88e09e4a   
   XPost: phl.media, pa.politics   
   From: bbernarWOOOAHdini@comcast.net   
      
   In article ,   
    kybyrd@pobox.upenn.edu (Karen Y Byrd) wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   We were. Anthrax. Of course, that came from our own labs, but a white   
   American could NEVER do such a thing...   
      
   ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet   
   News==----   
   http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+   
   Newsgroups   
   ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)