When this awful Mumbai terror was happening, Obama's comment was "We have one president at a time". Why didn't he say more? Is it because they're muslim killers and he's afraid? Even embarrassed? He's said plenty about the economy, plenty about energy since being elected, why can't he address terror?
If and when soft targets like the Taj Hotel in Mumbai start getting hit here in the States....
WHAT WILL IT TAKE FOR US TO STOP IT?
-Will we be sued by terrorist's families if we killed them before reading them their Miranda Rights?
-Will our media admit that islamists were responsible? Or will they stay silent on that detail .....again?
-Will we sit on our hands because there's nowhere we can FIND these people and fight back, when we're all quite sure those rumors of terror training camps in Oregon or Washington State are probably valid? Do we have the nerve to go into mosques and listen to sermons for murderous, threatening talk, or are we PC'd out of that though we have people going into Protestant churches for the least bit of politicizing?
What will happen? What can we do when this starts? How will Obama react?
ALSO...I heard "The single biggest threat to America will be from Europeans" said on CNN Saturday morning.
EUROPEANS? Who here thinks Germans are coming to kill Americans? French people? Austrians? Italians? Sure, maybe with their delicious, heavy foods, but.........kill us, like CNN insinuates?
"EUROPEANS are going to KILL AMERICANS?" Isn't this another politically correct dishonesty that's very dangerous to the world? Isn't it throwing us off the path which we should be pursuing? WHICH EUROPEANS? The media will say anything not to say what their nationalities or religions REALLY are, right? And it won't be food these people will use because they REALLY want to kill us!....no, these people have AK40's and dirty bombs and terror tactics being practiced all over the world in training camps, probably including some of them I mentioned above, but we're too naive to admit it. We can't demand to know what they're doing in those muslim compounds we've all heard about! What if we're wrong in guessing they're practicing to kill us? But, what if we're RIGHT, and when can we drop PC and err on OUR SIDE AGAIN, like the good ol' days when we WERE safe because of it?
What should CNN have said to avoid PC and tell the truth? (Were those really Europeans who wreaked havoc in India? Some were "from England"...you think they're relatives of the Queen, or the Beefeaters in front of the Palace, generations of their families in England, or might they have come from.......elsewhere? ...Ya, sure...THOSE "Europeans")
z
68 comments:
Good point on Obama Z. No word from the "Office of the President Elect"?
This could have been one of the most telling things since the election. I think the most likely explanation is that he does not have a clue as to what to do.
Why not have the U.S. marines invade India, z?
That's the American response.
We told you the chickens were coming home from the botched Afghanistan operation and its eventual destabilization of Pakistan.
Gonna take time to straighten out this mess but now we've got two nuclear players going at each other so you might want to be cautious.
Interesting that your first criticism is Obama. Guess you though Bush did just swell in his little Afghanistan adventure. But go to war with Islam, that's worked swell so far.
The attack on India by bin Laden's Islamic extremist partners was meant to force Pakistan to withdraw some of its' troops from the Western Autonous Zones and place them on the Indian border. India is reacting precisely as bin Laden intended. The answer is to force Pakistan to increase their troop commitments in WESTERN Pakistan.
"When will our media admit that Islamists are responsible".
--------------------
z, since you seem to have infallible information on the matter why not publish it here?
WorldNet would probably take it also.
I also blogged on this subjest today.
Yours is a very good one.
I looked at another angle of it.
The Rabbi and his wife
I think you have to reflect on the fact that the mainstream media has fully embraced the concept of political correctness. They won’t say “Middle Eastern Émigrés,” so they refer to a terrorist threat from Europeans. I understand this. If some dippy-doodle American of Pakistani decent went to Paris and exploded a bomb, the resulting headline would be “American blows up the Eiffel Tower.” No one listened to Enoch Powell when he gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech to the British Parliament in 1968 — so we now must confront the fact that émigrés do not migrate to western civilizations to become part of the fabric of western civilization, they come here to help destroy it.
You are correct to point out that until we learn to confront terrorism head-on, we are only reacting to people who are ruthless, determined, capable, and willing to seize the initiative. It is easy to criticize the laxity displayed by the government of India that allowed these events to unfold, but given what we know about extremists, there is no acceptable excuse for lethargy or incompetence in matters involving international terrorism. The costs are simply too high.
There is only one way to rid our world of terrorists: locate and kill them. We are not going to rehabilitate them. We will not persuade them to accept religious moderation or tolerance. This was a hard lesson for India, but I suspect it is an unfinished one. We need an internationally robust counter-terrorist organization . . . something approximating Interpol; an organization that is always searching for indications of terrorist activities. Finally, we need to feel guilty about every one of our collective failures to locate and kill these extremists; unless we feel genuine remorse about how we “let one through,” then the task of counter-terrorism becomes just another government job.
You v=can kill terrorists, sure.
You cannot eliminate terrorism as a tool of political warfare.
Heck, all of a sudden there's a cry for the U.S. to "stop this" as if we have the power. We don't even know what the strategic objective was in this attack.
Now assume an attack by Pakistan against India is based in religion? Why?
Let me submit that if religion isn't the critical factor here then talking about religious moderation is pretty much a guaranteed FAIL. It's instructive to remember that we are Americans and as a result the world at large is pretty much unknown to us.
duhkkky apparently the Indians knew they were Muslims and to thier credit the Muslim graveyards in Mumbai are rejecting the bodies.
from the AP
A Muslim graveyard in Mumbai on Monday rejected the bodies of the nine dead attackers.
"People who committed this heinous crime cannot be called Muslim," said Hanif Nalkhande, a trustee of the influential Jama Masjid Trust, which runs the 7.5-acre (three-hectare) Badakabrastan graveyard in downtown Mumbai. "Islam does not permit this sort of barbaric crime."
Europeans are the biggest threat out there according to CNN?
Perhaps they're just trying to cover their own posteriors.
Over three thousand Indians have died in Islamist attacks in the last two years alone. If leftists want to believe that not a one of these were jihad, they can go right ahead and keep their heads in the sand.
I think they've got theirs heads buried in their a$$es not the sand
Fine Elmo, they were Muslims. We didn't know that.
Now back to the critical question. What is their strategic goal? I will submit that if we don't understand that our response is almost guaranteed to fail.
Now back to the critical question. What is their strategic goal?
Do you know how to resurrect the dead duhkkky?
FJ is right - Pakistan was already moving troops from their border with Afghanistan to their eastern border.
oh duhkkky:
Formed in 1991 in the Kunar province of Afghanistan, the Lashkar-e-Toiba is the military wing of the Markaz-ud-Dawa-wal-Irshad (MDI), an Islamic fundamentalist organisation of the Ahle-Hadith sect in Pakistan.
hey duhkkky what India should have done before killing them was ask them politely to cease fire while they asked them their strategic goals
uh pardon me could you drop your weapon for sec...we have a few questions for you
I'll be jotting these down while you answer these questions:
1. What are your strategic goals today?
2. Can you please tell us your next target?
3.Have you run out of ammunition yet because when you do we'd rather take you into custody and ask you some other questions.
Thanks ever so kindly for your time..you may resume the terror, mayhem and killing now.
(end sarcasm)
hey duhkkky what India should have done before killing them was ask them politely to cease fire while they asked them their strategic goals
-----------
You are a stitch.
Am I to assume that like mustang you think this is over when we kill a handful of the near infinite supply of recruits?
Now, what do these guys want?
Civil war in India? War between India and Pakistan? Because if we let America run the show we could easily give them just what they want.
Am I to assume that like mustang you think this is over when we kill a handful of the near infinite supply of recruits?
Don't put words in my mouth, Ducky. I said we need to kill them all.
uh duhkkky near infinite?
whoa...I thought we were the ones who were the diaper pissers...who knew?
why don't you go over there and share a schwarma with them....perhaps they'll not only tell you the reason but give you an exact count of their numbers
duhkkky lost his sarcasm detector
maybe they were there to visit the Jewish center
Ducky....I have no idea who will attack us...but I have it under pretty good authority it won't be Swedes, okay? That was regarding FUTURE attacks; you know, reading the posts would REALLY help your commenting, I keep reminding you!
And you STILL don't understand the goal of islamists? WHAT???
SHOPRAT: BINGO. Exactly. Brooke, too.
Mustang, Elbro..FJ...I'm laughing out loud. You guys are THE BEST. Your list is perfect, Elbro...you nailed it..
DUCKY: EARTH TO DUCKY: A CALIPHATE is what these people want...in YOUR backyard. They want us DEAD. Or muslim.
Americans fight hard to have no collateral damage...the islamists THRIVE on it. That's their GOAL: TERROR.
WHAT THE HECK did YOU think was happening in Mumbai? Am I to take it that you think that's a reaction to our war in Afghanistan?
Do you STILL think they're just ticked off at our reaction to 9/11, even after the Kobar Towers, the earlier Bombings in NY City, the Madrid train station, London...... Some of those were after 9/11, but how about YEMEN and Africa??
You still blaming BUSH FOR ISLAMISTS?!! This was planned YEARS ago, and they were daring/testing us with Yemen, etc...and Clinton treated them like criminals, not TERRORISTS. Ya, blame Bush, Ducky, for giving it back as bad as we got..finally overcoming that ridiculous PC junk you leftists hoisted on America. Don't look now, but THEY went to war with US first.
LISTEN to Elbro, Mustang, FJ...they're right.
Mustang: "Don't put words in my mouth.." I'm still laughing! It's AWFUL, but it's SO funny!
Chuck...interesting, isn't it!! I hope you came back and read some of these comments, too!! I know you'd enjoy them.
DUCKY said..."Now back to the critical question. What is their strategic goal? I will submit that if we don't understand that our response is almost guaranteed to fail."
So, now we've all reminded you what their strategic goal is...I will submit to YOU, Ducky, that if WE don't understand THAT (world caliphate, 'kill them into submission'), WE are "almost guaranteed to fail."
A war between India and Pakistan would be GREAT for the terrorists. Their (al Qaeda's) objective is to take control of Pakistan, and if the Indian's care to help them do it, then they'd be happy as hell to accept their assistance.
Let me remind z that the idea of a pan-Muslim movement failed miserably under Nasser and it isn't likely to do any better now.
Your insistence that we go to war with Islam has been taken up by President Chuck L. Nuts and failed miserably.
Also worth remembering. The reason that the Iraq situation has been quieter is because the Al-Qaeda/Sunni alliance didn't succeed. Al-Qaeda was far too extreme for the Iraqi Sunnis.
You doom our response to failure if all you see is a monolithic Islamic world that you want war with. Interesting that westerners represented a small number of the dead in Bombay. Surely if that were the object the death count of Westerners would have been much higher.
okay duhkkky
a terrorist inflicts the kind of damage in Mumbai for say
s*its and giggles
another inflicts it because
he wants to starta war between Pakistan and India
do you:
a. Put up yellow curtains in the White House and bring the troops home?
b. Embed yourself in one of their terror cells so that you can create better understanding among freedom fighters?
c. Stare at your navel?
d. Stare at your neighbors navel?
e. Shoot the mofo before he can inflict further damage
f. a, b, c, and d
I anxiously await your reply
(my guess is Duhkkky chooses f)
Yeah Farmer, hot heads in Pakistan, India (or here) are the terrorists very best friends.
DUCKY: said "Let me remind z that the idea of a pan-Muslim movement failed miserably under Nasser and it isn't likely to do any better now."
Let me remind you that muslims didn't quite have the ease of movement or the access to far more threatening weapons or the training or the implicit approval and chicken s*it attitudes of Western liberals.
But you were only kidding when you said that, right?
Elbro: I think we should put islamists ahead of ourselves. I think we need to remember they don't REALLY MEAN it when they do things like the Mumbai attacks. Those guys in England don't MEAN it when they march by the hundreds saying they're taking over. They don't have a sense of humor, but they're not BAD people, right?
They're just mad at us for actually having the guts to fight back after they killed 3000 people...but, you know, that might have been our fault, too, because we should have just thanked them for Yemen, for Beirut, for the African embassies, the first World Trade Center bombing...gee, you hate to hurt their feelings, DONTCHA? (I will now remove the tongue stuck firmly in my cheek, of course)
Did anything Nasser did look like this?
Please provide an example.
The Caliph Arabic: خليفة /khalīfah/ is the head of state in a Caliphate, and the title for the leader of the Islamic Ummah, an Islamic community ruled by the Shari'ah. It is a transliterated version of the Arabic word خليفة Khalīfah (help·info) which means "successor" or "representative". The early leaders of the Muslim nation following Muhammad's (570–632) death were called "Khalifat Rasul Allah", means the political successors to the messenger of God (referring to Muhammad). Some academics prefer to transliterate the term as Khalīf.
the stated goals of the terrorist group (linked to al queda btw):
The LeT's professed ideology goes beyond merely challenging India's sovereignty over the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The Lashkar's agenda, as outlined in a pamphlet titled "Why are we waging jihad", includes the restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of South Asia, Russia and even China. Further, the outfit is based on a sort of Islamist fundamentalism preached by its mentor, the JuD.
you see duhkkky they've already provided their strategic goals
now stfu
we could just wait another 12 years to see if something like say
ummm ummm
sanctions work
or
diplomacy
and will someone please explain the difference between an Arab and a Muslim to duhkkky
Z, I just read your comment on Throwing Stones's blog and it was really great. So good that I had to come here and tell you so and to read your blog as well.
As for the comment by "Ducky"
He is part of the problem. It's people like the way he thinks is why these animals are not dealt with as they should be.
duhkkky
compare/contrast
Pan-Arabism is a movement for unification among the peoples and countries of the Arab World, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Arabian Sea. It is closely connected to Arab nationalism which asserts that the Arabs constitute a single nation. Pan-Arabism has tended to be secular and often socialist, and has strongly opposed colonialism and Western political involvement in the Arab world. Pan-Arabism is a form of cultural nationalism.
Pan-Islamism (اتّحاد الاسلام) is a political movement advocating the unity of Muslims under one Islamic state or a Caliphate.[1] While Pan-Arabism advocates the unity and independence of Arabs regardless of religion, pan-Islamism advocates the unity and independence of Muslims regardless of ethnicity.
Its funny that Libs like “DUCKY” prevent their blogs from being open to the public
Freedom of speech right “Ducky”?
duhkkky doesn't have a blog...he's our resident troll
After reading what the DUCK wrote I'm ashamed to be of the same political party as he is.
Is India worth any less than any other country?
For you to write off India as being nothing more than the person we get on the phone when we seek tech support is worse than naive - it is downright ignorant.
Ah, well... typical
'Ducky's NOT here'........new screen name for Ducky, more appropriate.
The truth is like a cross to a vampire, isn't it?
Not only is there the Caliphate that Z and EB mentioned, there is the strategic goal of going to Allah's brothel in the sky, Ducky.
Hmmm, number of stories coming out that we had this one sussed out and warned the Indian security services in October that an attack was going to come by sea and hit targets in Bombay, especially the Taj Hotel.
The Indian equivalent of Condo Rice must have been manning the security desk.
Ducky, also, the Taj security had been really heightened UNTIL 2 weeks ago, did you hear that? (except that heightened security was apparently around the lobby door area and the terrorists got in the back; they were well aware of the layout, apparently having taken PHOTOS of the place ....
Too bad we can't arrest someone taking photos if they're looking arabic because that would be so not PC, huh?
Not a fan of Ms. Rice here, so no offense taken.......by the way.
Z, Great Post. You are right on target with your assessment of what is PC.....Got your remarks on my comments on "the messenger". I do not have the originator of that information....It didn't originate with me, but I read it in a blog and maybe I should have proofed it, but I didn't....I think AOW deleted it as spam. currently, I don't have The originator of that information. I should have kept it,,,but....Hope this didn't put a monkey wrench into anything you were attempting to do....Why you can't get into my blog, I don't know...try again with this message......
Well, I might as well join the throng here and take some shots at Ducky. God knows he asked for it.
Ducky, Pakistan was unstable long before we even entertained the prospect of invading Afghanistan.
What is it you don't understand about the 1998 declaration of world wide jihad, by Bin Laden?
Ducky: "Your insistence that we go to war with Islam has been taken up by President Chuck L. Nuts and failed miserably."
Failed miserably? Were you paying attention right after 9-11 when President Bush said this war will go on for decades? It should be obvious to you by now. Get used to it.
There are terror cells all over the world, and have been for a long time. President Bush did not create them. Plotting and planning during the years before Bush took office gave Bin Laden the assurance he needed to call for jihad in the first place.
Obama defers to Bush whenever he doesn't want to answer a question, I wonder who he'll defer to when the buck stops with him?
Finally, people who think, or should I say feel, like you are a huge part of the problem. Making nice won't work with the Islamofascists, the only thing they understand is strength. Your way prolongs and emboldens the enemy.
Why, they'll love you until the moment they lop off your head!
Pris
Great article in the Wall Street Journal today about this very subject:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122809281744967855.html
Failed miserably? Were you paying attention right after 9-11 when President Bush said this war will go on for decades? It should be obvious to you by now. Get used to it.
-----------------------
Well it's been going for about a decade and accomplished nothing. Made the entire matter worse.
Now there is a change coming. The fundamentalist war with Islam is over. What you are going to have to accept, Pris, is that this jihad stuff and the worries that sharia is going to be imposed in America will be officially marginalized in early January.
The Project for the New American Century has gone down in flames. Neo-conservatism is dead.
It is true that Bush didn't create the situation. We have to thank everyone that established the Taliban in Afghanistan for that. But Bush has done a stunning job of making a bad situation worse.
Time for a long overdue change.
Heck, he even admitted on TV today that he didn't know how to run a war and the whole thing surprised him. Imagine that, he comes into office with a terrorist threat that is obviously growing and he was surprised.
I want to thank my Republican brethren for electing the worst president in our history. Now the grownups will take charge.
Let me jump onto the dogpile. I agree that we must conduct this as a war not a crime scene. One side sure has declared war. I have faith that the Indians will take of care of this rather quickly. They aren't burdened with political correctness and they have a history of doing what's necessary. Countries under constant threat have a way of having an itchy trigger finger, Israel comes to mind. The Indians sank a ship in the Indian ocean they thought was filled with pirates. The media said it wasn't. The Indians didn't apologize to anyone, so I tend to believe them. I look forward to their response. Allegedly Pakistan is helping them with the investigation. We'll see how that works out. As for us, I hope we remain vigilant, but BO is going to have grow a pair once it's all on him. Good luck with that.
Ducky...just to darned silly to respond to. Man. As for coming into office? The CLintons were busier taking W's off keyboards than helping him out in the incredible manner he's helping Obama now. The REALLY sad thing is that even the WH finally admitted they were chagrined that Obama'd come that MOnday two weeks ago, spoke to Bush, then shared what had been said when he should have known better. Finally the WH showed dismay but the media mentioned it..........ONCE. ONCE, because it went against their love for THE ONE. That's sickening. I hope he keeps his trap shut in the future because Clinton has already said Rahm Emannuel is horribly indiscreet and we just can't afford this in this country. "Grown ups"?! Ya, RIGHT!
Law & Order..perfectly said. Couldn't agree with you more.
But, we know Obama will NOT threaten or respond as he must. Heck, maybe talking to people might work......right? RIGHT? (ya, wrong, BIG time)
I think I can say you speak for a lot of us, Z. I watched some of CNN's coverage and could only do so for a little bit. The utter stupidity of the anchors was too much to stomach. "What will Barack Obama do?" was the question of the day. Excuse me, there's already someone in that job now. Obama is damn lucky that the Bush administration is so thoroughly keeping him and his team briefed each day - there's no way he ever was the benefactor of such generousity as he came into office.
The fundamentalist war with Islam is over.
Somebody must have forgotten to inform Osama bin Laden.
When one side thinks the war is over and the other doesn't... that's called a "surrender" in every textbook but the post-modern one.
no comment from obama = voting present... get used to this response....
Man, Pat..I HOPE you're wrong.
FJ...if that's the case, Ducky's left HAS surrendered. Too bad we're on the same bandwagon...God help us all.
I want to thank my Republican brethren for electing the worst president in our history. Now the grownups will take charge.
Wrong again Duhkkky!
A Washington College poll about presidential greatness, taken 11 February 2005, asked 800 adults nationwide, "Thinking about all the presidents of the United States throughout history to the present, who would you say was America's greatest president?"[13]
Abraham Lincoln (20%)
Ronald Reagan (15%)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (12%)
John F. Kennedy (11%)
Bill Clinton (10%)
Other/Don't Know (9%)
George W. Bush (8%)
George Washington (6%)
Theodore Roosevelt (3%)
Dwight Eisenhower (3%)
Jimmy Carter (2%)
Thomas Jefferson (2%)
Richard Nixon (1%)
John Adams (<1%)
Andrew Jackson (<1%)
Lyndon Johnson (<1%)
A Gallup poll about presidential greatness, taken February 9–11, 2007, asked 1006 adults nationwide, "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?"[11]
Abraham Lincoln (18%)
Ronald Reagan (16%)
John F. Kennedy (14%)
Bill Clinton (13%)
Franklin Roosevelt (9%)
Other/None/No opinion (8%)
George Washington (7%)
Harry Truman (3%)
George W. Bush (2%)
Theodore Roosevelt (2%)
Dwight Eisenhower (2%)
Thomas Jefferson (2%)
Jimmy Carter (2%)
Gerald Ford (1%)
George H.W. Bush (1%)
Richard Nixon (0%)
Ducky, it was Jimmy Carter (the worst President,in the history of this country, and anti-semite), who greased the skids under the Shah of Iran, and spread the red carpet for the Ayatollah Khomeini giving Islam a giant leap and power on the world stage.
I did not vote for him!
And Clinton was in office knowing the terrorist threat was growing, and did nothing. Nothing! What he did as a matter of fact was halve spending on the defense budget, and devastate our intelligence budget proclaiming a "peace dividend". Hmmmm uh huh.
I didn't vote for him either.
History will prove you wrong about Bush. He has not made things worse. The Islamofascists have. Of course why blame those who declared war, when you can blame your own country. Who are you going to blame when Bush leaves? You think the enemy will stop?
Ducky: "The Project for the New American Century has gone down in flames. Neo-conservatism is dead."
You will eat those words, Ducky, you haven't learned never say never.
Conservatism is not dead. Your naivete is stunning.
Pris
I did come back and read Z and did enjoy it. I am getting two things from reading these comments.
A) I stand by my original assertion. Now that the left is in control and actually have to make decisions instead of heckling from the cheap seats, they're pissing their pants over what to do about national security.
B) Reading Elmers Brother's post about the Muslim grveyard is heartening. We need more Muslims to take a stand like this.
Ducky -- I do believe you ought to think back a couple of years ago about when you were on AOW's radio show and insisted how peaceful the muz-lims in India are. You were dead wrong then and the current events prove that out. Two years in the future all your mindless words here will be shown to be dead wrong as well. There is NO peace to iz-lam. It is pure hate and death and destruction. You want to know their goal? It's as plain as the nose on your face if you only had the nerve to look in the mirror and see the truth for the very first time. You ought to try it. The truth will make you squint at first but after a while you'll get used to it and eventually even learn to enjoy basking in the sunlight of discovery.
What prove do we have that Barack Obama didn't plan and finance the Mumbai attack?
They've been fighting us and killing us for decades now, we just haven't figured it out yet. Some of us have, some of us westerners have not and some of us are convinced that if we leave the bullies alone, they'll leave us alone too.
There's a couple of things that really surprise me. 1. That we still let dummy er... I mean ducky put his innane comments on our pages. I guess it's just for the humor factor. And 2. When someone says repeatedly that this is a holy war, we don't take them at their word. I've said it on other blogs, This is a holy war. They've made it so. The only way you win a war that is not about taking land and holding it, but killing those that don't capitulate and bow to mecca is to annihilate everyone that thinks to take up a weapon in the service of the aggressor.
Will it amount to genocide? Could very well be. Should that stop us from doing it if it allows freedom lovers around the globe to keep breathing free? No, of course not. The problem is that people aren't willing, anymore, to say win at any cost. Our enemies DO think that way. If we don't then we might as well go buy our wives burkas now.
Surely if that were the object the death count of Westerners would have been much higher.
This assumes there were far more Western targets there. It's also perceived as racist. Like we wouldn't care if the victims weren't Westerners.
you're a joke duhkkky
oh and duhkkky in case you missed it
the eyewitnesses said the terrorists were isolating and targeting Brits and Americans
Greywolfe, you're not the first person to write me here or personally asking why I
'allow' Ducky to comment here.
I just don't GET that...I want differences in opinion, even if we consider them wrong and even reprehensible. I DO.
I've had to tell him and another commenter, from time to time, to remember there isn't insulting allowed and I delete sometimes, but, basically, I think it's important to hear other points of view.
If nothing else, it sure makes it more interesting around here!
Greywolfe,
If we didn't allow stupid comments on our blogs, we'd never see what the left has to say.
I set a 84 IQ minimum for comments at my blog. That screens out roughly 90% of leftists that attempt to post on my blog.
The Indian equivalent of Condo Rice must have been manning the security desk.
uh duhkkky what terror attack on American soil can you attribute to Condi Rice being asleep at the wheel?
Surely you don't mean 9/11?
Elbro, there are lefties who blame the whole Bush team for 9/11 (Some, of course, think they DID it, but....we'll ignore that for now).
Yes, apparently, the intel came in that SOME DAY SOME PEOPLE at SOME AIRPORT are going to hit us.
With their comments after the whole thing, their criticism, I've always thought the Left must mean they would have closed ALL AIRPORTS EVERYWHERE indefinitely to make sure absolutely nothing happened. HOw,I don't know..but, that's all one can surmise from the insults and conjecture.!!
it's easy to criticize if you
1. don't have all the information
2. have never held the job
Elbro..it's even dangerous to criticize, especially when the people who're trying to protect us are in the hearing rooms having Lucifer's like Biden grilling as if they're Gitmo internees.
For ALL the world to see...Imagine what the terror cells and AQ think of our horrid disarray right now?
Terrible economy, very leftist president, no torture, no Gitmo, no good CIA/FBI incoming...soldiers saying they're not reupping or aren't enlisting because of obama, political nominees posing in diapers with a big smile on the face, legality of elections questioable because of ACORN, a new president who's lied and obfuscated so much, innocent Americans being attacked for daring ask a question, journalists thrown off planes because they don't agree.
WHAT IS GOING ON? Then I direct readers to Mr. Z's article above...THAT's what could go on.
Post a Comment