On Sep 14, 12:51*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message

...







"H the K" wrote in message
om...
Calif Bill wrote:
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:59:56 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
9/11 came and went without much fanfare. *I wonder why that is.
Far less
people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more.
I
thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many
think it was
a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about
future
terrorism. *We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed
from the
vocabulary.

Steve
Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the
country...

Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the
right
claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11
You are correct. That's another thing I can add to the list of great
Obama accomplishments.
Yup, it's great that Bush spent 8 years softening them up snerk

--
Wafa free since 2009

Yeah, murdering people. Lots of people. One of Bush's accomplishments
in your mind anyway.

--
Nom=de=Plume

Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor.

Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S. civilians
to be killed.

--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

And Clinton was killing people in Irag, Bosnia, and allowed Ben Ladin to
walk, so he could plan and train the pilots on his watch. *They both suck.
They suck as much as you suck and that is a whole bunch of suck.

Allowed bin Laden to walk? How's that? He tried to get him several times.


not only that, but every time clinton did something, the GOP
complained it was 'political'. if he'd killed bin laden the GOP
would have impeached him

nom=de=plume wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"BAR" wrote in message
news nom=de=plume wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
9/11 came and went without much fanfare. I wonder why that is.
Far less
people were killed at Pearl Harbor, but the outrage was much more.
I
thought it was sad that so many have forgotten so soon, so many
think it was
a conspiracy from within, and that we don't have to worry about
future
terrorism. We are all so safe now that terrorism has been removed
from the
vocabulary.

Steve
Forgetting is politically expedient for nearly half of the
country...

Obama is keeping us safe from the evil terrorists, just like the
right
claimed Bush was doing because there wasn't an attack after 9/11
I think the Bush Admin. already took care of the heavy lifting...
Using
your analogy, my Doctor has kept me safe from bubonic plague..

--
Wafa free since 2009
Yeah, like starting a war to inflame the Islamic world. A war of
choice, a war where 1000s of our men and women died for no reason.

Your doctor didn't keep you safe. It was institutions such as the CDC..
gov't run agencies.
The CDC is an information clearing house and policy producing
organization. The CDC is not on the leading edge of research.

In that case, don't follow their recommendations. Duhh...

Wasn't the CDC involved in the plastic wrap and duct tape reccomendation?



Nope... that was DHS.


Are you sure? I didn't think the DHS had been created or congealed at
that time.

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:50:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Just continuing in the footsteps of his predecessor.

Clinton murdered 1000s of people in Iraq?

Maybe you mean Bosnia?
--
Nom=de=Plume


Saddam said about 20,000 died in the "no fly zone" bombings. We denied
it but we really didn't have any way to prove him wrong. We were
shooting missiles into residential areas to suppress Iraqi radar sites
on a pretty regular basis. I have to believe some people died, even if
it was just radar operators. I understand Saddam put his people at
risk by locating these sites in residential areas but we still shot at
them.
At a certain point you have to admit these were still acts of war.
That is why I say Iraq is an 18 year war, spanning 4 presidents now.
That is the kind of record you expects out of 14th century European
monarchies

We are still in a state of war in Korea. The hostilities have ceased but
the state of war still exists.

On Sep 14, 2:20*am, wrote:
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"





wrote:
wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S.
civilians to be killed.

Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the
"good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there.
http://icasualties.org/oef/

I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point.

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S.
civilians to be killed.

Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the
"good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there.
http://icasualties.org/oef/

A bad day in LA or NYC could kill about 7,000,000.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 21:52:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 20:19:15 -0400, H the K
wrote:

Bush killed at least 100,000 people. He also allowed 3000+ U.S.
civilians to be killed.

Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the
"good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there.
http://icasualties.org/oef/


I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point.
As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the
president needs to think about the world.


The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other
night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is
there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global
aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.

But you have to admit that a dozen crazies can do a lot of
damage.....................

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the
"good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there.
http://icasualties.org/oef/

I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point.
As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the
president needs to think about the world.

The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other
night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is
there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global
aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.-

today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11.

If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are
you sure you don't want to reconsider?
Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with
the US beyond our invading their country and if we leave they won't
care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had
anything to do with 9-11

Somebody has to get by this whole thing that "we are there because of
9/11". We are there to stop radical Islam from forcing Islamic rule,
Taliban style on a huge chunk of real estate and possibly hundreds of
millions of unwilling residents of those areas.

--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

Let's hope Obama doesn't break that record but the worst days of the
"good war" are on Obama's watch. I still am not sure why we are there.
http://icasualties.org/oef/
I don't have a good feeling about increasing troop strength at this point.
As Obama said (paraphrasing), the generals are thinking about the war, the
president needs to think about the world.
The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other
night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is
there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global
aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.-
today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11.
If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are
you sure you don't want to reconsider?
Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with
the US beyond our invading their country and if we leave they won't
care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had
anything to do with 9-11

Somebody has to get by this whole thing that "we are there because of
9/11". We are there to stop radical Islam from forcing Islamic rule,
Taliban style on a huge chunk of real estate and possibly hundreds of
millions of unwilling residents of those areas.



Wrong again, dirtbag.


--
Birther-Deather-Tenther-Teabagger:
Idiots All

On Sep 14, 11:46*am, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Sep 2009 05:37:41 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:



The interesting thing to me was said on Anderson Cooper the other
night from Afghanistan. It turns out we don't even think Bin Laden is
there anymore and that the Taliban has absolutely no global
aspirations. Their connection to Al Queda is tenuous at best.-

today that's true. wasn't true on 9/11.

If you believe that you are saying GWB was right and BHO is wrong. Are
you sure you don't want to reconsider?

obama, like bush, knows OBL is in pakistan. the difference between BHO
and GWB is that BHO realizes a taliban ruled afghanistan is a threat
to the US...which GWB never realized

Personally I don't believe the Taliban has ever had any grudge with
the US beyond our invading their country

they attacked us. what do you think happens when someone attacks a
country and murders 3000 americans? are you really that dense?

and if we leave they won't
care about us at all. They tolerated al queda but, I doubt they had
anything to do with 9-11

no moreso than the guy who drives the get away car has a role in a
bank robbery

On Sep 14, 11:58*am, JustWait wrote:


Somebody has to get by this whole thing that "we are there because of
9/11". We are there to stop radical Islam from forcing Islamic rule,
Taliban style on a huge chunk of real estate and possibly hundreds of
millions of unwilling residents of those areas.


i don't care if they are crazed islamist fanatics. what i DO care
about is that crazed islamist fanatics want to kill us. as far as i'm
concerned, islam, like xtianity, is a degenerate, anti-human belief.
people can believe that crap if they want, as long as they keep it to
themselves.