Cheney lies: US "homeland" has been hit by post-9/11 attacks

[murdoch]

A quote from Cheney has been well-reported in the news:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060119-5.html

"It is no accident that we haven't been hit in more than four years."

But this is not true. In July 5, 2002, an Egyptian killed two Israelis in LAX airport with a gun.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/05/la.airport.shooting/

And this is not the first time Israelis have been shot in line for El Al ticket lines. It has happened many times in Europe. Michael Moore actually witnessed one of these European attacks.

Of course the media will repeat what Cheney says, throw stuff like this down the memory hole and hope people forget this and just nod.

[Bluebear]

1. I guess anthrax isn't considered "getting hit" by terror?

:eyes:

[JeffR]

2. Anthrax? Anthrax?

Oh yeah, I remember. Saw that commercial the other night with the voiceover saying, "Ask your doctor if anthrax is right for you."

[Skip Intro]

4. Fist thing I thought. It was in some ways even more terrifying.

Another attack bush failed to prevent.

Another terrorist bush hasn't brought to justice.

They never mention it.


But boy, did he benefit from it.

[Wickerman]

8. Odd, ain't it? No resolution, no mention, no memory of it

but huge gain.

[Kansas Wyatt]

7. More covert NSA activities deployed by BushCo?

After all, they did determine that it came from the U.S. Government, and the envelopes were not addressed to any republicans, who were goose-stepping along.

[thinkingwoman]

16. he means from furrrinners

:evilgrin:

[AGENDA21]

22. Here's more info on Anthrax

If your interested..

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved

http://www.anthraxattacks.net/the-anthrax-mystery-solved.htm

[MichiganVote]

3. As I recall Spain / London both bombed despite "fighting" them over there

Logic is lost on the tongues of tyrants like Cheney

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Why Haven't Any Dems Fought Back With The Anthrax Attacks?

I still don't understand why this isn't hammered and hammered again and again until it is impossible for the bastards to say the no attack meme any more.

[OnyxCollie]

6. Probably because they don't want to die. nt

[Zeke]

10. BECAUSE.....

The Democrats live in fear like
the sheeple who follow Bush Inc.
to their own slaughter.

Democrats are simply cowards politically.
Only Hacket on Ohio is making the right
kind of truthful noise.

I mean, what a contrast:
Feinsteinn & Leibermann
or Brother Hacket?

Give me Hacket! More Hackets!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. Sorry, I Don't Agree With That At All. I'm DAMN PROUD of my Dems.

[Zeke]

14. Interesting...

Damn proud neither Gore nor Kerry fought
for their oval office wins?

Proud Dems voted in large numbers
for the medicare & banckruptcy
fiascos and keep voting for
Bush legislation?

Proud of Dems who publicy say
not to fight Alito's nomination?

Proud of Dems who authorized Bush
with undefined, unilateral power
that got us into a fucking war?

No. No. The Democrats have lost their
spine ans their way. And the way home
is simple: fight for what's right.

Dean-Murtha for 2008 !!!!!!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

15. MANY of them are fighting for what's right. Cherry picking only the things

they've done wrong isn't going to help anything.

Yes, They need to do more and the battle is far from over, but considering the overwhelming odds against them and the level of corruption and abuse they have to battle through, yes, I AM DAMN PROUD OF MY DEMS!

[Zeke]

18. I JUST DON'T GET IT...

Yeah, I'm proud of Biden & Hillary
for saying we need to stay in Iraq,
to stay the course.

So proud of Pelosi for essentially
hiding from Murtha's comments
and from Murtha.

So proud of Leiberman who supports
Bush, so proud of Dedmos afraid to
buster Alito. If not Alito, then
who who the Hell do you filibuster?!

Bush has power becuase Democrats shunned
their patriotic duty to call him a criminal
and not back away from their comments. Bush
has power because Democrats don't fight.

And because they don't fight, the public
percieves them as weak, and so they per-
petuate their own demise, which brings
the country down even more, as Bush gets
no opposition.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. You are right, You don't. n/t

[OnyxCollie]

13. What I was saying

is that the "real killer" is still "at large" and putting yourself in a position to receive weapons-grade anthrax for calling attention to it is probably something Dems are trying to avoid.

[buddysmellgood]

9. Katrina was a kind of terror, How was their response to that?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

12. I'm sorry, but I don't personally consider the shooting of two people...

...as terrorism. I call it murder, pure and simple.

Here's what I consider to be acts of terrorism:

*Bombing from planes, and/or the shootings of large numbers of unarmed people;
*Crashing planes into a large building containing thousands of people;
*Suicide bombings in public places or vehicles;
*Bombing large public buildings.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture.

[CJCRANE]

17. How 'bout the Beltway sniper..

Granted it was homegrown and the guy didn't have a political message, but it was still a form of terrorism.

[berni_mccoy]

19. I was in D.C. during the Sniper Attacks

I'd say it was terrorism, especially given the fact that the two perps were found GUILTY OF TERRORISM.

[Igel]

21. Does context matter?

"We're all grateful this nation has gone for more than four years without another 9/11. Obviously, no one can guarantee that we won't be hit again. But our nation has been protected by more than luck. It is no accident that we haven't been hit in more than four years. We've been protected by sensible policy decisions, by decisive action at home and abroad, and by round-the-clock efforts on the part of people in the armed services, law enforcement, intelligence, and homeland security. The enemy that struck on 9/11 is weakened and fractured, yet still lethal and still determined to hit us again. Either we are serious about fighting this war on terror or we are not. And the enemies of America need to know: We are serious, and this administration will not let down our guard."

Sound-bites are all well and good, but I hate it when repubs take dem comments out of context. I can either be hypocritical, or also insist on repub comments being taken in context as well. Dispute the "sensible policy" drivel, but the "four years without another 9/11" is picked up in "haven't been hit in more than four years" and later in "the enemy that struck on 9/11". It's unlikely he's changing referents mid-discourse. That makes "we haven't been hit in more than four years" anaphoric, it refers back to a previous bit of discourse. No parsing of words here: just looking at what reasonable speakers can assume reasonable listeners will justly infer given the usual rules of English discourse.