State of the Union

[Spexvet]

I was in the middle of something and didn't turn on the SOTU speech untill about quarter after. One of the first things I heard W says was that we have to redusce the deficit. I agree with that, but the thought of him saying this in light of his actions caused me to sneer at the TV "so why didn't you veto any of the pork that your party has proposed in the last 5 years? It's all spend, spend, spend, without taxing to pay for it, from a party that calls itself fiscally responsible!" Having said that, to the TV, I turned on Eureka and watched a rerun. I felt better. :bbg:

[Judy Canty]

Didn't they start out with a surplus? Or am I just getting forgetful...6 years was so long ago...

[rep]

And nothing has really taken place in those six years.

Just, post 9/11, securing the country, and that little thing involving Afganistan and Iraq.


Rep

[For-Life]

And nothing has really taken place in those six years.

Just, post 9/11, securing the country, and that little thing involving Afganistan and Iraq.


Rep

he secured the country?

Also, isn't Iraq proof of wasteful spending?

[rep]

I haven't seen any airplanes hijacked by terrorist flying into building in about six years, but just wait............

our wonderful new congress is just about to turn them loose again by failing to fund Afganistan and Iraq

So soon comming to a city near you are TA DA:

Osama and the peaceful religon of Islam


Rep

[For-Life]

I haven't seen any airplanes hijacked by terrorist flying into building in about six years, but just wait............

our wonderful new congress is just about to turn them loose again by failing to fund Afganistan and Iraq

So soon comming to a city near you are TA DA:

Osama and the peaceful religon of Islam


Rep

Just because terrorists do not attack the US daily does not mean it is not secure. How many terrorist attacks has the US had? Oklahoma City and a foreign (not terrorist, but can be classified the same) attack by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

No Dubbya does not want his American's killed in America. That is why he sends then over 21,000 troops at a time to Iraq so they can be killed there. :finger:

As for Osama, I think Bush forgot about him a long time ago.

[cocoisland58]

Oh my God, I missed everything George said. All I could see were Nancy blinking and biting her lips and Dick thinking about his late night snack.

[Spexvet]

I haven't seen any airplanes hijacked by terrorist flying into building in about six years, but just wait............
...


Rep

But how many conspiracies have been stopped? The guys in Florida who were going to bomb the Sears tower, the group in Buffalo, the shoe guy flying in from England, just to name a few. Jeez, seems like W's actions have increased plans to terrorize us, on our own soil. Even during the last Democratic presidency, there was only one foriegn-planned attack on American soil. :hammer:

[rep]

• World Trade Center Bombing - 1993
• Kobar Towers Barracks -1998 - ( US Base)
• US Embassy in Kenya ( US Soil)
• US Embassy in Tanzania (US Soil)
• USS Cole ( US Ship)

But to your way of logic none of the others count - right

All occured under Clinton - His only response was to bomb an later ,identified asprin factory with a Cruise missile three days after his grand jury appearence for his affair with Monica. Thirteen days after the bombing of the embassys.

His official position at the time was that this was a police matter - in fact Clinton administration officials have since revealed that the FBI under Clinton had all of the evidence sealed by the grand jury with no access by the CIA or military.

9/11 was as ineviatable - as another attack is under this democratic congress.

Rep

[Spexvet]

• Kobar Towers Barracks -1998 - ( US Base)
• US Embassy in Kenya ( US Soil)
• US Embassy in Tanzania (US Soil)
• USS Cole ( US Ship)

But to your way of logic none of the others count - right
...Rep

Then let's count every terrorist attack in Iraq - after all, as occupiers, it's really our soil, right? :hammer: Of course, to your way of logic, only things that support your point of view count - right.

[Grubendol]

All of those incidents you list were responded to. The persons who planned the first WTC attack are in jail, their were strategic bombings in response to the embassy attacks and the CIA did not state that Osama was behind the USS Cole until a week after Bush had taken his oath of office. So that lack of response (and there was a lack of response to that) is on Bush's shoulders, not Clinton's.

[Steve Machol]

Yep, Bush never did a single thing about the Cole attack even though Richard Clarke argued strongly that we needed to retaliate against Al Qaeda.

The Bush Administration also failed to heed or act on two specific warnings (the PDB in August and the warning from CIA Director George Tenet to Condi Rice in July) that Al Qaeda planned to initiate a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil 1 and 2 months before Sept. 11th.

Apparently the official Adminstration position (voiced by 'The Decider' himself) is that since Al Qaeda was not kind enough to tell us exactly what they planned to do, along with the when and where, that they had no 'actionable' intelligence. (No further comment needed.)

I also distinctly remember Clinton sending cruise missles in an unsuccessful attempt take out Bin Laden, and the Republicans responded swiftly and strongly with accusations that we was 'wagging the dog' to distract people from the all -important (in their minds at least) Monica Lewinsky affair.

Yep, they really had their priorities straight, didn't they?

[rep]

Yep, Bush never did a single thing about the Cole attack even though Richard Clarke argued strongly that we needed to retaliate against Al Qeuda.

in the Clinton administration are you going to blame Bush?

The Cole was bombed (October 12,2000) almost three months before Bush took office (January 20, 2001) and there was no response what so ever.

Clinton had 8 years before 9/11. Bush had 8 months.

Rep

[Steve Machol]

I noticed you ignored the rest of my points. Not surprising really. ;)

As for this:

in the Clinton administration are you going to blame Bush?

The Cole was bombed (October 12,2000) almost three months before Bush took office (January 20, 2001) and there was no response what so ever.

Clinton had 8 years before 9/11. Bush had 8 months.

Rep

You conveniently ignored this fact:

....and the CIA did not state that Osama was behind the USS Cole until a week after Bush had taken his oath of office. So that lack of response (and there was a lack of response to that) is on Bush's shoulders, not Clinton's.

Let me see if I can simplify this for you. Clinton was no longer President when it was determined who was responsible for the Cole attack. So he did not have '8 years' to do nothing about this. And he remains to this day the only President who ever tried to kill Bin Laden, even though this was well before the Sept. 11th attacks.

Bush was President for 8 months and never once lifted a finger to go after Al Qaeda even though Richard Clarke, George Tenet and others with significant terrorism experience were telling him to do so.

So yes. I do blame the Bush Administration for doing nothing about Cole and Al Qaeda for 8 months even though they were informed they were behind the Cole attack and were specifically planning more attacks on US soil.

The simple and unescapable fact is that Clinton is not responsible for this as much as the Clinton-Haters-Till-The-End want to make him out to be the fall guy. That doesn't mean I think Clinton was perfect or without fault. Far from it. But blaming him for Sept. 11th is misguided at best, and cowardly slander at worst.

By the way, whatever happened to Bush's 'We'll Get Him (Bin Laden) Dead or Alive' promise, which later turned into 'I don't spend a lot of time thinking about him.' Can you say 'Flip-Flop'?

Oh, and what about Reagan who's response to the terrorist bombings that killed 220 US Marines in Lebanon was to pull out of Lebanon. I'm sure in some twisted way you believe this was Carter's fault, right?

[Grubendol]

Steve, thanks for making my point for me.

[rep]

Clinton was no longer President when it was determined who was responsible for the Cole attack. So he did not have '8 years' to do nothing about this..

The 9/11 comission report disputes that as nonsense.

Section 6.3 The attack on the USS Cole.
Within the first weeks after the attack, the Yemenis found and arrested both Badawi and Quso, but did not let the FBI team participate in the interrogations. The CIA described initial Yemeni support after the Cole as "slow and inadequate." President Clinton, Secretary Albright, and DCI Tenet all intervened to help. Because the information was secondhand, the U.S. team could not make its own assessment of its reliability.130

On November 11, the Yemenis provided the FBI with new information from the interrogations of Badawi and Quso, including descriptions of individuals from whom the detainees had received operational direction. One of them was Khallad, who was described as having lost his leg. The detainees said that Khallad helped direct the Cole operation from Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Yemenis (correctly) judged that the man described as Khallad was Tawfiq bin Attash.131

An FBI special agent recognized the name Khallad and connected this news with information from an important al Qaeda source who had been meeting regularly with CIA and FBI officers.The source had called Khallad Bin Ladin's "run boy," and described him as having lost one leg in an explosives accident at a training camp a few years earlier.To confirm the identification, the FBI agent asked the Yemenis for their photo of Khallad.The Yemenis provided the photo on November 22, reaffirming their view that Khallad had been an intermediary between the plotters and Bin Ladin. (In a meeting with U.S. officials a few weeks later, on December 16, the source identified Khallad from the Yemeni photograph.)132

U.S. intelligence agencies had already connected Khallad to al Qaeda terrorist operations, including the 1998 embassy bombings. By this time the Yemenis also had identified Nashiri, whose links to al Qaeda and the 1998 embassy bombings were even more well-known.133

In other words, the Yemenis provided strong evidence connecting the Cole attack to al Qaeda during the second half of November, identifying individual operatives whom the United States knew were part of al Qaeda. During December the United States was able to corroborate this evidence. But the United States did not have evidence about Bin Ladin's personal involvement in the attacks until Nashiri and Khallad were captured in 2002 and 2003.


The Clinton administration already knew that al Qaeda was responsible for the embassy bombings because they put a reward out for Osama.

Another enlightening quote from Richard Clarke (whom you repeatedly reference when blaming Bush) is this after Clinton failed to act on the Cole, again from the 9/11 comission report.

Some of Clarke's fellow counterterrorism officials, such as the State Department's Sheehan and the FBI's Watson, shared his disappointment that no military response occurred at the time. Clarke recently recalled that an angry Sheehan asked rhetorically of Defense officials:"Does al Qaeda have to attack the Pentagon to get their attention?"149

And he remains to this day the only President who ever tried to kill Bin Laden, even though this was well before the Sept. 11th attacks

This statement is unbelievable by anyone listening to the tens of thousands of confirmed news reports, magazine articles and newspaper articles regarding the search for Bin Laden by the entire U S government, the Special Forces units dedicated to killing him, the increase in the reward to 5 times the amount by Clinton and so forth.

Bush was President for 8 months and never once lifted a finger to go after Al Qaeda even though Richard Clarke, George Tenet and others with significant terrorism experience were telling him to do so.

Was Bush blameless no - but as Condi said there was no operational plan in place to deal with a Cole response, none nada, because Clinton never intended to respond. The terrorism buildup had been coming strong according the the 9/11 report and failure to act after the Cole bombing was essential because it gave Al Qaeda tremendous recruiting opportunities.

There was no American strike. In February 2001, a source reported that an individual whom he identified as the big instructor (probably a reference to Bin Ladin) complained frequently that the United States had not yet attacked. According to the source, Bin Ladin wanted the United States to attack, and if it did not he would launch something bigger.126

The attack on the USS Cole galvanized al Qaeda's recruitment efforts. Following the attack, Bin Ladin instructed the media committee, then headed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to produce a propaganda video that included a reenactment of the attack along with images of the al Qaeda training camps and training methods; it also highlighted Muslim suffering in Palestine, Kashmir, Indonesia, and Chechnya. Al Qaeda's image was very important to Bin Ladin, and the video was widely disseminated. Portions were aired on Al Jazeera, CNN, and other television outlets. It was also disseminated among many young men in Saudi Arabia and Yemen, and caused many extremists to travel to Afghanistan for training and jihad.Al Qaeda members considered the video an effective tool in their struggle for preeminence among other Islamist and jihadist movements.127

Those recruiting efforts led directly to 9/11.

You got the words right . Misguided and cowardly is a perfect description for the Clinton administration. :D

Yes, I do blame Jimmy Carter for letting Americans languish in Irannian prison for days on end and more critically for allowing the U S military to become so weak that they botched a half hearted attempt to rescue them.

Rep

[Steve Machol]

Well I have to commend you for providing documentation which I will check out. That must have been a lot of work copy-n-pasting from one of the extreme right-wing talking points pages. ;)

I did read Clarke's book and he, in fact, did have specific plans from the Clinton Administration to deal with Al Qaeda, but the Bush Administration ignored them and decided it was not a priority. This is well-documented in numerous sources, including his book, if you care to look. It's easy to pick and choose specific quotes and ignore others.

A quick perusal of your post though doesn't quite support your position that the Clinton Administration was not actively fighting terrorism while the Bush Administration was completely blameless.

Also if you had read both Richard Clarke's and Sen. Bob Graham's books, you would have to admit that the Clinton Administration in fact did quite a lot in fighting terrorism and Al Qaeda. Clarke in particular was very frustrated with the Bush Administration's refusal to follow or even hear about the plans put in place by the Clinton Administration and instead relegated anti-terrorism behind 'Star Wars' in defense priorities. It is also a matter of public record that anti-terrorism was demoted in the first months of the Bush Administration.

20/20 hindsight is easy. However for some reason you fault Clinton for not being able to predict and stop the 9/11 attacks, yet you somehow believe that Bush is completely faultless even though he and Rice received very strong warnings of impending attacks by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 yet did nothing - or 'nada' as you would say.

The fallacy is that if Clinton was supposed to have been able to stop this, they why do you think Bush shouldn't have been able to do the same?

As for the Carter comment, once again you evade the real issue which was that Reagan's response to Hezbelloah's killing of 220 Marines was to pull out of Lebanon. Hardly a strong, aggressive response to terrorism, wouldn't you say? Well of course YOU wouldn't since Reagan was not a Democrat. We both know that if a Democrat had done the same thing, you and the irrational right would be would be screaming bloody murder for the same lack of response they give Reagan a free pass on.

[Note: I voted for Reagan over Carter primarily because of Carter's weakness on defense and his deficit spending (which ironically Reagan dwarfed in very quick order.) I also believe that Carter was one of the worst Presidents in modern times. He may though be the best ex-President since Herbert Hoover.]

The real ones who are misguided and cowardly are the people attacking Clinton (who actually fought terrorism and convicted people) while not holding Reagan and Bush accountable for their actions and inactions.

As for Bush, he did the right thing going in Afghanistan. Sadly though he did not finish the job and diverted resources out of Afghanistan to ready them for an Iraq invasion many months before he actually invaded.

Question: Why aren't you faulting Bush for not continuing to pursue and capture the actual people that did attack us on 9/11? If Clinton had done this, you and I both know that you would be demanding his head and impeachment.

[Steve Machol]

Ahh...I forgot one. The USS Cole was attacked on Oct. 12, 2000. Clinton was only in office a little over 3 months after this attack. Bush, however, had 8 months in office before 9/11. Even assuming Clinton knew the next day who was responsible for the attack on the USS Cole, he was actually President less than half the time that Bush was prior to 9/11.

So if it was such a forgone conclusion that Al Qaeda was responsible for this attack and that this was known during the few remaining weeks of the Clinton Administration, why didn't Bush immediately (or ever for that matter) do anything about this attack?

Why again is Clinton blamed for not responding but Bush not held accountable for the same inaction?

Those recruiting efforts led directly to 9/11.

It's simply implausible to claim that the attack on the USS Cole and lack of response (by both Clinton and Bush) produced more terrorist recruitment that led directly to 9/11 which was years in the planning. Even if it were the case, Bush also didn't respond and he had significantly more time to do so.

As for 'galvanizing' recruitment for terrorism, Bush's ill-advised Iraq War-of-Choice will prove to have done more for terrorism recruitment than anything any President had ever done before.

[rep]

Well I have to commend you for providing documentation which I will check out. That must have been a lot of work copy-n-pasting from one of the extreme right-wing talking points pages. ;).

A site selling PC pocket readers called CHM e-book reader is a right wing talking points page? NOT!

I did read Clarke's book and he, in fact, did have specific plans from the Clinton Administration to deal with Al Qaeda, but the Bush Administration ignored them and decided it was not a priority. This is well-documented in numerous sources, including his book, if you care to look. It's easy to pick and choose specific quotes and ignore others.

Well all I can say is that Clarke had a different story when he appeared in front of the commission than the one he came up with for his book. Probably something about being under oath. From the same source the 9/11 report we find: (Which,I think, is very interesting reading)

The Calm Before the Storm
On July 27, Clarke informed Rice and Hadley that the spike in intelligence about a near-term al Qaeda attack had stopped. (This is much different than your first post that stated that Clarke warned Bush about a near term attack.) He urged keeping readiness high during the August vacation period,warning that another report suggested an attack had just been postponed for a few months "but will still happen."32

On August 1, the FBI issued an advisory that in light of the increased volume of threat reporting and the upcoming anniversary of the East Africa embassy bombings, increased attention should be paid to security planning. It noted that although most of the reporting indicated a potential for attacks on U.S. interests abroad, the possibility of an attack in the United States could not be discounted.33

On August 3, the intelligence community issued an advisory concluding that the threat of impending al Qaeda attacks would likely continue indefinitely. Citing threats in the Arabian Peninsula, Jordan, Israel, and Europe, the advisory suggested that al Qaeda was lying in wait and searching for gaps in security before moving forward with the planned attacks.34

During the spring and summer of 2001,President Bush had on several occasions asked his briefs whether any of the threats pointed to the United States. Reflecting on these questions, the CIA decided to write a briefing article summarizing its understanding of this danger.Two CIA analysts involved in preparing this briefing article believed it represented an opportunity to communicate their view that the threat of a Bin Ladin attack in the United States remained both current and serious.35 The result was an article in the August 6 Presidential Daily Brief titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US."It was the 36Th PDB item briefed so far that year that related to Bin Ladin or al Qaeda, and the first devoted to the possibility of an attack in the United States. ( This is the first time Bush knew about the possibility of an attack in the United States)( Granted there were other indications that there might be attacks here,but they were all keying on attacks abroad.)

The President told us the August 6 report was historical in nature. President Bush said the article told him that al Qaeda was dangerous, which he said he had known since he had become President. The President said Bin Ladin had long been talking about his desire to attack America. He recalled some operational data on the FBI, and remembered thinking it was heartening that 70 investigations were under way.As best he could recollect, Rice had mentioned that the Yemenis' surveillance of a federal building in New York had been looked into in May and June, but there was no actionable intelligence.

He did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so. He said that if his advisers had told him there was a cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it. That never happened.36

The following is the text of an item from the Presidential Daily Brief received by President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001.37 Redacted material is indicated by brackets.

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [ -- ] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [ -- ] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself,but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qa'ida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.Two al-Qua' da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [ -- ] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives.

Although the following day's SEIB repeated the title of this PDB, it did not contain the reference to hijackings, the alert in New York, the alleged casing of buildings in New York, the threat phoned in to the embassy, or the fact that the FBI had approximately 70 ongoing bin Ladin -- related investigations.38 No CSG or other NSC meeting was held to discuss the possible threat of a strike in the United States as a result of this report.

Late in the month, a foreign service reported that Abu Zubaydah was considering mounting terrorist attacks in the United States, after postponing possible operations in Europe. No targets, timing, or method of attack were provided.39

We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford,Texas, on August 17 and participated in PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period.40 ( this directly contradicts your statements in your first post that Bush knew and was warned.) (Is the 9/11 commission wrong?)

Most of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented. Many officials told us that they knew something terrible was planned, and they were desperate to stop it. Despite their large number, the threats received contained few specifics regarding time, place, method, or target. Most suggested that attacks were planned against targets overseas; others indicated threats against unspecified "U.S. interests."We cannot say for certain whether these reports, as dramatic as they were, related to the 9/11 attacks.

Government Response to the Threats
National Security Advisor Rice told us that the CSG was the "nerve center" for running the crisis, although other senior officials were involved over the course of the summer. In addition to his daily meetings with President Bush, and weekly meetings to go over other issues with Rice,Tenet was speaking regularly with Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The foreign policy principals routinely talked on the telephone every day on a variety of topics.41

Hadley told us that before 9/11, he and Rice did not feel they had the job of coordinating domestic agencies.They felt that Clarke and the CSG (part of the NSC) were the NSC's bridge between foreign and domestic threats.42

There was a clear disparity in the levels of response to foreign versus domestic threats. Numerous actions were taken overseas to disrupt possible attacks -- enlisting foreign partners to upset terrorist plans, closing embassies, moving military assets out of the way of possible harm.Far less was done domestically -- in part, surely, because to the extent that specifics did exist, they pertained to threats overseas.As noted earlier, a threat against the embassy in Yemen quickly resulted in its closing.Possible domestic threats were more vague.When reports did not specify where the attacks were to take place, officials presumed that they would again be overseas, though they did not rule out a target in the United States. Each of the FBI threat advisories made this point.43

Clarke mentioned to National Security Advisor Rice at least twice that al Qaeda sleeper cells were likely in the United States. In January 2001, Clarke forwarded a strategy paper to Rice warning that al Qaeda had a presence in the United States. He noted that two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens and that one jihadist suspected in the East Africa bombings had "informed the FBI that an extensive network of al Qida 'sleeper agents' currently exists in the US." He added that Ressam's abortive December 1999 attack revealed al Qaeda supporters in the United States.44 His analysis, however, was based not on new threat reporting but on past experience.

The September 11 attacks fell into the void between the foreign and domestic threats.The foreign intelligence agencies were watching overseas, alert to foreign threats to U.S. interests there.The domestic agencies were waiting for evidence of a domestic threat from sleeper cells within the United States. No one was looking for a foreign threat to domestic targets.The threat that was coming was not from sleeper cells. It was foreign -- but from foreigners who had infiltrated into the United States.

This to me is the key. Nobody was looking for foreigners who had infiltrated into the United States.

For the record you must have missed my post that Bush was not blameless since you continue to insist that my position is otherwise. I will repeat it again. Bush is not blameless, he missed a lot during those 7 1/2 months but as the report shows nobody was looking for an attack in the US and no one even mentioned a domestic threat to him until the report on August 6Th - a little more than a month before the attack.

:D
rep

[gemstone]

The next attack on US soil, I believe will be nuclear and massive. If we are lucky we will die in one of the blast. There will be much nuclear poisoning. Many people will die slowly. Because of the targets chosen we will be mostly without a food supply,electricity and government. Funny part will be all the people saying why don't the government help us. This enemy is patient and smart. They play the media and american sentiment like Billy Preston plays the keyboard. What we need is stronger presents in the mid east. It wont happen though. The thing is, regardless of who was the president, we'd still be in Iraq. This is not the USAs plan we are carrying out here. Somebody GW or Hilliary or whomever needs to come up with a different plan that favors the USA.
;)

[gemstone]

Now you may think , at lease we have the killer subs out there to destroy the countries responsible, most border Iraq. Well hold on. Remember when the Chinese aquired the missle tech? They did not want this so they could build missles. They used it to find out how to stop them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/0...ile/index.html

Without the GPS system they have limited guidance.

[Bill West]

....it would seem that because of the whinning liberal left and the deceptive liberal media the President, who is the Commander in Chief, is not going about the war like he should. We should be raining bombs down on Iraq like rain, not sending in troops to dig them out. This would greatly reduce our losses and increase theirs. We never should have sent in troops until they wanted unconditional surrender. BOMB,BOMB.BOMB. Bagdad should have been reduced to rubble if that's what it took.This would also send a strong message to the rest of the world,attack us and die. Win at all cost and do it with every thing you got. In war there should be a winner and a loser, this crap about fighting a nice war is just that.

[For-Life]

....it would seem that because of the whinning liberal left and the deceptive liberal media the President, who is the Commander in Chief, is not going about the war like he should. We should be raining bombs down on Iraq like rain, not sending in troops to dig them out. This would greatly reduce our losses and increase theirs. We never should have sent in troops until they wanted unconditional surrender. BOMB,BOMB.BOMB. Bagdad should have been reduced to rubble if that's what it took.This would also send a strong message to the rest of the world,attack us and die. Win at all cost and do it with every thing you got. In war there should be a winner and a loser, this crap about fighting a nice war is just that.

If it was not for the ultra right politicians creating lies we would not even be in Iraq in the first place.

[gemstone]

Seems they only get CNN in Ca. EH?

[Grubendol]

....it would seem that because of the whinning liberal left and the deceptive liberal media the President, who is the Commander in Chief, is not going about the war like he should. We should be raining bombs down on Iraq like rain, not sending in troops to dig them out. This would greatly reduce our losses and increase theirs. We never should have sent in troops until they wanted unconditional surrender. BOMB,BOMB.BOMB. Bagdad should have been reduced to rubble if that's what it took.This would also send a strong message to the rest of the world,attack us and die. Win at all cost and do it with every thing you got. In war there should be a winner and a loser, this crap about fighting a nice war is just that.

Except they never attacked us.