88e09e4a   
   XPost: phl.media, pa.politics   
   From: kybyrd@pobox.upenn.edu   
      
   On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 20:15:19 -0500,   
    Brian Bernardini  wrote:   
      
   >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...   
      
   My belief is that was a copy-cat operation and not connected with   
   Al Qaeda. I also believe whomever was responsible is dead.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)