Hi there, !
Today Wed 01/25/2006 Tue 01/24/2006 Mon 01/23/2006 Sun 01/22/2006 Sat 01/21/2006 Fri 01/20/2006 Thu 01/19/2006 Archives
Rantburg
531718 articles and 1856008 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 61 articles and 261 comments as of 15:52.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT           
U.S. Navy Seizes Pirate Ship Off Somalia
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
3 00:00 Angie Schultz [] 
15 00:00 lotp [] 
5 00:00 3dc [2] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
4 00:00 trailing wife [1]
14 00:00 Seafarious [2]
14 00:00 Sock Puppet O´ Doom [2]
4 00:00 doc [1]
1 00:00 Frank G []
3 00:00 Spavigum Whaiper6504 [2]
0 []
1 00:00 Uloluper Phomoper1853 [1]
3 00:00 trailing wife []
5 00:00 Laurence of the Rats [1]
22 00:00 Seafarious []
10 00:00 mac [1]
5 00:00 Anonymoose []
3 00:00 Sock Puppet O´ Doom [2]
1 00:00 Glomonter Flish9501 []
0 [1]
2 00:00 gromgoru [1]
9 00:00 6 []
34 00:00 Frank G [1]
1 00:00 6 [2]
0 []
6 00:00 Frank G [1]
Page 2: WoT Background
9 00:00 Frank G []
1 00:00 trailing wife [1]
9 00:00 3dc []
1 00:00 trailing wife []
0 [1]
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Whutch Threth6418 []
4 00:00 gromgoru []
4 00:00 ryuge []
0 []
2 00:00 Old Patriot []
2 00:00 CaziFarkus []
1 00:00 bgrebel9 []
6 00:00 Besoeker [1]
8 00:00 BH []
3 00:00 Old Patriot []
2 00:00 Sock Puppet O´ Doom []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Anonymoose [1]
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Hupomoger Clans9827 []
5 00:00 Angie Schultz [1]
0 []
8 00:00 Frank G []
7 00:00 JFM []
1 00:00 2b []
8 00:00 Nimble Spemble []
9 00:00 Old Patriot []
0 [1]
3 00:00 Glomock Gromomp3755 []
0 []
Home Front: WoT
Some thoughts on "suitcase nukes"
Wretchard the Cat at Belmont Club; EFL'd. As usual, he's on to something.

The terrorist "suitcase nuclear weapon" is the nightmare scenario often invoked to explain why such weapons should never be allowed to fall into the hands of leaders like President Ahmadinejad. . . . But a closer examination of the suitcase nuke problem suggests that this method of delivery has certain limitations. Let's begin a thought experiment by considering the number of suitcase nukes that would be required to destroy a country like France or the United States.

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a somewhat left of center think tank, produced a very respectable model of how many nuclear weapons would be required to inflict damage to the point of diminishing returns, a concept accepted by Robert McNamara at the height of the Cold War. This inflection point is known as the "knee" and occurred where around 25% of the target population was killed. . . . According to these figures it will take about 150 nukes to 'destroy' the fabric and cohesion of the United States and about 30 to do the same to France. Note that inflicting this damage will not have any substantial effect the US ability to perform an immediate counterstrike with thousands of nuclear warheads because these are deployed in hardened facilities or on submerged platforms which would survive a paltry (by Cold War standards) 150 warhead strike. But this number would be enough to finish the target nation as cohesive society for decades.

The problem with suitcase nukes is maintaining command and control over them. Any suitcase nuke which could be armed and detonated by its possessor (protected only by a combination detonator just like the movies) would have serious defects as a weapon. This method delegates so much command and control over the weapon to the possessor that it is effectively "his". In our thought experiment, imagine a rogue state providing such weapons to 150 terrorist teams for use against the United States. There would be no assurance that once deployed these weapons would not be stolen or used for unintended purposes. It would be possible for a rogue team to sell the weapon to the highest bidder, perhaps a rival rogue state looking for such devices. It would not be impossible for one of the teams to turn against its masters and use it against them. A team with a suitcase nuke might divert to Switzerland where they could demand the payment of a few billion dollars in exchange for not blowing up Zurich. A suitcase weapon could be captured by the CIA or the Mossad and reimported into the rogue state where it could be detonated against targets who could hardly admit its true provenance. If the teams belonged to rival political terrorist organizations they could be used against each other. Clearly, releasing a large number of suitcase nuclear weapons without positive command and control would be less than ideal and probably disastrous for the wielder.

The most probable workaround to the problem would be to deploy these weapons at a very low rate by sending them out one trusted team at a time. In that way the weapon would be used within a short period and watched, probably by a large number of mutually counterchecking personnel, every step of the way. One nuke to Paris. Boom. One nuke to New York. Boom. The problem with solving the control problem by slowing down the rate of attack is apparent from the table above. One nuke in Paris or New York will be grossly insufficient to finish the infidel enemy but quite sufficient to provoke a massive response. Once the fissile traces are identified ten thousand warheads will be headed back the other way.

The other obvious possibility is to deploy a large number of suitcase nukes in a componentized configuration so that it requires the assembly of several teams, each with part of the requisite firing information or componentry to activate the device. (This is conceptually similar to the two key system on boomers) For example, Iran could deploy 450 teams -- three teams to activate a suitcase bomb -- with the intent of controlling 150 devices targeted at the United States. Unfortunately a force of this size could hardly remain covert for any length of time. The teams security would rapidly "deteriorate" in a deployed environment and would almost certainly be discovered before long. Once discovered the game would be up. The weapons would no longer be deniable and their use would be open belligerency. The suitcase weapons would have no advantage to nuclear bombs delivered by the air force of the rogue nation. . . .
Posted by: Mike || 01/22/2006 09:33 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This seems to be right on target though the primary assetion is a modified MAD:

"One nuke in Paris or New York will be grossly insufficient to finish the infidel enemy but quite sufficient to provoke a massive response. Once the fissile traces are identified ten thousand warheads will be headed back the other way."

A modified MAD is a rather flawed analysis when the stated objectives of the enemy, Iran-AlQaeda is the elimination of Israel and the removal of the US as a global deterrent to Islam. They have stated that thier own anihilation would be worth the objective.

The 150 nuke attack appears right on target for the US; however, Israel would not survive a single attack. Once a single nuke is set off a cascading chain of response will be start that no one can really predict where it will end.

Example: How many nukes will make the US pull back to isolation to heal its economic wounds? Will we have the stomach to launch a massive counterstrike to eliminate Islam? Will we have the stomach to interr/deport all members of Islam allready in this country? Who else in the world will decide to take advantage of our internal distractions to advance their own objectives?

I think the 150 number is a little over stated. I am thinking more like 5-10.
Posted by: TomAnon || 01/22/2006 10:14 Comments || Top||

#2  5-10 would do for a 10 year period of no-superpower US. Problem there is in 15 years you've got the same superpower bent on total victory.
Posted by: 6 || 01/22/2006 10:58 Comments || Top||

#3  slightly off but relating to Wretchard's point,

Natural events produce "energy equivalent" effects somewhat similar to Hiroshima for instance.

Of course Natural disasters are not precise models for "suitcase nuclear weapon" attacks, as those would most likely be targeted against population centers [not critical nodes] for maximum terror effects, but they can be useful tools for examining the aftermath.

The total energy released by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake is equivalent to 32,000 megatons of TNT or 133 exajoules (1.33×1020 joules). This exceeds the total amount of energy consumed in the United States in one year by 30%, or the energy released by the wind of a hurricane like Hurricane Isabel over a period of 70 days. Using the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc^2, this amount of energy is equivalent to a mass of about 1500 kg. Equivalently, this amount of energy is enough to boil 10,000 liters (2,600 US gallons) of water for every person on Earth.

Link
Posted by: RD || 01/22/2006 11:08 Comments || Top||

#4  Tom-
Actually, the number is in the middle three figures. Let me point something out here: the US is like any other nation on Earth, in that we could lose our capital and all our major cities at once and still function. Why?
For starters, The Federal Building. Just about every good sized city has one. In those buildings are, usually, at least some offices of EVERY Federal department, and with them all the regs, rules, and procedures. Then you have the Armory - one in every county (or every few counties) for every branch of the service. Finally, you have the food distribution system, overwhelmingly located in rural areas (don't forget, the system ENDS in the cities).
Why does all that matter? because in just about every other nation on earth, everything is centered in the Capital - the bureaucracy, communications, etc. For example, kill Paris and France becomes no more than a few provinces that speak variants of the same language. Kill someplace like Teheran or Beijing, and those nations cease to exist as coherent entities - their populations will be at each others throats within hours. All the reins of power have been channeled through the capital, and when they are gone, so is control over the rest of the nation. that's not the case here.
Yes, you will have horrible damage - the medical system will collapse within days. The transportation system will last as long as there's fuel in the pipelines (a week, 10 days tops) - but what you end up with is the US in, say, 1890, and that was a strong, cohesive society.
If you want to kill the US as a functioning society with NO hope of recovery, you are talking about one weapon on each state capital, the two or three major cities in each state (and in some states 4-10), then EVERY major military base, EVERY Federal building of ANY size at all. Once you add all that up, you have more targets than anybody's got weapons for today.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski || 01/22/2006 11:08 Comments || Top||

#5  Mike-

What you forget about the 1890s is that people had the knowledge and tools to get everything done without electricity. I live near one of the last (non-Amish etc) communities to farm using horses and mules. Even they have a lot of equipment that relies on gasoline and electricity. There are also a lot of dead and dying trades like blacksmithing and wheel making. (If these sound simple to revive, read Foxfire #9.) I think even most of the rural areas would collapse very quickly once the transportation and the pre-packaged food run out. Remember, in the old system it takes about 30 acres of worked farmland to support a family.

At least the Amish will make it.
Posted by: Faith || 01/22/2006 11:52 Comments || Top||

#6  And another thing...

This article is worried about the destruction of the fabric of our society. But what about more simple terror? Wouldn't a suitcase nuke be 9-11 multiplied tenfold?
Posted by: Faith || 01/22/2006 11:54 Comments || Top||

#7  Planning for possible future disasters is entertaining & necessary, but always off the mark. There are many more "players" on the field and too many interconnecting possibilities.

"Command and control" - the Soviets had an extensive espionage network in the US since at least the 1930's. Some of it was cracked during & after WWII. Some Soviet agents in the West were never uncovered, and have likely retired on their double pensions & died of old age. The Soviets had pretty good network security. I don't think the Russians have discontinued these activities, and their espionage networks would serve as a method of C&C if the desire rose. The current Russian regime is not really friendly toward the US, and they have reason to feel humiliated to a far worse extent than Muslims. The Russians are currently assisting the Iranian mullocracy in developing their own brand of nukes.
No crash program has been launched to train adequate numbers of interpreters to even read the intelligence the US is collecting, and it's going on five years since 9/11.
The anthrax attacks of 2001 and hurricanes Katrina & Rita illustrated how brittle and unresponsive state & federal governments are when stressed. In 2001 the Senate partly shut down & was unable to do its business, even though none of its members was injured. Apparently there are no plans for an alternate seat of government should DC become unusable. We have lots of scarcely used federal facilities, but no plan to relocate and restore operations if part of the current system suddenly becomes inoperable. Vulnerabilities in our society's life support networks continue to go unaddressed: e.g., most of our gas stations can't function "off the grid". (It's not like they don't have the money and fuel to run generators, either.) The US scorns civil defense.
Compared to the unity of purpose which gripped the USA during WWII, the national "fabric and cohesion" is already severely impaired, at least in my mind. For example, some of my elderly relatives who volunteered to put their lives on the line at Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa are/were very much against the current response to 9/11. I was disgusted by this, but didn't argue with them out of respect. What does the West have the stomach for? What in our history has prepared for this era?
Posted by: Whutch Threth6418 || 01/22/2006 13:33 Comments || Top||

#8  #5: Mike-

What you forget about the 1890s is that people had the knowledge and tools to get everything done without electricity.

You're partly correct, I personaly can do it, I have the knowledge and the skills to live quite well without highline electricity.

But that does not mean I could, it would be a year or so to survive before any "Farm" produce was available, and very few folks have a year's supply on hand.

Plus the very real danger of looters finding that you have food, then it's kill or be killed, or starve after being robbed.

Won't work. A month's supply is practical to store, more and the cry "Hoarder" crops up.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 01/22/2006 14:01 Comments || Top||

#9  Anyone interested in how to survive in such a scenario would do well to look at Steven Stirling's books, Dies the Fire and The Protector's War. Now, Mr. Stirling is a little too much into a medieval mindset for my taste at points, but he develops the themes that Jim and Faith touch on -- how does one survive when none of the 20th and 21st century technology we rely on works?

It wouldn't be pretty.
Posted by: Steve White || 01/22/2006 14:05 Comments || Top||

#10  We saw that in New Orleans in Septmber. It *wasn't* pretty.
Posted by: Seafarious || 01/22/2006 14:21 Comments || Top||

#11  5-10 nukes and the US is back to the 1890s? What universe are you people living in? We live on a continent, people. I live in Oregon on the West Coast - a nuke taking out New York City would be a horrific event but would have no major impact on food, water, oil, or electrical power in my region, let alone my town. Such a strike would impact the pricing of those commodities but would not limit their availability. You would have to take out the major hydroelectric dams here in the Northwest to impact our supply of power; we grow enough varieties of basic foodstuffs in the Pacific Northwest to survive; and California could produce all the oil products we need, under martial law. 5-10 nukes would produce incredible losses, untold human suffering, and a thirst for revenge that would result in genocidal retaliation, here and abroad. It would not collapse the industrial base of this country, that would take 50-100 nukes aimed at all major ports and transportation nodes -- you know, the scenarios in MAD when the Soviets were around? A better example would be England during WWII : rationing of all items for the national good. But no civilizational collapse -- way too Twilight Zone there, people.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 01/22/2006 15:19 Comments || Top||

#12  And if you think I was overestimating the number of nukes to take out the ports in the U.S., please take a look at "http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc/portname03.htm"
for a listing of the ports in this country.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 01/22/2006 16:31 Comments || Top||

#13  . I live in Oregon on the West Coast - a nuke taking out New York City would be a horrific event

How about taking out (Name your closest big city upwind), and it's not necessary to destroy the dams, in fact it's undesirable, just destroy the power lines for a week or so and spoil the refrigerated foodstuffs, canned goods only would survive the power loss.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 01/22/2006 16:32 Comments || Top||

#14  No, it would not take out all of the power lines. Take a look at the power grid in the U.S. -- it is not interconnected nationwide : there are separate regions that supply the power to that region. And for the EMP to take out the majority of the power substations in an area, it would have to be an airburst at a height that eliminates all but ICBMs. Remember people, they were doing above ground nuke tests in Nevada throughout the 1950s, and did not take the power down in Las Vegas, even though the tests were within 60 miles of that city. The EMP myth was started by a specific test at a height that required a very sophisticated delivery system, and even then, it only impacted half the area and for one day. The power was restored to the affected area within 2 days of the event.
Posted by: Shieldwolf || 01/22/2006 16:44 Comments || Top||

#15  Most of these issues are outside my own expertise to opine on, but it certainly is true that the US infrastructure (physical, social, military and political) are considerably less centralized than in most countries.

Remember, TCP/IP (the data communications protocols used by the Internet) was originally developed by DOD precisely to allow a computer network to continue to function despite a major nuclear strike. The lack of a single central controller or directory for the Internet Protocol is a distinctly American feature - check out the European-designed OSI protocol stack for contrast.

The which? you say?

My point exactly.

My first job out of college was programming a database which was intended to allow senior commanders to figure out what forces were where, so that if we lost a major portion of the country or our forces overseas, the remaining commanders could organize quickly. That was during the cold war ... different capabilities are in place now. I don't think the reaction today after such a strike would be gentle, especially if Washington were hit. I wonder, though, how much dithering would occur if the civilian command chain were left more or less intact. Depends on who is leading it, I suspect.
Posted by: lotp || 01/22/2006 19:42 Comments || Top||


Terrorists on Tap
Do Al Gore and other Democrats really want to keep the government from finding al Qaeda agents in the U.S.?
In a speech last week, Al Gore took another swing at the National Security Agency's electronic surveillance program, which monitors international communications when one party is affiliated with terrorists. Specifically, Mr. Gore argued that George Bush "has been breaking the law repeatedly and persistently," and that such actions might constitute an impeachable offense. The question he raises is whether the president illegally bypassed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). But the real issue is national security: FISA is as adept at detecting--and, thus, preventing--a terrorist attack as a horse-and-buggy is at getting us from New York to Paris.

I have extensive experience with the consequences of government bungling due to overstrict interpretations of FISA. As chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1981 to 1984, I participated in oversight of FISA in the first years after its passage. When I subsequently became deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration, one of my responsibilities was the terrorism portfolio, which included working with FISA.

In 1985, I experienced the pain of terminating a FISA wiretap when to do so defied common sense and thwarted the possibility of gaining information about American hostages. During the TWA 847 hijacking, American serviceman Robert Stethem was murdered and the remaining American male passengers taken hostage. We had a previously placed tap in the U.S. and thought there was a possibility we could learn the hostages' location. But Justice Department career lawyers told me that the FISA statute defined its "primary purpose" as foreign intelligence gathering. Because crimes were taking place, the FBI had to shut down the wire.

FISA's "primary purpose" became the basis for the "wall" in 1995, when the Clinton-Gore Justice Department prohibited those on the intelligence side from even communicating with those doing law enforcement. The Patriot Act corrected this problem and the FISA appeals court upheld the constitutionality of that amendment, characterizing the rigid interpretation as "puzzling." The court cited an FBI agent's testimony that efforts to investigate two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were blocked by senior FBI officials, concerned about the FISA rule requiring separation.

Today, FISA remains ill-equipped to deal with ever-changing terrorist threats. It was never envisioned to be a speedy collector of information to prevent an imminent attack on our soil. And the reasons the president might decide to bypass FISA courts are readily understandable, as it is easy to conjure up scenarios like the TWA hijacking, in which strict adherence to FISA would jeopardize American lives.
The overarching problem is that FISA, written in 1978, is technologically antediluvian. It was drafted by legislators who had no concept of how terrorists could communicate in the 21st century or the technology that would be invented to intercept those communications. The rules regulating the acquisition of foreign intelligence communications were drafted when the targets to be monitored had one telephone number per residence and all the phones were plugged into the wall. Critics like Al Gore and especially critics in Congress, rather than carp, should address the gaps created by a law that governs peacetime communications-monitoring but does not address computers, cell phones or fiber optics in the midst of war.

The NSA undoubtedly has identified many foreign phone numbers associated with al Qaeda. If these numbers are monitored only from outside the U.S., as consistent with FISA requirements, the agency cannot determine with certainty the location of the persons who are calling them, including whether they are in the U.S. New technology enables the president, via NSA, to establish an early-warning system to alert us immediately when any person located in the U.S. places a call to, or receives a call from, one of the al Qaeda numbers. Do Mr. Gore and congressional critics want the NSA to be unable to locate a secret al Qaeda operative in the U.S.?

If we had used this ability before 9/11, as the vice president has noted, we could have detected the presence of Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in San Diego, more than a year before they crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

And to correct an oft-cited misconception, there are no five-minute "emergency" taps. FISA still requires extensive time-consuming procedures. To prepare the two- to three-inch thick applications for nonemergency warrants takes months. The so-called emergency procedure cannot be done in a few hours, let alone minutes. The attorney general is not going to approve even an emergency FISA intercept based on a breathless call from NSA.

For example, al Qaeda Agent X, having a phone under FISA foreign surveillance, travels from Pakistan to New York. The FBI checks airline records and determines he is returning to Pakistan in three hours. Background information must be prepared and the document delivered to the attorney general. By that time, Agent X has done his business and is back on the plane to Pakistan, where NSA can resume its warrantless foreign surveillance. Because of the antiquated requirements of FISA, the surveillance of Agent X has to cease only during the critical hours he is on U.S. soil, presumably planning the next attack.

Even if time were not an issue, any emergency FISA application must still establish the required probable cause within 72 hours of placing the tap. So al Qaeda Agent A is captured in Afghanistan and has Agent B's number in his cell phone, which is monitored by NSA overseas. Agent B makes two or three calls every day to Agent C, who flies to New York. That chain of facts, without further evidence, does not establish probable cause for a court to believe that C is an agent of a foreign power with information about terrorism. Yet, post 9/11, do the critics want NSA to cease monitoring Agent C just because he landed on U.S. soil?

Why did the president not ask Congress in 2001 to amend FISA to address these problems? My experience is instructive. After the TWA incident, I suggested asking the Hill to change the law. A career Justice Department official responded, "Congress will make it a political issue and we may come away with less ability to monitor." The political posturing by Democrats who suddenly found problems with the NSA program after four years of supporting it during classified briefings only confirms that concern.

It took 9/11 for Congress to pass the amendment breaking down the "wall," which had been on the Justice Department's wish list for 16 years. And that was just the simple tweak of changing two words. The issues are vastly more complicated now, requiring an entirely new technical paradigm, which could itself become obsolete with the next communications innovation.

There are other valid reasons for the president not to ask Congress for a legislative fix. To have public debate informs terrorists how we monitor them, harming our intelligence-gathering to an even greater extent than the New York Times revelation about the NSA program. Asking Congress for legislation would also weaken the legal argument, cited by every administration since 1978, that the president has constitutional authority beyond FISA to conduct warrantless wiretaps to acquire foreign intelligence information.

The courts may ultimately decide the legality of the NSA program. Meanwhile, the public should decide whether it wants NSA to monitor terrorists, or wait while congressional critics and Al Gore fiddle.
Posted by: .com || 01/22/2006 02:23 || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Ironically, while such programs are very important in capable and honest hands, they would be horrific in the hands of those who are dishonest, dishonorable, treacherous, and seek only political advantage. Such as democrats.

This is why I am all in favor of what Al Gore is doing. I hope he is successful in convincing as much of the left as possible that such tools are wrong, evil, and must be outlawed. In fact I hope he expands on his idea to encompass a very liberal view of all civil liberties.

I hope he expands on this idea to include the abolition of the RICO statutes along with the confiscation of assets without trial and giving a 10% "cut" of seizures to local law enforcement--corrupting them too.

He should get democrats ranting against all forms of espionage and secret courts against US citizens. He should demand congressional oversight of all intelligence operations.

He should call for the creation of a Public Accountability Office to investigate abuse of power claims against appointed government officials.

He should start the ball rolling for a Constitutional Supremacy Amendment to the constitution, that says the constitution is superior to any foreign treaty.

Elimination of all federal laws redundant with, and usurping State laws, and not specifically authorized in the constitution.

Prohibition of public identity checks without due cause. Prohibition of a national identity card. Prohibition of sharing medical records between a health care provider, insurance companies, government agencies, or other outside companies without a court order.

Restoration of the "whistleblower" acts, with special provision for extra-organizational review of classified information (so CIA does not investigate CIA, etc.)

And finally, creation of a National Personal Information Database Registration Act. All databases containing above a certain threshold of personal information about citizens must be registered with the government. Except for law enforcement, some information cannot be held by a private entity without the express, written permission of the person.

The bottom line is that, while it is unwise to have thieves guarding the bank, it can be very useful indeed to have thieves demanding that bank security be increased, and pointing out why.

That is why I am hoping that Al Gore convinces many democrats that civil liberties are far more important that using the law to oppress the civil liberties of others, as Wm J. Clinton did.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 01/22/2006 9:44 Comments || Top||

#2  Do Mr. Gore and congressional critics want the NSA to be unable to locate a secret al Qaeda operative in the U.S.?

In a word: YES!

Gore and the Left don't care about Al-Qaeda operatives in the US, or the deaths of innocent american civilians as long as they can ride the coattails of the deaths into power.

The democrats find themselves in a position where America must be defeated so that they can claim power. And I think (by looking at the acts of Gore, Clinton (less so), Carter, Murtha, Kerry, and Kennedy) that they are knowing trying to tie our hands behind our back so we can get the sh*t kicked out of us (like, according to them, we deserve). They hate everything to do with America and anyone (especially Bush) who would defend her.
Posted by: CrazyFool || 01/22/2006 10:43 Comments || Top||

#3  Like business, marriage, parenting, etc. there is a certain amount of trust has to be put into succesful relationships them to make them work. The same is true with our government. If a leader is or becomes corrupt and abuses the system, it is the balance of powers that allows us to go through the purposely difficult process of ridding ourselves of the bum.

The terrorists are using the our strengths as our weaknesses and if they succeed (looking at France and Britain and Spain and The Netherlands and Australia, it's easy to see that they might) you won't have to worry about any of those rights that Al Gore claims he seeks to protect. I say seeks, because CF nailed it, Al is about power, not protection.

Pretending that we need to fear our leaders, even Hillary or Al Gore, more than we do terrorists wishing to create mass destruction and genocide within our borders is nothing short of insane. Al and Hillary are constrained by the checks and balances of our government - Ahmadinejad and bin Laden are not. We need to rid ourselves of this terrorist threat and we will need to give up some of our liberties to do it, or we won't have any liberties to protect.

Think of it like WalMart. Lower prices to run your competition out of business and then raise them back up when its gone.
Posted by: 2b || 01/22/2006 11:29 Comments || Top||

#4  he's got that Monica pose going, doesn't he?
Posted by: Frank G || 01/22/2006 12:29 Comments || Top||

#5  As Stassen's replacement in the eternal prez run...
He will over print Stassen's old buttons

Student's For StassenGore for Peace

Stassen had so many that he could reuse the same buttons election after election. Now Gore will save the enviornment and the world by continuing their use.
Posted by: 3dc || 01/23/2006 0:01 Comments || Top||


International-UN-NGOs
Hey Harry B.: Who IS the World's Worst Dictator?
Posted by: Bobby || 01/22/2006 10:20 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  forced labor - I guess that's a nice word for slavery.

Interesting that Parade is willing to print this. It kind of puts a damper on the ol' GW as terrorist meme.
Posted by: 2b || 01/22/2006 11:14 Comments || Top||

#2  Some of the comments to the article are funny in a sad/pathetic sort of way. A number of them insist that our beloved Commander-in-Chimp be added to the list of the World's Worst. A teensy point they all miss is that here in America we have elections every four years and you can only be President For Life for two terms.
Posted by: SteveS || 01/22/2006 13:46 Comments || Top||

#3  Interesting that Parade is willing to print this. It kind of puts a damper on the ol' GW as terrorist meme.

They've been doing this annually for years. I don't remember how many.

Some of the comments to the article are funny in a sad/pathetic sort of way.

You know what's sad/pathetic? Parade's filters are blanking out certain strings which form naughty words, even if they are contained within complete unobjectionable words, such as Cons***ution, embarr***, and **** Cheney. I still haven't figured out ****stan, though. It has something to do with bombing people on bad intelligence (you know, like we didn't do the other day). Surely it can't be "Paki"?

Somebody go over there and give Scunthorpe as your home town. See what happens.
Posted by: Angie Schultz || 01/22/2006 18:30 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
61[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2006-01-22
  U.S. Navy Seizes Pirate Ship Off Somalia
Sat 2006-01-21
  Plot to kill Hakim thwarted
Fri 2006-01-20
  Brammertz takes up al-Hariri inquiry
Thu 2006-01-19
  Binny offers hudna
Wed 2006-01-18
  Abu Khabab titzup?
Tue 2006-01-17
  Tajiks claim holding senior Hizb ut-Tahrir leader
Mon 2006-01-16
  Canada diplo killed in Afghanistan
Sun 2006-01-15
  Emir of Kuwait dies
Sat 2006-01-14
  Talk of sanctions on Iran premature: France
Fri 2006-01-13
  Predators try for Zawahiri in Pak
Thu 2006-01-12
  Europeans Say Iran Talks Reach Dead End
Wed 2006-01-11
  Spain holds 20 'Iraq recruiters'
Tue 2006-01-10
  Leb army arrests four smuggling arms from North
Mon 2006-01-09
  IRGC ground forces commander killed in plane crash
Sun 2006-01-08
  Assad rejects UN interview request

Better than the average link...



Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
18.209.69.180
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (22)    WoT Background (22)    Non-WoT (14)    (0)    (0)