We need another terrorist attack

[raybia]

I can't think of a single statement ever spoken by a politician that is dumber than what this guy said.

He just said out loud what the Bush Adminstration has probably been plan..I mean wishing for behind closed doors.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Lulled who?
You.

nothing has happened?

uh....haven't thousands of people died overseas?
haven't hundreds of people had their rights trampled?

No. not in America. That is what I was referring to. But I'm sure you knew that. You just wanted to take a shot.

... I.....I mean, what world do you live in?
terrorist plots were being foiled BEFORE 9-11 in case you have conveniently forgot about the Millenium terror attacks ( all foiled by the way) well. maybe you forgot, you know why?

because the Clinton admin/ fought the war on Terror IN SILENCE. as it should be run.

Mr. Sparkle ,dude, grow a brain.

You obviously don't live on this planet.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Lulled who?

You.

LOL, no, unlike you I'm wide awake and can see clearly who my enemies are, what threatens freedom and what doesn't and who wants what.
I like the fact that you can't understand that no-one is "lulled" because everyone in the US lives in fear now, perhaps you haven't taken a plane in the last 6 years or so.
ahaha your blindness is comical.

nothing has happened?
uh....haven't thousands of people died overseas?
haven't hundreds of people had their rights trampled?
... I.....I mean, what world do you live in?

No. not in America. That is what I was referring to. But I'm sure you knew that. You just wanted to take a shot.

uh.....remind me, wasn't the first major attack by Bin Laden ( the one with the 2,900 + dead) on Bush's watch? maybe he was the one "lulled"into a false sense of security.
maybe that's why he cut antiterrorism funding in his first 8 months to favor a missile defense shield ( which I'm sure some arms contractor found quite profitable) and afterwards myabe that's why he forgot about Bin Laden ( the lulling thing remember?)
what exactly should people be thanking him for?

terrorist plots were being foiled BEFORE 9-11 in case you have conveniently forgot about the Millenium terror attacks ( all foiled by the way) well. maybe you forgot, you know why?

because the Clinton admin/ fought the war on Terror IN SILENCE. as it should be run.

jesus ,dude, grow a brain.

You obviously don't live on this planet.

the only thing "obvious" here is the fact that you had no answer to my point ( which was devastating if I do say so myself) so you had little else to do but to have some weak sauce one liner not even remotely related to my response.

gee Celldog, that's quite telling, it seems you yourself know the fragility of your stance.
well, you might yet see the light.

...

 

[Docker2.0]

I can't think of a single statement ever spoken by a politician that is dumber than what this guy said.

"Elect Bush, for the betterment of the country, for the better!" -1999 slogan for George W.Bush

That is the dumbest thing that I have ever heard a politician say.......well an entire party say!

 

[DorkyFresh]

we haven't had any foreign terrorist attacks since 9/11 and before that it was the bombing of the WTC in 93 (not nearly as horrible as 9/11).

we were doing just fine w/out Bush...

 

[Docker2.0]

we haven't had any foreign terrorist attacks since 9/11 and before that it was the bombing of the WTC in 93 (not nearly as horrible as 9/11).

we were doing just fine w/out Bush...

Wasn't Bush Sr. in office when the original bombing in 93 happened?

 

[Machx72]

I vote that the terrorists put a bomb up his ass and send him into a crowd of his own supporters.

 

[FunBobPants]

if you dont have one soon, the whiny liberals are gonna lose this war for you, and i guaran-****ing-tee you, your country will be gone by the end of the 2030s

 

[The Overlord]

LOL...I'll admit that's funny.

But that guy used a poor choice of words. I think I understood the jist. Basically Bush has become a victim of his own success in this area. The fact that nothing has happen in 5 to 6 years has lulled many of you back to sleep. Heck, it's got that "empty-suit", John Edwards actually saying there is no war on terror!!

He says this while a ..."coff" (clearing throat) terror plot is foiled at JFK Airport!!!

There are no terror attack in America when Carter was president, does that mean Carter was great at fighting terrorism? Of course not. If Gore was president he would have brought in security measures that would have made it trickier for terrorists to attack America as well. Al-Qaeda is just bidding its time, Bush's policies like the war in Iraq has made Al-Qaeda stronger not weaker. Bush has empowered the terrorists, not weakened them.

 

[FunBobPants]

you can bid on time?! COOL!

 

[FunBobPants]

Do i hear 100,000? 100,000 for these lovely 2 minutes. 125,000 to the man in the back. 150? Do I hear 150?
125,000 going once, twice and SOLD to the gentleman in the back, congratulations, Sir!

 

[Spider-X]

this is just straight maddening...how can people like this actually have power...we as a nation seriously need to reevaluate our positions on politics.

 

[FunBobPants]

yes, i'm aware

 

[ReTrO JuNkIe 42]

Is Al-Qaeda even real, or just something made up by our fearless leader so every one will follow suit?

 

[lazur]

If we get attacked, it'd be all Bush's fault.

But since we haven't gotten attacked since 9/11, Bush gets none of the credit.

Just a little insight into the 'liberal' mind.

Carry on.

 

[Abaddon]

what about all the attacks we weren't having before Bush was President?

 

[Docker2.0]

Having a Bush in office is like watching a Michael Bay movie, something is sure to blow up.

 

[The Overlord]

If we get attacked, it'd be all Bush's fault.

But since we haven't gotten attacked since 9/11, Bush gets none of the credit.

Just a little insight into the 'liberal' mind.

Carry on.

Should Carter get credit because there was no terrorist attacks in America during his reign? Of course not, that would be silly. That doesn't prove anything, Bush has empowered Al-Qaeda and they are likely just looking for the perfect time to strike. Give me evidence that Bush has weakened Al-Qaeda, then I will be impressed.

 

[lazur]

what about all the attacks we weren't having before Bush was President?

You mean like the attack on the WTC that happened during Clinton's term, or the attack on the USS Cole? Do you forget that 9/11 was planned during Clinton's term?

Oh, my bad, Clinton's a liberal - he can do no wrong .

 

[lazur]

Should Carter get credit because there was no terrorist attacks in America during his reign? Of course not, that would be silly. That doesn't prove anything, Bush has empowered Al-Qaeda and they are likely just looking for the perfect time to strike. Give me evidence that Bush has weakened Al-Qaeda, then I will be impressed.

That's a pretty dumb*** analogy. Terrorist attacks during or before Carter's term weren't even on the radar. There were no anti-terrorist organizations or efforts made to prevent terrorist attacks in the US because none had happened previously to set a precedent.

Again, completely dumb*** analogy, but way to oversimplify things to an extreme that requires absolutely no brain power.

 

[The Overlord]

You mean like the attack on the WTC that happened during Clinton's term, or the attack on the USS Cole? Do you forget that 9/11 was planned during Clinton's term?

Oh, my bad, Clinton's a liberal - he can do no wrong .

The terrorists were training in America during Bush's term, ultimately its both their fault, more precisely its the CIA and FBI's fault, more then either of these two presidents. However Regan was the one that supported future members of Al-Qaeda and the taliban against the soviets. That is the problem, the US government supports all sort of scum bags to achieve a short term political objective and ignores the long term problems supporting these people creates and then it comes back to bite them in the butt.

That's a pretty dumb*** analogy. Terrorist attacks during or before Carter's term weren't even on the radar. There were no anti-terrorist organizations or efforts made to prevent terrorist attacks in the US because none had happened previously to set a precedent.

Again, completely dumb*** analogy, but way to oversimplify things to an extreme that requires absolutely no brain power.

Stupid questions deserve stupid answers. Of course it is stupid, but makes about as much sense as giving Bush all the credit for the lack of terrorist attacks on US soil in recent years. that means nothing, it only means Al-Qaeda is bidding its time. Al-Qaeda has not been destoryed and has indeed grown stronger in recent times, why do you think that is? There have no terrorist attacks in Canada in recent times and Canada is on Al-Qaeda's hit list, does that mean Paul Martin or Stephen Harper are better than Bush at fighting terror? Of course not. Al-Qaeda has shown the ability to strike within Western nations as late as 2005. Gore would have increased security after 9-11 as well, what because he was democrat he would have been more likely fail in your opinion? Al-Qaeda still exists, is powerful and still deserves to attack western countries, how exactly are we safer?

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Actually, the long term hope was that they'd still get along with us. Far fetched as it was.

 

[Abaddon]

You mean like the attack on the WTC that happened during Clinton's term, or the attack on the USS Cole? Do you forget that 9/11 was planned during Clinton's term?

Oh, my bad, Clinton's a liberal - he can do no wrong .

so it's not Bush's fault if we get attacked, but it was definitely Clinton's fault when we did?

oh, right. Bush's conservative. He can do no wrong.

 

[DorkyFresh]

Wasn't Bush Sr. in office when the original bombing in 93 happened?

the bombing happened in Feb. 93, Clinton took office in Jan. 93, only 1 month later...


...in contrast, W. Bush took office in Jan. 01 and of course, 9/11 happened 9 full months later.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I love it when people forget to add context.

Thank you, Dorky Fresh for adding it.