"There have been no terror attacks since September 11th, 2001..."

[kentuck]

Did something happen on September 11th?? Who was in charge on that date? What happened?? Who was responsible for protecting our nation? Bill Clinton? Hillary? Al Gore? Who was the President on that date? Where does the buck stop? Can we stop the denial? The Republicans failed our nation on 9/11. Now they're trying to portray themselves as the great protectors of our nation. Yes, it could have happened under the Democrats, they say. But, it didn't .

[Midlodemocrat]

1. Excellent

:applause:

I've been saying that to the freepers here for years.

[randr]

2. Anthrax attack on congress was not a terrorist attack??

[Lerkfish]

3. Bullshit to the title: Anthrax, DC sniper, etc.

there HAVE been terror attacks, and successful ones. Worldwide, terror attacks have increased greatly.

(nothing against the OP)

[helderheid]

4. And to think - they were wiretapping 7 months prior to 9/11 ... and it

still happened. Heck of a job, shrubby.

[Skip Intro]

5. Exactly. They act as if bushco prevented the 9*11 attacks

(or the antrhax attacks, for that matter, which did occur AFTER 9*11, or that anyone responsible for either has been brought to justice, etc...)

[leveymg]

6. No, the 9/11 hijackers were still under close surveillance on 01/20/01

Then, something changed.

[uppityperson]

7. Indeed something did.

Worst terror attack came on the bush watch, and Flaggie has been substituted for the constitution.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

9. Right!

he told the people that South Carolina had WMDs but they wouldn't listen. So he invaded them. Then he made up the reason of "freeing the slaves" after the fact. But we can only know what we read, right? And the victors write the history, right? Of course, it could never happen again, right?

[uppityperson]

10. !

search is our friend. peace.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

17. "military action"?

no distinction between "military actions" and "preemptive invasion"?

And Bill Clinton did not put 150,000 troops into Iraq. And he did not have 2540 American deaths on his hands, whether or not you disagree with Clinton on his policies. That is a well-known right-wing talking point but you have to admit, they are not the same. And to use Bill Clinton as an authority is so supposed to prove what??

[Warren DeMontague]

18. 5...4...3...2...1

"Code name hard hat!"

"What's that, Lardass?"

"Hard Hat! HARD HAT!"



"...Okay!... Bye bye, Lardass!"

[Marr]

19. Wag the dog! Wag the dog!

Does it even bother you that the bullshit they shovel into your head is self-contradictory?

[leveymg]

12. Lincoln didn't claim that Ft. Sumter came as a big surprise.

Before you post here again, take a remedial history course.
http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/Sumter.html
Fort Sumter, a federal fort located in Charleston Harbor, refused to surrender to the Confederates. Sixty-eight soldiers under the command of Major Anderson had been in the fort from December 26th, without supply. When Lincoln made the decision to resupply the Fort, the Confederacy decided to assault. In the middle of the night of the 12th, Confederate emmisaries brought Major Anderson an ultimatum either– surrender by 4 A.M. or the Confederate batteries will open fire. On the 4:30 A.M. on the 12th, General Pierre Gustave Toutant Beauregard gave the order to open fire. The next afternoon Major Anderson surrendered. The war was on.

[uppityperson]

21. RE: RE: Right on...right on!!! Why do you vote Republican (ALWAYS)?

Did you lose your voice or are you just not answering?

[zalinda]

13. Terror attacks stopped because

Osama got what he wanted. No base in Saudi Arabia, a training ground for his "troops", and the US going so far in debt over Iraq, that we could end up like the USSR.

zalinda

[lonestarnot]

16. There we have it.

[lonestarnot]

14. More circumstantial evidence of MIHOP

[Joanne98]

15. Because the terrorist who attacked us is now protecting us

FROM HIMSELF!

[bluestateguy]

20. First of all, that's not true

The anthrax attacks killed five people and were never solved. No one was charged or caught.

Secondly, such bragging is an open invitation for the US to be attacked again. It's like asking for a pie in the face. Some attacks have been stopped, just as many attacks were stopped in the Clinton Administration. But someday, one will succeed again, and this soundbite will become inoperable. We westerners are not known for our patience. Terrorists from eastern countries are far more patient.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[kentuck]

24. You are assuming in your comment that everything would have transpired...

just as it did up to Sept 11th no matter who was in charge, right? That is a false assumption, in my opinion. After all, the Clinton Administration did capture the 2000K bomber that had crossed into Washington State. Also, you are assuming that the Gore Administration or whomever might have been in charge would have ignored the warnings from the special reports on the matter. And you are assuming that Gore would have gone on vacation after receiving a PDB on August 6th, before the attack, warning that Bin Laden Was Determined To Strike US. That's a lot of assumptions in your post about "flight schools" , isn't it?

[blonndee]

25. titorisque likes to post and run.

And has some "interesting" ideas, to say the least.

[helderheid]

26. he/she's been smoking the drapes again. :)

[kentuck]

27. Not to be confused with titoresque...

Who has been posting on DU for quite some time.

[blonndee]

28. Interesting

name. But I don't think the original has much to worry about. :-) Something tells me the newcomer likes pizza, too.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[blonndee]

30. When did Bush get that memo, "Bin Laden determined to attack

within the United States?" When was that, again?

Just another question, ya know.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

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

[oasis]

36. Read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies". He explains it all. (eom)

[blonndee]

37. Please. Did Bush get the memo or not? And did he or

did he not go on vacation (I mean physically, that freak is always on a mental vacay) right after he got the memo?

You are way too obvious. One would think if a person were going to try to disrupt they'd do a better job of it. Although, given where you come from, I can't say I'm surprised.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[blonndee]

39. LOL

Right. What a great leader. Very concerned about the American people.

Enjoy your brief stay!

[kentuck]

40. How do you know that?

that the plans were in place for years?? Who told you that?

[helderheid]

42. Are we chatting with THE Osama bin Laden????? OMG call the FBI!!

[helderheid]

41. Somehow I seriously doubt that if bush had been in power when

Clinton was and Clinton was in power during 9/11, we'd hear this same argument from you.

[kentuck]

33. You're right.

Perhaps you would like to explain why it is important that Atta and the terrorists were taking flight lessons? Were they being tracked by the FBI at that time?? Do you know?

[Cha]

23. Anthrax Terrorist Attacks happened

after 9/11 and they stick their collective head in the sand and act like they didn't happen. They are lousy with history.

It's like debating pre-schoolers..my apologies to pre-schoolers everywhere!

[bluethruandthru]

31. Not only did the anthrax attacks happen on their watch...

they never did find out who was responsible, did they? And now they've given up on finding bin Laden too! Gee, I feel so safe with those "tough on terra" repukes in charge!

[Cha]

34. Yeah, if they didn't have

the corporate media in their deep pockets then the masses would start putting 2 and 2 together from the reports and analysis of THE FREE PRESS!

[oasis]

32. If Bush/Condi would've acted on the Aug. 6 PDB, there would be no 9/11.

That's the opinion of the non-Kool-Aid drinking world.

[ladjf]

43. One Sept 11th attack on bush's watch was more than enough.

He wanted it to happened. It made his day.

[Catchawave]

44. 9-11 was a criminal act....

..not an act of WAR :cry:

[Cleita]

45. Also, if they were behind it, would they risk it again?

I think not. It makes me even more suspicious that they knew a lot more about 9-11 than they are letting us know. They could have stopped it, just like they have stopped other plots in their tracks since then.