Tuesday September 25 11:07 PM ET

Bush Presses for More Police Powers on Homefront

By Alan Elsner and Tahir Ikram

WASHINGTON/ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) pressed on Tuesday for expanded powers to detain people in a homefront ''war against terrorism'' but the Pentagon (news - web sites) hinted that a major land attack on Afghanistan (news - web sites) may not be in the offing.

Two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon left almost 7,000 people reported dead or missing, Bush urged Congress to give law enforcement officers expanded powers to tap telephones, conduct searches, seize assets and detain suspected terrorists.

``Now that we're at war we ought to give the FBI (news - web sites) tools to track down terrorists,'' the president said during a brief appearance at FBI headquarters.

Bush's proposals have drawn a firestorm of criticism from civil liberties groups, but others have cautioned this might be the price the United States will have to pay for security.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday that Washington will not launch a massive D-Day invasion to win its campaign against terrorism, but is preparing instead for a long fight.

As U.S. forces intensified a major buildup within striking range of Afghanistan, Rumsfeld said the campaign would not open with an invasion like the 1944 allied attack on France that sparked the fall of Nazi Germany in World War Two.

``The truth is this is not about revenge. It's not about retaliation. This is about self defense,'' Rumsfeld said. ``The United States of America knows that the only way we can defend against terrorism is by taking the fight to the terrorists.''

-- (Hitler wants @ more. goons), September 25, 2001

Answers

Yep, knew this would happen. Rather than eliminating the problem at the source, King Idiot will turn our country into a Big Brother Military Police State at the first opportunity he gets. What do you expect from a fascist dictator.

-- (bye@bye.freedom), September 25, 2001.

What's the point in further marginalizing yourselves? Hysteria never looks good but this antiBush version is starting to look really silly.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

What's the point in ass-kissing Bush, Carlos? We know you aren't being sincere. After all, if Clinton had suggested something like this, you'd be screaming bloody murder and calling him an Evil Communist Hitler Satan-Worshipper! Oh the hypocrisy, LOL!!

-- (Bush is @ communist. tyrant), September 26, 2001.

We'll Carlos?

-- (idiots@rerampant.here), September 26, 2001.

"We know..." shit. Clinton would have handled this well. The guy wasn't stupid he was just the best playing political fraud to come down the road in my lifetime. We got NAFTA that's good. We got welfare reform and that's good. "Don't ask don't tell." OK.

What strikes about Clinton is how he can screw the unions w/ NAFTA, screw the Black Caucus with welfare reform then screw the gays with "Don't ask, don't tell." and you are still kissing HIS ass!!! Then you want to talk to me about hypocrisy.

Bad thing about Bush is he just doesn't have the personality to create a cult. Then, looking back, maybe that's a good thing.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

LOL!

There's no way you can deny that Dumbya is a fascist dictator, so you start rambling about NAFTA, unions, blacks, and gays!! Hee hee hee, you funny!

BTW, if anyone is going to screw the unions it will be Dumbya. Just watch.

-- (please@pull.head.out), September 26, 2001.

Nice try. Dissect my rambling to your advantage if you can.

You're starting to blurt instad of talk. Bad sign.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

Hee hee hee!

Just admit it Carlos, you love kissing Bush's ass. You and JJ are so predictable. Anytime anyone says anything negative about your hero the idiot, you jump to his defense. Bush is an idiot, and rather than admit you made a mistake by voting for him, you will defend him to the day you die, even if he leads our country into Armageddon.

Well I gotta admit, you're loyal. Very STUPID, but loyal! ROTFL!!

-- (you.crack@me.up!), September 26, 2001.

Loyal counts a lot for me. Bush will have to earn that but I will give him the chance.

As for Armageddon; Sure you wouldn't be more comfortable at Dennis'. Lotsa folks like you there that enjoy talking Armageddon.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), September 26, 2001.

Nope, you got me all wrong Bozo. Not a big believer in Armageddon. But with a dangerous idiot like Dumbya at the helm, it certainly has become a real possibility.

-- (he's@dumb.enough), September 26, 2001.

www.dailytelegraph.com/opinion

The mood in the White House is one of 'hard-favoured rage'

By Charles Powell

TWO weeks on from the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, the dominant impression is no longer of their stomach-churning savagery. It is of the quality, indeed nobility, of the American response by both government and people.

There has been no lashing out in blind fury, as predicted by America's patronising critics in Europe. Nor has a frightened superpower taken cover behind its continental walls. Instead of histrionics, we have witnessed old-fashioned patriotism and steely resolve, reflected in President Bush's address to Congress. America has shown that it knows how to rise to a challenge. When Colin Powell retired as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, he quoted Thuycidides: "Of all manifestations of power, restraint impresses men most." That is the mood and quality of America.

There are weasel words emerging of a "proportionate" or "targeted" response - meaning proportionate to European governments' fears of becoming a target or threats to European interests in the Middle East. There were similar voices when the Falklands were invaded, urging restraint because of the risks of military defeat and of upsetting Latin American opinion; similar voices greeted the invasion of Kuwait, bleating that a military response could trigger a Third World War.

Those voices were ignored by Margaret Thatcher and by George Bush Snr then, and will rightly be ignored now. From recent contacts with several members of Mr Bush's cabinet, I am in no doubt that proportionate means proportionate to the scale of the violence and injury inflicted on America - equivalent in a single hour to more than a tenth of all US casualties in 15 years of Vietnam. The military response will go well beyond a few cruise missiles cratering the Afghan desert, the sort of gesture favoured by President Clinton. The build-up of American and British forces implies that there will be a sustained attack against terrorists in Afghanistan and the Taliban forces that try to protect them.

The Americans are wisely concentrating on that difficult task before moving on. But move on they will. Afghanistan is not the only country to shelter terrorists. Other countries know that the Americans know their past record: and they include some American allies as well as foes. They will face demands for detailed intelligence on terrorist groups, for their arrest and extradition and for verifiable guarantees that all support for them will cease. If they do not respond adequately - and in cases such as Iraq that must be probable - they will face the destruction of military installations and defence industries.

Fainter hearts will demand that action must be approved in advance by the UN. I recall a similar debate in Washington after Saddam invaded Kuwait. Mrs Thatcher insisted that the right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter gave the necessary authority to go to war. If she had been listened to, Saddam might no longer be there. Instead, by depending on UN authority for military action, the Gulf coalition could do no more than chase the Iraqis out of Kuwait. The Americans will have learnt from that experience.

Although Mr Bush has handled the crisis impeccably, there have been disappointments. One is attacks on individual Muslims and their places of worship. The message must go out that, far from being hostile to Muslims, America was their main defence in Bosnia and Kosovo, doing more for them than any Muslim government. Incidentally, America is the main provider of emergency aid to Afghanistan.

Another disappointment is the cancellation of international meetings, notably the IMF/World Bank's Washington conference. They have let themselves be disrupted by terrorism and the threats of anti-globalisation protesters. Israel's conduct has been cynical to a degree - and I say that as a life-long supporter. If ever an act was calculated to destroy sympathy for the Palestinian cause and remind everyone what Jews have experienced for so long, it was the attacks on the World Trade Centre. Instead of using the moment to start fresh negotiations, Ariel Sharon, Israel's prime minister, continues to build settlements. Such selfishness gravely undermines Israel's moral standing.

Nor have financial markets distinguished themselves, despite the heroic efforts to re-open in New York. Investors have led the scamper to the bomb shelters. Given reductions in interest rates, the massive liquidity injected into the markets by central banks, tax cuts with the promise of more to come and the heavy additional public spending now promised in America, eventual recovery is programmed into the system. No one would suggest that patriotism alone is sufficient reason for investing. But it is disappointing that markets cannot show more self-confidence and less short-termism.

Some good will come of the grim experience to which America has been subjected. As with victory in 1945 and the end of the Cold War in 1989, what previously seemed impossible suddenly becomes achievable. The cards are thrown in the air and land differently. Over the past two weeks, there have been signs of unprecedented willingness to work with America from Russia and China, and even from Iran.

Could this presage a new pattern of international co-operation, transcending previous hostility? Could we see America launch a renewed effort to achieve settlement between Israel and the Palestinians? Could this spell the end of ambivalence about terrorism; not just "terrorism with a global reach", in the cautious words of diplomats, but all terrorism, including the IRA's? Might Nato take on a new lease of life as the prime forum of transatlantic co-operation? So-called European defence institutions have been distinguished by their total irrelevance to recent events. All these changes are achievable if America and its allies maintain the resolve they have demonstrated these past two weeks.

Lord Powell was private secretary to the prime minister, 1983-91

-- Carlos (is@cutie.pie), September 26, 2001.

Firstly, they need to explain how any of these new moves might have prevented what did happen. Wasn't ashcroft the one who said that if only we had known about those guys going to flight schools, we would have done something, and now it comes out from the flight school instructors that they had been interviewed by feds for months and months, that the perpetrators were well known, that they were in the country illegally and with no means of support. Then he said they had no inkling that such tactics would be resorted to, yet everything form a lame steven segal movie, to a Tom Clancy novel, to papers found in towers bombers of 1993 showed the tactics of suicide hijackings.

In light of massive failures of the agencies charged with protecting the citizens, they should be justifying their ongoing existence, and witnessing some heads rolling.

Not once has an american citizen been accused of complicity in the incidents, but they want further control of american citizens. Why not just do their jobs, and get rid of people not legally here?

Why does apparent negligence constitute a justification for being granted more control?

How on earth are airline checkpoints supposed to distinguish between americans who must carry papers or 'id badges,' and an Iraqui national, who does not? Is the american at Des Moines airport who does not have his precious badged taken away, and the Iraqi passing through, whose country does not impose such draconian abuses, simply waved through?

-- HeyAshcroftWThisisAmerica (Oh.Boy@New.Peeves), September 26, 2001.

What's the point in ass-kissing Bush, Carlos? We know you aren't being sincere. After all, if Clinton had suggested something like this, you'd be screaming bloody murder and calling him an Evil Communist Hitler Satan-Worshipper! Oh the hypocrisy, LOL!!

-- (Bush is @ communist. tyrant), September 26, 2001.

rolling on floor laughing my fucking ass off!!! Clinton would be still hiding under Monica's dress!! Thank God that fucking coward is long outta office or we'd have surrendered already!! IF klinton wouldn't have gutted the services with such enthusiasiom, maybe we'd have been a little more prepared, after all, something like this wasn't thought up over a period of a few days or weeks, this was years in the making and Clinton was asleep with the interns while our enemies plotted against us!

-- If you're liberal- (you_must_be_fucking@stupid.com), September 27, 2001.

--If you're liberal:

You poor, deluded, pathetic repug.

Senate backs additional military base closings

Associated Press Published Sep 26 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Bush's base-closings initiative was endorsed by the Senate on Tuesday with strong support from Democrats. It faces a rocky future in the House.

The 53-47 vote killed an amendment to remove the base-closings provision from the $343 billion defense bill that authorizes money for the military efforts of the Defense and Energy departments for the next fiscal year, which begins Monday.

"This vote is really all about whether we're going to do business as usual, and preserve our bases in our states whether they're necessary or not, or whether we're going to have ... the most efficient military machine to fight this long protracted struggle" against terrorism, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said during debate before the vote.

The bill calls for one round of closings in 2003, with an independent panel deciding which bases would be affected, and the Congress and president approving or rejecting the entire list. Four rounds of base-closings -- in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 -- led to the closing or realignment of 451 installations, including 97 major facilities.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Clinton's a coward and Dubya's NOT?? Look at "Dubya's The Drunk Draft Dodger's" service record, if you dare to even call it that:

His Daddy and his moneyed friends ensured Dubya would never have to serve in Viet Nam like his peers (even tho he was, at best, a marginal student in college). Instead he was allowed to enlist in the fearless and famous "Champagne Squadron" of the Texas Air National Guard. This piece of shit coward was coddled and given every possible advantage. Even under those circumstances he was never able to make his "drills" even half the time, he was constantly getting duty exemptions (too drunk to be of any use anyway, so most of his superiors were happy to let that slide - and they didn't want to piss off his daddy, or daddy's friends, either). The PBS documentary on this very matter pointed out that he pretty much just "disappeared" the entire last year and a half of his (state) military obligation without so much as an explanation - just too self-important or too drunk to bother, it's believed.

As a veteran I have to look at Bush's record and ask: why was this cowardly turd not thrown right straight into some line infantry company in Viet Nam for this arrogant, cowardly crap? Anybody else would have been, right after missing their third drill...

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.

Dubya: the worst coward ever to serve as "Commander in Chief" George W. Bush's Military Service Record Vets offer reward for "missing" Bush service records Documents photocopies:
First: Document about George W. Bush, redacted for "administrative reasons"

Second: Document: Agreement signed by George W. Bush to accept military flying assignments after training (reneged on after disobeying orders)

Third: Document: Order to suspend George Bush from flying for failing to obey an order

Fourth: Document: Evidence that George W. Bush was allowed to substitute civilian duties for flying duties (Viet Nam era) following his refusal to take physical and drug test

Fifth: Document: Statement specifying disciplinary measures, singed by George W. Bush

Sixth: Document: Assignment of George W. Bush to disciplinary unit in Denver
 

Footnotes
1  Bush was suspended by military order. Official document

2 Enlistment papers specifying punishments for not fulfilling Air National Guard obligations 

3 Boston  Globe Article Oct 31 2000

4  His two Texas Commanders statements: they never saw him during the 5/72-5/73 period. He was assigned, perhaps through political influence, to a civilian unit (during the war) after disobeying an order.

5 Boston Globe article Oct 30 2000

6 Vets Want Proof of Bush Service, Birm ingham News

7 Bush's Service Record, go to archives for Oct. 24, 2000 in the Arizona Daily Star

8 George W.'s Troubling Flights of Fancy

9 To look  at 30  pages of Bush's FOIA records

10 OOrder suspending Bush from flying. 

11 Order refusing Bush's transfer. Bush was not eligible for transfer, tried again, perhaps with political influence, and left for civilian duties before his term was completed. 

12 May 2000 Boston Globe article 

13 Purported proof of Bush's military service for 1972-73. Document is nearly blank and does not identify who it belongs to. Note that most of the dates and Bush's name (except for the "W") have been torn off.

Other sites with information, some more partisan than others...

Washington Post article, Nov 3, 2000
"The Bush campaign points to a torn piece of paper in his Guard records, a statement of points Bush apparently earned in 1972-73, although most of the dates and Bush's name except for the "W" have been torn off..." The article goes on to say that the torn sheet of paper is shown as evidence by the Bush people that he satisfied his requirements, but that is contradicted by a written report signed by two superiors.

Bob Rogers' Overview on Bush's Non-attendance 

Bob Rogers' Latest Summary

Martin Heldt's Home Page on Bush's Missing Years

Martin Heldt's Chronology of The Problem Suck it up, Bushies. This man is a public disgrace.

-- Zzzzz (asleep@the.wheel), September 27, 2001.

That's interesting.

You have this hatred for Bush, who allegedly skipped out on some duty time while in the guard, but you sing the praises of a communist coward who scurried off to England so that he could avoid any kind of service to his country, all the while protesting against it.

Very interesting.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 27, 2001.

Well we know that Bush couldn't use the excuse of being a Rhodes Scholar don't we?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 27, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

It's too bad that you can't think clearly enough to see that a man who earned a B.S. from Yale, and an M.B.A. from Harvard isn't dumb, the liberal media's insistence otherwise and your smartass comment, notwithstanding.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 27, 2001.

Every village has its idiot.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 27, 2001.

Jack Booted Thug,

Don't be too hard on yourself.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 27, 2001.

"a man who earned a B.S. from Yale, and an M.B.A. from Harvard isn't dumb"

True, the problem with Dumbya is he didn't EARN it! It was bought and paid for, like everything else in the pathetic little piece of stinking shit's life.

-- (JJ@brown-noses.Dumbya), September 27, 2001.

anonymous coward,

I don't suppose that you have any proof to back up your assinine assertion, do you? No, of course not.

Your baseless claim is, as is most of that which is posted by the anonymous coward crowd, worthless.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), September 27, 2001.

Good one J. I should have specified the village of Washington, D.C.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), September 27, 2001.

pathetic J fool,

Perhaps you have evidence that past president William Clinton was a communist. I do not think he joined the party, and I believe your assertions are only wild opinions. Bill Clinton might have been a military genious, a man with many talented friends, and a popular official, but he was no communist.

Certainly protesting a war should not automatically associate one with the enemy. Besides, the protesters were quite correct. Though the people who died in that war died bravely, they died uselessly. Time has proven the 'Domino Theory' wrong, and those who understood this at the time were not necessarily communists - they were simply correct. OTOH, Johnson, Nixon, and the rest of their cronies were not necessarily great capitalists nor great Americans, they were merely WRONG. But why are you still fighting this long lost battle? Are you a southerner by chance, an Irishman, or an Albanian? Get over it, my man.

Finally, as you may note from my greeting, it is easy to call others fools and cowards. Some might even consider it entertaining. Is that why you post to this board? If so, perhaps 'clown' would be a more appropriate greeting. Get over it, my man.

-- A (a@B.com), September 27, 2001.

"A"

Why do you bother? J don't answer anonymous posters, remember? hahaha

-- (repugs@reasdumbasnails.net), September 28, 2001.