Terrorists Endorse Bush

[Spence]

In a statement released today, the Al Qaeda-associated group that murdered 201 people in Spain last week endorsed George W. Bush for POTUS.The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."

In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:

"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."

"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."Source (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721)

[Yudolindo]

Well, since a terrorist says so, I think I am going to vote for Kerry. Okay everyone? Listen to the nice terrorists…please, when did we start taking political advice from people who want to kill us? Out of curiosity, why did you post this?

[jporterweb]

Don't you think they are trying to influence people not to vote for GWB, because they are afraid of him? NAH that couldn't be it.

[akhhorus]

this isnt even Al Queda, just an affiliated group. The one thing that is never reported is that Al Queda, before 9-11 was the trainer for most of the world's terrorists. Thats how they got organized; their military wing is called: "The Truth and Advice Commission"

[circumstance]

Originally posted by jporterweb
Don't you think they are trying to influence people not to vote for GWB, because they are afraid of him? NAH that couldn't be it.

No. You're right. They're definitely afraid of him. They saw him swaggering in that flight uniform with his jock thrust out proudly and that sent them tumbling over the precipice of fear. How can you possibly face down such potent masculinity? You can't. Thus, they are in awe of him.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
Well, since a terrorist says so, I think I am going to vote for Kerry. Okay everyone? Listen to the nice terrorists…please, when did we start taking political advice from people who want to kill us? Out of curiosity, why did you post this? Because people like you, Yudolindo, say that Spain caved into terrorists when it voted Socialist. Clearly, then, we must do the opposite of what the terrorists want. In this case, that means voting Kerry, since the terrorists want Bush. :D

[NamVet4]

A group claiming to have links with al Qaeda...
Link for quote (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721)
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what a terrorist group, or association or their allied force or whatever these people want to call themselves has to say about who should be President of the United States. I care about what Americans who can vote have to say. In addition, I could give a damn less about personal attacks by either candidate, party or their supporters! You want to get my attention and engage in debate about the issues and the pros and cons of the candidates – drop the mudslinging and personal attacks. You don’t impress me by demonstrating that you’re an ignorant ass by libeling the other candidate or party. 10-second sound bites and 30 second inflammatory ads don’t do squat for me. It only gives me reason to question either candidate or party’s ability to be honest with the voting public.

[jsarno]

I like that..."a group CLAIMING to have al Qaeda said..." And why exactly does this matter?

So you managed to find the most irrelevant news story and use it as a source. Bravo.

I guess we should start posting opinions of any tom, dick, or harry that walks by as long as they are a group.
Here's an idea...how about get polls from Americans that matter in voting, not people claiming to be part of a terrorist group. Smells like another democratic ploy to me.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by NamVet4
Link for quote (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721)
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what a terrorist group, or association or their allied force or whatever these people want to call themselves has to say about who should be President of the United States. I care about what Americans who can vote have to say. In addition, I could give a damn less about personal attacks by either candidate, party or their supporters! You want to get my attention and engage in debate about the issues and the pros and cons of the candidates – drop the mudslinging and personal attacks. You don’t impress me by demonstrating that you’re an ignorant ass by libeling the other candidate or party. 10-second sound bites and 30 second inflammatory ads don’t do squat for me. It only gives me reason to question either candidate or party’s ability to be honest with the voting public.

EXACTLY!

[Yudolindo]

Originally posted by Spence
Because people like you, Yudolindo, say that Spain caved into terrorists when it voted Socialist. Clearly, then, we must do the opposite of what the terrorists want. In this case, that means voting Kerry, since the terrorists want Bush. :D

But Spain did cave in, in the worst way. One terrorist who is making stuff up does not speak for them all. Voting for Bush is no cave in; voting for Kerry is not much of a cave in either. This is silly.

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by jsarno
I like that..."a group CLAIMING to have al Qaeda said..." And why exactly does this matter?

So you managed to find the most irrelevant news story and use it as a source. Bravo.

I guess we should start posting opinions of any tom, dick, or harry that walks by as long as they are a group.
Here's an idea...how about get polls from Americans that matter in voting, not people claiming to be part of a terrorist group. Smells like another democratic ploy to me.

Err...it smells like a joke to me.

Really kind of makes me think of a political cartoon.

[lakewinola]

The terrorists feel their war is personal with GWB and would love nothing more than to continue to terrorize on his watch. They believe the Bush family to be evil, and want to defeat evil.

[RedskinsDave]

So you think. They'd love to have him gone because they fear his admin.

[lakewinola]

No, because they do not fear him, and want to battle against him.

[RedskinsDave]

Which explains all the terrorism we've had since 9/11. Keep dreaming.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by NamVet4
Link for quote (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721)
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what a terrorist group, or association or their allied force or whatever these people want to call themselves has to say about who should be President of the United States. I care about what Americans who can vote have to say. In addition, I could give a damn less about personal attacks by either candidate, party or their supporters! You want to get my attention and engage in debate about the issues and the pros and cons of the candidates – drop the mudslinging and personal attacks. You don’t impress me by demonstrating that you’re an ignorant ass by libeling the other candidate or party. 10-second sound bites and 30 second inflammatory ads don’t do squat for me. It only gives me reason to question either candidate or party’s ability to be honest with the voting public.

HELLO!!!

[Spence]

Originally posted by Yudolindo
But Spain did cave in, in the worst way. One terrorist who is making stuff up does not speak for them all. Voting for Bush is no cave in; voting for Kerry is not much of a cave in either. This is silly. No, Spain wised up. They realized that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it. Spain has been attacked by these scum and they want to deploy their forces in such a way that will help them destroy the terrorists and defend their homeland. I wish we had a government as smart as that. Well, we will soon enough. It's just a matter of how many more Americans have to die before the idiots are thrown out and the adults are put in charge.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by Spence
No, Spain wised up. They realized that Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with it. Spain has been attacked by these scum and they want to deploy their forces in such a way that will help them destroy the terrorists and defend their homeland. I wish we had a government as smart as that. Well, we will soon enough. It's just a matter of how many more Americans have to die before the idiots are thrown out and the adults are put in charge.

Well said, Spence. There is difference between caving in to terrorists and holding public officials responsible for supporting a war on false pretense. By attacking Iraq under the flag of WMD and links to terrorism, the "coalition" essentially wacked a hornets nest with a baseball bat. Nobody likes hornets, but if they are leaving you alone, you should leave them alone. ANyone who thinks we are safer from terrorists as a result of invading Iraq is kidding themselves, as Spain has just found out.

[RedskinsDave]

I love how there's no connection between Iraq and terrorism but somehow there is when they attack. You can't have it both ways boys.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I love how there's no connection between Iraq and terrorism but somehow there is when they attack. You can't have it both ways boys.

The point is that prior to the war, there was no connection, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now there is, which was one of the fears brought up prior to the invasion. Also, while probably punishment for participating in the war, was it Iraqi's who carried this out?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I love how there's no connection between Iraq and terrorism but somehow there is when they attack. You can't have it both ways boys.

They have been having it both ways for quite some time. I've said it before and I'll say it again...ELECTION YEAR. The president could have been the most perfect president we have ever seen and the democrats would still find something to blast him about. It's a shame really.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by dukeuch
there was no connection, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now there is

I try to make it a point not to respond to you...but this physically made me laugh. Are you serious? Right...like all of a sudden they just all jumped into Iraq. Maybe our intellegence wasn't so far off after all.
Let's not forget they found recin and cyanide factories in northern Iraq. (funny how the dems have been silenced on that one)

[DC_Cowboys]

True ! It's the shame the prezeldent wanna be a war prezeldent but hide in the spider hole when America under attack. He was so scare he didn't even order Defon II but then took credit for it. What a bozo !

[Spence]

The Bush regime has reluctantly admitted that there is no evidence linking Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In fact, the Sunday before last, Donald Rumsfeld was on "Face the Nation" admitting that very thing. He also asserted that no one in the Bush regime had ever suggested a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. He quickly had to retract that assertion when journalist Tom Friedman read him two quotes [from Rumsfeld himself] saying Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together.

So the White House itself now admits there is no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. RedskinsDave and Jsarno appear to know better. I wonder what their sources might be.

[RedskinsDave]

I didn't say there was. You guys like to claim there is when some yahoos blow up a train in Espana. If there is no connection then there is no connection. Got it?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
The Bush regime has reluctantly admitted that there is no evidence linking Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. In fact, the Sunday before last, Donald Rumsfeld was on "Face the Nation" admitting that very thing. He also asserted that no one in the Bush regime had ever suggested a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. He quickly had to retract that assertion when journalist Tom Friedman read him two quotes [from Rumsfeld himself] saying Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together.

So the White House itself now admits there is no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. RedskinsDave and Jsarno appear to know better. I wonder what their sources might be.


Are you saying that no Al Qaeda members were found in Iraq? I certainly hope not.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Are you saying that no Al Qaeda members were found in Iraq? I certainly hope not. When? Al Qaeda is in Iraq now, but you can hardly blame that on Saddam Hussein. He does not run the country. The U.S. does. If anyone is to blame for the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq right now it is the person who ordered the invasion in the first place.

Now, who might that be?

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I didn't say there was. You guys like to claim there is when some yahoos blow up a train in Espana. If there is no connection then there is no connection. Got it? What are you writing about, Dave? It was the contention of people like myself that the Spanish election results had little to do with Iraq. That's the liberal position. Al Qaeda might have struck Spain at that time because the now-defeated right-wing Spanish government supported the invasion of Iraq, but that's really beside the point. Al Qaeda would have struck Spain sooner or later anyway. Al Qaeda is at war with western civilization and our liberal civilization that permits freedoms and liberties Islamic fascists despise. The Iraq invasion has been good for Al Qaeda because it helps them recruit newly-radicalized Moslems, but the core of Al Qaeda, which existed before the Iraq invasion, hates western civilization for reasons that have nothing to do with Iraq and little to do with Israel.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
I try to make it a point not to respond to you...but this physically made me laugh. Are you serious? Right...like all of a sudden they just all jumped into Iraq. Maybe our intellegence wasn't so far off after all.
Let's not forget they found recin and cyanide factories in northern Iraq. (funny how the dems have been silenced on that one)

Uhh, yeah; apparently Rumsfeld said as much recently (thanks, Spence). Yes, they DID pretty much jump into Iraq once Hussein was overthrown. I am not sure about the veracity of the findings of chemical factories in the (previously Kurd controlled) north. Active?

It's ok that you got a chuckle out of my post, I laugh your posts often as well (except when I'm crying).

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by jsarno
Are you saying that no Al Qaeda members were found in Iraq? I certainly hope not.

JS:

Please, Please show us the source of your info regarding Al-Qaeda within Iraq prior to our invasion, becuase you must have info even the admin does not have.

[Spence]

The only members of Al Qaeda known to be in Iraq prior to the Bush invasion were in Kurdistan. They were known by various names, though the Al-Ansar Brigades is their common moniker. However, they were located only in a part of Kurdistan controlled by anti-Saddam Kurdish forces. In other words, the only place you could find Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to Mr Bush's war was in territory NOT controlled by Saddam Hussein, but controlled by forces allied to the United States.

Hope that makes everyone feel better.

[jsarno]

I just find it exceptionally unrealistic to know they are in Iraq now, and assume they were not before Hussien was overthrown.

Of course when you go door to door saying "Al Qaeda, are you in there" I'm sure a typical response is "NO, just us chickens, bok, bok."

[dukeuch]

Actually, it made a lot of sense that Hussein did not invite, tolerate, support, Al-Qaeda in Iraq. He was a secular leader, virtually despised by Bin Laden. Hussein was interested in terrorizing his own people, not exporting terrorism which would bring added pressure from outside his borders for his overthrow.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by jsarno
I try to make it a point not to respond to you...but this physically made me laugh. Are you serious? Right...like all of a sudden they just all jumped into Iraq. Maybe our intellegence wasn't so far off after all.
Let's not forget they found recin and cyanide factories in northern Iraq. (funny how the dems have been silenced on that one)

Why do you not believe your president bush? You say he doesn't lie, he told you that there was no Iraq/Al Queda connection, why do you think he is lying?

[Spence]

Originally posted by lakewinola
Why do you not believe your president bush? You say he doesn't lie, he told you that there was no Iraq/Al Queda connection, why do you think he is lying? The perfect question, lakewinola. In "Star Trek" such a question usually led an evil computer to destroy itself in frustration when it could not logically justify the purpose of its own existence. Let's see how jsarno deals with it.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Which explains all the terrorism we've had since 9/11. Keep dreaming.

I hope you are not blindly chalking up the lack of terrorism to anything Bush has done.


"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declined to link the absence of terrorist attacks on US soil since September 11, 2001 to the success of Bush's declared war on terrorism.


"As a former pilot, one of the things you always did was you never talked about the fact there hadn't been a flight accident for a long time," Rumsfeld told the panel.


"That's true. And with good reason. You start doing that, and something happens," he added.


"The fact is, a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique. And we can't defend everywhere at every moment against every technique," Rumsfeld said.


"We could have a terrorist attack anywhere in the world tomorrow. And we have to recognize that. This is a tough business we're in. And it is difficult. And it's challenging," the defense secretary added."

[RedskinsDave]

Well obviously no administration is going to try and take all the credit for a lack of terrorism because they'd leave themselves to take all the blame if one does occur.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by lakewinola
Why do you not believe your president bush? You say he doesn't lie, he told you that there was no Iraq/Al Queda connection, why do you think he is lying?

Clearly Al Qaeda is in Iraq now right? (we can all agree on this right?) So the key is whether or not to assume Hussien had anything to do with it, which at the moment I am not debating. Fact is, Al Qaeda is indeed alive in the country of Iraq. So how, when, and why are they there, and why didn't their government do anything to stopthem?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by lakewinola
I hope you are not blindly chalking up the lack of terrorism to anything Bush has done.

I do, but just not "blindly". Fact is Clinton's watch had more terrorist attacks than Bush's watch. When Bush waged war and tightened up the country's security, you don't think he had anything to do with the fact that we haven't been attacked since?

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by jsarno
I do, but just not "blindly". Fact is Clinton's watch had more terrorist attacks than Bush's watch. When Bush waged war and tightened up the country's security, you don't think he had anything to do with the fact that we haven't been attacked since?

You need to read Rumsfeld's and Powell's testimony to the 9-11 panel.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Clearly Al Qaeda is in Iraq now right? (we can all agree on this right?) So the key is whether or not to assume Hussien had anything to do with it, which at the moment I am not debating. Fact is, Al Qaeda is indeed alive in the country of Iraq. So how, when, and why are they there, and why didn't their government do anything to stopthem? This makes no sense. The Bush admin has admitted Al Qaeda was not and is not linked to Saddam Hussein. The U.S. military admits it is not able to control the borders of Iraq. Al Qaeda has come flooding in since the Saddam Hussein regime was destroyed. In other words, Saddam Hussein didn't allow Al Qaeda into Iraq, George W Bush did.

[Spence]

There was one successful Al Qaeda terror attack in the United States during the tenure of President Clinton. That occurred one month into his presidency, in February 1993, when a bomb exploded beneath one of World Trade Center towers. Six people died. There has been one successfual Al Qaeda terror attack in the United States during the tenure of George W Bush. That occurred eight months after Mr Bush's inauguration. Two towers of the World Trade Center were struck by hijacked airplanes, another hijacked airplane was crashed into the Pentagon and still another crash-landed in Pennsylvania. This resulted in approximately 3000 deaths.

It is, therefore, difficult to see how President Clinton's record of protecting the homeland against Al Qaeda is inferior to President Bush's record of protecting the homeland against Al Qaeda.

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
This makes no sense. The Bush admin has admitted Al Qaeda was not and is not linked to Saddam Hussein. The U.S. military admits it is not able to control the borders of Iraq. Al Qaeda has come flooding in since the Saddam Hussein regime was destroyed. In other words, Saddam Hussein didn't allow Al Qaeda into Iraq, George W Bush did.

Just out of curiousity, where did I say that Al Qaeda was linked to sadam in this thread?
All I am saying is I find it unrealistic to know they are there now with chemical plants, but they weren't before the Hussien regime was destroyed. You don't find that unrealistic?

[jsarno]

Originally posted by Spence
There was one successful Al Qaeda terror attack in the United States during the tenure of President Clinton. That occurred one month into his presidency, in February 1993, when a bomb exploded beneath one of World Trade Center towers. Six people died. There has been one successfual Al Qaeda terror attack in the United States during the tenure of George W Bush. That occurred eight months after Mr Bush's inauguration. Two towers of the World Trade Center were struck by hijacked airplanes, another hijacked airplane was crashed into the Pentagon and still another crash-landed in Pennsylvania. This resulted in approximately 3000 deaths.

It is, therefore, difficult to see how President Clinton's record of protecting the homeland against Al Qaeda is inferior to President Bush's record of protecting the homeland against Al Qaeda.

There has been more on Clinton's watch...I was listening to it this morning by one of the reporters on the news. I will try to find that info for you.

I do find it interesting that the two that do stick out (93 / 9-11) both happened with a new president in office. The last two new presidents had this happen to the country Makes you wonder if it will happen again if Kerry makes it.

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
Just out of curiousity, where did I say that Al Qaeda was linked to sadam in this thread?
All I am saying is I find it unrealistic to know they are there now with chemical plants, but they weren't before the Hussien regime was destroyed. You don't find that unrealistic?

Originally posted by dukeuch
>>there was no connection, no Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Now there is<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which jsarno responded

>>I try to make it a point not to respond to you...but this physically made me laugh. Are you serious? Right...like all of a sudden they just all jumped into Iraq. Maybe our intellegence wasn't so far off after all.<<

[Spence]

Originally posted by jsarno
There has been more on Clinton's watch...I was listening to it this morning by one of the reporters on the news. I will try to find that info for you. I suppose you could say that there were more terror attacks in the U.S. homeland during the Clinton tenure if you include something like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by right-wing white supremacists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. That had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, however.

Were there more terror attacks worldwide during the tenure of President Clinton than there has been during the tenure of George W. Bush? Of course. President Clinton was in the White House for eight years. Mr Bush has lived in that building for barely more than three years. That math is so simple even Mr Bush's economic team could work it out.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by Spence
I suppose you could say that there were more terror attacks in the U.S. homeland during the Clinton tenure if you include something like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing by right-wing white supremacists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. That had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, however.

Were there more terror attacks worldwide during the tenure of President Clinton than there has been during the tenure of George W. Bush? Of course. President Clinton was in the White House for eight years. Mr Bush has lived in that building for barely more than three years. That math is so simple even Mr Bush's economic team could work it out.

I would actually wager that "worldwide" there have been far more terror attacks under Bush's short term. Look at all the bombings in Israel and Iraq for one.

[Spence]

Yeah, a lot depends on what you count. During the 1980s and 1990s Sri Lanka was the site of the most terror attacks in the world. However, most people don't think of Sri Lanka when they think of terrorist bombings.

[RedskinsDave]

Tea and elephants, that's what I think of. Oh you meant the other way around?

[dukeuch]

I think it will always be very difficult to prevent terrorist attacks, and impossible to prevent them completely. That is not to say we should not try, just that it is probably unfair to hold anyone accountable should terrorists occasionallysucceed.

UNLESS; there is specific information or knowledge which is being ignored. My initial reaction to 9/11 was, well, how in the world could anyone anticipate and prevent something like that? Since then, I have read numerous vague, and some specific, claims that either there was ample proof that Al Qaeda was up to something, and perhaps planning just such an attack "soon".

I seem to remember a lot of talk about a memo and/or briefing for Bush in the week prior to 9/11, the contents of which the administration has refused to divulge.

Spence or anyone: can you help me out with what that was all about, and the status of the effort tomake public? Am I mistaken?

[RedskinsDave]

I think someone said yesterday at the hearings there was some memo. They also said that there was planning to further secure the airports and planes except specifically using the planes as missiles was not mentioned. It was only a week before 9/11 and wasn't specific according to what I heard.

[lakewinola]

Originally posted by dukeuch
I think it will always be very difficult to prevent terrorist attacks, and impossible to prevent them completely. That is not to say we should not try, just that it is probably unfair to hold anyone accountable should terrorists occasionallysucceed.

UNLESS; there is specific information or knowledge which is being ignored. My initial reaction to 9/11 was, well, how in the world could anyone anticipate and prevent something like that? Since then, I have read numerous vague, and some specific, claims that either there was ample proof that Al Qaeda was up to something, and perhaps planning just such an attack "soon".

I seem to remember a lot of talk about a memo and/or briefing for Bush in the week prior to 9/11, the contents of which the administration has refused to divulge.

Spence or anyone: can you help me out with what that was all about, and the status of the effort tomake public? Am I mistaken?

What you are referring to is the reason that Cony Rice refuses to testify in front of the 911 comission

[RedskinsDave]

She's testifying in private.

[Spence]

Originally posted by dukeuch
Spence or anyone: can you help me out with what that was all about, and the status of the effort tomake public? Am I mistaken? I believe you are referring to the Presidential Daily Briefing [PDB] that the Director of the CIA gives to the White House every day. The PDB from August 6, 2001 is the one which has received the most attention. Only portions of that PDB have been declassified. The portions that are available reveal that the CIA was worried about plans that Bin Laden had, dating from 1997, to hijack airplanes and either use them to force the U.S. to release Islamic fundamentalists in U.S. prisons or to fly them into important American buildings. Apparently, the CIA believed the risk of such an attack was extremely high in the summer of 2001 and CIA Director George Tenet [who testified today before the 9/11 Commission] was running around telling everyone in the CIA, NSC, and the White House that a gigantic attack was imminent.

Whether or not this intelligence was actionable is another matter. The declassified portion of the PDB does not reveal anything specific about an attack on or about September 11, 2001.

[MrWiggles]

Originally posted by jsarno
There has been more on Clinton's watch...I was listening to it this morning by one of the reporters on the news. I will try to find that info for you.

I do find it interesting that the two that do stick out (93 / 9-11) both happened with a new president in office. The last two new presidents had this happen to the country Makes you wonder if it will happen again if Kerry makes it.

That is an interesting observation. I wonder if it is a coincidence or if it has something to do with the difficulty in making a smooth transition in all areas of policy. The latter seems to be a focus of the 9/11 committee.

[lakewinola]

Proof that the Bush administration did not take terrorism seriously, they did not think it was important and that no plans were needed to address any threats. All prior to 9-11 of course.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1802&ncid=1802&e=1&u=/washpost/20040401/ts_washpost/a40697_2004mar31

[RedskinsDave]

All they were doing was carrying on the Clinton admin policy and such where it was not believed that we were at a great risk of being attacked on U.S. soil.

[Spence]

Dave, the White House had explicit warnings in the two months before the 9/11/01 attacks that Al Qaeda was seeking to hijack U.S. airplanes and might use the crafts themselves as weapons. It was not the Clinton admin viewpoint that the U.S. would not be attacked at home since the first World Trade Center bombing, one month after Clinton's 1993 inauguration, had already proven Al Qaeda could hit us in the homeland.

[RedskinsDave]

Explicit is a very exagerrated term to use. They had very vague information and one of the potential attacks was with planes.

[Spence]

The word explicit is not an exaggeration since the reports Bush got in his PDB specifically mentioned hijacking U.S. airliners and using them as weapons. Now, had I used the word detailed warnings, that would have been an exaggeration. But you almost never get detailed warnings in intelligence. You've got to make the most of what you get.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
All they were doing was carrying on the Clinton admin policy and such where it was not believed that we were at a great risk of being attacked on U.S. soil.

Now you are just making this up. I have not read nor heard anywhere, even from Republicans, that 1) the Clinton Administration did not believe that Al-Qaeda could not or would not strike in the US, or 2) that this was the explanation of why the Bush Administration was caught unprepared, that theywere just following CLinton's lead. Bush hasgone to great lengths to discredit Clinton's policies and ignore or distance himself from ANYTHING Clinton did. Where does your allegation come from?

[lakewinola]

Yet more proof of Bush during his war mongering aftermath of 9-11. I think we leave little doubt that over the past year Al Queda has been ignored so Bush could settle a personal score. Wake up, he mislead all of us!!!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&e=26&u=/ap/20040405/ap_on_re_eu/britain_bush_iraq_5

[RedskinsDave]

Now you are just making this up. I have not read nor heard anywhere, even from Republicans, that 1) the Clinton Administration did not believe that Al-Qaeda could not or would not strike in the US, or 2) that this was the explanation of why the Bush Administration was caught unprepared, that theywere just following CLinton's lead. Bush hasgone to great lengths to discredit Clinton's policies and ignore or distance himself from ANYTHING Clinton did. Where does your allegation come from?

I didn't say no one believed that Al Queda could not hit us here. I said it was believed we were not at great risk or immediate risk at anytime. There was a much greater concern about targets oversees.

[lakewinola]

I guess you are referring to the immediate risk that Iraq presented? The one where the president mislead the entire country?


I didn't say no one believed that Al Queda could not hit us here. I said it was believed we were not at great risk or immediate risk at anytime. There was a much greater concern about targets oversees.

[RedskinsDave]

No, that would be the one where he was misled by bad intelligence. The same bad intelligence that made Clinton think they had WMD's.

[dukeuch]

I didn't say no one believed that Al Queda could not hit us here. I said it was believed we were not at great risk or immediate risk at anytime. There was a much greater concern about targets oversees.

Nice dodge. Ok, you said "All they were doing was carrying on the Clinton admin policy and such where it was not believed that we were at a great risk of being attacked on U.S. soil." in response to criticism that they did not pursue an active strategy for handlinghomeland attacks. I reiterate that I have not heard anybody, even Republicans, say that Bush was just continuing Clinton's policies. Besides, it is clear he was not when, for example, he ridiculed the suggestion by Clinton's Administration that a Office of Homeland Security be created, and that the biggest terrorist threat to the US was Osama Bin-Laden.

[dukeuch]

No, that would be the one where he was misled by bad intelligence. The same bad intelligence that made Clinton think they had WMD's.

This is such a tired old lie. Clinton recognized that there was no proof of WMD, therefore no compelling reason to attack (he knew "humanitarian reasons" would not hold up to Congressional and public scrutiny). He may have suspected, worried, whatever, but without some proof, and Bush has not shown ANY proof, that an invasion was not warranted.

[RedskinsDave]

I said "great risk" and it is clear they continued Clinton's policy as far as protecting the country because they did not change anything in the 8 months following the change in admin. No dodge whatsoever.

[fourthandinches]

Link for quote (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721)
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what a terrorist group, or association or their allied force or whatever these people want to call themselves has to say about who should be President of the United States. I care about what Americans who can vote have to say. In addition, I could give a damn less about personal attacks by either candidate, party or their supporters! You want to get my attention and engage in debate about the issues and the pros and cons of the candidates – drop the mudslinging and personal attacks. You don’t impress me by demonstrating that you’re an ignorant ass by libeling the other candidate or party. 10-second sound bites and 30 second inflammatory ads don’t do squat for me. It only gives me reason to question either candidate or party’s ability to be honest with the voting public.

you hit the nail on the head bro, right on the head. im so fed up with this childish behaviour, im willing to just vote for whom ever does less.

[twobits]

i think the Dems. should take their show to broadway,very funny show

[fourthandinches]

only cuz reps can't write :P