You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-13   14-38   39-63   64-88   89-92      
 
Author Message
richard
Will we become a police state if there's another attack? Mark Unseen   Feb 26 01:53 UTC 2006

From the San Antonio Express:

"The greatest threat to America's democracy is not terrorism but 
governmental secrecy, said Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Bob 
Woodward, whose reporting almost 35 years ago pierced the veil of 
secrecy behind Richard Nixon's presidency. 

Although a massive, coordinated attack on the country, making 9-11 look 
like a "footnote," is still possible, the nation faces a greater threat 
from the federal government's current secrecy drive, Woodward told an 
audience in San Antonio on Tuesday. 

"Democracies die in darkness," Woodward told the 500-person crowd of 
mostly business and community leaders as part of Trinity University's 
policy maker breakfast series, a 25-year tradition. 

The Bush administration, which gave Woodward remarkable access for his 
two books on the administration's war on terror, "Bush At War," in 2002 
and "Plan of Attack," in 2004, has cloaked its decision-making in "an 
immense amount of secrecy," he said, "too much, in my view." 

The administration says it needs to work in secret because of the 
nature of the Iraqi war and the surprise tactics terrorists rely on. 

Having a year to work on his latest book, about Bush's decision to 
launch the Iraqi war, he said, allowed him to gather an immense amount 
of information from a variety of sources. 

He then wrote a 21-page memo to the president, outlining what he had 
learned. 

Jokes aside about whether the president reads 21-page memos, Woodward 
said he was given 31/2 hours to interview the president. He called it 
the longest interview a sitting president has ever granted. 

The resulting book, "Plan of Attack," tries to offer "understanding and 
perspective, not to condemn, or endorse, but to explain" what happened 
during the 16 months he said it took Bush to decide to go to war. 

"And make no mistake, it was Bush's decision," he said, although he 
called Vice President Dick Cheney "a steam rolling force" in the 
process. 

At the beginning of his talk, Woodward asked for a show of hands from 
those who voted for Bush in 2004. 

Most in the crowd raised their hands. 

But fewer hands were raised when he asked if attendees believed in 
Bush's tax cuts, and whether they agreed with Bush's decision to launch 
a secret wiretap program to listen in an unknown number of domestic 
communications to overseas telephones without court-issued warrants. 

When he asked the crowd if it believed, with the benefit of hindsight, 
if going to war was "necessary and wise," fewer than half the room's 
hands went up. 

Woodward said the possibility of "the Mideast imploding," cannot be 
dismissed, and that his darkest fear, shared by some in the 
intelligence community, is that terrorists are waiting until "multiple, 
high-stakes attacks" can be launched on U.S. cities and targets. 

He said, "9-11 will be a footnote, but it could happen, and if it does, 
we will become a police state." 

Even as he scolded the media's tendency to prophesy the future, 
Woodward offered his prediction for the 2008 presidential race. 

By all indications, he said, Democrat Hillary Clinton is running. 

He noted that Republicans have a long track record of nominating "old 
war horses." 

Given that, and depending on how things in Iraq proceed, "You're going 
to think I'm crazy, but you heard it here first. I think they could 
nominate Dick Cheney." 


Woodward's views are shared by many that we are heading into dark 
times.  One more attack and we could well end up essentially a police 
state, and with the hard line right wing more firmly entrenched than 
ever.  One more attack, and Cheney, the dark lord of the republican 
right, gets elected president with the willingness to nuke every one of 
our enemies.  
92 responses total.
scholar
response 1 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 01:59 UTC 2006

if you actually believed this was a possibility, i don't think you would have
posted it.

afterall, posting it would make you a prime target in any future such society.

and don't think no-one would turn you in.

look at how mary remmers spunked out jep.
kingjon
response 2 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 02:18 UTC 2006

Eek!

That said, without examining the evidence (or reading the book) myself, this
sounds credible and frightening at the same time. Makes me almost want to vote
Democratic or Libertarian. (Almost. Not quite.)

keesan
response 3 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 02:54 UTC 2006

What would it take to make you want to vote Republican?  You can choose the
lesser of two evils or not vote for either one.
nharmon
response 4 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 03:08 UTC 2006

> What would it take to make you want to vote Republican?

John Kerry.



(SORRY! But you asked for that one!!!)
rcurl
response 5 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 03:33 UTC 2006

No offense taken - Kerry was a poor candidate. He was just better than the
alternative.
nharmon
response 6 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 03:54 UTC 2006

Well, here's hopes to a shift back to moderacy in 2008.
cyklone
response 7 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 04:35 UTC 2006

In jr. high I refered to myself a s a "raderate" (radical moderate) willing
to fight against excesses on both sides of the political spectrum. I can only
hope more Americans embrace that view in the upcoming elections.
kingjon
response 8 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 04:41 UTC 2006

Re #3: That's the position I was alluding to #0 tempting me away from. Nearly
anything could cause me to vote Republican, though I will try to look into each
candidate's background, record, and statements (no straight-ticket voting for
me!).

scholar
response 9 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 04:55 UTC 2006

re. 7:  why are black people always making up their own words.  :(
naftee
response 10 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 06:25 UTC 2006

whoa. a s a
mcnally
response 11 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 07:29 UTC 2006

 re #6:  if you'd wanted a moderate government you should've voted for
 Kerry.  Setting aside arguments about whether or not Kerry was a liberal
 candidate or not, which do you think leads to a more moderate outcome,
 having a president, legislature, and Supreme Court all controlled by
 a single party or having the legislative and executive branches 
 controlled by opposing parties committed to maintaining the system
 of checks and balances that has traditionally safeguarded us from
 government excess?
bru
response 12 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 12:57 UTC 2006

you mean controlled by the same party like the Democrats did for so many
years?
twenex
response 13 of 92: Mark Unseen   Feb 26 13:43 UTC 2006

Re: #11. Nathan thinks Kerry was an "extremist". Yes. Seriously.
 0-13   14-38   39-63   64-88   89-92      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss