Well when he's able to 'right after 9/11' use 'terror' and paint anyone who was against him as a terrorist supporter, or as it is now the 'barely controlled' house and senate is able to be vetoed by him, it kind of makes that point null and void don't you think?
Sure, because they are pandering. None of the politicians, left or right, give a flying fart about me or you. They want our votes, and our tax money. The rest of the year, they could care less if we live or die.
They just want us for work camps. And they need us as fodder for when they decide to kill us while committing grand conspiracies.
So you have been listening to Alex Jones! You should figure out how fractional reserve banking works. It will really titillate you.
No, I don't think that... You of all people as a Ron Paul supporter should know that you can vote no once and a while.
Ahh you can and I am not giving anyone a free pass, however it is the truth. Most after 9/11 were caught up with 'terror' that they gave the president a blank check, the congress and population alike. Now when the dems finally have a very small majority, a majority that does not = control as you well know as Bush can and does veto measures they much of the time have to bend over and take it up the ass to get even a fraction of what they want passed.
Do keep in mind, caught up or not... There has not been a terrorist attack since... Something to think about. There is a reason for that. Like it or not.
There also hasn't been an attack since I signed up at DP. Guerilla - Keeping the World Safe for Democracy!
You keep bringing that up, in which case I'll bring up yet again. There were so many terrorist attacks in the US before 9/11? The worst terrorist attack ever happened under Bush's watch. There is no need to be an attack here as they are able to pick our guys off in Iraq thanks to Bush. How people can use the 'oh but there hasn't been an attack' logic is simply baffling to me. In reality the 'terrorists' killed more under Bush and continue to kill more under Bush than ever!
I love the logic here. Takes a lot of effort to be this convoluted, Grim. Come on. In reality the 'Japanese' killed more under Roosevelt and continue to kill more under Roosevelt than ever! There is no need to be an attack here as they are able to pick our guys off in Japan thanks to FDR. There is no need to be an attack here as they are able to pick our guys off in Germany thanks to FDR. There were so many bombing runs on Pearl Harbor before 12/7? The worst attack ever happened under FDR's watch. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Oh come on now... 9/11 in itself killed more in the US under Bush's watch than any other president. We then invaded Iraq, a country that had NOTHING to do with 9/11.. Your response is truly childish at best. -- Maybe if we invaded Russia in WWII you could compare, we however did not. -- BTW the same people are always going on and on about how Clinton did nothing, but Bush was the hero, even though more died under his watch. The comparisons you 'try' to bring up are simply laughable.
We did attack Germany who did not attack us. Thanks for completing that circle for me. Post hoc ergo propter hoc, again (a after b, therefore because of b - does that help you?). We were attacked in 1993 at the WTC. We had embassies in Africa attacked during the 90's. The Cole as attacked. Don't play the game, really. It's not very becoming. Our people had been dying to terrorist attacks for decades with very little repercussion. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
ahh so Iraq was an ally or our 'terrorists' enemies now were they? Thanks for falling face first into that one. Ahh so invading a country that had NOTHING to do with it so our men and women in uniform could die in mass numbers while bankrupting us was the answer.
Thanks for giving me something to laugh about on a stormy Friday! Two of my 70' foot maples came down, but missed the house I'm almost certain this was caused by Bush's evil Katrina war machine.
This is point where I normally refer people to the first gulf war. How it ended. What conditions were placed upon Iraq and how it did not meet any of those. And what the consequences of its failures were. I'll assume you won't bother (or don't care) which is fine, but if you do, then you'll have every answer you require. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Again. Please stop the circular reasoning that you are stuck in. Will ya?
The truth is funny to you is it? You brought up Bush being 'evil' and 'Katrina' You go ra, ra for Bush all the time, yet are blind to the reality. Are facts scary?
Ahh yes those 'conditions' that Saddam was bending over and taking it up the AXX at the end, we've been over this so many times it's not even funny. Please have at least one 'reasoning' that is not based on fantasy.
Wow great logic you have there. So because Saddam was a ruthless tyrant 'that we helped' that should give a free pass to anything and everything the administration did. We should use what he did not do as a reason to attack, but if he did do those things we just say 'Saddam the victim!' I have an idea, lets bypass the facts that the Bush supporters constantly talk about all the bombings under Clinton as why Bush is so great. But when someone brings up that Bush lost more to terrorists than Clinton 'it's going in circles' which is nothing more than a 'oh ghee I have no way to defeat that, I'll pull something out of my ass' approach. I had no problem with going into Afghanistan, going after the terrorists. However to go into Iraq, create more terrorists, more death by terrorists but have the nerve to say we have not been attacked since 9/11 by terrorists is simply false.