# War or Crime/Opinion Anyone?



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

VIEWPOINT : Washington ignores threat of decapitating strike 
By Norman Ornstein , 
Published Monday, July 16, 2007
WASHINGTON - The recent car-bomb threats in Britain were stark reminders that terrorists continue to probe for ways to attack us - and not every attempt will fail or be repelled.

That this danger extends to the U.S. was made clearer in May when the White House announced National Security Presidential Directive 51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 20 to create a national continuity policy - ensuring that federal agencies could still operate, with clear lines of authority, in the event of a devastating surprise attack on Washington.

These largely sensible directives have received only modest attention. Yet, they spotlight the abject failure of our leaders in all three branches to make sure our Constitution remains intact if and when terrorists hit us again.

During the Cold War, elaborate top-secret plans existed, including bunkers for the president, vice president, Supreme Court justices and members of Congress. If nuclear missiles were launched by the Soviet Union, there would be 30 to 90 minutes' notice to evacuate top officials by plane, train or automobile.

On Sept. 11, 2001, the era of notice preceding attacks ended. This underscored the fact that none of our branches of government had plans to keep operating if hit in a serious way. An attack on Congress that killed or incapacitated a large number of members would mean no Congress for months.

Each house needs half of its members to be present for a quorum to do any official business. The House of Representatives can replace deceased members only by special elections that take, on average, four months. The Senate, under the 17th Amendment, allows states (usually governors) to appoint replacements to fill vacancies, but neither house has a mechanism for replacing incapacitated members.

Presidential succession after the vice president is set by statute; every person in the line is based in Washington. The Supreme Court requires a quorum of six justices to function; if all or most of the justices are killed, there would be no Supreme Court until a president or acting president nominated successors and the Senate confirmed them. If an attack damaged all three branches, replenishing the court could take months or longer.

Consider the worst-case scenario: a suitcase nuclear attack at a presidential inauguration, with the outgoing and incoming president and vice president, most of Congress, and the Supreme Court present; the outgoing Cabinet scheduled to leave office; and no incoming Cabinet members yet confirmed.

There would be chaos - no clear president to take over, probably many Al Haig wannabes announcing that they were in charge, no quorum to reconstitute Congress, no court to sort out the conflicting claims.

This scenario may be unlikely - but the new presidential directives make clear that it is not outlandish. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, I wrote a series of pieces pointing out the vacuum in governance that could be created by another attack. I helped create a Continuity of Government Commission, co-chaired by former senator Alan Simpson and the late Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel, to consider and recommend reforms to ensure we could quickly constitute legitimate and representative institutions to keep our form of government functioning.

There were, and are, straightforward ways to do so: creating temporary appointments to ensure a representative legislative branch that can function until real and meaningful elections can occur to fill vacancies; revamping presidential succession to ensure that some designated figures are geographically dispersed; creating a temporary Supreme Court, consisting of the chief judges of the federal appeals courts, to adjudicate key constitutional issues until a regular court can be reconstituted.

But my efforts and those of others over the past five-plus years have been met with indifference or hostility. The response of congressional leaders, especially former House speaker Dennis Hastert, was aggressive opposition to serious consideration of any meaningful proposals and slapdash passage of poorly drafted and unworkable stopgap measures to quell the criticism. Former Senate majority leader Bill Frist had no interest. So far, their respective Democratic replacements, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, have shown no greater proclivity to act.

Several times, I raised the question of presidential succession directly with Vice President Cheney, to no avail. I discussed Supreme Court succession with Chief Justice John Roberts soon after he took the post. Roberts said, "I just got here, and you want me to deal with the issue of my demise?"

The lack of interest in continuity may stem from the same reasons some smart people refuse to create wills, even though failure to do so leaves behind horrific messes for their loved ones. Yet the threat is real. Our leaders' failure to establish plans to ensure that our Constitution survives is irresponsible. Do we really have to wait until the nightmare scenario becomes a reality to do something?

The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior counselor to the Continuity of Government Commission.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

OUR OPINION : Thinking about the unthinkable

Published Monday, July 16, 2007
The military is best equipped to fight radical Islamic fundamentalism, some Americans say. No, others argue, the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies must lead the way.

But both sides should agree on this:

Whether terrorism is a "crime" or an "act of war," it poses a threat that one day could destroy the Capitol, the White House and the rest of Washington in a single flash of sunlike light. The United States should heed Norman Ornstein's warning on today's editorial page, and prepare.

The military-vs.-law-enforcement argument is one of the most important debates in America today. It'll play a huge role in the 2008 elections, with Democratic candidates for president tending to favor a law-enforcement approach to fighting al-Qaida and most Republican candidates backing robust use of the military.

But by rigidly favoring one strategy and bad-mouthing the other, the two sides ignore crucial points of agreement - points that could and should be addressed in a bipartisan way.

One of these points is the threat of nuclear terrorism. It's true that terrorist violence tends to be small-scale, at least as compared with the huge battles of World War II. For example, Great Britain survived decades of car bombings and assassinations aimed at influencing decisions about Northern Ireland; and while the violence was frightening, it never threatened the British government's survival.

That has changed. Radical Islamic terrorists have inflicted mass violence and openly declared they're looking for and would use a nuclear weapon. So, the scenario Ornstein describes is plausible: the detonation of a suitcase nuclear device in Washington, possibly timed for an event such as the presidential inauguration when most federal VIPs would be on hand.

When people say modern terrorism poses "an existential threat," that's what they're talking about: A terrorist act that leaves multiple vacancies across the leadership posts in the U.S. government.

Today, as Ornstein points, we're very poorly equipped to respond to such a horror.

Every Democrat, every Republican and every independent in Washington and around the country should work to change that unsettling fact.

On most issues, North Dakota's congressmen and many of their Minnesota counterparts pride themselves on their centrist pragmatism. The members should put that status to good use by championing succession reform. Clearly, the issue needs advocates in the Senate and House, as Ornstein describes. None have yet emerged, and as a result, we're woefully ill-prepared against this most serious of all terrorist threats.

Whether criminal act or act of war, terrorism could destroy America's capital city without warning. Recognizing this, Congress should resolve federal succession issues decisively. Minnesota and North Dakota's delegations could lead the way.

- Tom Dennis for the Herald


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

With everything I have seen and read I believe we are at WAR.
I believe we are in the fight of our lives and there will many hits on our soil.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

War, only questionable by the dimmest wit. I think we are going to get whacked, and hard. I hope we survive. This wouldn't happen if 70% of the nation didn't have their head burried in the sand. Just look at how many people say I don't read about politics, I have better things to do. Without political activism you will loose your firearms, your hunting rights (like we are to outfitters in North Dakota now), your freedom, and perhaps your life.


----------



## angus 1 (Jan 14, 2007)

I agree. I do believe people have forgotten how they , or we , all felt 9/11/01. I have been to NYC . I have seen Ground Zero. I have seen the crews bring up body parts . I have talked to a firefighter just across the street from Ground Zero. I have read the names on the wall by the subway enterance. I will not forget . But I do believe that 9/11 will be considered a small attack compaired to what's coming. Just wait for the suiside bombers to come here. Car bombs . I believe it won't be long. We are at war. When I look at our young people I can't help but feel sorry for them , they will be still fighting this problem years and years from now because we today are too politcally correct to do what needs to be done.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

:stirpot: Yeh, but how many Iraqis were involved in 911?  Jeeeezzzzz!!!


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

Whistler31 said:


> :stirpot: Yeh, but how many Iraqis were involved in 911?  Jeeeezzzzz!!!


I can't see much humor in 9-11 !!!!!!!!! At my wife's sisters funeral service it really didn't matter if the attackers were from Iraq or next door.
It is a religion that attacked!! I see no humor in the sactifices our men and women are making in the military. As a former combat vet I don't care where the hell the attackers are from. I see no humor in this at all,but I thank God we are trying to keep this religion on thier soil no matter what country they are in. There is no humor in stiring the pot,people are dieing every day!


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

Whistler31 said:


> :stirpot: Yeh, but how many Iraqis were involved in 911?  Jeeeezzzzz!!!


Enlighten us with a better plan.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

If you read the "I don't care" post you will understand the comment. That is why the stir the pot. I too feel the same way. It still amazes me that there are people that are so blinded by their BUSH PHOBIA that all they care about is Iraq.



live2hunt said:


> Of the how many terrorists that were directly responsible for the activity that took place on 9-11; how many were Iraqi's?
> 
> Weren't they all Saudi's?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I follow your posts Whistler, and I know you were being sarcastic not disrespectful. Sarcasm is a relief vent when dealing with liberals. My dentist asked if I chew tobacco. I said no why. He said your teeth are all worn down like chisels and that's what I see in tobacco users. I said, no mine is from gritting my teeth to keep from choking the snot out of idiots.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

I thinks that is why I love this forum too. You see, I think most of us here have been brought up the *right way* and are too polite to let them have it. We mind our own business. I seem to remember Sister Kenneth, Father Dougherty, My folks, Grandpa, Grandma and all of my teachers telling me to do that.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

I guess I just don't understand. There is not a person on this site that wasn't affected by 9-11 in someway. We lost a close relative and still very seldom speak of her. I don't care who you are if the attack on 9-11 wasn't an act of war what is? Iraq is a small piece of the big problem. Think about the question that everyone is asking,Do we need more troops in Iraq? We will need more troops in the middle east if there is a war in Iraq or not!! We are going to need more and better Intel here at home and around the world even if there is a pull out of Iraq.

Do these liberals think if there is a pull out of Iraq everything will be fine?

What is the difference between a liberal and an ostrich with his head in the sand?

What kind of a person would call the attack on 9-11 an "activity that took place"?

I quess I just don't get it!!


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

I guess I haven't been making myself very clear.

1. The comment was not made by me.

2. I jumped all over the guy that made the comment.

3. I also told him I didn't think 911 was an "activity".

4. I feel that if we weren't fighting the Bast_rds in Iraq we would have to do it 
here.

5. I am sorry if I made light of such a serious topic but I just wanted to show the absurdity in such a statement.

*6. In the future I will try to put my brain in gear before I type  *


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

His statement was beyond stupid!!!!

In the last 7 years we have had a grandchild killed by a drunk driver and the lost of a sister.

I could do something about the death of our grandchild,the man that did it is in jail and I will do everthing I can to keep him there.

For my wife's sister there is just nothing I can do.

When a so called educated person says it was and activity I get upset.

I am calling it the way I see it. Is there a difference between a spineless liberal and a coward!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The people that want to pull out are not all cowards. Most are doing it because they want us to loose the war. The democrats think that they can pin a loss on George Bush and that will give them a better chance at the presidency in 2008. It's all about their power. They had the majority in congress for 40 years, and then they lost the presidency too. They can't deal with it. I hope the American people are smart enough to see that the democrats are willing to risk the security of this nation for their benefit. A hundred years ago this would be called treason, but today the liberal media is in on the hoax. It's shameful at best and we have become so partisan that many home area democrats will agree with the Washington scoundrels. 
Now Harry Reid is telling the Senate to be ready for long nights, they are going to debate the war. Now the nations business is being set aside so the democrats can set the stage for their charade.


----------



## 280IM (Mar 28, 2005)

There is no pulling out of this war. We can leave Iraq and it will spread like fire. There is no switch to shut it off, no amount of money to buy our way out of the fight, even the spineless will have to stand and fight this one!!


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Just remember the Liberals are the sheep and we are the Sheep Dogs! It is our duty to guard :sniper: this wonderful gift our Forefathers have left for us.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Whistler, following that thought: Natural selection isn't always a good thing. The best America has to offer die in war while the dregs of our society sit and ***** about it, and survive.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

:beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

280IM said:


> There is no pulling out of this war. We can leave Iraq and it will spread like fire. There is no switch to shut it off, no amount of money to buy our way out of the fight, even the spineless will have to stand and fight this one!!


Concise and nearly 100% correct. I would only argue that the spineless will never face the consequences of their stupidity. They will cower in their basements and complain that the problem isn't being solved fast enough. All this while the military, that they will perhaps still condemn, is trying their best to save their worthless behinds. When it hits America they will complain about the law enforcement also. Most liberals that I know have the same contempt for law enforcement as they do the military. Soldiers and Police are all stupid compared to a sophisticated, intellectual liberal. You knew that didn't you?


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Plainsman said:


> This wouldn't happen if 70% of the nation didn't have their head burried in the sand. .


I disagree with that part of your post plainsman. We havent been attacked in this country since 9-11 because we engaged them in Iraq and it is using up much of their recources. Eventually they will get one through the net somehow, even if 99.9% of the US was on board. I am somewhat surprised that we havent had a suicide bomber in a larger city yet, could be because they know that something like that would change public opinion on this whole business, who knows, Im just surprised. The plain hard fact of the matter is that this country doesnt have the stomach for a war with large scale casualties anymore. Could you imagine if we had WW2 or Vietnam type casualties for month? he!! a day for that matter. Im glad our guys are willing to take them on over there, but unless we stop puzzyfooting and start stomping them into the dirt, its going to come here.

The problem with Iraq is that it is full of Iraqies, take care of that problem and then we can get down to business with Iran. Shock and Awe would have been alot different If they had asked for my advice, oh well.


----------



## jdpete75 (Dec 16, 2003)

Whistler31 said:


> Just remember the Liberals are the sheep and we are the Sheep Dogs! It is our duty to guard :sniper: this wonderful gift our Forefathers have left for us.


Who do you classify as "we". I know a couple of hardcore conservatives that arent exactly standing in line at the recruiters office.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman wrote:
> This wouldn't happen if 70% of the nation didn't have their head burried in the sand. .


jdpete75, your confusing me.



> I disagree with that part of your post plainsman. We havent been attacked in this country since 9-11 because we engaged them in Iraq and it is using up much of their recources. Eventually they will get one through the net somehow, even if 99.9% of the US was on board.


Agree



> I am somewhat surprised that we havent had a suicide bomber in a larger city yet, could be because they know that something like that would change public opinion on this whole business,


Agree



> The plain hard fact of the matter is that this country doesnt have the stomach for a war with large scale casualties anymore. Could you imagine if we had WW2 or Vietnam type casualties for month? he!! a day for that matter. Im glad our guys are willing to take them on over there, but unless we stop puzzyfooting and start stomping them into the dirt, its going to come here.


Agree, and there is where the 70% comes in I think. They don't want to be at war, even in self defense, they don't want to talk about it, and many don't like politics of any kind. This is a larger threat to our security than Iraq or Iran.

So what is it we disagree on?


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

jdpete75 said:


> Whistler31 said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember the Liberals are the sheep and we are the Sheep Dogs! It is our duty to guard :sniper: this wonderful gift our Forefathers have left for us.
> ...


I guess by "we" I mean those of us who actually were taught or remember
the "Pledge of Allegiance". And there are people who are unable to enlist in the military. Too old or not physically fit. I don't think that makes them bad conservatives. Truth be told, I don't think Iraq would have been my first choice. But it happened and now we need to unleash the dog's of war and give them whatever they need to get the job done.

As far as not being attacked here. There have been several attempts that were foiled. Also, remember the mall shooting in Salt Lake City? "Muslim"
That idiot in Chicago with the dirty bomb ? "Muslim" The guy at the airport in Los Angeles?"Muslim" The Fort Dix Six? "Muslim" etc.........


----------

