OK, I just have to ask this:

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

Karl Rove seems to think that liberals didn't want to strike back at the terrorists. How many members of DU supported the war in Afghanistan, meaning that you supported military strikes against the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks.

I'm hoping for 100 percent here, but...

[samdogmom]

1. For me, War is NEVER the answer! It's ugly and wrong! n/t

[Jon_da_brockman]

3. You are entitled to your opinion, but I just want to ask

Do you believe WW2 was justified? Not to compare WW2 and afghanistan, and not to attack your opinion, I am just curious as to your stance on that.

[samdogmom]

7. I'm Not a Philosophy Major. I just know...

that when I see war films there's nothing pretty about the act. We're humans, we have brains, we have feelings. Why do we think it's okay to kill another because we've been wronged? It perpetuates the problem in my opinion. We've got to use our brains to come up with better solutions. Have you noticed, most wild animals don't have "wars"?

[Jon_da_brockman]

10. Animals dont have wars

But they kill each other for territory. Everyone can agree there is nothing pretty about way, and in the perfect world, there would be none, but in some situations armed conflict is unavoidable, if not wanted.

[samdogmom]

12. Sad..., but probably true....

Somewhere in the Universe there has to be a planet that "gets" it. I want to move there.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

15. In a perfect world, your theory would make sense.

The problem is, a lot of people either aren't rational, or simply have evil intent. Oftentimes force is the only thing evil powers understand. Like Orwell said, you can use moral force until the cows come home. What despotic governments fear is physical force.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

13. Yeah, I do. The simple fact the Hitler and crew were a threat to the world

and the fact the Japan attacked us, and the Holocaust. Yes, I have no problem making a case for WWII.

[Patchuli]

42. So is the Taliban's treatment of women!

I've wanted us to do something about that for many years but of course, W f*cked that up too...sigh.

[IndianaGreen]

72. Women are still being subjugated in "liberated" Afghanistan

American occupation and the installation of the puppet Karzai regime has done nothing to improve the conditions for women and girls in Afghanistan. Karzai's own government enforces Sharia law, and Karzai himself appointed an Islamic fundamentalist as Minister in his cabinet.

Amazing how many Americans complained about the Taliban when their own government played a role in putting them in power! If you really cared about the plight of women in Afghanistan, you should have supported the Marxist government and the military assistance it got from the Soviets to put down the religious extremists.

[Patchuli]

82. I care about the plight of women

everywhere and as I said, have watched the Taliban get away with it for years. I also actually hoped that our administration would relieve their suffering but I'm well aware that it was only a sham, as are most of the 'good deeds' they purport to do.

Can you tell me exactly how could I, an American citizen have "supported the Marxist government, etc.?" My own government doesn't listen to me. And I thought they went into Afghanistan in the first place to GET BIN LADEN? That task too, they failed miserably. I guess they thought putting an Afghanistani woman on the cover of Time or Newsweek whichever one it was, with a big smile and burgua off was supposed to do it for the PR of setting them free from the Taliban. I don't support what the preznit has done in anything pretty much.

[iwantmycountryback]

67. Yes they are. But they are also sometimes necessary too.

You just can't be a pacifist in today's world. I just don't understand how a person would not want to retaliate against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. They attacked us and they needed to know they couldn't just do that and not expect any consequences. Certainly not all wars the U.S. has participated in have been necessary, but many have. Would you have supported the Revolutionary War? I'd say that was necessary enough.

[ewagner]

2. I was hoping

that the Taliban would cooperate with us in return for recognition and that our influence could have moderated them. But it became very apparent, very quickly that the Taliban was in league with OBL and AQ.

I thought I had a very mature attitude about it.

I recognized that there were no more options to attacking Afghanistan and I accepted the necessity....with great regret but also great resolve.

[Kipling]

4. Unless they took certain steps, the US should have gone after the Saudis.

Such as an immediate apology, a promise to commit large numbers of police to track down any terrorist cells, allowing UN investigators in to look for any evidence of government co-operation with Al-Quaida. I supported the war in Serbia too, as well as Afghanistan. I'm not really a peacenik on principle: if it'll save huge numbers lives, we should at least threaten people. If the only objective is to force your ideology on people or steal their money, that's a different matter.

[WatchWhatISay]

5. Who paid the bigger price

The Taliban or the general Afghan population?

[Trajan]

6. I selected 'Supported the War in Afghanistan' ....

NOT because I think we should make war against the people of Afghanistan, but only to go after those who had committed the treachery of 911 and the numerous other massacres perpetrated by those who professed both allegiance to al Qaeda/bin Laden and who professed their own culpability in those vicious crimes ...

The Taliban are vicious theocratic thugs: I shed no tears for their loss of power ...

On the other hand: I am not sure I 'still do' ... You chose to include that caveat in the question, and did not provide this option:

I supported the 'effort to capture those responsible for mass murder in Afghanistan', but I do not currently support US policies there as they are executed by the Bush WH.

Making war against REAL Terrorists is sometimes necessary, but making war against an entire people, most of whom are innocent of any such crimes, is immoral ...

You forced those who supported the effort to catch those responsible for the embassy bombings and the WTC tragedy to also support current policy there: that is unfair and untrue ....

Bifurcation fallacy ....

[baby_bear]

8. Not if the U.S. had anything to do with the attacks.

I am not a tin-foiler, but I am not convinced that the Bush administration did not have some hand in the whole thing, in which case, no, I would not be in favor of invading anyone, anyhow.

I do not trust any of the motives of this nefarious administration, and refuse to give it the benefit of the doubt.

b_b

P.S. If someone could explain to me why the terrorists who were named - listed in newspapers - within a day or so of the attacks were not listed on the manifests of the airplanes they were supposedly on that crashed that day, that might help me out.

[Trajan]

11. Even without 911 ....

OBL and members of al Qaeda gladly admitted to the embassy bombings in Africa prior to 911 ... I believe more than 500 innocent people died in those horrific acts of brutality ...

[Ariana Celeste]

9. Afghanistan didn't attack us.

A handful of terrorists did.

If a *country* had attacked us, I may have found going to war justifiable. But no war was justifiable in the case of 9/11.

I am ALL for tracking down Osama Bin Laden. Going to war with a country is not going to take care of him. It will only breed more fodder for him. I am all for tracking down terrorists. I think most, if not all, of us are.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

16. The Taliban supported the terrorists that attcked us.

The gave them aid and comfort, and provided their principal support. That support needed to be broken, by force if required. The Taliban didn't cooperate, so we brought down their theocratic regime.

[w13rd0]

21. The CIA and the Pakistani ISI also supported...

...the Taliban, are we going to overthrow Musharref and invade Langley?

[TahitiNut]

61. Now, that sounds like a better idea than invading Iraq.

But almost anything would. :eyes: :dunce: :silly:

[IndianaGreen]

74. That's not the way it came down!

We demanded that the Taliban turn over bin Laden. The Taliban held a meeting of all religious leaders to consider this. Fearful that the Taliban would turn bin Laden to us, or at least kick him out of the country, we made a new demand that they turn over every conceivable terrorist we had on our list.

If you are so concerned about 9/11 why don't you ask why Bush ignored the warnings that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack on the US, and why he failed to act promptly when the first WTC tower was hit.

There have been many lies told by our government about Afghanistan, and its relationship to the Taliban, which was rather friendly prior to 9/11.

Bush has killed more innocent civilians than Osama bin Laden. Now, who is the biggest terrorist on this planet?

[uppityperson]

18. I disagree with much of the OP's original assumptions, argree with AC

I did not support the Afghanistan war. I would support going after the terrorists that did the 9/11 attacks, but that has not happened yet.

[iwantmycountryback]

68. And those handful of terrorists were being harbored by Afghanistan

The Taliban was letting Al Qaeda stay there, not to mention they were one of the most godawful repressive regimes in the world. To make it sound as if they were innocent in the 9/11 attacks is just not true.

[Ariana Celeste]

70. Still doesn't make it justifiable

in my eyes. We have spies and snipers for a reason. I didn't say that Afghanistan was innocent, however, the country of Afghanistan did not attack us. Had they, I would have agreed with our little invasion. Everything this Administration has done since 9/11 is bullshit.

[leftofthedial]

86. Innocent? Few countries were innocent

Certainly not Saudi Arabia (the biggest culprit)--status: OUR "FRIENDS," NOT BOMBED, NOT INVADED, NOT REPRIMANDED

Not Pakistan, spiritual home of the Taliban and the religious schooling of "al Qaeda" and a key link in the financing of world terror--status: OUR "FRIENDS," NOT BOMBED, NOT INVADED, NOT REPRIMANDED

Not Egypt, home of Atta--status: OUR "FRIENDS," NOT BOMBED, NOT INVADED, NOT REPRIMANDED

Not Israel, not Syria, not Jordan, not Turkey . . .

Who did we invade and bomb? The countries where Unocal wants to do business unfettered by pesky independent governments.

[TahitiNut]

14. There were no Afghanis among the 19 hijackers ,....

... even as "identified" by the Bushoilini Regime. Osama himself is a Saudi. The Taliban government of Afghanistan agreed to turn OBL over to a third country for trial. That wasn't "good enough" for the Bushoilini Regime. It's obvious that the "better" they were going after included a pipeline, not Osama.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

19. And you really believed that, huh?

You really believed that the Taliban was going to see justice done? OBL attacked America. By all rights, they should've turned him over to us. They didn't.

[w13rd0]

25. Actually, they offered to...

...but insisted on seeing the evidence we had to present. Bush responded, "No, I like war, let the bombing commence"... So let's not go there. Right now, Venezuela is demanding that the US extradite a terrorist, and we are refusing. Does Venezuela have the right to invade and begin a bombing raid on Miami and Atlanta? By your logic, they have even more right to do so than we had to invade Afghanistan.

[TahitiNut]

27. Exactly!

I tire of the sewer "morality" that supports a 'might makes right' posture. It's despicable.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

31. Not the same thing.

The U.S is not a state sponsor of terror (man, I really hope you don't disagree with that). The Taliban opnly harbored OBL, and propped him up.

[XemaSab]

32. The US is a state sponsor

of paramilitary groups and corrupt regimes, like the Mujehadeen and the Taliban.

Mujehadeen = Al Qaeda = Terrorists.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

34. Riiight. I knew that one was coming.

I think I'll get off this train now. I've no desire to go to Equivalency Land with you.

Look, we've made some mistakes in our foreign policy in the past, but the idea that somehow means we should let the terrorists who murdered 3,000 Americans slide is ridiculous. If anything, we should commit ourselves to opposing all terrorist foes.

[leftofthedial]

46. how is "let the terrorists slide" equated with invading Afghanistan?

what is the precise logic?

we did not pursue justice after 9-11. We pursued blind (and mistargeted) vengeance.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

58. Mistargeted? Who attacked us?

The Taliban harbored and supported the terrorists who attacked us. It's pretty simple for me.

[leftofthedial]

83. the reason the bushgang pursued war instead of law enforcement

is that there is no actual PROOF that what they (and you) say is true.

If it is PROVEN that the Taliban harbored and trained and abeted terrorists who attacked the US and it is PROVEN that those terrorists did what is claimed, then we have recourse against Afghanistan. Until then, what we are doing in Afghanistan is actually illegal.

What the bushturds have done since 9-11 is not try to stop "terrorism" or effect justice, it has been to eliminate as many obstacles as possible to Halliburton, Carlyle Group, Unocal et al's Middle eastern and Caspian oil profits and to try every trick they've learned in the last hundred years to stay in power long enough to maximize their theft.

[w13rd0]

93. But Bush didn't even want to do Afghanistan...

...he wanted to go right after Iraq, it was BLAIR that convinced him he had to go into Afghanistan first. Your logic is so bloody full of holes...

Wow, we're now nearing what, the 4th anniversary of the S11 attacks, and we're STILL having the same bloody arguments, because some people apparently either don't listen in the first place, or just display a remarkable degree of willfull ignorance.

[XemaSab]

66. I'm not saying we're the same

at all, I'm just saying that the US should be more careful about supporting groups overseas that are not fighting for the same things that we are. Too often we have wound up arming people, and then fighting against our own weapons.

[leftofthedial]

45. the US is the largest sponsor of terror in the history of the planet

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lowell]

71. I beg to differ

What do you call the School of the Americas, if not a state sponsored training ground for terrorists?

[w13rd0]

92. Bush didn't make any distinction...

..."If you support terrorists, or harbor them, America will take action" or something like that. The US is harboring terrorists, thus, by your own logic, we must be invaded and our government overthrown. So yes, I DO disagree with that.

[TahitiNut]

26. Where's the proof?

I have yet to see any kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law that proves Osama bin Laden was responsible for the WTC attack. I've seen video that shows he was aware it was going to happen -- or at least claims to have been for whatever political advantage he might gain. The fact of the matter is that Osama, at that point, would take whatever 'credit' he could get; it's part of his agenda.

Let's put the foot in the other shoe. Have we turned over Kissinger to Chile? How about turning him over to France for running away from a summons served on him there?

The Afghan government asked for evidentiary "just cause" before extraditing OBL. Bushoilinis refused. Then the Afghan government agreed to turn him over to a third country. Bushoilinis refused.

Just what the FUCK better have we gotten? Dead soldiers; innocent civilians dead; billions spent. NO OSAMA! It's fucking nonsense.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

30. Proof? The man put out like a hundred tapes, for God's sake.

We have mountains of good intelligence. Are you really that unsure that Bin Laden's guilty? Is there really that much doubt in your mind?

[TahitiNut]

38. Really? You've seen it? You can read it? You speak the language?

All I've heard is a bunch of hype and third-hand foaming at the mouth. I've heard claims that, when translated, he takes some obscure kind of credit for the attacks, but his specific acts are never detailed, not that I've seen. I've heard "bragging" and I've heard blame. I've NOT seen or heard evidence. It's not a crime for someone to be glad it happened. I may abhor such an attitude, but I couldn't call it criminal, and certainly not worth waging wars. The only thing I could say, with any honesty, is that I don't know. Quite frankly, I think people who haven't seen or heard real evidence themselves are full of shit when they claim they know he's guilty of facilitating the attacks. That's the kind of ignorant shit that makes lynchings happen. That's why I believe in a justice system instead of brute (mindless) force.

Let's just look at a handy comparison...

Eric Rudolph was on the run for years. Eric Rudolph is now in jail. Eric Rudolph will get a trial. The many bombings he allegedly did were terrorism!! But nobody droppd thousands of tons of bombs on North Carolina, killed tens of thousands of innocent people, overthrew the governments of the towns, cities, and counties in which he might have been hiding, busted down the doors in the middle of the night and arrested people who sympathized with him, "detained" anyone caught in the woods in the same area, and spent hundreds of billions of dollars invading North Carolina and some near-by state that wasn't "politically correct."

I don't believe the difference between Eric Rudolph (who's accused of actually doing the bombings) and Osama bin Laden (who's only accused of assisting the attacks) warrants what this corrupt and criminal government has done in our name. No fucking way. No fucking how.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

41. OBL is accused of masterminding the attacks.

Look, this can go on forever. I'm convinced OBL's the guy. Every credible intelligence source in the world agrees. He admitted on tape. I don't know what else to say.

[Bismillah]

50. "Mistranslated Osama Bin Laden Video: The German Press Investigates"

"Mistranslated Osama Bin Laden Video: The German Press Investigates"

http://www.newworldpeace.com/coverup6a.html

- This article describes how two veteran German journalists took the elementary step of acquiring independent translations of the notorious "smoking gun" video. "Monitor", the TV programme cited, is one of the longest running and most highly-respected on German TV. It provides exceptionally strong evidence that the video was deliberately and tendentiously mistranslated. And to the best of my knowledge, it has never even been mentioned anywhere in the US mainstream media (and certainly not refuted). Nor have any of the media, with their truly immense resources, seen fit to repeat this simple experiment with their own independent translators. Investigative journalsim is not just dead; it's a dirty word. In the Land of the Free, it seems, the government is there to be obeyed.

Of course, the Osama Home Video has long since been forgotten. It's served its purpose (to inflame the citizenry), and no one is interested in "old news" - even when it's evidence of government deception. No wonder Gore Vidal jokes about the United States of Amnesia.

[CJCRANE]

84. I heard that

there is no mention of the 9/11 attacks on Bin Laden's profile on the FBI website, only the USS Cole attack (which is bad enough but still not the same thing).

[leftofthedial]

47. produce some of it please.

[w13rd0]

94. "Mountains of good intelligence"...

...gee, where have I heard THAT before...

Oh yeah...nevermind.

[AlwaysDemocrat]

17. I can't vote either way..

I always wondered why we (the US) did not speak out or try to stop the Taliban years before. I heard about their treatment of women and the destruction of ancient artifacts in Afganistan but no one even noticed until 9/11. I would support capturing Osama bin Laden but I can't support attacking the whole country.

[w13rd0]

20. I was on this board...

...screaming about us not doing anything about the damned Taliban when they were beheading women for showing their ankles and blowing up 1000+ yr old Buddha statues...

But did I support the war? I do not support Bush in any of his endevours. That man could fuck up tepid tap water. I don't trust him to walk a dog in a pedestrians only zone. I wouldn't even trust him to pump my gas or shovel horse shit.

[bigwillq]

22. If we had to go to war,

I would rather go after Osama and crew in whichever country they may be in.

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. I'm embarrassed to admit that I DID initially support that invasion.

There was a verifiable history of Bin Laden operating in Afghanistan. It is where Poppy Bush's CIA set him up in business in the 80's, in fact. So, it wouldn't be out of line to say Afghanistan was the "birthplace" of Al Qaeda itself.

That rationalization sold with most people, myself included. Until it became apparent that Osama was not going to get caught, and in fact nobody has yet proven that he was ever there to begin with (at least in 2001).

Then the facts came out about the Caspian Sea pipeline deal, which originated back in 1997 between the Taliban and some notable energy companies, UNOCAL and BP among them. Enron would enter the deal eventually. The Taliban were deliberately stalling progress on the pipeline project and the corporations were highly pissed. In the spring of 2001, they were told by the Bush Fraudministration to "either accept our carpet of gold, or we will bury you under a carpet of bombs". This was right after handing Mullah Omar a check for another $43 million, of course.

And now, with UNOCAL employee Hamid Karzai installed as pResident of Afghanistan, and the opium poppy crop restored to pre-Taliban levels, it's clear that Al Qaeda had NOTHING to do with this, but rather just Bush Criminal Empire business as usual.

IF Osama really had anything to do with 9-11, he's gotta be laughing his fucking sick ass off at how much America has damaged itself as a result, and he didn't have to lift one Allah-damned finger. :grr:

[Mountainman]

24. I never thought going to war was the way to deal with those who were

responcible for 9/11. We are no more safe than we were on 9/10. People feel that we are doing something so they are OK with the war but it is not results oriented.

[TahitiNut]

28. The Bushoilini Regime used a hammer to kill a hornet ...

... that stung them. They swung it at the hornet resting on the head of a bratty child. Put the child in the hospital. Hornet flew away.

[Donna Zen]

29. Not included in the survey

I knew that we would bomb Afghanistan. Therefore, I took the choice off of the table and concentrated on what would bring the world closer to a solution: dialogue and meaningful economic and political reforms. I hoped for a sign of world leadership and the answer came back nada. Not even a corporate eye blinked to a unmistakable wake-up call.

To date we have no definition of "terrorism" that can be agreed upon. We have yet to gather at a summit devoted to identifying the root causes and the possible solutions. All we've had is jingoism and blathering and war and torture.

What has come as a real surprise to me is how poorly bush and the rest of the world have responded. Yes, some people branded terrorists are just, well, professional shit-heads, but why do people heed their message, answer the call? Economics? Political frustration? Despots that we support?

This administration has done nothing to fight "terrorism," because the root causes are at the root of their ideology.

My question would be: did anyone think that we wouldn't bomb the shit out of Afghanistan?

[XemaSab]

33. I felt ambivalent about it and still feel that way

We propped up the Taliban for quite a while before 9-11. We also armed Osama bin Whatsis during the 80's. Both of these things were wrong to do.

Most of the hijackers were Saudi, but the Saudis still enjoy a special relationship with the US that is above reproach. The hijackers attacked us because they want us the hell out of their country.

At the time we went to war, I was displeased with the treatment we had previously given to both Osama and the Taliban, and I was worried that we would wind up killing thousands of innocents who had nothing to do with 9-11.

Our military is, if anything, too powerful. We shouldn't be able to literally level a city to kill one person and when the bombing is over have NO CLUE whether we got the guy or not.

If we had caught Osama in Afghanistan, or even just thrown out the Taliban, I'd feel much better about the war.

I think the Afghan war is something about which resonable people can disagree, and it pains me to see any other opinions besides "bomb em good" being used to further the lie that Democrats are weak on terror. I think catching the terrorists would be great, but we've been in Afghanistan for almost 4 years and haven't done jack, and that says to me that the war wasn't such a good idea.

[DarkAngel]

35. Unjustified

nt

[AlwaysQuestion]

36. Bullies always choose the weak

I've never been able to figure out why Bushco figured they should attack Afghanistan. If 11 people from Great Britain had attacked the WTC, would the Americans have gone in and militarily attacked London? I don't think so. They would have gone after the specific perpetrators and brought them to trial. Besides, how in hell did they know who the perpetrators were so soon after the dreadful, hellish incident? Within 48 hours they had the crime solved and yet, there was no forensic investigation of the crime scene. Moreover, they had no advanced warnings of what was about to occur. Yet, somehow they had the case pretty much wrapped up in a couple of days. Wow! Pretty damn impressive for a "we knew nussing!" government. Hogwash! Now, quiet, all. Bullies at work!!

[TahitiNut]

39. Soon after the Olympic Park bombings they were sure Richard Jewell did it.

So much for the "investigative brilliance" of the FBI. :shrug: :eyes:

[MrSlayer]

37. How about I supported it then but do not support it now?

Because now I believe the PNAC Neo-Cons perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 themselves and Afghanistan, while politically repugnant, had nothing to do with it.

[leftofthedial]

40. I would have supported a bona fide effort to fight terrorists

this was a political sham. I knew it would be. I did not support bushturd's war in Afghanistan.

[corbett]

43. We Helped Create The Taliban

We supplied the rebels against the Soviets and when the Soviets left, we left, with a ravaged nation in our wake. That's not the important point, though. The important point was that 9/11 was not a real terrorist attack!

Don't believe me? Check out

http://www.reopen911.org/freedvd.php

All the proof you need is available for download near the bottom of that page.

[phish420]

44. Id rather we had disposed of the real terrorists...

...that masterminded 9/11, not the imaginary enemy those same people created. Afghanistan had two purposed - neither had to do with terrorism. 1. No interference of the caspian sea pipeline. 2. Cheap opium which the the pharmecuetical companies can use to make their drugs cheaper with and sell to us for more for a higher profit (Plus the government gets cheap herion and other street drugs to give to the CIA to sell to the poor, since if you are poor they want to control, incarcerate or kill you). The real war going on is against the poor - it has been this way for many years, in this country and around the world, and they are in their end-game. Until a critical mass of people wake up and see what the hell is really going on, from monetary manipulation to the start of wars to chase after 'enemies' who are CIA assets, they will continue this assault. Take the red pill. http://www.truthstream.org

[Bismillah]

48. Why on earth should Democrats rush to placate Karl Rove?

"How many members of DU supported the war in Afghanistan, meaning that you supported military strikes against the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks?"

Well, that's a completely false premise!

How do we know who carried out those attacks? We don't. As a matter of plain fact, not one of those "identified" by the Bush Gang as a terrorist (on the basis of no evidence whatsoever) was an Afghan. (Fifteen of them, if we are to believe what we were told, were citizens of Saudi Arabia.) And as a matter of plain fact - this is a completely different, but related point - we have never been shown any evidence whatsoever that Osama bin Laden* was behind those attacks. Indeed, nearly four years after the fact, not one person anywhere in the world has been convicted of involvement in the 9/11 atrocities. Yet those uninvestigated crimes have so far served to justify two invasions (not "wars"), and will undoubtedly serve to justify more. For, as Richard Cheney was kind enough to tell us, the oxymoronic War on Terror "will not end in our lifetimes".

So it's truly shocking to see 75% of the posters on this board rushing to demonstrate their patriotism by stating that they supported the attack on Afghanistan.

* Osama - remember him? Tall guy, bearded, charismatic, unimaginably evil, powerful and ruthless? Well, Porter Goss has just told us that he has "an excellent idea" where OBL is hiding - but it seems poor Porter can't go get that Elusive Pimpernel... because it might offend the Pakistani government (and I thought we just just barged in wherever we pleased?)

Here's a reminder of what a free press is capable of discovering when it really bothers to try: the Bush Gang is not above forging evidence when it needs a quick casus belli:

"Mistranslated Osama Bin Laden Video: The German Press Investigates"

http://www.newworldpeace.com/coverup6a.html

To the best of my knowledge, no other "evidence" has ever been presented. And that's what justified the bombardment of villagers, so that women could be repressed by a different set of warlords less averse to the mass production of opium. The War on Terror is an exceptionally unfunny joke.

[phish420]

49. AMEN!!

It is NOT that we dont want to bomb terrorists. Most know that the terrorists they SAY are the terrorirsts, REALLY ARENT THE TERRORISTS! They are assets - agents of fear to maniputlate us into control and submission. Until the democratic party stands up and publicly says this instead of murmuring it to each other in fear of being arrested or killed, this party will continue to wither and eventually die under the heavy fascist hand of the extreme right wing.

[Redleg]

52. You don't know why DUers answered "yes" to this poll.

You assume that they did it to placate Rove. I say you don't know.

[snowbear]

53. Bad... Bad... Poll idea

Sorry Wolf, but it was a BAD idea. :shrug:

:thumbsdown: REALLY BAD IDEA. :thumbsdown:

While many people answer the question honestly, knowing the amount of lurking freaks that respond to polls here, it is ABSURD to think that you're going to get a response not skewed to Hell.

If it weren't such an incredibly sensative question after such an incredible INSENSITIVE remark made by KKKarl Rove, it wouldn't be so bad.

But the timing is terrible.

It's fodder for the zealous rightwing media snoops love to stumble across and re-print to their heart's content.

What a gold mind for lurking neocons to stumble upon.

:shrug: I wouldn't have done it. Wrong question at the wrong time.

[TahitiNut]

60. Hear, hear.

The drunken shepherds are feasting on roast lamb and buggering the ewes ... and the flock is munching contentedly on a few blades of grass.

[Redleg]

51. I don't like being presented with only 2 choices.

That's the kind of framing that Rove, Bush, and the rest do.

[TahitiNut]

62. Well, I regard that as a 'clue'.

:evilgrin:

[Redleg]

64. I'll tell you what I thought at the time.

Immediately after 9-11 I thought that we need to nail the bastards that did it. I was a little suspicious of how quickly Bushco came to learn that it was Bin Laden and Al Quaida behind the attacks. After reading Richard Clark's book, I can see how they arrived at that conclusion so quickly.

My sense was that if it was indeed Al Quaida, we need to go after them in Afghanistan- make small, tactical strikes to take them out without destroying the whole country and turning it into the dangerous and chaotic place it is now.

I never did agree with Bush's plan to take over the country or to implicate Iraq in 9-11 and then invade that country. My response is one advocated by Al Gore at the time. Let's get the perpetrators but don't become heavily engaged in Afghanistan.

So, what I am suggesting is that there is a whole range of actions between "doing nothing" and "invading Afghanistan and setting up a puppet government."

[mrdmk]

54. I had a problem taking on a whole nation for one person

Afghanistan would not be in the shape it was in if not for the policies set at the end of World War Two, plain and simple. We made Osama bin Laden into a person to harass the U.S.S.R. These are the facts and no analyst is needed here. The U.S.A. screwed up by leaving a power vacuum.

The need to go after one country when the supposed perpetrators of the crime came from another country is beyond reason. Saudi Arabia does have some questions to answer. The evidence is secret to protect ourselves from ourselves in my opinion.

The day the World Trade Center was attacked, it was not an attack on the day to day U.S. citizen, it was an attack on international monetary policies that if as a nation we were paying attention to the "terrorist" would have noting to attack. This was a making of greed from the money grabbers from around the world.

As much information and resources that the U.S.A. had and has then and now, this attack needed to be averted. No wonder the MIHOP and LIHOP will have their day in court. George "The Torturer" Bush Jr. is toast, sooner the better.

[mvd]

55. I supported military action at the time

Not a full ground war, because as bad as the Taliban were, if Osama made it out alive, he could hide elsewhere. That's IF he was in Afghanistan - we don't know that. Now that I know we made a half-hearted attempt to get Bin Laden, I feel that oil was the main reason we went there. If I knew then what I do now, I would support no action while Bush is in power.

[HR_Pufnstuf]

56. According to Most Wanted Site:

"USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."

Source:
Google "Osama Bin Laden" (Hit I'm Feeling Lucky)


Why isn't he listed as being connected to 9/11?

Do we even have the goods on the guy or not? We must if we rushed to judgement so fast, huh?






"Just the facts, ma'am" - Joe Friday.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. You need more choices. I supported it at the time- because I thought the

point was to go after the people who ordered the planes flown into the buildings.

Clearly, it was far more important for Bush and co. to use 9-11 as an all purpose excuse to do everything from invade Iraq to maul the bill of rights than it was to deal with Osama "I really don't think about him that much" Bin Laden.

Silly me.

[Independent_Liberal]

63. Right after 9/11, I supported the war in Afghanistan...

I believed what I was told at the time.

[dajoki]

65. you are right

i wanted to get those bastards that did that so bad i could taste it. so naturally we believed what we were told. never again! "the insurgency is in it's final throes", yeah, right. we don't belong in iraq(never did) and we better get the hell out now!:patriot:

[IndianaGreen]

69. The attack on Afghanistan was disproportional to 9/11

We have butchered more innocent civilians in Afghanistan alone, than were killed on 9/11. Bush's gulag began in Afghanistan, with the mass killings and torture chambers. It was in Afghanistan where our Air Force made it a habit of bombing Al-Jazeera and International Red Cross facilities.

The response to 9/11 that I advocated in DU at the time was to borrow a page from Israel's response to the Olympic Munich Massacre and send teams to hunt down and kill those responsible for 9/11. It would have taken time, it would have been done quietly, but tens of thousands of deaths would have been prevented.

As it is, nothing has changed for women in Afghanistan. They still wear the burqa. They are still prevented from achieving full equality, as they once enjoyed when the Marxists were running Afghanistan.

You see what happens when you let testosterone run your foreign policy? Many innocents die, and you still don't have Osama behind bars.

[deutsey]

78. That's how I felt

I was conflicted over Afghanistan and ultimately felt the force we used was unnecessary.

I'm glad to see the Taliban go; I just wish the Bush junta had not cozied up to them prior to 9/11.

[femme.democratique]

73. The "Terrorists" are in DC and wear Brooks Brothers suits

Afghanistan, al'Qaida, and the Taliban were just puppets. So, your question is pointless.

[union_maid]

75. I voted for the first, but...

I'd have liked an option that said, "I supported the war in Afghanistan, but Bushco fucked that up, too."

[deadparrot]

76. Don't know how to answer...

Supporting the invasion of Afghanistan and "support military strikes against the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks" aren't necessarily the same.

Without a doubt, I want those who are responsible for the attacks to be brought to justice. I'd have trouble not restraining myself against them.

However, carpet bombing a country's citizens, the vast majority of whom had nothing to do with the attacks, seems wrong. We did support UBL, along with many, many other awful regimes. We still do it today. Both parties have done, and continue to do, it. To believe otherwise is inaccurate.

If our intelligence and scholars on these issues are as good as they're touted to be, I would think that there would be other ways to detain and/or kill those responsible for the attacks, apart from killing thousands of innocent civilians in a massive blind bombing campaign.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. That is basically how I feel...

As I said in my post below, there may have been other ways to do it. I'm not saying that carpet bombing Afghanistan wasn't the best way to do it, perhaps it was, but as I said, I have a feeling that the Bush administration didn't really consider any other ways.

[MODemocrat]

77. I really don't give a rat's A__ what Karl Rove has to say about anything

Therefore, I'm not voting in this poll.

[Hippo_Tron]

79. I'm going to have to say other, here's what I think...

Military action needed to be taken in a way that would prevent future terrorist attacks. Did I support the invasion of Afghanistan at the time, of course I did, so did almost everybody. Karl Rove is writing revisionist history in his comments. However looking back, I have some problems with the Afghanistan invasion.

Part of me feels like Afghanistan was done in the "Let's blow off Bin Laden's head and while we're at it blow some other shit up way."

I remember coming home after school on 9/11 and asking my dad what we were going to do. My dad, who has been voting Democratic in every election since McGovern (that includes 2004, he hates Bush) said... "If Bush has any balls, he'll tell the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden or we'll invade their country and get him ourselves."

In all fairness, the Taliban had been providing a safe haven for Bin Laden. But let us not forget the fact that the Bush administration gave money to the Taliban before 9/11 so that they would "help fight the war on drugs".

I have to wonder if we could have gotten the other countries to comply with us a bit better with regards to finding Bin Laden, if we hadn't been so gung ho about overthrowing the Taliban. Osama's head without all of the bombings would have been nice. Of course what we got was no Osama and lots of bombing. I won't dismiss the possiblity that invading Afghanistan was the only way, but I highly doubt that the Bush administration actually considered other possibilities.

[Tinoire]

81. Nope. Never did and never will. Another war 4 oil based on lies.

Care what Karl Rove thinks? :rofl:

[Bismillah]

85. How do you know The Elusive Pimpernel had anything to do with it?

Seriously - how do you know? I really mean this. Where is the evidence? Please point me to it. Please provide links to some credible, verifiable evidence (not just Bush Gang assertions). If you feel sure enough to declare war on an entire country on the basis on one man's purported guilt, it should be easy enough - shouldn't it? - to demonstrate that he actually did what he's said to have done.

In the four years since 9/11, not a single person anywhere in the world has been convicted in connection with that crime. Not one. Perhaps that's an indication that we should be looking elsewhere.

The weird thing is how so many people complain about the shameless serial lying of Cheney and his Bush, yet they have not the slightest difficulty swallowing the Bush Gang's ludicrously threadbare and remarkably self-serving account of what happened on 9/11. When it comes to the Uninvestigated Crime, why do so many people trust them to be telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What's going on?

- From Harper's Magazine, October 2004:

Whitewash as Public Service

How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation

By Benjamin DeMott.

"<...> The plain, sad reality—I report this following four full days studying the work — is that The 9/11 Commission Report, despite the vast quantity of labor behind it, is a cheat and a fraud. It stands as a series of evasive maneuvers that infantilize the audience, transform candor into iniquity, and conceal realities that demand immediate inspection and confrontation. <...>"

http://www.harpers.org/WhitewashAsPublicService.html

[Bismillah]

88. Curious: The FBI wants hims only for murders committed "outside the US":

I'm not making this up. From the FBI's website (three years and nine months after 9/11, which they don't even mention):

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

Most Wanted Terrorists

#1: Osama Bin Laden

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

USAMA BIN LADEN

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

http://www.fbi.gov/mostwant/terrorists/terbinladen.htm

"A suspect"? But I thought we knew he dunnit? I mean, that's why we invaded Afghanistan... isn't it?

[leftofthedial]

87. of the "terrorists" alleged to have been involved in 9-11 planning

(remember all the hijackers, if they existed, are dead)

who have been captured, pretty much all of them have been captured by law enforcement, not invading or occupying US troops.

[Bismillah]

89. ...and not one of them has been CONVICTED for his alleged crimes.

There is of course a difference between capturing someone and convicting him, just as there is a difference between torturing someone in a gulag and trying him in a court of law.

There has not been one single solitary comnviction in connection with 9/11 since the crime was committed. Not one, anywhere in the world.

[leftofthedial]

90. conmen perpetrated the biggest con job in history

and we call it 9-11

[windbreeze]

91. War=Smoke and Mirrors.....

To cover up the real agendas of the few....We might want to ask why Bush gave the Taliban $43 million bucks in May of 2001(I know there were explanations...but)....this was barely 4 months before 9/11....We might want to remember also, that the Taliban was ruling Afghanistan at the time this money was given and BinLaden was it's leader...(why would anyone turn around and attempt to kill the goose that lays the golden egg???)

Video tapes/Audio tapes can be altered...and the only "proof" we have that BinLaden was responsible for 9/11...is our chief liar's word for it, and, in my mind, questionable tapes...how could Bush come up with the information that BinLaden/Taliban was responsible for 9/11, less than 24 hours after the fact, and still say he knew nothing about it beforehand? (perhaps they were conversing with each other via a secure line?)

I am not saying BinLaden or his group, isn't responsible for some of the attacks..like the ones on the embassies...buttttt...I think he was likely a convenient tool to use, and pass blame onto for the WTC, at a time when everyone wanted answers...I realize I could be wrong..but I still want to know, when the BinLaden's and Bush's did business together for 30-40 years, why he would turn around and attack us, and at a time when his parents and Bush's parents were meeting at the Ritz Carlton in DC..????...to me, it doesn't make sense...IS it possible we (Bush)actually financed 9/11...IF BinLaden WAS really responsible? (and if he was responsible...WHY don't we have him yet?

I am against "war" in any case, especially those that can't be won...causing massive death and destruction isn't the way to solve problems...
windbreeze