This time, Hart's blunt warnings hit home - Boston Globe

[Mass]

This time, Hart's blunt warnings hit home

By Scot Lehigh, Globe Columnist | December 5, 2006

GARY HART has long been one of America's most interesting political intellectuals, someone not just provocative but prescient.

The bipartisan national security commission he and Warren Rudman chaired from 1998 to 2001 predicted both that the United States was becoming increasingly vulnerable to terrorist attack and that "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers."

So Hart is well worth listening to when he talks about terrorism.

And his message is blunt.

"We are going to be attacked again, it is just a question of when," he said in a sit-down last week. "These are patient people. . . and they are coming to get us."

His scenario: attacks in cities like Denver, Dallas, and Cleveland, possibly with biological weapons.

"If you want to terrorize people, you don't keep attacking New York," the former Colorado senator, a Democrat, says. "You strike the heartland."
...

Hart and Rudman have proved themselves able analysts willing to tackle big problems in sober, bipartisan fashion -- and to speak uncomfortable truths. The Democrats once again have some power in Washington. Now that they do, the new Congress should call the former commissioners in and seek their unvarnished assessment about what remains to be done to protect this country.

Read the full article here

[radfringe]

1. the warnings may have hit home

but it does no good if the lights are on, but nobody's home

[Skidmore]

2. I agree with Hart.

If the object of terrorism is to keep people in fear, you don't do the predictable. You go for some place that people least expect you to show up. Isn't that what's happening in the ME. They keep changing the targets there.

[blm]

11. I agree - my other concern is Charlotte, NC because Bank of America building

is there and it would disrupt the financial access of so many millions of Americans all over the country.

[Red Zelda]

3. WTF?

What the hell does Gary Hart know about anything??????

[wisteria]

5. He is a former US Senator and still has military connections in high places.

He hasn't just appeared, he has been outspoken against this war, and has supported Senator Kerry's position on Iraq. And at this point, I would say he is a lot more level headed than Bush.

[still_one]

7. His commission warned the bush administration about 9/11

Cheney took the report, and threw it away, saying they would do their own study, WHICH THEY NEVER DID

What does he know, PLENTY

[blm]

9. You can't be serious - HartRudman Report on Global Terror was handed to Bush on Jan30, 2001

and he refused to read it.

That worked out well for the country, didn't it?

A President Clinton, Gore or Kerry would have READ and IMPLEMENTED that report's urgent measures for national security.

[Toots]

10. I would say a bit more than you do

If you read any of the article you read that he and Senator Rudman spent over two years studying terrorism and how best for the US to deal with it. They produced a report , the Hart-Rudman Report, and it was placed on the President's desk when Bush* 1st took office. It was never read by any in the Administration as it had nothing to do with vacations...It went into great detail about the threat and how best for America to deal with it...

[zbdent]

4. Give me a little time

I'll give the longitude and latitude of WTAM-1100's corporate offices in "Cleveland" (actually, Independence Ohio - like the Clear Channel "Akron" station is in North Canton) ...

Just as a note ... not really suggesting anything ... ;)

[still_one]

6. No one gives a damn

In fact after bush won in 2000, I brought the fact that the Hart/Rudman report commissioned by Clinton was disgarded by this administration to associates, and they could care less.

After 9/11 when I brought it up again, they either pleaded ignorance, or that I was incorrect

In spite of the voting irregularities in 2000, most people didn't even bother to vote

In 2004, not much had changed

What happened in 2006 was that women and young people were the factor that turned the election

Have we finally got the message?

[yellowcanine]

8. BBBut we haven't been attacked for 5 years because Bush is keeping us safe.

Of course we weren't attacked for eight years between the first trade center bombing and 9-11. Never mind.

[Solly Mack]

12. "911" was just a matter of time as well

point being, America was never safe from an attack and it never - never ever - will be...government is selling an illusion to pretend otherwise.

I never understood the people who didn't think it was possible for America to be attacked....how deep into your own little world do you have to be to think that? It's ALWAYS been possible...the probability is the only thing that changes.


We deal with it as it comes, apprehend the guilty, and process them as criminals in the courts.

Which means we don't go bat-shit crazy and start wars, erode rights, engage in torture,illegally detain, indefinitely detain, and use extraordinary rendition to solve the issue of terrorism.

Achieving better security doesn't mean we become monsters - well, it doesn't have to mean that...though America did just that...America became a war crime nation in answer to terrorism.

[Horse with no Name]

14. Ahhh a clear cup of educated reason in the morning

tastes so refreshing.
You nailed it.
It is, and always will be, our hubris as Americans that we need to get over.
Cripes...watch the news.
Problem is, most don't associate the terrorism for what it is.
Ask the black people in the South in the 50's and 60's how safe they felt from the Klan.
Is that NOT terrorism?
Ask women who seek to have legal procedures performed how they feel when the women's clinics are under attack.
Is that NOT terrorism?
Ask the Muslim community how they felt after the 911 attacks.
Is that NOT terrorism?
Ask the citizens of Oklahoma City how they felt after their attack.
Is that NOT terrorism?
It is all in the definition that one wishes to identify terrorism with.
Americans have a very linear definition that they use.
Terrorism has been here for years.
We have always just called it something else.

[Solly Mack]

15. Precisely. Great examples!!

Maybe it's easier for people to believe a "terrorist" is some great unknown faceless monster waiting in the wings - but as your examples have shown, we don't have to look far at all for the face of a terrorist. We never did.

[I_Will]

13. I may be naive, but I respectfully disagree. It's not "a matter of when"...

... it's a "matter of why."

Our policies and actions on the world stage precipitate reactions by others.

Act like an empire and expect the "natives" to push back. Act like the lawful and benevolent USA that we were told we were, and engender alliances so that the rising tides lift all boats.

I realie the real world isn't all sunshine and daisies, but at least committing to and continually aspiring to being good and noble has to have better outcomes.

It's what we tell our kids to do, isn't it? Why can't we expect the same from our adults?

Just my two cents.