Osama bin Laden still apparently lives to threaten America. Yeah, we’re supposed to jump around at knocking off a few senior Al Qaeda guys when they’ve certainly claimed a lot more lives on our side than we on theirs.
Bushie, you’re doing a heck of a job.
(FOX, continuing to fill their role as the new media Pravda, is saying that the new audio tape is proof that Bin Laden is “on the run”. Up is down, indeed.)
I get the strange feeling that none of the 4 AQ people Pakistan lists as having been in the house targeted were actually there. And that much of this is an internal PR operation because of outrage over the deaths of 18 civilians. Pakistan has done this for years. Remember when we were sure we had Al-Zawahiri “surrounded” last year? So far Pakistan has only said who they believed was going to be there, but nothing indicating that they know who was actually there when the missile struck.
How many terrorist attacks against the United States since 9/11?
Oh that’s right. NONE.
Would somebody please point to the “Shredding of the Bill of Rights” Exhibit… I hear it’s going on right now, but I don’t know where.
Maybe if we shred the bill of rights, we can get that statistic down into negative numbers, huh, Jay?
Apparently OBL is feeling some heat as it’s reported that he wants
to declare a truce with those of the ‘innocent’ west. To me, that indicates
less sympathy and help from those who gave shelter in the past.
Let’s hope the fumbling fools in the White House don’t screw the pooch
like the stupid suggestion, ‘bombing Al Jazeera’ again.
Obviously we haven’t done enough to sacrifice our civil liberties at home, or we would have caught Osama by now.
/Typical Bush supporter
factcheck, I am talking policy and stategy. And all you can do is be emotional. Once again, why no one trusts the left with national security.
Leroy, London was not strategic. Spain was strategic in that it changed the policy of a country. London was, in the grand scheme of things, nothing. The stock markets were up that day, an indication of how minor it was.
And the left wonders why the rest of the country doesn’t trust them on National Security.
Washington, D.C.
Who cares about Osama. At ths point, he is completely irrelevant to the GWOT. In fact, we don t want to catch him.
I care about Osama. He killed 3,000 of my fellow New Yorkers and I want him rotting in a jail cell.
And yes, nudnick…we should put him on trial. A fair trial with access to lawyers and the chance to defend himself.
We do this one by the book.
Wanna know why?
To show him and the world that we are better than al Qaeda. That we have a system of justice, not vengence. That they are the monsters and we will remain civilized men and women even in the face of such monsters.
To show the world that our commitment to freedom and the rule of law is stronger than any bomb, any terrorist, any attack.
That’s why we put him on trial, dude. Not to prove that we’re stronger, to prove that we are better.
“If only Clinton had gone after him the 90 s.”
And if only we hadn’t armed and trained him to fight the Soviets. And round and round we go…
So the next time we get hit and thousands of Americans die, we should let that killer go free also?
Wow.
Wasn’t it your president who said something about smoking OBL out of his hole?
While we’re playing this stupid partisan game…
If only Clinton had gone after him the 90’s.
Don, that’s very nice sentiment and all. But aside from the emotion, its completely worthless.
OBL declares war on the US, and you want to treat this as a criminal matter.
And yes, nudnick& we should put him on trial. A fair trial with access to lawyers and the chance to defend himself.
Where do you plan to find an impartial jury? What happens if we can’t convict him? What happens to him as a symbol if we do convict him?
You are not thinking logically, rationally, or strategically.
And no, I am not saying we should let him get away. The best result would be if he were killed or captured by Special Forces and no one was told about it. You deny him the very thing he and his supporters want – publicity on the world stage.
Oh, I thought you meant the attack itself. Coordinated bombers and all that. Honest mistake. My bad.
Who cares about Osama. At ths point, he is completely irrelevant to the GWOT. In fact, we don t want to catch him.
Wow. I think that the families of the WTC and Pentagon victims would probably disagree with you. As would any real American.
I guess bringing murderers to justice means nothing to cons.
London.
Bali.
Baghdad’s Green Zone.
Madrid.
Yeah, there’s no way they could hit America again. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Yes, Oliver. If we had only caught Osaem, then there would be no more terrorism.
Who cares about Osama. At ths point, he is completely irrelevant to the GWOT. In fact, we don’t want to catch him. Think for a second. If we actually caught him, what would we do with him? Put him on trial? Where? Would that cause more terrorist attacks?
And anyway, its not even clear that this is a contemporaneous tape of Osame, as opposed to one recorded weeks, months or years ago.
I dunno, London seemed pretty strategic to me. So did Bali. How are we classifying strategy?
Not that it reallly matters. I agree that I’m not sure what we’d do with him if we caught him, but we did kinda make it our big centerpiece. I mean, you can have two hiesman winners on your team, but if you don’t get the big trophy, what’s it all mean? We made it our mission to track OBL down and it ain’t happening. That does look bad, you have to admit.
Myers are the special forces guys going to have to learn to recite Miranda in arabic for OBL?
You are why the democrats MUST stay out of the WH. You are idealistic to the point of self-destruction.
My guess is that the standing order for anyone seriously looking for OBL is a double tap to the center-of-mass and one through the forehead….then we can drag his body through the town square….
Jay:
Sincle we’re fighting a GLOBAL War on Terrorism, you have to look at GLOBAL Terrorism—-which is way, way up according to the US State Dept.
Who cares about Osama
Bush redux.
Move the goal post much?
So your against bringing OBL to justice.
Run on that in ‘06. Please.
London.
Bali.
Baghdad s Green Zone.
Madrid.
And besides Madrid, which of those attacks have been strategic? NONE.
Yeah, there s no way they could hit America again. Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.
Its a good thing we have the NSA listening in on these guys, isn’t it Ollie?
Would somebody please point to the Shredding of the Bill of Rights Exhibit& I hear it s going on right now, but I don t know where.
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
I also have a rock that stops bear attacks. Well, you don’t see any around here right?
Like everything else in life, this can be explained with “Simpsons” quotes.
London.
Bali.
Baghdad s Green Zone.
Madrid.
I ask again: How many terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11?
Sincle we re fighting a GLOBAL War on Terrorism, you have to look at GLOBAL Terrorism -which is way, way up according to the US State Dept.
The President’s primary responsibility is to defend the UNITED STATES, here and abroad. From 1993-2001, US property here and throughout the world suffered 6 terrorist attacks. WTC, Khobar Towers in SA, embassy bombings in Africa, USS Cole, WTC. 6 times in less than 8 years.
Since 9/11, there hasn’t been a single attack of that nature. Oliver tries to be cute claiming casualties in Iraq count, but at the same time he thinks we should be dropping troops all around the world to kill terrorists. Then any deaths resulting from that action wouldn’t count.
And I find it pretty pathetic that Oliver thinks killing the man who trained the terrorists that murdered 17 sailors aboard the USS Cole is no big deal.
Oh…, if only in the 1990’s Republicans had let Clinton go after terrorists instead of investigating him endlessly for no-show Whitewater charges.
But then, the Republicans went after Saddam Hussein (who we’d been bombing with impunity for 13 years and who we beat on the ground in three weeks) for no-show weapons of mass destruction.
Republicans: panicking into error over exaggerated dangers and imaginary conspiracies.
Now all those years in which the US was free from Islamic terror attacks were you out there praising Clinton to the skies for keeping us safe and secure?
Excuse me. Bombing our army barracks in Saudi Arabia is an attack on the United States. Blowing up our embassies in Africa was an attack on the United States. Blowing a hole in one of our warships was an attack on the United States.
Are you that fucking dumb to think those don’t count? Are you truly that stupid to be believe the lack of any real response to those attacks didn’t lay the groundwork for 9/11? This is something that is only disputed by people without any capacity to think.
Jay C, there have hundreds of terror attacks against the US since 9-11. Our soldiers are being blown up on a daily basis in Iraq. Our allies have been attacked several times. Anthrax was after 9-11 in US. The Republican National Convention in NYC. US consulate in Karachi. Beltway Sniper. Riyahd compound. El Al ticket counter gunman in US. A few Abortion clinic arsons, mosque bombings, black church arsons in the US, and other acts of domestic terrorism.
Nudnik thinks we should have let Adolph Hitler and the rest of the Nazi war criminals go too. After all, once we had victory in hand or they weren’t effective in the war against the US, they become irrelevant.
I want OBL dead or convicted. Apparently cons don’t believe in punishing people that attack the US. Why is he still breathing air 5 years after attacking the US?
Hey Paul, the bill of rights applies to americans, not foreign terrorists. Like I said, you lefties are idealistic to the point of self destruction.
The “congressional research service” doesn’t have anything to do with law enforcement in the US.
However, the chief law enforcement officer says it was legal….
Now what?
…bombing our federal building in Oklahoma City was also an attack on the United States. “Did you forget?” as the song goes. But have we stood together?
We were all attacked… and since we couldn’t or wouldn’t find those attackers, we fell to attacking each other.
…it’s really quite an elegant strategy.
Would somebody please point to the Shredding of the Bill of Rights Exhibit& I hear it s going on right now, but I don t know where.
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
And CNN isn’t covering it?
Correction: “So you re counting the Cole against Clinton but not every IED or downed helicopter or murdered US soldier in Iraq against Bush.”
Gonzalez says it was legal but he’s a part of the executive branch. It’s called chacks and balance you moron. But since you’re part of the cadre of idiots here who would so gladly give up your Constitutional rights for an illusions of safety I’m not surprised you don’t know that. The Congressional Research Service is there to provide unbiased reports to Congress which does indeed have oversight over the executive in situations like this because it was Congress’s law that the President was violating. The CRS tells congress that the president acted inconsistent with the law. Now what? One more talking point down the drain for you.
I don’t want OBL convicted, I want him dead. That would be bringing him to justice. That being said, I don’t think that it is the most important thing in the GWOT.
“I ask again: How many terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11?”
Jay, how many years passed between the first WTC bombing and 9/11? I believe was eight. Now all those years in which the US was free from Islamic terror attacks were you out there praising Clinton to the skies for keeping us safe and secure? He didn’t torute anyone, he didn’t have to throw American citizens in jail indefinitely without charges, he didn’t have the violate the law or the Constitution.
And if you’re trying to suggest that Bush has a better record than Clinton on foreign terrorist attacks on US facilities and personnel — ‘Since 9/11, there hasn t been a single attack of that nature” — you’re a bigger idiot hack than I thought you were.
yea and congress was informed while it was happening…checks and balances moron.
Trust me Paul, it is going to take more than the weak-assed rhetoric of a movie critic for a free newspaper to convince me that the well thought out anti-terrorist surveilance , that was vetted to the DOJ and congress
“How many terrorist attacks against the United States since 9/11?
Oh that s right. NONE.”
How many terrorist attacks against the United States since Bush took office?
Oh that’s right. ONE. Do you remember that ONE, Jay C.?
“My guess is that the standing order for anyone seriously looking for OBL is a double tap to the center-of-mass and one through the forehead& .then we can drag his body through the town square& .”
And with that, Dr. Pedro slumped back in his chair, exhausted from his effort but finally satisfied like he hadn’t been satisfied in a long, long time. Who knew that Osama Bin Laden had been the “handmaiden” he had been seeking all these lonely years…
President Clinton responded to the bombings in the ’90s the way we have consistently responded to those sort of attacks before 9-11. I didn’t hear any Republicans talking about a war on terror, and it isn’t like the day George W. Bush went into office he held up Al Qaeda as public enemy number one. Quit trying to rewrite history, especially history we all lived through first hand.
I also think it’s intriguing that attacks on American soldiers in Saudi Arabia is an attack on America, but when it’s George Bush, an attack on soldiers in Iraq or our closest allies – it’s not an attack on us or our way of life anymore.
Please tell the British, Australian, Spanish, and yes, American victims of Al Qaeda’s global attacks that we won’t be avenging their families because it wasn’t “strategic”.
How do you people sleep at night?
Oh& , if only in the 1990 s Republicans had let Clinton go after terrorists instead of investigating him endlessly for no-show Whitewater charges.
Ah, yes. The Clinton was too busy defending himself to actually engage in anything else excuse. He certainly had time to send troops against Elain Gonzales. He had time to offer NoKo a pact that guaranteed they would get nukes. He had time to storm Waco. He had the time to launch some cruise missiles at a pharmaceutical plant. He had the time to launch some cruise missiles against Iraq. And he had plenty of time to get blown and grope women.
Clinton had a few opportunities to get bin Laden (Sudan, training camp being just two). In each of those he made the same mistake that is now being made by the Left – thinking of this conflict as a criminal matter instead of a war.
“You are idealistic to the point of self-destruction.”
Yes, all those ideals in the Bill of Rights that we just have to get rid of if we’re ever going to be safe.
Oh and Pedro. Would you like to trot out your excuse for Bush’s wiretapping that he told the head of the intelligence committees and so it’s okay? Because apparently it isn’t.
“WASHINGTON, Jan. 18 – A legal analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service concludes that the Bush administration’s limited briefings for Congress on the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping without warrants are “inconsistent with the law.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/19/politics/19nsa.html?oref=login
You guys are just too stupid.
Jay C Says:
January 19th, 2006 at 10:39 am
How many terrorist attacks against the United States since 9/11?
Oh that s right. NONE. >>
Kinda like ‘Bring ‘em on.’ Fuck yeah.
“Yet, when a troop is killed, you guys say it s a terrorist attack.”
And yet we were told by the Bush administration that the attack on the USS Cole and other attacks were indeed acts of war so they could criticize Clinton for not responding in kind and justify the invasion of Iraq. Now, of course, they say that the attack on the USS Cole was a terrorist attack so we don’t have to count Iraq against Bush’s terrorist numbers. Truly astounding the deceit, hypocrisy and stupidity of Bush supporters.
Because anonymity does so much to reinforce one’s authority and credibility.
The stupidity from you people is overwhelming.
We invade Iraq and our troops fight in a war. Yet, when a troop is killed, you guys say it’s a terrorist attack. You say that by invading Iraq, we’ve only done more harm because it has increased the number of terrorists. Yet, you advocate sending troops around the world into other countries to kill terrorists. Of course, if any of those troops died, it wouldn’t be a terrorist attack. And of course, sending troops into Saudi Arabia or Iran wouldn’t increase the number of terrorists. We’re fighting them on a centralized front in Iraq, and for some reason you think it would be better to scatter them all over the world. It’s a good thing you clowns weren’t developing strategies for WWII. We’d all be speaking German and/or Japanese.
Here’s the difference between what is going on in Iraq and the other examples you nimrods: Our troops in Iraq are fighting a war. We have brought the fight to them. You cannot compare that to the attacks on the USS Cole and the attacks on the Khobar towers. The USS Cole was in Yemen for a routine fuel stop. It was not engaging in military action. Neither were the troops stationed in the barracks in the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.
Can you dolts get that simple little difference through your thick heads?
There. Instant credibility.
Oh I also fought in Vietnam. I was with the Green Berets, Special Unit Battalions… Specialist Tactics Unit Battalion. It was real hush hush. I was Agent Orange, Special Agent Orange, that was me.
Jay C is moving the goal posts so much I think he’s in a differnet time zone now. First, you said Terror Attacks against the US. Iraq pretty much falls into that category. Then you wanted terrorist attacks IN the US while naming attacks that occured outside the US as examples that happened previously? I don’t get it. Then you want terrorist attacks of a certain nature (9-11). I’m confused.
There have been a few terrorist attacks in the US since 9-11. I named a few. There have been a few attacks on US consulates and embassies since 9-11. There have been a slew of attacks on US troops since 9-11, a slew of terrorist attacks on US citizens since 9-11, a slew of terrorist attacks against US military equipment since 9-11. Not to mention a few biological attacks on the US. Allies in our war have been attacked multiple times on a scale of 9-11.
Then he tries to point the blame for 9-11 at Clinton, who incidently wasn’t in office. Bush was, and the terrorism czar of the time said if Bush had handled threats as well as Clinton did, 9-11 might not have happened. Can’t lay much more blame than that.
“vetted to the DOJ and congress”
Um, Dr., in case you missed it, and clearly you did, the White House informed an insuficient number of the intelligence committee members to be in compliance with the law. Several of those members have also reported that were not given all the necessary details about the program. So you can stop trotting out that tired ass talking point.
We have also always been at war with Oceania.
I guess I’m just missing this whole war on terror thing. What’s the ‘end game’ here? Victory in Iraq? No. Iran? No. No terror attacks at home? No.
So when do we win? When does it all stop? War implies that there is some sort of end game, a point of victory. I don’t really see what the plan is here. Just blow stuff up indefinitely?
As a libertarian I think my perspective on the war on terror has taken a turn. I now fear the reach of my government more then I fear a terrorism attack.
just my $.02.
I’m stim on this one. Terrorism is a tactic, not a person. It is the act of using fear to influence others’ actions. Dictators and drug lords in South America use terrorism. The KKK uses terrorism. The IRA use terrorism. After Iraq do we take them all down too? There is no end point here and that’s what scares me. We take the attention of OBL to go after Iraq. We take attention off of Iraq to go after Iran. How long before we get distracted by Venezuala and give up on Iran?
Stim, we have always been at war with Ocenia.
For the right wing the definition of a terrorist attack essentially depends on whether or not the definition can be used to blame/attack Clinton or exonerate/praise Bush. Because, you know, they’re serious about terrorism.
yea stim, and that is EXACTLY what the lefty democrats want you to fear. You see, fearing terrorists is a unifying theme. The country was unified after 9/11 to defeat exactly that enemy.
Now the democrats realize that they can’t actually win an election if we have a country unified behind a common goal of protecting the country. It only works for them if they can convince the electorate that it wasn’t al qaeda that knocked those towers down, it was GWB/Rove.
Again stim, ask yourself, where are all the people whose rights have been trampled? Why isn’t Paul (dr frameone, PhD candidate) in jail on sedition charges? why isn’t Kos’s website shut down? I could give example after example.
The short answer is, cause the republicans have an outstanding strategy to defeat the islamofacists on their own soil, while at the same time upholding the Constitution. the democrats can do nothing but attempt to defame the adminstration in hopes of regaining some semblance of power, or in OW’s case, a cushy government job in the ministry of information during the next democratic administration.
“…defeat the islamofacists on their own soil…”
Okay…, we kill about a half-dozen bad guys, some of their toadies, plus their wives and kids…, and piss off many thousands of people thereby hardening their hearts and hatred against us.
Would there a way we convince those montanes in Pakistan to shun al-Qaeda rather than invite them into their houses.
I agree with you stim, these are important questions.
I also think your gardener analogy is very accurate, but I think your interpretation of it is wrong.
Much like a garden, the islamofacist terrorist will continue to grow. The social conditions that feed that growth are varied, and not as simple as the democrats would have you believe. But like a garden, the lawn needs to get mowed, as long as you have a lawn. That is why you are correct, there IS no end to this. Unfortunately, the end depends on the people who perpetrate these crimes stopping. We can potentially hurry that decision along by not allowing them safe haven. This seems to work to some extent. Notice OBL is talking about a “truce”.
Currently the only answer to the cost is to move to a country that doesn’t support a military that is fighting. Notice, I am not suggesting you leave the country! Simply that the american people realize (with some of the notable exceptions here) that this is going to be a long fight, and I believe they want to see it to a successful end.
This is a “war” unlike any other, as such some of the benchmarks we have learned to look for, aren’t going to be there. That is also why there will be misteps and mistakes along the way. That doesn’t make the goal or endpoint any less valuable.
drpedro,
So is the end game defeating islamofacists on their own soil? Will we be done with the war on terror then? How will we know it’s done? No more Islam?
Look, as a libertarian I feel the need to ask these questions. Where is my money going? When can I stop paying? Freedom isn’t free and it’s not cheap either.
It’s kind of like hiring a gardner. You can ask ‘when will your work be done?’ If he answers ‘As soon as your yard is beautiful’ you might have a problem.
BTW I’m by no means advocating time tables with that last statement. My point is that you must have some sort of realistic obtainable goal when at war, or when hiring a gardner for that matter ;>).
sorry, no context…
See Jay C #6 above…
The best part is that both the lefty democrats AND OBL quote the SAME poll numbers to get their points across…
Yea, the democrats aren’t the party of sedition and rendering comfort to the enemy…..
I can’t wait for a republican ad campaign using OBL and the democrats side to side….
Ok, so let’s review for the class, the mindset of the Frameone’s and Oliver’s of the world:
1. There were no terrorists attacks against the United States after the 1993 WTC bombing and before 9/11 aside from OK City. Because for some reason, even though being in a US embassy abroad is no different than being in the US as all US laws apply, it’s not part of the United States. Neither are our military bases or warships. Yet Oliver says the terrorist attacks in Bali were against “the west” because there were some tourists there.
2. Soldiers, fighting in a war, are victims of “terrorist attacks.” Of course, I don’t remember them using that term when a soldier was killed in Afghanistan.
3. Fighting terrorists on a central front is bad. Disbursing tens of thousands of soldiers around the world to become victims of terrorist attacks (see point 2) is bad.
4. There is no distinction between a soldier being killed who is actively engaging in combat operations and one who is hanging out while their warship is re-fueling. They both either have to be victims of terrorist attacks or not. That pretzel logic is akin to saying that anybody who is killed is a murder victim, even though one death could have been the result of somebody else acting in self-defense.
5. The fact that there have been no terrorist attacks in the United States, against re-fueling warships, embassies, or other US property is proof that Bush is doing a lousy job.
6. A tape where Osama bin Laden is reduced to quoting poll numbers and offering a truce is a terrible thing and means Bush is a terrible President.
Peter L. Bergen
From the Vanity Fair excerpt “From the Shadows–An Oral History of Osama bin Laden” (January 2006)
To further clarify the metaphor: It’s not mowing… it’s weeding.
To further clarify the conflict: There can be no “central front” in fourth-generation, asymmetrical warfare.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden is even capable of sending out an audio tape 5 years after 9/11 and the President has to respond to it, is a testament to the woeful job George Bush has done as Commander In Chief.
don’t change the subject Ollie. You should be proud that OBL is reading the media matters website to pick up on the latest talking points! You’ve gone international my man!
The american people on the other hand are going to start to realize that for all the screeching about being “patriots”, the democrats are nothing but self-serving opportunists whose goals mirror those of al qaeda when it comes time for elections.
I suppose if you were the former al qaeda member locked in gitmo or some other prison you might think differently (about 80% rounded up by the way). I also suspect if you were a smoking PIECE of the ex AQ leader whose pleasant even repast was interrupted by a hellfire missile, you might think differently.
Pearl Harbor is a great example john. You also didn’t have the minority party in the US screeching about quagmires, and worrying that we were listening in on the Japanese did we John? Well maybe one or two, who were then imprisoned for sedition or treason….
Thanks for your twisted leftist viewpoint though….
No terrorist attacks in/against the US since 9/11?
Is that the way we should measure success?
Back in September 2001, didn’t we hear that the people responsible would be “brought to justice”? Does that lack of an encore performance mean thay have been brought to justice? Were the people responsible in Iraq?
Well no. And no. And no.
I understand it’s “hard work”.
But four years and four months after Pearl Harbor, we didn’t hear anyone crowing that there had been no more Japanese attacks in (against) the US since Pearl Harbor. But that was probably because the war had been over for eight months already.
You missed the point Pete.
Have the people responsible been brought to justice?
I mean, come on. OBl would give his left testicle to have Al Gore in office so he could come out of hiding…and get back into business!
“We just need a few more good men like this guy Murtha, and we will be back in the falafal! Just have to get those pesky Marines outta here so we can get back to building bombs in peace…” LOL
Oh yea, I’m sure they’d love for Murtha to be in charge. A guy who’s actually seen combat and knows how to fight? He’d be a real pushover. Unlike, say a bunch of guys who used their connections to fight the heart of the Vietcong in… Texas?
“The fact that Osama Bin Laden is even capable of sending out an audio tape 5 years after 9/11 and the President has to respond to it, is a testament to the woeful job George Bush has done as Commander In Chief.”
Then by that logic, Clinton must have done a woeful job since he failed to get Bin Laden despite the fact his group engineered the first bombing attempt on the WTC in 1993. A month after Clinton was inaugurated.
I’ve never pretended that Pres. Clinton did a super a-1 job on terrorism during his presidency.
Then again, OBL didn’t kill 3,000 people in New York on his watch either.
Oliver serving as an apologist to Clenis? You don’t say!
We had the chance to get Osama, and if that meant killing a few innocent people, so be it.
yes John, they have, with one exception.
And I didn’t miss the point, you did. In WWII the country came together to win the war. Now we have the democrats flying off the handle all over the place trying to triangulate themselves into some sort of a political win, regardless of what that does to our fight. Like I said, when our enemies are using the same stats and arguments as the democrats, well, maybe that is a sign that the democrats are our enemies?
Put away your Bush-hatred and think of the good of the country for once
Wow, jayC, you sure got stupid. You haul out all these points that make no sense. No one said the embassy bombings weren’t terrorist attacks, no one said the Cole bombing wasn’t a terrorist attack. What they said was if those were terrorist attacks, why don’t various other attacks that happened since 9-11 count as terrorist attacks in YOUR mind or vice versa.
When a contractor gets his head chopped off in Iraq, why isn’t that a terrorist attack? When a bomb goes off in the green zone, how is that a combat operation? When our consulate is bombed in Karachi, why doesn’t that count? When Anthrax is sent in the mail killing a few and causing a post office panic why doesn’t that count? When a mosque is bombed in Cincinatti why doesn’t that count? When our military allies involved in Iraq are subject to massive terror attacks, why doesn’t that count? If a soldier is killed during a combat operation by the opposition on what you term the front line of the War on Terror, why doesn’t that count?
Rah Rah Rah DrDoper. A simple fact on the causes of terrorism: it isn’t the left that simplifies the roots of terrorism, it’s the right (they hate us because of our Freedom). Now you have just taken the leap that exactly shows why Bush’s illegal wiretaps are so dangerous. He views the democrats to be a bigger threat to his power than terrorists. It’s why his new CIA chief was purging personel, not because of competency or job performance, but for not having kool-aid loyalty to Bush. And that is across the board behavior in his administration. I would have to say that blindly cheering on his gross incompetency and naked power grabbing is more dangerous to this country than anything else.
He views the democrats to be a bigger threat to his power than terrorists.
That’s right, midderpidge, that’s exactly what he’s doing! He’s monitoring your phone calls! He thinks you’re an enemy of the people.
But, don’t worry I can teach you how to encode your conversations:
Here’s a sample: (Pretend you’re talking to Dr Pedro)
Ello -hay, octor – Day! ow -Hay are ou -yay?
ello -Hay idderpidge – May! I’m ine – fay! ow -Hay are ou -yay?
et -it Gay?
Brandon Says:
Then by that logic, Clinton must have done a woeful job since he failed to get Bin Laden despite the fact his group engineered the first bombing attempt on the WTC in 1993. A month after Clinton was inaugurated. >>
Whatta hoot! Of course most of the planning, reconnaissance, logistics, funding, etc for that 1993 attack would have occurred before Clinton took office, when GHW — Dohh!