Comments for Bush vs. Terror: Something's Working »
Posted By bobo-in-texas 1 year, 6 months ago in NewsBased on the historical record, the Bush administration obviously has done something since 2001 to dramatically improve our security against terrorism. To fail to recognize this is to sow the seeds of greatly increased susceptibility to terrorist attacks in the next administration.
Read Full Story at nypost.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 168
-
-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Empirically, however, something clearly has made us safer since 2001. Successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have not increased, as had been widely predicted, but instead dwindled to virtually nothing. "
Lie.
"the Bush administration obviously has done something since 2001 to dramatically improve our security against terrorism."
By the same logic this article employs, the Bush administration has also obviously done something since 2001 to dramatically improve our security against a giant asteroid destroying the earth.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Bobo, you really are an idiot!
almost 300 % increase in terrorist attacks worldwide since teh Iraq invasion. Dumya never caught the Anthrax killer and has said he doens't even care if he gets Bin laden. Then he dismantles the 911 Commission that he didn't want in the first place because he knows he would get the same F's he got when the Commission was active.
Neither of the two people you mentioned would have surrounded themselves with such incompetent people as to ignore a Presidential brief titled: "OBL Determined to Attack Inside the USA", that mentioned the use of planes. What an idiot you are!
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Now, now Donald
Doesn't seem that Congress was too eager to follow the Commission recommendations either
In case you missed the reports on the topic in 2006:
Democrats Reject Key 9/11 Panel Suggestion
Neither Party Has an Appetite for Overhauling Congressional Oversight of Intelligence
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
Reply-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The founding father could never have imagined a world like we now have, I think if they had there would be many more checks and balances in place. As for more or less does it really matter when the people in question don't have a clue what they are doing?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
this "no attacks since 911" stuff is nothing more than a big fat lie.
since 911...
anthrax attack. 5 dead. no leads. no arrests.
Saudi Arabia, numerous attacks on US interests (including our embassy) and numerous American deaths since 911.
attacks on US consulates/embassies in Pakistan, Greece, Syria, Yemen, Serbia. plus thwarted attacks in France, Azerbijan, Austria.
the story says that for 2004 - 2008 there's been "No successful attacks by terrorist groups inside the United States or against American interests abroad."
more lies.
2004 Saudi Arabia:
- terrorists kidnap and execute Paul Johnson Jr. 2 other Americans and BBC cameraman killed by gun attacks.
- terrorists storm the US consulate, kill 5 consulate employees.
2005 Jordan:
- Suicide bombers hit 3 American hotels (Radisson, Grand Hyatt, Days Inn). 57 dead.
2007 Greece:
- US embassy attacked by anti-tank missiles. damage but no injuries.
so, enough with the lies!!
Reply-
Neutral
nostalgia1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But also in one of OBL tapes, he said the battle plan was to fight USA and bleed them dry on home ground.
With the amount of illegals that cross US borders and the lack of any attacks on US soil, I would say it is because they are doing what they said they would, not due to any security efforts in USA
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How many attacks can you name in the six and a half years BEFORE 9/11 (as opposed to the same amount of time since)?
I can think of four, off hand--the Atlanta Olympics, the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and the USS Cole.
Add the kidnapping and execution Daniel Pearl to the list NoWayMan gave, and there are MORE attacks on Americans now, NOT FEWER.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Beau7890
"there are MORE attacks on Americans now, NOT FEWER."
LOL
You have kept your head in the sand because you can name only four and one was not Islamo Fascists in origin. You forgot about several embassies and a marine barracks etc. Almost as many died before 9/11 as died then. Wake up!!!!!!
There were many more before 9/11.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Endoscopy, my eyes are wide open. You should take your own advice: wake up and look beyond the Republican party line.
There is also homegrown terror, and it will kill you just as dead as any kind of Islamic attack will.
Attacks on embassies and marine barracks? Name them. Start AFTER February of 1995, to make sure we're talking about the same timeframe as this article.
I will admit I could be missing some. But my point is that terrorism against Americans is EXTREMELY rare, contrary to what the fear mongerers would have you believe. Your chance of dying from being struck by lightning is orders of magnitude greater than your chance of being killed in a terrorist attack.
Reply-
Neutral
Beau78901 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And if you're saying our actions in the Middle East are preventing future terror attacks, then just wait until suicide bombings start happening in this country. There is NOTHING we can do to prevent the sort of widespread, everyday bombings happening over there, once enough people get here. We've created a thousand times more people who wish us harm since Bush started his endless war.
Reply-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" There is NOTHING we can do to prevent the sort of widespread, everyday bombings happening over there, once enough people get here. We've created a thousand times more people who wish us harm since Bush started his endless war."
I have been saying that for a while now, the are already here. Enough people are within US borders who hate what the government stand for if it was really their intention to kill Americans then Americans would be dropping like flies. The CIA is more interested in playing their little games than what the people they trained are up to.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
GWHayduke1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are "terroristic" attacks on a nearly daily basis in Iraq instigated toward Americans.
If THOSE dont count, why would: "You forgot about several embassies and a marine barracks etc. Almost as many died before 9/11 as died then"?
I guess it depends on the cherries you pick to make your humble pie.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The attacks you say have dwindled, reached their height DURING this administration. No accountability is implied for the bush administrations responsibility for the increase in the first place. No accountability is implied for bush, cheney, rice, rumsfeld etc. having ignored the warnings before 9/11, & this has been proven over and over again. Sooo, they blew it initially, and things have improved, and you want people to applaud bush now because he somehow got it right? You ARE kidding.
Reply -
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
nostalgia,
read it again. it says from 2004 - 2008 there were "No successful attacks by terrorist groups inside the United States or against American interests abroad."
it doesn't say they dwindled between those years. it says there were no succesful attacks. and thats just a lie.
thats why I used the quotes. its verbatim from the article.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
you can go ahead and make racial and religious divisions if you want, but an enemy of america is an enemy of america, no matter what color or religion they happen to be.
Mcveigh proved that an american can be just as dangerous and deadly to america as any foreigner could.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
mivan41 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://news.propeller.com/story/2008/05/30/al-q... I hate to ruin your day, but that plan isn't working either. In fact AlQuaida is on the ropes now, hopefully we get to finish the job
Reply-
-
Neutral
mivan41 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does beating AlQuaida have to do with oil companies splitting oil? Bottom line is Iraqi's are helping us now that they are starting to understand what Terrorism is doing to them now if we could only get Democrats to understand!
To farm the oil of course Iraq will need help. Saudi and most other oil nations had our help getting started too. Most of the oil money is to go to rebuilding Iraq.
Reply-
-
Neutral
mivan41 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sorry about the pos I hit the wrong button.
What, you mean Saddam wasn't terrorizing his own people ! What rock did you just climb from under ? You mean that Saddam didn't have a relationship with AlQuaida Maybe you need to read the 59 page pentagon report and the Congressional report.
Yes I know the Pentagon report in in its headlines says no smoking Gun as a link to Alquaida and Iraq -- BUT if you take the time to read more than the HEADLINES you learn if the gun wasn't smoking it was CLEARLY still hot! Saddam supplied training grounds and had a agreement that when their goals didn't conflict with each other that they would work together!!! Now lets see Alquaida goal was to destroy US and Saddam likewise THINGS that mke you go UMMMMM! NO Saddam wasn't in control of AlQuaida, but this is almost as strong a link as there was with the Taliban.
And , yes contrary to what many Liberals think AlQuaida was in Iraq BEFORE we were!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
icono11 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
donald511 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Great, the article starts with all the stuff during clinton's tenure, but doesn't mention that the repug Congress refused to fund any of the Clinton anti-terror requests or that Clinton and Clark passed Al Qaeda off to Dumya as the greatest threat; but, Dumya, was too busy setting a presidential record for being on vacation!
Reply-
anioklyComment removed: Spammer14 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a wonderful record Clinton had in taking care of terrorism. He bombed a medicine factory, crippled the CIA by cutting funding to the bone, made it so that none of our countries intelligence agencies could talk to each other or share information. We had all the pieces to stop 9/11 except nobody was allowed to put them together to see the picture. That came out in the 9/11 hearings. Your boy Slick Willy really did the nation proud with those accomplishments.
Reply-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
His record is here. Scroll down to find it under "terrorism".
http://inyourface.info/ArT/Theta/CliN.shtml
Reply-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Look, BoBo, it's blatantly obvious to people who do read and look up facts and pay attention to the real world that you and endo, of all people, DO NOT. The truth is out there. But you'll have to pull your head out of your arse to find it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Say what you will but many key agency people had enough prior knowledge 9/11 was only made possible because of actions they took and not political officials. There is no way the CIA and FBI did not have some agents with complete knowledge before it happened, the only question is why did they not stop it?
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Remember that there are over 5 agencies. The NSA was placed over all of them to facilitate this type of transfer but the Clinton Administration changed the rules. You didn't read or listen to the 9/11 commission. Clinton had the organizations with firewalls between them and it was forbidden to send information between the different agencies. Therefore the complete picture was never put together by anyone. Everybody had a part but each individual piece didn't give enough meaning.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
bamababy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Someone is over looking the 4,000 dead American soldiers who've been killed fighting Bushs' war, are they not csualities of terrorism? Gearge Bush's terrorism? While i'll conceed that there have'nt been any new attacks on US soil, we are a very long way away from being safe, under this administration or the next.
Reply-
Neutral
TOD3961 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"While i'll conceed that there have'nt been any new attacks on US soil, we are a very long way away from being safe, under this administration or the next."
Would you rather have had our country run as Obama wanted to? Where we wait for the terrorists to come to us? Strike in our major cities? Attack our children in our schools?
Reply-
Neutral
donald511 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
tanglang1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1: Prove that the anthrax attack was from islamic militants or quit saying it was.
2: You have lost no civil liberties. No American has.
3: The war has not cost us much money at all. Both wars combined are only costing us 4% of the gdp which is actually below the 45 year average for military spending.
4: The deficit has more to do with failed social services, illegals and ignorant people buying houses they cannot afford than it does the war.
5: Him saying 'schools' was actually spot on. Just ask Russia.
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Due to the rise in oil prices, the amount of money the Gov. will spend each year on fuel for Gov. use is estimated at a trillion dollars.
And all of the problems you state above have not been addressed in any way, Whether it is a Rep majority with a Rep Pres. or a Dem Pres.or as the last 2 years have shown a Dem majority in congress.
But Iraq is a big plus to you, a drain on your economy for oil companies to get rich.
Look at Iran and oil from 1907 to 1948; exactly the same thinking now with Iraq only USA is doing it, not Britain.
Reply-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
True, but that is because of the "Free Trade" deal ????WTF...we have to, HAVE TO!!! give USA 67% of our oil exports, seems that is USA's idea of Free Trade, and Canadians were against this deal, but as usual the gov. any gov. does not listen to the people
Reply-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"...we have to, HAVE TO!!! give USA 67% of our oil exports,..." (It's "sell" not "give" HB)
So let's turn that around, ok? The US is forced to buy 67% of Canada's oil exports.
So are we getting a deal from Canada for being forced to buy 67% of their oil exports? And if not, why not? You greedy capitalists.
Reply-
Neutral
HannibalBarca1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Because we are not giving it freely, not our choice is it.
Yes it is sell, but only again we have to sell to you.
So again why the free trade statement, if it was free trade then we should be able to sell to who we want.
My personal opinion, give 100% to USA, I just do not like having to give it to you and calling it free
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
TonyByron1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HB, you didn't answer my question but I'll ask another anyway.
Who would you give preference to in selling Canadian oil? It gets the same price on the world market no matter the buyer.
And what are the US obligations to Canada that might anger a neo-con? ;)
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll jump in here and answer that question Tony, Europe, or any country with a growing economy. Canada must diversify and find replacements for their US markets because the closer we are tied to your economy the more we feel it every time the US dollar drops. It's like being in a three legged race with some one with a broken ankle, they just drag you down. The US market continues to get less stable while the rest of the world grows, it's not personal, just good business.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TANG you are simply wrong, stupid or mis informed..
1: Prove that the anthrax attack was from islamic militants or quit saying it was.
---
terrorist attack non the less.. why are we only fighting islamic terroists?
==
2: You have lost no civil liberties. No American has.
-----
this one alone is going to take a LOT OF SPACE..
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.
FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.
FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.
RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.
RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.
Reply-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
3: The war has not cost us much money at all. Both wars combined are only costing us 4% of the gdp which is actually below the 45 year average for military spending.
---
really WAIT TILL THE CHINESE CALL IN THE NOTES...
==========
4: The deficit has more to do with failed social services, illegals and ignorant people buying houses they cannot afford than it does the war.
----
ignorant people buying houses have almost NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL DEFICIT...
----
5: Him saying 'schools' was actually spot on. Just ask Russia.
---
yep and we've had SEVER LONE GUNMEN that proved just how EASY THAT ONE WOULD BE....
only reason they haven't done that is because the muslim-american problem would be solved cowboy and indian style and they know it..
Reply -
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
For example, most conservatives would be surprised to learn that the Patriot Act and Department of Homeland Security was the brainchild of one William Jefferson Clinton. However, a recalcitrant Republican Congress denied Clinton the opportunity to implement these plans.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your list of freedoms and rights that were supposedly infringed on were not. The only real advantage over the normal police procedures that they really had was the right to go without a search warrant providing they gave the independent of action proof after the fact. That procedure was so tied up in red tape that they never did it.
The interception of communication by our intelligence agencies has been an ongoing right that they have exercised since the start of this country. Benedict Arnold was found out by an intercepted British letter. So how come foreign terrorists are supposed to enjoy the same rights as our citizens?
Reply -
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
sad to think YOU TWO GAVE UP SO WILLINGLY.. when they come for you.. you will have that deer in the headlights look..but.. i always believed in you. SHUT UP AND GET ON THE TRAIN...
FOOLS....
but again you cannot refute the Patriot did indeed take away freedoms.. you cannot see the forest for the trees..
SAD indeed
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
raza91 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You have lost no civil liberties.."
Sweeping legislation has been passed in the wake of Sept. 11 which changes many of the legal rights citizens of this country previously enjoyed, including some of the most basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
One example of this legislation is an act named, "The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act," better known by its acronym, the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion, back in Oct.'01, that says military operations combating terrorism inside the US are not constrained by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, this new definition of terrorism is so broadly worded as to potentially apply to anyone who protests government actions, targeting them with newly minted powers of Fourth-Amendment-violating searches, seizures and surveillance.
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Please note the operative this operative word, "liberty" and this phrase "consent of the governed" Also please take note of this operative word, "destructive".
Reply-
Neutral
raza91 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am a believer in the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution and all the amendments contained within it. I am also for upholding the rule of law unlike our esteemed politicians.
The only presidential candidate that has openly stated he will do away with Homeland Security is Congressman Ron Paul. When will the rest of them get on board? He is the only one who lives and breathes the United States Constitution while the rest of them tear into our civil liberties.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
1. Nobody said it was
2. Bull
3. Bull
4. Bull
5. That was rebels trying to take hostages in Russia. I seem to recall it was questionable who caused the explosives to detonate, as well.
6. This was a response to tangalang waaaay up there somewhere...
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
DeadXXXManXXXTalkin1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
''Would you rather have had our country run as Obama wanted to?''
Nah, Osama wanted us to occupy countries. He was with the mujahideen in Afghanistan when the Russian's were playing the occupier, to their detriment.
Neither one of us know what Osama 'wants'. but at least my theory has precedent
oh wait....
you said Obama, not Osama...
well Obama voted to keep funding the war
and his anti-war stance wasn't all that strong [he said IF he woulda voted he don't know HOW he woulda voted, in 2004]
so I don't know what you're talking about
Reply -
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
we could have "taken the fight to them" in a much more wise and meaningful way than the path Bush chose for us. iraq was just plain stupid, and has only created more terrorists and anti-american sentiment across the globe.
and you act as if Obama is just going to sit around and ignore warnings like Bush did before 911.
Reply-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
keep dreaming.
Bush sr. said beforehand that to invade Iraq would be a big mistake. and he's certainly no lefty.
hell, back in the 90's, even cheney said it would end up in a quagmire if we invaded iraq. so he knew what was going to happen. which means all this "they'll greet us with flowers" mumbo jumbo was just lies. he knew it wouldn't go down like that.
so, not delusion from the left. more like consensus on both sides that the neocons chose to ignore.
and you're just mad cause you bent over for the lies and just took it. what a sucker.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The truth: short and to the point. Around the world, there is one trait of Americans that people find hard to understand: the tendency to self-delusion, and the inability to face-up to the facts. I hear people compare the war in Iraq to Watergate and Nixon, in that regard. Maybe it's not so much self-delusion as hope, and optimism.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
bamababy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Obama didn't want to run from the war on terrorism, He didn't want to vote for the propaganda war in Iraq. The war on terrorism was being fought in Afghanistan, remember Operation enduring Freedom? I do all too well,as I have a relative that deployed there. THAT,my friend is fighting the war on terrorism, Going into Iraq opened whole new opportunities for terrorism. TOD396,get a clue.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
TOD3961 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's hard to argue with results. I am honored and proud of America's Armed Forces. They have shown the world that America is still the best in the world. While there have been casualties and injuries, they were unfortunately necessary to preserve the safety of all Americans at home and abroad. For this, I am thankful to be in America. I sleep better at night, still watchful, but I sleep better.
God Bless America.
Reply-
-
Neutral
TOD3961 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Donald, it is very obvious that you have a weak argument. That is the sole purpose of the insults, to mask a weak stance. But to answer you, money doesn't make anyone happier. It is a fantasy to think that money can buy happiness. Rather, safety and security are more essential to me than money. You are very envious of those who have more than you. Your repeated responses of being upset that there are unaudited sole source contracts being granted to companies proves that. But I don't see you doing what these other companies did, to put themselves in a position to be awarded the contracts in the first place. Could it be that you are just too ignorant to become sucessful? Could it be that you are just sitting back in your chair hoping Obama gets elected so you can wait for the freebies? Is that what you are looking for? It is because you are too stupid, too lazy and just plain ignorant that you are stuck with your lot in life. I pity you...
Reply-
Neutral
bobo-in-texas1 year, 6 months ago
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
maybe you should try googling "terrorism on the rise" and see all the stories that pop up.
you act like its just leftys who say Iraq was a huge mistake.
bush sr. said invading iraq would be a mistake.
back in the 90s even cheney said it would end up in a quagmire if we were to invade iraq. he said it would lead to a whole new breed of terrorists. so he knew what would happen. which means his whole mantra of "they'll greet us with flowers" was nothing more than a big fat lie.
you're just mad cause one of the idiots who fell for it.
now bend over, cause there's more lies from the neocons coming your way.
Reply -
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
BoBo the US has already been humiliated, the failure of your military, the fall of the US dollar, the inability to react to your own natural disaster, a president caught in one lie after another, the total shame of kidnaping and torturing foreign nationals when only fifty some years ago you led the world in outlawing those very actions. There can be no more shame possible.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Jaydee401 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Considering for how many years now that the US has spent more on defense than the rest of the world combined and all the technology that money has bought the so called best army in the world, they have failed against the most backward, poorly armed people in the world. Spending all that money on the military had crippled the economy to a point where the US dollar has devalued by almost fifty percent and you brag about being able to sleep better?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Commodore11 year, 6 months ago
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
fsev411 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Funny thing but Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Lebanon seemed to be mentioned more than once while Iraq only gets one mention. Are S.A. and Pakistan really our allies in this war on terror or are they just playing us for fools. Maybe we should be concentrating our anti-terrorists efforts where the terrorists are.
Reply -
-
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We have thwarted more Terrorist attacks from cooperative police work than the war in Iraq. Terrorism is something you have to be vigilant against and stirring up violence n the world is not going to convince suicide bent terrorists to give up from far of war with the big bad USA.
Reply -
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The terrorists are not rich and powerful, like us. They try to get as much mileage as they can from a few dramatic acts of terror (that's what terrorism is). The reason there has not been "another 911" is we are doing a good job, all by ourselves, of extending the "mileage" from the first one. Which of them ever imagined they would be elevated to the number-one feared enemy of the world's greatest military power? How can a handful of terrorists do so much damage to us, at so little cost to themselves? I guess thay know how to draw us in, eh? By creating a trillion dollar war against them, we have inflated their importance and amplified their effect. Iraq has become the jihadist battleground Afghanistan was during the Soviet occupation. It is the children of those we assembled to fight the Soviets who are fighting us, now. Iraq is AlQaeda's live terrorist training lab and world jihadi recruitment center. There's no way we can leave, now.
Reply -
Neutral
Grrr1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, uh, now the insurgents in Iraq AREN'T terrorists? I don't see the daily attacks in Iraq in this tally. DAILY.
Making this article's conclusions COMPLETE BS.
Throw those in and terrorist attacks on US interests abroad have escalated IMMENSELY.
Reply-
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 6 months ago
-
-
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're absolutely right! Iran's neighbors have much more to fear from a Chenobyl type uclear power accident in Iran than any bomb. The only country that can use a nuke, without getting slammed by the USA, IS the USA (andOK maybe Israel. Nukes are not very practical when your enemies are your close neighbors (who knows which way thw wind will blow the radiaion?). The same goes for a nuclear plant accident and disposal of nuclear waste (ship it to Dubai, for distribution?).
Reply
-
-
Neutral
rimbaud1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/6035/35/
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
As Grr points out above, if you include attacks in Iraq, then this article is way off.
Exclude Iraq, and I conced the numbers have gone down. I just wonder if this hasn't more to do with the fact that every western nation in the world has dramatically increased their security, particularly at international airports, harbors and common borders. Has Bush had anything to do with that? We could probably debate that aswell.
Do we feel safer? Ask all the families that are having to choose between food and fuel to go to work, ask all those needing medical attention, but can't afford it, and so on. Should this kind of "safe" be included in the statement that "Something is Working"? I believe so, because its in direct proportion to what decisions are being made in Washington. Something is working allright, but in my view, not for the better.
Also, if the Dems don't have enough majority to override a presidential veto, effectively they are N O T in majority.
:{
Reply-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Demand in India and China.......
I have neigther seen, read or heard about the greatly expanded infrastructure in eigther of two countries to support an increase in demand in fuels, that so would influence the increase in world oil prices.
Also, I haven't seen, heard or read about the incredible increase in wealth that would allow for the increase in vehicle purchase that would sustain the increase in fuel consumption, that would increase the deamnd you are aluding to. The people in those countries may, if lucky, gone from earning 4 bucks a day, to earning 6 bucks a day. Hardly the kind of income that would allow you to go out and buy a vehicle.
The price of oil is currently being affected by futures speculators, using any excuse possible to increase the price. Every time you see a report of disruption in the extraction and or transmission of oil in Nigeria, the market goes up. There are several examples of similar incidents driving up the price.
Reply -
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To answer your question in a direct way, the war in Iraq has had greater influence, not because of production, but because of demand from US forces currently in that country, for fuel, to move the US mobil infrastructure around inside of Iraq.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No. I'm saying that the oil used in Iraq has a greater overall influence than the so called increase in demand from countries like India and China.
In other words, I don't believe India and China has anything to do with world wide increase of cost. If you read my response, you'd note that I believe speculators on the futures market carry the largest blame for increases, hanging on every negative tidbit they can find as justification to bid up the price.
I'm certain you understood what I meant, even though you failed to address the other points, and chose instead to try to make the fuel usage in Iraq into a major issue. It isn't. You asked me what I considered had greater influence, NOT what was the major MARKET influence.
Reply-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Also, on a sidebar, our ally, Saudi Arabia has had its spokesperson more than once say that they have a surplus in the production of oil, and will therefore not acomodate US requests to increase production.
There is only two answers to that.
1 - They are lying and aren't really runing a surplus.
2 - US request for increased production blaming increased fuel costs on increased demand beyond production is a lie.
Which party is lying, as both can't be right?
Anyway, this is way of thread of this discussion, so I'm returning to it.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
HI WOLFIE
I see you out on the prowl again, doling out negs as fast as you can. Got to be careful though, that pesky bad box is too close to the good box.
I'll try and do you right, and wear all those negs you gave me, in the spirit you intended. I'm proud of'em, in a negative way, sort of. Over the months I've gotten quite a few of them. I sure wish I could put them all up in a shadow box, with a big picture of you in the background.
Have a great weekend Wolfie, and watch out for the Good box.
:) G
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
endtyranny1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If there's any question as to how successful this administration's policies have been, I'd just like to remind us that not only did the most devastating terrorist attack in American history happen on Bush's watch, but that the number of worldwide terrorist attacks each year has grown exponentially since he took office.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Gransater1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No, not sole product of Bush's actions and policy. Terrorism has been in exitence long before he entered the White House.
The deaths of 4000 servicemembers and countles Iraqui "civilians" since our invasion are however a direct result of his actions and policies. History will be the ultimate judge on whether these actions were the right decisions or not.
In the eyes of many individuals, worldwide and here in the US, these actions are in excess. The one thing I hope everyone can agree on, is that the invasion has certainly not created an overwhelming sense of relief, for those touched by the violence over there. This "war" has lasted longer than the 2nd world war, in a much more confined area, with no visible end in sight. Like I said earlier, something is working, but not for the better in the short run.
Reply -
Neutral
hamy1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They died in the name of Bush's war on terror. A war declared on an emotion. A war declared on an unstoppable foe which is a technique of fighting used all over the world.
It is a farce. And those men and women died solely for the incompetent leadership of Bush. I am not saying that terrorism didn't exist before Bush. I travelled abroad in the 80's and I remember the attacks all over Europe. It is ridiculous to think that you could declare war on a style of fighting.
It is ridiculous to think that those brave men and women fought and died in and endless war that will yeild no positive results due to a lack of leadership.
A good leader questions every decision they make. They don't change circumstances around their decisions to make that decision seem inevitable.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
svensun1 year, 6 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is more than OBVIOUS that the Bush strategy on terrorism: "the best defense is a GOOD OFFENSE", has WORKED VERY WELL, even better than I thought and would have expected. The strategy is clearly laid out in Doug Feith's new book, WAR AND DECISION, and it is clear that Bush's desire to wage a worldwide offensive against Islamofascist terrorism, with a strategy devised by Donald Rumsfeld and his advisors, has paid off in spades, no pun intended!
Of course the left will deny this; they denied that Hitler was a threat, too, when their Uncle Joe told them to embrace Fascism. The left had no credibility to begin with, so their carping, whining, and hysterics are nothing more than par for the course.
The louder they scream and holler, the more you know that America is winning. That's the bottom line.
Reply
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.