:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

oh by the way you keep bringing Bush into this? I was pointing at the fact that all of the current terrorist problems are over a decade in the making with two faulty administrations, the only casualty of both are innocent civilians world wide, and have only mulipled in multitude thanks to both.

A very informative thread indeed!

Damn, this thread is much cooler than what I posted earlier.

NO.. you aren't saying anything.. you're pathetically comparing a small attack against a legitimate military target and the porportional response to that against the biggest loss of american civilian life in 50 years...
its apples and oranges moron. Even Gore would have gone into afghanistan after 9/11.. even a hippie like nader probably would have had to do something as well. You CAN'T lose 3000 innocent people and NOT do something about it. for fucks sake, even if they were peaceful pussies they've got the votes to think about, and voters want some kind of action, their own self interest would have seen them doing something and playing the hero.

If you honestly believe that you can compare the responses to two totally seperate attacks and be able to judge anything you are a 'tard.
If 9/11 didn't happen and the Cole was bombed under Bush's watch we wouldn't have invaded Iraq., 9/11 had to happen for that to allow the fear in the public to support such a drastic move, really 17 sailors dying doesn't make the public support losing another 700 fucking around in a totally unrelated country.

And they will find everything they claimed he had and soo much more. All just in time to prove to the world they were right and in time for the election.

I hear Mr. Bush is personally going to deactive a WMD and show the American people his greatness

Pain in the ass