America Attacked video

[Typhoon1244]

The terrorists best buddy and closest ally is the liberal. The terrorist has no greater tool at their disposal than the bed wetting girlie man spineless freak...etc, etc.

If we had more people who were focused on defeating the real enemy (al Qaeda and other radical groups), and fewer people like you, we might just be able to win this war.

Revisionist history...pretty soon you'll be telling us it was Ted Kennedy who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

There is hope for you. Do not despair o' liberal one. Education is the key.

You're right. Why don't you go acquire some, then come back and talk to us about it.

 

[Chas]

wow

Spain gets hit with a horrendous terrorist attack a day before an election - end result - a socialist gets elected . One by the way who plans on pulling support out of Iraq .

I guess the liberal leaning folks thing that was a coincidence .

The saddest thing is these so called 911 hearings are the laughing stock to all terrorists . Great message we are sending !
In the meantime Bill Clinton meets in "closed session" for four hours with the commission!
I saw relatives of the USS Cole attack who stated how dissapointed with Clinton they were for not keeping his word and "tracking down those responsible" What was that about Bin Laden and Clintons Golf tournament ?. You know when he was too busy to authorize Bin Ladens capture .
A Liberal reminds me of someone who hears someone breaking into his house so he pulls the covers over his head thinking whoever/whatever it is will just go away . A republican or conservative gets up and defends his family and self with any object available.

End result 911 occurs . Come on guys lets face facts. Speak softly but carry a BIG STICK !! Chas

How does a liberal become a conmservative ?

Answer - he gets mugged

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: wow

A Liberal reminds me of someone who hears someone breaking into his house so he pulls the covers over his head thinking whoever/whatever it is will just go away . A republican or conservative gets up and defends his family and self with any object available.

C'mon, chas, I know you're not that stupid. We had eight months of Republican big-stick carrying, and you know what?

End result 911 occurs.

Exactly!

The administration rejected an anti-terrorism plan because it had Slick Willie's stench on it, despite the fact that the plan probably would have worked. Bush sat on the al Qaeda problem for so long, it would be easy to believe he wanted the attack to happen.

How does a liberal become a conmservative? Answer - he gets mugged

Well first of all, I'm not sure what a "conmservative" is...

More importantly, consider this: let's remember that it was the George W. Bush administration that declared (for example) that there would be no profiling with respect to aviation security. If they did that because it was "the right thing to do," then they're stupid.

If they did it because "the liberals might get mad," then they're cowards.

This is war, people. You don't win a war by playing partisan politics and settling grudges. You win it by (1) securing your nation, and (2) carrying the fight to the enemy. The Democrats who won the Second World War knew that, thank god...and I'm sure they'd be ashamed of the way our nation is prosecuting this war.

 

[rumpletumbler]

Re: Re: wow

This is war, people. You don't win a war by playing partisan politics and settling grudges. You win it by (1) securing your nation, and (2) carrying the fight to the enemy. The Democrats who won the Second World War knew that, thank god...and I'm sure they'd be ashamed of the way our nation is prosecuting this war.

Boo Hoo!

 

[Timebuilder]

Revisionist history...pretty soon you'll be telling us it was Ted Kennedy who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

Not possible. Ted was seen in a bar at 8:30 am. He was no where near the airport.

The administration rejected an anti-terrorism plan because it had Slick Willie's stench on it, despite the fact that the plan probably would have worked. Bush sat on the al Qaeda problem for so long, it would be easy to believe he wanted the attack to happen.

No evidence of that whatsoever. Zippo. Great posturing from the left, with the benefit of hindsight, though.

More importantly, consider this: let's remember that it was the George W. Bush administration that declared (for example) that there would be no profiling with respect to aviation security. If they did that because it was "the right thing to do," then they're stupid.

Or cowardly. Or, politically aware.

Any allusion to "profiling," or anything that might be interpreted as "profiling" would immediately be villified by several groups: the ACLU because they believe there is never a link between criminality and cultural mores, the NAACP because some mideasterners are people of color, NOW because women wearing veils might be singled out and searched and forced to disrobe, and various anti-defamation leagues, etc.

You have to recall, our liberal ways (tendency to want to make nice instead of get the job done) make us our own worst enemies. Years ago, we could have instituted many changes to improve security, but many people would be offended by those measures. Without a 9-11 to point to, those measures, particularly when instituted by a Republican administration, would have been decried as racist, draconian, xenophobic, backward, non-progressive, undereducated, and mean spirited.

Even now, more could be done. Even now, people are complaining about the no-fly list, and sure enough, the ACLU is involved.

Not profiling? Sounds like they saw a losing battle before they started one.

This is war, people. You don't win a war by playing partisan politics and settling grudges. You win it by (1) securing your nation, and (2) carrying the fight to the enemy. The Democrats who won the Second World War knew that, thank god...and I'm sure they'd be ashamed of the way our nation is prosecuting this war.

What a shame those Democrats, the ones in office during that war, are now an endangered species. The Dems have become a fractured party of ultra liberal special interests, America haters, and European style socialists. Some of the Dems here on the board don't fall into that category.

I'm glad that some of you represent the old model, the one that was often referred to as "the loyal opposition." You guys are dwindling in numbers, and that's a shame.

At any rate, Condi gave a clear explanation to every question, and was even gracious to Clinton attack dog Richard Ben-Veniste. So, the main part of the 9-11 circus is over.

Whose fault is 9-11? Clearly, it is the fault of those who preach hate, and raise up children in the ways of evil.

They aren't just in Afghanistan, gang.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Re: Re: Re: wow

Boo Hoo!

Uh...I'm not even sure that was a humanoid response.

Originally posted by Timebuilder
No evidence of that whatsoever.

Yes there is. I gave you the link to it months ago, TB. Even NSA Rice said that pre-W staffers had briefed her on a Clinton-era anti-terrorist plan. (Who knows for sure, though. Condi's been changing her story a lot lately.)

...cowardly. Or, politically aware. Any allusion to "profiling," or anything that might be interpreted as "profiling" would immediately be villified by several groups...

With all due respect to those groups, who gives a f_ck? This is war, and in war sacrifices have to be made...something this administration hasn't figured out yet. I do not for a moment believe that every male Muslim between eighteen and thirty is a threat, but I do believe they are worthy of our attention. How many times do these people have to kick us before we realize that "profiling" just might be the smart thing to do?

Can any of us really say it's better that 3,000 people die than to have 300 people inconvenienced at an airport security checkpoint?

The Dems have become a fractured party of ultra liberal special interests...

You are absolutely right...and believe it or not, James Carville himself wrote almost those exact words in his book Had Enough? (See? You two have more in common than you think! ) This is exactly why today's Democratic Party is no longer my party. To vote for George Bush would violate every moral fiber of my being...but I can not bring myself to support Kerry, either. (I'd vote for Bobbysamd, though. When's he going to run?)

... America haters...

No, this is where you go off the deep end. In my thirty-two years, I've never met anyone born in America who hates this country. Not one, and I strongly suspect you haven't either. The "America-hating liberal" is a myth created by the conservative media to designate anyone whose beliefs don't conform with the Republican mainstream.

Whose fault is 9-11? Clearly, it is the fault of those who preach hate, and raise up children in the ways of evil. They aren't just in Afghanistan, gang.

You're right: most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

 

[Timebuilder]

Yes there is. I gave you the link to it months ago, TB. Even NSA Rice said that pre-W staffers had briefed her on a Clinton-era anti-terrorist plan. (Who knows for sure, though. Condi's been changing her story a lot lately.)

Condi has changed nothing. If she had, Ben-Veniste would be holding a press conference right now, detailing what he felt were inconsistencies in her closed door versus public testimony. Sort of what Richard Clarke has done. No such news about Condi, though.

Now you mention a Clinton-era anti-terrorist plan. And this plan, such as it was, was implemented when?

But you're probably right. There was no animosity between the Clinton and Bush administrations and their supporters, so we should have immediately done what the Clinton administration did not do, just on their word at the time.

If I had been in charge, I would want the best plan, and would not proceed on the assumption that the best plan was already on the table.

With all due respect to those groups, who gives a f_ck? This is war, and in war sacrifices have to be made...something this administration hasn't figured out yet. I do not for a moment believe that every male Muslim between eighteen and thirty is a threat, but I do believe they are worthy of our attention. How many times do these people have to kick us before we realize that "profiling" just might be the smart thing to do?

As I said, not only has the administration figured this out, but several others have, too.

You have your work cut out for you. Start with some of the posters here. Get them all on board for the profiling that you and I agree should be taking place.

I don't think you'll have much luck, though. In the real world, off the board here, it would be an act of political suicide in an election year.

We get the governments that we deserve.

No, this is where you go off the deep end. In my thirty-two years, I've never met anyone born in America who hates this country. Not one, and I strongly suspect you haven't either. The "America-hating liberal" is a myth created by the conservative media to designate anyone whose beliefs don't conform with the Republican mainstream.

I can say it with utter certainty, have worked beside them, marched on washington with them, and listened to their chants. I did not join them in their hatred, or their chants.

Sometimes I said to myself, in a still small voice, "this can't possibly be good," and eventually, in the early nineties that small voice had grown to a roar, and I realized that I was never the virulent anti-American that these "friends" had become over the years.

It's no myth. Liberals see countries like France, Switzerland, and Sweden and see what they think America should be like.

I disagree, and more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusions every day.

Independently.

You're right: most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia...

They were. Let's not wait around to see where the next hijackers come from.

 

[ThomasR]

As touching and tragic as that video is, it has nothing to do with the war going on in Iraq as I write this. That attack (9-11) was done by Al-Queda, with the support of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. One can fully appreciate and justify that war on terror. Sadam's Iraq was a different monster. The American government is now trying to shift the mistake it made in attacking Iraq over WMD, to a new mission of freeing an oppressed people in Iraq. That mission is a mis-directed folly, which is siphoning resources away from killing Al-Queda, to a mission of forcing a democracy down the throat of a people who don't want it, and are rising up in opposition to an occupying military force.

The terror is the Islamic fanatics that have no borders. They move about the world filled with hatred that they are being ignored in world affairs. They have been there since before biblical times. Iraq is simply the beach head of the initial stages in addressing an ever growing problem. The problem involves people of all nations who would rather live in peace under a system of laws rather than by the whimsical dictates of radicals with modern weapons.

 

[jarhead]

ThomasR

I agree with much of what you just posted. Perhaps the only place where I might have a disagreement with you, is the implication you make that the fighting in Iraq is with exclusivly Islamic fundamentalists. To be sure, there are some of them in that fighting, and some are no doubt foriegn fighters from Syria, Iran, and other hot bed countries for Islamic Jihad.

However, what is becoming apparent to me, is that a lot of ordinary citizens of Iraq are taking up arms against coalition forces, that they see as an occupying force in THEIR country. They resent that, as bizarre as that may seem to you and me. American lives and treasure is being wasted, trying to force a democracy down their throats, when they do not want it! Sadaam is gone, his sons are gone, and most of the deck of cards have been killed or captured. There are no WMD's. Even David Kay states that, and that we had flawed intel that caused our government to launch this war. It is spinning out of control. Our young men are dying daily for no apparent legitimate cause. As you said, terror knows no borders, so why do we chose to war inside Iraqi borders. Why not Indonesia, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, or even within the borders of America itself. The Bush administration has even acknowledged terror cells in our own country, but we do not attack them with Cobra gunships and Abrams tanks. Our troops are now facing a popular insurrection against an invading force (US) in their land. Our boys are dying to give Iraq a democracy, which they appear to reject. That defies all logic to me. If we must be at war, Iraq is not the place. Our resources would be put to far better use in Afghanistan, where there still are remnants of the Taliban and Al-Queda regrouping. I see no threat any more from Iraq. At least no threat worthy of the ongoing killing of our troops, now over 600, and climbing every day

 

[Timebuilder]

However, what is becoming apparent to me, is that a lot of ordinary citizens of Iraq are taking up arms against coalition forces, that they see as an occupying force in THEIR country.

I'd expect the majority of "anti-war" reporters to be saying this, but they are not.

Could it be because this is not generally true?