good at that
Problem: Carbon emissions must be reduced dramatically within ten years.
Could be done – but it would take “leadership” – that sadly neither party has.
How would a conservative government handle this crisis?
Probably bomb something instead.
Don't discuss how planting trees would help...tell me exactly what policies conservatives would enact to plant trees.
Probably none – I gave you my ideas. I’m not too happy with conservatives, right now.
Don't discuss how cities are inefficient....tell me exactly what a conservative government would do to make them more efficient.
Trying
Do you understand? I'm looking for concrete policies that conservatives would enact in this scenario...not vague recommendations about how more trees would be good.
Trees are good.
Really, I’ve been a smart ass at times on this particular post (as I am on most), but this really was a fun little exercise – a good mental challenge. Any comments? Criticisms, suggestions?
WASHINGTON -- A Florida Republican gained a high-profile ally Tuesday in his effort to prod congressional leaders to open up healthcare negotiations to the public.
In a letter to President Barack Obama and House and Senate leaders, the chief executive officer of the cable television network C-SPAN urged greater openness, and said his network was prepared to cover talks with the ``latest digital technology to make the cameras, lights and microphones as unobtrusive as possible.
``President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's healthcare system,'' C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote. ``Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American.''
U.S. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Sarasota, who has filed a resolution calling for open negotiations, praised C-SPAN and called on Congress to accept the offer. Congressional leaders appeared reluctant to do so.
House and Senate negotiators are set to resolve differences between bills passed by the two chambers. Buchanan noted that news reports suggest a compromise will be hammered out in closed-door talks involving a handful of people, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and White House officials.
House leaders did not commit to cameras Tuesday. Asked about the letter Tuesday -- and Obama's pledge on the campaign trail for greater transparency -- Pelosi first laughed and said, ``There are a number of things [said] on the campaign trail.''
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama declared Tuesday that there was a deep failure of national intelligence in the botched Christmas Day airliner terror attack over Detroit, telling the nation that the government had enough information to thwart potential disaster but could not "connect those dots."
Speaking after a meeting with his security team, Obama said there had been even more "red flags" than had already been acknowledged: that an al Qaeda affiliate in the Arabian Peninsula planned to strike the United States and that it was working with the man who ended up accused of trying to blow up a plane with nearly 300 passengers and crew aboard.
"The information was there," Obama said, blistering agencies and analysts for not figuring out the threat — but without singling out any by name.
"I will accept that intelligence, by its nature, is imperfect," Obama said. "But it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged. That’s not acceptable, and I will not tolerate it."
Obama never said who, if anyone, in the government might be held accountable, and the White House would not say whether any officials would be fired.
The president’s analysis is centered on identifying security gaps and filling them.
In the course of that, he will determine whether anyone will lose a job, said one senior administration official familiar with Obama’s thinking.
Obama announced no new steps to improve the intelligence or security systems.
But he promised that they would be coming, signaling more changes for airport travelers and in the sharing of intelligence.
Since the attack, the government has added dozens of names to its lists of suspected terrorists and those barred from flights bound for the United States.
People on the watch list are subject to additional scrutiny before they are allowed to enter this country, while anyone on the no-fly list is barred from boarding aircraft in or headed for the United States.
And the Transportation Security Administration directed airlines, beginning Monday, to give full-body, pat-down searches to U.S.-bound travelers from Yemen, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and 11 other countries.
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian suspect who allegedly tried to set off an explosive device aboard the plane as it came in for a landing in Detroit, has told U.S. investigators that he received training and instructions from al Qaeda operatives in Yemen.
His father warned the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria that his son had drifted into extremism in Yemen, but that threat was never fully digested by the U.S. security apparatus.
"When a suspected terrorist is able to board a plane with explosives on Christmas Day, the system has failed in a potentially disastrous way," Obama said. "And it’s my responsibility to find out why and to correct that failure so that we can prevent such attacks in the future."
"We have to do better, and we will do better. And we will do it quickly," he said."
In his remarks to the nation, Obama told reporters that the security lapse didn’t have to do with the collection of information but with the failure to integrate and analyze what was there.
The bottom line, he said was that the government had "sufficient information to uncover this plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack."
"Our intelligence community failed to connect those dots, which would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list," he said. "This was not a failure to collect intelligence; it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already have."
Obama said it is clear that the government knew that the suspect had joined with extremists in Yemen.
Abdulmutallab remains in federal custody, charged with trying to destroy the Northwest Airlines flight.
He is alleged to have smuggled an explosive device onboard and set if off. The device sparked only a fire.
On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack against a chemical weapons factory in Sudan. The cruise missle strike was in retaliation for the August 7, 1998 truck bomb attacks on U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya which killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 5,000 others. The chemical weapons factory in Sudan was funded, in part, by Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the embassy bombings. Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas. link
On August 25, 1998 the Fort Worth Star-telegram reported a link between Iraq and the Sudanese chemical weapons factory destroyed by the United States in a cruise missile attack. The chemical weapons factory was hit because of links to Osama bin Laden who the U.S. believed responsible for the recent embassy bombings. A senior intelligence official said one of the leaders of Iraq's chemical weapons program, Emad al-Ani, had close ties with senior Sudanese officials at the factory. The intelligence official also said a number of Iraqi scientists working with al-Ani attended the grand opening of the factory two years earlier. Emad Husayn Abdullah al-Ani surrendered to U.S. military forces on April 18, 2003. link link
On November 5, 1998 a Federal grand jury in Manhattan returned a 238-count indictment charging Osama bin Laden in the bombings of two United States Embassies in Africa and with conspiring to commit other acts of terrorism against Americans abroad. The grand jury indictment also charged that Al-Qaeda had reached an arrangement with President Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq whereby the group said that it would not work against Iraq, and that the two parties agreed to cooperate in the development of weapons. link link
On January 11, 1999, Newsweek magazine ran the headline "Saddam + Bin Laden?" The subheadline declared, "It would be a marriage made in hell. And America's two enemies are courting." The article points out that Saddam has a long history of supporting terrorism. The article also mentions that, in the prior week, several surface-to-air missiles were fired at U.S. and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and that Saddam is now fighting for his life now that the United States has made his removal from office a national objective. link
On January 14, 1999, ABC News reported, "Saddam Hussein has a long history of harboring terrorists. Carlos the Jackal, Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas, the most notorious terrorists of their era, all found shelter and support at one time in Baghdad. Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction." video video
On February 13, 1999, CNN reported, "Osama bin Laden, the Saudi millionaire accused by the United States of plotting bomb attacks on two U.S. embassies in Africa, has left Afghanistan, Afghan sources said Saturday. Bin Laden's whereabouts were not known....." The article reports, "Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden....." link
On February 18, 1999, National Public Radio (NPR) reported, "There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi, sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq." NPR reported that Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when Farouk Hijazi met with bin Laden when he lived in Sudan. link link
On February 14, 1999, an article appeared in the San Jose Mercury News claiming that U.S. intelligence officials are worried about an alliance between Osama bin Laden and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. The article states that bin Laden had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan in late December 1998 and that "there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world." According to this article, Saddam has offered asylum to bin Laden in Iraq. The article said that in addition to Abu Nidal, another Palestinian terrorist by the name of Mohammed Amri (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim) is also believed to be in Iraq. link
On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....." link
On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying." link
On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official. link link link
On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York." link link link
After the 9/11 attacks, Saddam became the only world leader to offer praise for bin Laden, even as other terrorist leaders, like Yassir Arafat, went out of their way to make a show of sympathy to the U.S. by donating blood to 9/11 victims on camera. Saddam later pays tribute to 9/11 by having a mural painted depicting the World Trade Center attack at an Iraqi military base in Nasariyah.
must see pictures link
On December 3, 2001 USA Today reported that the CIA had convincing evidence from the mid-1990s Saddam Hussein's regime was funneling money through Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network to the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria and other terrorist organizations. Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA's counterterrorism center until his retirement in 1994, said "We were convinced that money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it to places that Iraq wanted it to go." link
On March 15, 2002 the Christian Science Monitor reported that a Taliban-style group known as Ansar al-Islam was threatening stability in the Kurdish northern region of Iraq. Prior to the start of the Iraq War in 2003, Colin Powell addressed the United Nations and pointed out that both Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida had links with the Ansar al-Islam terrorist group. Saddam had provided arms and funding for this terrorist group waging a jihadist war against the Kurds. One month prior to the formation of Ansar al-Islam, leaders from several Kurdish Islamist factions had visited the al-Qaida leadership in Afghanistan. Ansar al-Islam announced their formation on September 1, 2001 just days prior to the September 11 attacks in the United States. link link link
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell (prior to the U.S./Iraq war). He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan. link link
CIA director George Tenet (appointed by President Bill Clinton July 11, 1997) wrote in a letter to Senator Bob Graham dated October 7, 2002. "We have solid reporting of senior level contact between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information exists that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. . . . We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities." link link
On October 16, 2002, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 was signed into law. The authorization (Public law 107-243) had passed the House by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate by a vote of 77-23. This resolution stated, "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;" and "Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens." link
Babil, an official newspaper of Saddam Hussein's government, run by his oldest son Uday, published information that appeared to confirm U.S. allegations of the links between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. In its November 16, 2002 edition, Babil identified one Abd-al-Karim Muhammad Aswad as an "intelligence officer," describing him as the "official in charge of regime's contacts with Osama bin Laden's group and currently the regime's representative in Pakistan." link
In December 2002 the House and Senate intelligence committees issued a report on the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. CIA director George Tenet testified (page 137) that, “Atta may also have traveled outside of the U.S. in early April 2001 to meet an Iraqi intelligence officer, although we are still working to corroborate this.” This report also noted (page 211) that, "In February 1999, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Iraq had formed a suicide pilot unit that it planned to use against British and U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf. The CIA commented that this was highly unlikely and probably disinformation." link
On April 25, 2003 CNN reported that Farouk Hijazi had been captured by U.S. forces. Farouk Hijazi was a former intelligence official who may have plotted the attempted assassination of George H.W. Bush in 1993. He was also a contact between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden. Farouk met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998 and is also believed to have met with bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990's. video
While sifting through the Iraqi Intelligence Service's [Mukhabarat] bombed ruins on April 26, 2003 the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." video link link
On May 7, 2003, a federal judge in New York awarded damages against the government of Iraq after ruling that the families of two victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide hijackings had shown that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Judge Harold Baer ruled that the two families were entitled to $104 million compensation from Iraq, bin Laden, al-Qaida, the Taliban movement and their government of Afghanistan. "Plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida." link
The 9/11 Commission Report (pages 228 - 229) provides details of what is known about Mohamed Atta's alleged April 9, 2001 11:00 A.M. meeting with an Iraqi Intelligence agent in Prague. According to the FBI, Mohamed Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 and in Florida on April 11. Atta's cell phone records indicate calls were made from Florida during this period but they cannot confirm whether he placed those calls. The report mentions, however, that Czech intelligence has stated publicly they believe there was a 70 percent probability that the meeting took place. The Czech Interior Minister made several statements to the press about his belief that the meeting had occurred. Atta is known to have been in Prague on at least two occasions: once in December 1994 and again in June 2000. link
On September 13, 2006, a deputy prime minister of Iraq by the name of Barham Salih gave a speech in which he said, "The alliance between the Baathists and jihadists which sustains Al Qaeda in Iraq is not new, contrary to what you may have been told." He went on to say, "I know this at first hand. Some of my friends were murdered by jihadists, by Al Qaeda-affiliated operatives who had been sheltered and assisted by Saddam's regime." link link
In March 2008 the Pentagon declassified results of their investigation into captured Iraqi documents. The report stated, "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust." link link link
In June 2008 the Senate released their report "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq By U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated By Intelligence Information." Among the conclusions (page 71), it reported that public statements by government officials that Iraq (prior to the war) provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other al-Qaida related terrorist members was substantiated by intelligence assessments. link link link
1 - If we know that geologic forces can alter climate, how do we know that those forces are not currently altering our climate? The Tibetan plateau altered the Earth's temperature when it underwent a major uplift (see Ice Age - Wikipedia).
2 - The natural follow-up, is how do we know those geologic forces were not altering our climate 150 years ago? How do we know that the temperatures 150 years ago were "normal"? My understanding is that temperatures have risen abotu 1.5 degree F in the past 100 years or so - how do we know that the temperatures in 1860ish were not depressed?
3 - Movements of the plates, particularly Antarctica have had major shifts on our climate in the past - have those influences been accounted for in the AGW?
4 - if my understanding of the geology of these plateaus is correct, then the instant those minerals were exposed to the atmosphere, they would have begun absorbing huge amounts of CO2. In other words, while the geologic forces necessary to expose them may have taken millions of years to bear fruit, the minute those minerals were exposed, they would've started absorbing CO2 like silicate does moisture in the air.
Really, it's the kind of policy the Dems want for the entire country.
The shitstain, aka Bed Wetter can't admit that his party is primarily responsible for keeping minorities poor. They need them to stay poor so they can make campaign promises to them in exchange for their votes. By blaming republicans for them being down trodden and basically buying their votes, the Dems can secure their power by getting re-elected over and over again. At the same time never implementing the promises they made in exchange for those votes.
Ya gotta love lying shitstained Libtards. Kind of like the ones occupying the White House and Congress today.
Dude, the Freedom of Information Act was not written to apply to international organizations. It was written expressly for the purpose of allowing public access to (some) federal documents.
It doesn't have anything to do with Interpol or any other organization.
I'm glad you saved me the trouble by giving the response you think I would say in retort to your AGWmania. A position of course that I have never taken, Tard.
But you never have let facts get in your, way have you MB?
I know how much you worship the Goreacle and how much stock you put into anything that your Marxist Party is shoving down your throat. However, no one has ever said that you don't like things shoved down your throat, Marxist Boy.
But you Tards on the left never get it. There maybe AGW or not. It doesn't matter. The issue is whether we can have an honest debate about it which your Marxist agenda doesn't allow. How about we debate the issue for awhile? Let both sides have their day in court. "No! We're all going to drown in a firey flood in 100 years! We have to spend trillions of American tax payer dollars right now before it's too late!"
Otard can take months to pick out just the right puppy for his indoctrinated children, but health care, stimulus bills and cap and trade have to be passed immediately without debate or without even reading the bills. Now that's transparency!
That's your position, Freak! The debate is over, everyone agrees with the Goreacle. "Hurry up, the world's temperature is going to increase by 0.001 percent in 50 years. We have to act now. Print more money. Bankrupt the country on some theory no one can prove. The local weather man can't predict the forcast accurately for the weekend but our lord and saviour, "The Goreacle" knows all and sees all."
If your prince, "The Goreacle" was so accurate in his "the sky is falling" theory, and that is just exactly what it is, then why is the Goreacle afraid to debate. Oh yeah that's right, liberal coward! Just like you, Tard.
Ya gotta love the resident shitstain, aka Evolvtard the Marxist.
And fyi loser, for the 100th time, I'm not a GOPer. But your adolescence and stupidity don't allow you to remember that. To you anyone that disagrees with your Marxist agenda is a Republican.