Hey electrobuzz, why don't you stop blaming Bush, and start blaming terrorist... thats a new one huh.. or should we be more like Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter.. and do nothing about the whole situation

Question... did you piss and moan when Clinton went into Bosnia?

Remember...



Fricken Hypochrites!

Here is some more.

Ladies and Gentlemen, the President of the United States:

Bush defines sovereignty in his own special way

Record of failure

I would like to take a minute to address the political situation about us "righties" and how we re-elected Bush.

For those of you that don't know, there is a $22 millon Mosque currently under construction in Boston, Massachussetts.

Here is the design

Now at first glance it looks to be a charitable organization where Muslims "felt the need for an organization or a place to gather themselves, preserve their Islamic identity and help them observe their obligations as Muslims." as quoted by the ISB themselves.

With a more detailed insight it is an organization that has ties to radicalism and the members that formed the ISB have ties to extremism.

(I.E. Dr. Yusef al-Qaradawi [one of the four directors of the ISB] is a respected Muslim scholar, but the Egyptian Wahabbi cleric has urged Iraqi Muslims to kill American Soldiers, and has praised Palestinian suicide bombers.)

and believe me, there are plenty more rap sheets where this one cam from.

But, the point to my rambling here is to uncover the person who granted permission to a radical society to build the largest Mosque in the northeastern United States:

I dare you to click and find out

But what does this have to do with anything?

If you read the first line of his letter:
"I am proud to join Yousef Abou-Allaban, the Staff and Guests of the Islamic Society of Boston, and Muslims across Massachusetts in celebrating the groundbreaking of this new Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center."

So Senator Kerry is proud to be among a crowd of Extremists?

Me personally I am glad we re-elected Bush, at least with him we know that the war won't come to the home-front (well it hasn't at least since HE waged the war on terrorism)

you got my vote Bush. Keep up the good work.

Like I said, the sword is mightier than the pen (or #3 pencil, as it were) in this administration.

Fuck yes; there are reasons to go to war. I'd love to track down the national connections and affiliations of the 18 terrorists originally from Saudi Arabia that slaughtered thousands of our countrymen. Now that's a place to impose the LAW, open up a 50 cal and scramble the 16’s. Wherever that may be.

I'd love to see us focus on finding Osama Been Asshole. Maybe 175000 of the best fighting troops in the world could do the job better than 10000 (and certainly better than "letting the Afghanis handle it"). Instead, our deployments are too heavy in a second-rate sandbox. What the hell are we doing now -- imposing elections??? Hm, in 2001 we had 67% of the country under a "no fly zone". And we attacked to…impose elections? Is it really better now? We had Saddam in a tight little chastity belt. He was our bitch. Now, well, we will see what uncontrolled scum surfaces. And we will also sadly see a lot more American blood flow. Imposed from DC by a leader who has never been to war. However, I bet as a Yale cheerleader, he had a nasty scuffle with a Harvard boy at least once.

And, yes war sucks. It's everywhere. We cannot be the world's police. But based on that bizarre inaugural speech, we're gonna light it up all over. The leader of my country has made an urgent pledge spread freedom to "the darkest corners of our world". What the hell? Freedom is not Country Crock. It is not a product; it is an ideal, an attainable one that CANNOT BE IMPOSED.

If we had direction at a national level that was even marginally capable of creating a world consensus we might be able to solve some of these problems. Solve them without numerous dead from home and across the world and without many of our youth coming back looking like Civil War vets, padding forth missing an appendage or two.

Clinton was marginal at best. Bosnia helped cover up his fellatio follies. But, how about that, a concerted effort to help people that weren’t oil-rich? Wow. Oh, yeah, they are white over there, tho.

Let’s consider some other major human rights violators: Indonesia, Haiti, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Tunisia, China and North Korea. There’s lots of internal oppression, torture and slaughter in all those countries. Saddle up ladies and gents, there's a lot of freedom to impose. And be sure to get ready for a draft that won't be televised on ESPN.

Oh, he "granted" permission?

Give me a break. Kerry is federal, not state. Why not talk to Romney? He's the governor.

You know for a fact? They didn't even know about 9/11, and what information they did have, they ignored. I don't know how you can be so sure. And please don't pull out the "I've been out there, so I know, so fuck you" card.

Has there been an attack on home soil since he waged the war? only common sense would tell you that since we've had this war on terrorism (which Bush executed) America has been free of attack. I mean when the USS Cole was Bombed and 17 Sailors died, did president Clinton go after the attackers (which were linked to al-Qaida)? No, he didn't. Then just a little under a year after that the World Trade Centers fell, here is a timeline:

Oct 12, 2000---Sep 11, 2001---Oct 7,2001
USS COLE-----WTC Attacks-----Bush attacks
_______|____________|_________|

After that NOTHING, so based on analysis of past events and information I can be safe in my assesment that the war will not come to the home-front. (that and it is also 2005 and since 2001 there haven't been any attacks kinda give me ground to stand on)

Great links, Digit. Wow. That's who's running our country.

Mi -- you've got some spurrious logic flowing, bro. Hey, we haven't had a massive crippling Internet virus since W started the war, we haven't have extensive fluctuations in the Van Allen belt since W started the war. Moorlocks haven't surfaced and taken over the world since W started the war.

The Cole incident sucked. I had a friend that left that ship a month earlier. While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an "attack on US soil". In fact, there wasn't an attack on the 50 states from the WTC in 93 to the WTC in 2001. All *without* pouring billions outside of our country leading to the slaugter of thousands of our own and others. How about that?

So W's great at the helm? As Condi so hesitantly stated, Bush did little in regards to this intelligence memo right up to 9/11: "I believe the title was 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" I have heard that W had plenty of vacation leading up to 9/11 tho.
And hey, Crawford's still a-ok, at least. Thanks W!

I find it amusing how people think that since there hasn't been an attack inside the U.S., Bush has been successful. What makes you think they've planned anything in that time? What happens when it DOES happen again? Does the excuse then become, "Well, it was X number of years of prevented attacks...something was bound to get through, 'cause the government isn't going to be able to get *everything*."?

I guess they were the only ones talking about 9/11. It really wasn't a big enough deal for other people to talk about it, either is terrorism.



What the hell do you people expect??? If you leftist "people" want to belive that 9/11 and terrorism are not real threats and that the administration is trying to scare people, then you still haven't learned.

Maybe after the next attack, after thousands more of your brothers and sisters die, then you will take it seriously.

Maybe when the next attack happens, you fuckers on the right will realize that a gay ass color coded warning system is not ACTUALLY protecting us...just getting us riled up and scared.

Tom Ridge can kiss my white ass.

How the fuck can you sit there and say, "While it was a shitty attack on the US -- it wasn't an attack on US soil." Who gives a fuck where they were. It was an attack on a US Naval Vessel and it killed American service people. That is an attack on America, no matter how the fuck you look at it. An attack on our military is an act of war.

Clinton had the chance to avenge the Cole and her lost sailors, and he didn't. I was in the Navy during that period and was stationed in Norfolk (the Coles homeport). We couldn't believe that we didn't do more about that tragedy.

Linc, come on bro. A person can take the threat of terror seriously and not agree with the tack that this administration has taken, right? There's not one right answer. There are many wrong answers, and the current administration seems to have found many of them -- and wear them like they drape themselves in my flag and in colorful words like "patriotism".

And we are losing as a country for it. Losing our lives, losing families, losing money and losing any real leadership in the world.

Fuck the warning system, the thing that is protecting us is that we are on the offensive. We are taking the fight to them, and keeping it out of our back yard.

Would you rather have us scrambling to play defense on our land?

Amen to that. It's like we broke out a giant broom and just hoped everyone would forget.

My statement was a direct response to MI's commentary about "attacks at home" and specific infiltration of terrorists within our borders.
Shit, what did Reagan do about the two attacks, killing 300, in Beirut 1981? Reagan's reaction was to withdraw American forces, an act that Osama bin Laden later pointed to as an example of American cowardice. That sucked too.

I agree with some of what you are saying. A person can take the threat of terrorism seriously, and not agree with the administration. That is your right, and I love this country because of that.

The problem is that many on the left think that this is a fucken game. They drink their kool aid and don't really believe that there is a threat. Look at the links that Digityzed posted. They think that Bush has made this war up (Michael Moore), and concocted 9/11 for his own gain. That is outright ridiculous, idiotic, and irresponsible.

There is not any one right answer. This is not an easy situation at all. Bush has done a lot right, and he has definatly made some mistakes.

One thing I would like to see is the left actually taking some responsibility and holding some of their own accountable also. Their ridiculous hatred of Bush makes the lefts political leadership look like monkeys. They blame Bush for stuff, and give their own a pass when they do the exact same thing that Bush does.

The most important thing to me is the safety of the citizens of the United States of America. I swore to protect that in my service years, and I still hold true to that oath. Bush is the one person that has had the balls to hold those that want to kill us, and ruin our way of life accountable for their actions.

I agree with you again. That did suck and it was a horrible decision!

The difference is that we didn't view terrorism as a huge threat back then.

You would think that after the first attack on the World Trade Center (during Clintons Presidency), the bombings of our embassies (during Clintons Presidency), the Black Hawk incident (during Clintons Presidency), The USS Cole incident (during Clintons Presidency)......you can see where I am going with this. You would think that after all of those attacks, that he would do something about all of this.

I'd say the current wave of terror really grew under Reagan's watch:

http://www.simplytaty.com/broadenpages/terrorism.htm#70

Again, a leader that can only see black and white. Yes, Communism was a bigger threat then...at least as a kid, it felt like it. But look at all these incidents. Reagan did no more than shake a fist.

Look at the variety of groups. So, you are saying since we attacked Iraq (a country that did not attack us), all the other terror groups will be scared away from us? You know, it seems like if we continue to forcefully impose our will on Iraq, the opposite will be true.

Or is this where the grand plan of bringing freedom to the "dark corners of the world" comes in?

At some point, civilization grows from communication -- not killing. But hey, we've had a War on Something (some valid, some not) since the 30's. Perhaps we wouldn't know what to do if we weren't at war?

Hey, here's one! A War on Ignorance. Nah, never happen under this helm. No benefit there.

We are not so much as imposing our will on Iraq as giving the people (that indeed do want to be free, and they have that God given right) a chance to be free.

Linc, which God(s) gave that right to be free? Fundamentalist (and some moderate) Muslims seem to like to be led -- by other Muslims. So saying our brand of freedom is "God given" is supporting the "crusade" (w's word) we are on. Of course, we could talk about the religious wars that have flared in the region for thousands of years...

Hey, check out that "terror history" link. Notice the lack of terrorist activity from late 88 to early 93? Remember what HW Bush did after recapturing Kuwait, with all the support of NATO behind him? He recognized Iraq as (an albeit fucked up) sovereign nation. He showed mercy. He used diplomacy. And steadily weakened the power of Hussein.

Once he left, it all went to hell again under Clinton, and his lesser enabled and lesser enlightened progeny.

Hm. What would the world be like if HW got that second term? The world was building, there was peace. A freaking Age of Diplomacy was growing(call it the War on Non-Diplomacy, as you like) -- yep, under a Republican. Boo-ya. But, we'll never know. And in the words of the '92 spoiler: "That's just sad".

I'm definitely not as radical as Michael Moore is about Bush's tenure so far, believe me! I don't think that Bush "concocted 9/11 for his own gain," but I do think there's been some exploitation of it, which has made us, as a nation, look bad in the eyes of other nations. Sadly, the world's view of the U.S. as a whole has grown increasingly more sour since 2001, but hopefully the Bush administration does some serious mending of relations over the next four years.

Number one, I'm not a Chief - that title belongs to a Naval NCO. Number two, as far as NOT attacking a country that had No Al Quida ties, we did that after the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole, the Khobar towers, the embassies in Kenya and the Sudan, and the Mogidishu ambush. Look what happened. Total span of time on those incidents was what, 7 years or so? We launched a few Tomahawks, but didn't really do anything decisive. Almost 4 years into GWOT, we haven't had any acts of terrorism against U.S. targets. Now, I grant you that "act of terrorism" will mean things to different people. To the typical civilian, an 82mm mortar slamming into a skylight above your bed, inches from the glass, might be considered an act of terrorism. To me, that's just part of my job. So, you statement begs the question, what is justification for a lot of money and shitload of blood? Perhaps a small raid by a few aircraft on U.S. warships at anchor in the harbor of a U.S. protectorate? Is that worth 700,000 KIA, and over 1 million wounded, not to mention about 5 years of severe hardship at home? There are some people you just can't be diplomatic with. A man who sees Stalin as a hero is one of them.
I'll pass on your belief to my buddies in D Co of the nonexistance of chemical weapons. Perhaps you'd like to check out what they found in Karbola. Granted, it wasn't a lot, but the presence of it says enough.
Iraq isn't a civil war. That's a new one though. Well, I take that back. There's a civil war that's been going on for a really long time. It's between the Kurds and Iraq and Turkey. Same thing is going on in Israel. Civil wars take place between organized forces, not independent cells. When was the last time you heard of the insurgents being the victim of a car bomb? I wouldn't consider mortaring a school an act of war. That is terrorism. If you think Iraq is a civil war, then you probably think that the gang crime in LA is also a civil war. The insurgency is really not much more than normal crime in America, just on a much more intense scale. I said the same thing about Mosul last year. If American criminals had access to RPGs and mortars, and it wasn't unsusal for over 50% of all homes to have a fully automatic AK-47, you'd see the same shit happening here. This is like Chicago in the twenties. You have to walk the streets to understand it. I'm not being arrogant about it - it's the truth. You can't create a truely informed opinion until you have talked to the average Joe - well, I guess it would be Average Mohammad over there. Sure, there are people that hate us - same way most criminals feel about the police. There are lot's that view us as a necessary nuiscance - just like lot's of people here view the police. Finally, there are those that love us. Most of these are the highly educated ones. They are smart enough to recognize that there is a future for Iraq that is a hell of a lot better than it was under Saddam. They know the power of that black gold under the sand. They help us find and kill those that try to stand in the way of that prosperity. That's the thing that kills me. I've had lots of time to talk with Iraqis of various back grounds and education levels - most Iraqis speak some degree of English. Even those that initially weren't sure if they liked us being there understood that if everyone pulled together they could be the richest country in the middle east. In Mosul, money is the most important thing. I explained to them about Alaska and the oil dividends that get paid out. There is hope over there, it just doesn't sell newspapers like car bombs and dead bodies do.

Why not blame Bill Clinton, since that attack was planned under his tenure, under his first term. oh wait that's right, he cut out intelligence agencies in half, no wonder why they failed... my bad.