XPost: phl.media, pa.politics   
   From: kybyrd@pobox.upenn.edu   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:26:55 GMT, MarkM  wrote:   
   >The problem is, attacking Iraq did nothing to fight terrorism, and actually   
   >dramatically increased it.  Thats why Condi tried so hard to keep quiet the   
   >reports that Bush is actually losing the war on terrorism.   
   >   
   >Iraq was never a center of terrorist activity.  Bush's national security   
   >advisor told him exactly that.  There was no connection between Saddam, and   
   >911.   
   >   
   > Virtually none of the $$'s being spent, supposedly, to fight terrorism,   
   >have anything to do with fighting terrorists.   
   >Suicide bombers lurk in the night, and hide in subways, abandoned buildings,   
   >etc.  How can spending billions of dollars on anti-missile systems, aircraft   
   >carriers, fighter aircraft, etc, do anything to fight terrorism?  It can't.   
   >Its all pork barrel gifts to wealthy campaign donors.  And it has bankrupted   
   >our country.   
      
   I don't disagree with any of what you've said but there is still   
   this fundamenatl question: why haven't we been attacked again   
   after 9/11? Is it just plain luck? Unless I missed something we've   
   had no suicide bombers do anything in the "usual suspect" places, NYC   
   or DC.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)