Posted on 06/07/2003 1:05:19 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:03 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
What makes you think they are raising their "left arms?" Many are raising their "right arms" ... and the spectrum of opinion in other nations is simple: they are tired of this global positioning by the USA. We are hated by this BIG_BROTHER attitude that extracts fortunes for a police state. We haven't talked about the nations in Europe, yet that hate this idea of BIG_BROTHER being America. Have you noticed that NATO is about to be disbanded as the EU wants America out?
"Sure, we should listen to the US-hating leftists of Japan, North Korea, and Taiwan. " -- Tailgunner Joe
Let's deal with two issues about 9/11; let's wake up to the truth. Our federal government was supposed to protect us from subversives flying airplanes into buildings. Of the 19 Saudis that were here illegally flying planes into buildings, if our national government was really concerned about its purpose of protecting our borders we probably wouldn't have suffered the damage.
"So smart guy, what do you suggest we do instead of bringing the "pre-emptive" strikes to the enemies?" -- Justin714
But our government is off creating wars everywhere around the world; it is too busy to guard and defend our national borders.
That's not what I said at all.
China is evil. America who defends these countries from this evil, is good.
And these countries you claim resent our global dominance have the sense to welcome America as this force for good in their region in of the world.
Well said. It seems those who have experienced or escaped tyranny have the greatest appreciation for America as a force of good in the world.
Example; Eastern Europe, which has recently been liberated from the oppression of communism is more supportive of America than the ingrates in western Europe who have forgotten that America saved them more than once from dictators and tyrants.
The terrorists who flew planes into our buildings entered this country LEGALLY... your argument makes no sense.
No, I never do, nor do I 'buy union'.
I think you and tail-gunner joe are both right in different ways, but you should place the blame for Vietnam where it belongs: on Leftist protesters and home grown commies who would not let us win. And the French, who start a lot of problems with THEIR dreams of Empire.
Thanks for pointing out the singular issue that I made; that is, that our government has not nor does it intend to guard our national borders. GWBush keeps giving Fox a thumbs up .... it's like he says, "let 'em come on in ... we love the commotion and the American People will pay for it."
"The terrorists who flew planes into our buildings entered this country LEGALLY" -- Jorge
Are you another hypocrite similar to US government policy?
There are so many things wrong with your argument above I hardly know where to start.
First of all, I shop at Wal-Mart all the time and almost nothing I buy there is made in China. They carry the exact same brand-name products as other stores, only at a much lower price.
I'm sure some of their products come from China but it is nowhere near 90% as you claim.
And even if it was...where did you get the idea that "stuff" like toys or clothing is "evil"?
Are you trying to make me laugh on purpose?
Of course when I speak of China being evil I am talking about their oppressive and corrupt Govt that denies people their basic human rights and freedom.
If you don't understand how this is evil, then I am not surprised that you also cannot appreciate that America is good.
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
he cover story in National Review's October 28th issue (out Friday) details how at least 15 of the 19 September 11 hijackers should have been denied visas an assessment based on expert analyses of 15 of the terrorists' visa-application forms, obtained exclusively by NR. In the year after 9/11, the hand-wringing mostly centered on the FBI and CIA's failure to "connect the dots." But that would not have been a fatal blow if the "dots" had not been here in the first place. If the U.S. State Department had followed the law, at least 15 of the 19 "dots" should have been denied visas and they likely wouldn't have been in the United States on September 11, 2001. According to expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion: All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face.
Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address and that was only because his first application was refused and the rest listed only general locations including "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel." One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." Even more amazingly, he got a visa. The experts who scrutinized the applications of 14 Saudis and one from the United Arab Emirates include four former consular officers, a current consular officer stationed in Latin America, and a senior official at Consular Affairs (CA) the division within the State Department that oversees consulates and visa issuance who has extensive consular experience. The visas should have been denied because of a provision in the law known as 214(b), which states that almost all nonimmigrant visa (NIV) applicants are presumed to be intending immigrants. The law is clear: "Every alien [other than several narrowly exempted subcategories] shall be presumed to be an immigrant until he establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer, at the time of application for a visa, that he is entitled to a nonimmigrant [visa]." State's Deputy Press Secretary Phil Reeker recently remarked that 214(b) is "quite a threshold to overcome." It just wasn't for Saudi applicants. Defying the conventional wisdom that al Qaeda had provided its operatives with extensive training to game the system with the right answers to guarantee a visa, the applications were littered with red flags, almost all of which were ignored. The forms were also plagued with significant amounts of missing information something that should have been sufficient grounds to deny many of the visas. For example, while all but one terrorist claimed to be employed or in school, only on three forms is the area marked "Name and Street Address of Present Employer or School" even filled out. At the very least, the CA executive points out, "The consular officers should not have ended the interview until the forms were completed." Any discrepancies or apparent problems that would have been resolved by way of explanation or additional documentation should have been noted in the area reserved for a consular officer's comments yet this was only done on one of the forms. Which begs the question: Were 11 of the 15 terrorists whose applications were reviewed actually interviewed as State claims? Though all of the 15 applications obtained by NR should have been denied, some were worse than others. Here are some of the worst: Wail and Waleed al-Shehri Abdulaziz Alomari Despite the legal requirement that a visa applicant show strong roots in his home country (to give him or her a reason to come back from America), Alomari listed his home address as the "ALQUDOS HTL JED" (a hotel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia). Alomari didn't even bother filling in the fields asking for his nationality and gender, apparently realizing that he didn't need to list much more than his name to get a visa to the United States. As it turns out, he didn't. He got his visa. When he arrived in the United States, he connected with his friend, Mohammed Atta. And less than three months later on September 11 he and Atta helped crash American Airlines Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center. Hani Hanjour On the subsequent application filed two weeks later, Hanjour was armed with all the right answers. Rather than stating "AZ, Rent home" as his U.S. location, he gave a specific address, complete with a house number and street name the only one of the 15 applicants to have done so. On the second go-round, Hanjour applied for a twelve-month student visa, and changed the purpose of the visit to "study" and the desired length of stay to a more appropriate "one year." But so many changes, all of which smoothed out rough spots on the original application, should have troubled the consular officer. "It's never a good sign if someone cleans up his paperwork too well," comments the current consular officer stationed in Latin America. As disturbing as the visa forms are, perhaps more disturbing is that State's handpicked candidate to be the new chief enforcer of visa policies, Maura Harty, had not even looked at them as of her Senate confirmation hearing last week yet the Senate is poised to rubber stamp her nomination. That's a real shame, because examining the applications yields many valuable lessons. The most important is that we're not going to keep out terrorists until State figures out that it needs to enforce the law.
Joel Mowbray is an NRO contributor and a Townhall.com columnist. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Uh..guarding our borders means stopping illegal immigration...NOT stopping people who enter legally.
The 9-11 terrorist entered this country legally.
Your argument is pointless.
GWBush keeps giving Fox a thumbs up .... it's like he says, "let 'em come on in ... we love the commotion and the American People will pay for it."
Wrong again. Fox wanted blanket amnesty for Mexicans illegally in the US..and Bush denied it.
Bush also signed the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act which is a border-security law that restricts travel visas on visitors from terrorist countries, strengthens enforcement and requires schools to keep better tabs on foreign students.
LOL!
Not to belabor the obvious, but American foriegn policy can never be consisnt, much less avoid hypocracy, because we changed governments on a regular basis. How could one expect Reagan to continue Carters policies, or Bush to continue Clintons? Granted, many countries are far more consistant than us in their foriegn policy, like North Korea, for instance, although a dictatorship tends to be pretty predictable.
America's shallow embrace for "peace" around the world is nothing more than a cloak to spread an Empire.
Peace? I thought the idea was freedom. Slaves live in peace, this is hardly a desirable state without liberty. There is no less noble concept than that of 'peace at all costs', and no more reliable way to ensure your own demise.
Empire? An empire of the willing, that abandons its outposts in Panama and the Philippeans, that defends others on request, levies no taxes or tribute on the conquered after war, and rebuilds their lands better than before? You mean to say that we're going to be colonizing Iraq and forcing them to learn English? Do you, by chance, have any idea what the word 'empire' means?
I suppose America is a democracy under your sublime and articulate concept. We were never a republic based upon Constitutional standards such as the Bill of Rights. You are another fence sitter like Hillary Clinton telling us about the living, breathing Constitution. Even Tribe has restructured this idea... in fact, he has rescinded the point, altogether.
" ... we changed governments on a regular basis." -- Steel Wolf
The CIA has almost dictatorial powers? I need to foreward them the memo, I guarentee they didn't know that.
Korean War? I'll take the Soviet Union for 200, Alex.
Vietnam? French Imperial Ambitions for 400, Alex.
Kosovo? Lets try Clintons Legacy for 300.
Iraq? Lets start on the Axis of Evil column.
The CIA, sheesh, I mean, didn't you hear that the NSA is the boogeyman these days. The CIA consipiracies are so 1970's.
That's a secondary issue for monday morning quarterbacks.
The point is they WERE issued visas and they were NOT here illegally.
So your argument that 9-11 can be blamed on authorities not guarding our borders against illegals makes no sense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.