88e09e4a   
   XPost: phl.media, pa.politics   
   From: riggor99999@yahoo.com   
      
   "Brian Bernardini"  wrote in message   
   news:bbernarWOOOAHdini-68A722.20151924012006@news-east.newsfeeds.com...   
   > 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...   
      
   That's right - just ask Timmy in Oklahoma   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)