The Iraq / war on terror thread

[Booker Floyd]

Also, would any of our conservative posters like to address this?

Sept. 11 Panel: U.S. Remains Unprepared

By LARA JAKES JORDAN, Associated Press Writer

12 minutes ago
 


WASHINGTON - Time, money and ever-present terror threats have done little to close gaping holes in the nation's security system, the former Sept. 11 Commission said Monday in accusing the government of failing to protect the country against another attack.

The panel cited disjointed airplane passenger screening methods, pork-barrel security funding and other problems in saying the Bush administration and Congress had not moved quickly enough to enact the majority of its recommendations of July 2004.

"We're frustrated, all of us ? frustrated at the lack of urgency in addressing these various problems," said Thomas Kean, a Republican and former New Jersey governor who was chairman of the commission.

"We shouldn't need another wake-up call," Kean said. "We believe that the terrorists will strike again; so does every responsible expert that we have talked to. And if they do, and these reforms that might have prevented such an attack have not been implemented, what will our excuse be?"

Rather than disbanding like most federally appointed commissions when their terms expire, Kean and the other nine commissioners continued their work as a private entity called the 9/11 Public Discourse Project.

Wrapping up more than three years of investigations and hearings, the former commission issued what members said was their final assessment of the government's counterterror performance as a report card. It gave failing grades in five areas, and issued only one "A" ? actually an A-minus ? for the Bush administration's efforts to curb terrorist financing.

The five "F"s were for:

_Failing to provide a radio system to allow first responders from different agencies communicate with each other during emergencies.

_Distributing federal homeland security funding to states on a "pork-barrel" basis instead of risk.

_Failing to consolidate names of suspicious airline travelers on a single terror watch screening list.

_Hindering congressional oversight by retaining intelligence budget information as classified materials.

_Failing to engage in an alliance to develop international standards for the treatment and prosecution of detained terror suspects.

The panel, which has operated as a nonprofit group since disbanding last year, also gave the government 12 "D"s and "B"s, nine "C"s and two incomplete grades.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps that led to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Nearly 3,000 people were killed when 19 hijackers organized by al-Qaida flew airliners into New York City's World Trade Center and the     Pentagon and caused a crash in the Pennsylvania countryside.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan related the commission's findings to the administration's campaign in     Iraq, saying, "By taking the fight to the enemy abroad, and by doing so, that is keeping them from plotting and planning to attack inside America."

The White House later released a 17-point fact sheet noting its support for the commission and some its recommendations that have been enacted so far, including the creation of a national intelligence director and a counterterror center to analyze threat information from federal agencies.

On Capitol Hill, Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike agreed that Congress has not done enough to shore up security. Many lawmakers focused on the security funding formula to states ? an annual fight between the House and the Senate.

"The report is a top-to-bottom indictment of the federal government's lack of resources, focus, and expertise in fighting the domestic war on terror," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

Sen. John Cornyn (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said, "Every penny should be directed where it will do the most good, in other words, the places across our nation where terrorists may strike."

In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg reiterated his call for a more streamlined command procedure in the city, where the police would take over during major disasters.

"We do train together, we do work together," Bloomberg said. "But I think we have to go and, in advance, solve some of the kinds of problems that would arise if there were a major incident."

Perhaps the most powerful criticism on the government's progress came from a tearful Mary Fetchet, director of the Voices of Sept. 11 advocacy group.

"How many lives have to be lost?" said Fetchet, who lost a son in the World Trade Center on 9/11. "How many tragedies do we have to have before we have a system put in place that's going to protect our country domestically?"

Since last year, the 9-11 Public Discourse Project has operated with private funds. It reported assets of $530,165 for the 2004 tax year, the most recent available, and included the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation among its contributors.

[Prometheus]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/12/05/ciaflights051205.html

Canadian will investigate allegations of secret CIA flights
Last Updated Mon, 05 Dec 2005 21:02:40 EST
CBC News
The United States Secretary of State is refusing to say outright that the U.S. does not operate secret prisons in Europe for the purpose of questioning suspected terrorists. But Condoleezza Rice does deny charges that Washington transports prisoners to, or through, other countries for the express purpose of interrogation involving torture.


INDEPTH: US Security

?
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.?
Rice defended the practice, called 'rendition,' but said the U.S. does not abuse the sovereignty of other nations and does not knowingly send prisoners to countries where they might be tortured.

"The United States does not transport, and has not transported, detainees from one country to another for the purpose of interrogation using torture.

"The United States does not use the airspace or the airports of any country for the purpose of transporting a detainee to a country where he or she will be tortured," she said in prepared remarks.

"The United States has not transported anyone, and will not transport anyone, to a country when we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured," she said.

Rice made the statements before embarking on a European trip aimed partly at calming the uproar sparked by allegations the U.S. operates so-called "black sites" in several European countries.

Germany says it has a list of more than 400 overflights and landings of suspected CIA flights; Britain has asked Washington for more information; and the European Union has expressed concern over the transfer policy.

Campaigning in St. John's, Prime Minister Paul Martin was asked about allegations that private aircraft chartered by the CIA have been used to ferry suspected terrorists through Canadian airspace.

Martin said he has "checked with the Deputy Prime Minister [Anne McLellan], checked with the officials in charge, and there are absolutely no indications that anything of that kind is occurring."

But rumours the CIA is landing planes at the St. John's airport to refuel persist. Airport officials says if no one gets off any plane that lands simply to refuel, then no one knows who is on board.

And though she says there's no evidence of such planes touching down in Canada, McLellan, says she is investigating some 55 questionable takeoffs and landings.

"We are now in the process of following up on what we know about any of those, but as you can imagine, 55, it takes time to determine whether there's anything unusual in relation to any of those named flights," she said.

[shades]

Well thats a lot of hot air.
MAYBE the best way to protect our homeland is not have an attack here?
Sounds like a no brainer to me
4 years 3 months and counting. Sounds like a pretty good homeland security plan was established.
And its working. Right before your very eyes and you choose to ignore it.
What ? you put a time frame on it, it has to work for ten years then you will believe it, 20 years, 50.
Thats ignorant, and frankly insulting.

Fighting the enemy, a shadow I might add in other places so you dont have to fight them here.
That was the whole plan, game set match. Exit plan you ask? give me a break. If we have to maintain a force forever, whats the fucking difference,
young men and women doing their part in a far away land to protect your never ending right to bitch. Sounds fair so far.
Or is it the brave young men and womens sacrifices that bother you? I highly doubt that.
You dont give two shits about them or you would honor what they are doing instead of ridiculing their methods.
And YOU, you liberals collectively and openly bash a plan that is working.
Which, as Charity pointed out, will only make you liberals right if we fail, either get attacked here or lose over there.

And thats exactly what you want, you argue you are right tooth and nail, so that makes you anti American in this book.
To a sickening stomache wrenching level no less.
Give it a rest and just try to see whats happening before history has to point it out to you when your old and gray.
And you'll probably tell your grandchildren how you were onboard all along. sickening.

[pilferk]

And there is all the perspective you need.? Jamie, rest it.? Your bleeding heart is making a mess all over the place.

What in Gods name are you talking about.

The point is, you're changing the subject.

You constantly say stuff like this.  You ask why the libs only pick on this topic and not this, unrelated, topic.  The reason is...the unrelated topic a) has no bearing on the current discussion and b) the discussion on sed topic would be pointless.

 

[Prometheus]

Well thats a lot of hot air.
MAYBE the best way to protect our homeland is not have an attack here?
Sounds like a no brainer to me
4 years 3 months and counting. Sounds like a pretty good homeland security plan was established.
And its working. Right before your very eyes and you choose to ignore it.
What ? you put a time frame on it, it has to work for ten years then you will believe it, 20 years, 50.
Thats ignorant, and frankly insulting.

Fighting the enemy, a shadow I might add in other places so you dont have to fight them here.
That was the whole plan, game set match. Exit plan you ask? give me a break. If we have to maintain a force forever, whats the fucking difference,
young men and women doing their part in a far away land to protect your never ending right to bitch. Sounds fair so far.
Or is it the brave young men and womens sacrifices that bother you? I highly doubt that.
You dont give two shits about them or you would honor what they are doing instead of ridiculing their methods.
And YOU, you liberals collectively and openly bash a plan that is working.
Which, as Charity pointed out, will only make you liberals right if we fail, either get attacked here or lose over there.

And thats exactly what you want, you argue you are right tooth and nail, so that makes you anti American in this book.
To a sickening stomache wrenching level no less.
Give it a rest and just try to see whats happening before history has to point it out to you when your old and gray.
And you'll probably tell your grandchildren how you were onboard all along. sickening.

shades man... your the one thats fucking funny ......where do you get off in your manner of collectively attacking all liberals? there has been not one case where any of us said we dont support the troops in the mission..... we all say that their mission that they are told to do is a fucked missionwith no real obrective fighting an enemy that is unseen and shadow like as you have mentioned. do we need to fight abroad to secure at ome... you bet... but to fight a war agnist a country with no ties to 9/11 or to the terror groups involved now is just insane.... was afgan war a just war... you fucking bet.... ?a nation directly supporting terror groups... and look what happend they got ran the fuck over, and its just mop up work in the south around the capital region still..... give it 2-5 years and the country will be as stable as any westren country. Iraq? LOL.... the war itself made no sence... granted you can cite UN resolutions..... and if you do that why didnt Bush wait for teh SC to get onside and then a colliation of more nations would have been formed and perhaps a proper number of troops would ahve been on the ground..... what was teh diff between GW1 and GW2? other then the bush in charge.... it was troop amounts.... GW1 some 500,000 troops were in theatre and this one your lucky if it was 200k...... a slower campagin with more troops would have eliminated much of this problem we have now because allied forces could ahve advanced and secured areas as they went not kill everythign leave a country with no policing then try and fix the problems...

For the most part what is required is not ful scale military action but decisive SoF strikes that hit the target and get teh job done quick and fast. Not 200k in theatre figting for their lives everyday not knowing who they are fighting.

[pilferk]

Well thats a lot of hot air.
MAYBE the best way to protect our homeland is not have an attack here?
Sounds like a no brainer to me
4 years 3 months and counting. Sounds like a pretty good homeland security plan was established.

So then Clinton's national security plan was VERY successful after Feb 26, 1993, right? ?'Cause, lets face it, we didn't get attacked again til he was out of office.

And its working. Right before your very eyes and you choose to ignore it.
What ? you put a time frame on it, it has to work for ten years then you will believe it, 20 years, 50.
Thats ignorant, and frankly insulting.

No, I choose to trust an independant, appointed comissions opinions on the state of our readiness.

Or is it the brave young men and womens sacrifices that bother you? I highly doubt that.

Why? Because they don't seem to matter to you?

You dont give two shits about them or you would honor what they are doing instead of ridiculing their methods.

Bullshit. ?You can respect what our troops do for us, defending the very freedoms we're using, and disagree with the CIC and this administration.

And YOU, you liberals collectively and openly bash a plan that is working.

I see your definition of "working" is as loose as your definition of "caution" is.

And thats exactly what you want, you argue you are right tooth and nail, so that makes you anti American in this book.
To a sickening stomache wrenching level no less.
Give it a rest and just try to see whats happening before history has to point it out to you when your old and gray.
And you'll probably tell your grandchildren how you were onboard all along. sickening.

And there you go, making up what we want, think, and feel again. ?

And I particularly like the "wait and judge in hindsight" argument, given how much you tell us we judge the war using hindsight too often. ?So, which is it? ?Judge using hindsight or not? ?Or is it just you want us to use it ONLY when it allows you to play the "what if" game to paint some picture where this war is judged as a success?

[shades]

Im not even going to address promethius view that we should have waited and let the inspectors do their job.
Please, the inspectors had 10 years+ and were being kicked out every time they got close to anything I would presume.
lest you choose to believe Sadaam was just insulted by the nature of their search method.
AND, if we wouldnt have given Sadaam so much lead time I still think we would have found more than we found.

We were pussyfooting around with the UN for months and Sadaam new fully well someone was coming in one way or the other.
A parent gives a kid 8 months notice they are going to search his room theres a good chance whatever it is they are looking for wont be there
when they finally go in.
And the parent child analogy is not a stretch seeing the man was being punished by the very body dilly dallying around about the 'need' to go in.
You want to belive him and give him the benefit of the doubt, but where theres smoke theres probably fire.

And what gives me or you the knowledge to say what is right and what is wrong on who we bring the war on terror to.
What? because we heard on CNN that Iraq doesnt harbor terrorists.
If you think for one minute Sadaam wouldnt like to see the USA brought down, by whatever means, you should change channels once in a while.
And if you think he didnt have the means, again.
Motive and means is lacking but opportunity and thats intelligence 101 from way back.
We cant IMO take a chance with the stakes what they are allow terror to gain the upper hand.
And we must leave the war to those with the ways means. Sad, but true.
Whats the worse that can happen, Iraq be filled with people that hate America? news flash.
best case has already transpired.
cross America and take notice.

Err on the side of caution. War sucks but dodging airplanes, breathing radiation or germ warfare, or even living under the threat trumps all.

JMO

[pilferk]

Im not even going to address promethius view that we should have waited and let the inspectors do their job.
Please, the inspectors had 10 years+ and were being kicked out every time they got close to anything I would presume.
lest you choose to believe Sadaam was just insulted by the nature of their search method.
AND, if we wouldnt have given Sadaam so much lead time I still think we would have found more than we found.

You're not?  Cause it seems like you just did (and continue to do so in the next paragraph)

We were pussyfooting around with the UN for months and Sadaam new fully well someone was coming in one way or the other.
A parent gives a kid 8 months notice they are going to search his room theres a good chance whatever it is they are looking for wont be there
when they finally go in.
And the parent child analogy is not a stretch seeing the man was being punished by the very body dilly dallying around about the 'need' to go in.
You want to belive him and give him the benefit of the doubt, but where theres smoke theres probably fire.

A conspiracy theory that is discredited, directly, by the information we've since garnered.  THERE WERE NO WMD'S.  THEY DIDN'T EXIST.  To try to say otherwise is an outright distortion of facts.

Something, FYI, that the UN inspectors on the ground just prior to the invasion, were pretty much telling us.

And what gives me or you the knowledge to say what is right and what is wrong on who we bring the war on terror to.

Um, the fact that the population of this country is "writing the checks", both the dollars and the asses?

What? because we heard on CNN that Iraq doesnt harbor terrorists.

No, because we have hard, irrefutable evidence that they had no real links to Al Queada.

If you think for one minute Sadaam wouldnt like to see the USA brought down, by whatever means, you should change channels once in a while.

Maybe true.  True of some other countries too.

But having the means to do so is a good measure of the ACTUAL threat level of the country.

Iraq didn't have them.  Iraq NEVER had the means to DIRECTLY attack this country.  Something that's been pointed out to you in the past, I think (Say, around mid September).

Politico-amnesia strikes again.

And if you think he didnt have the means, again.

And you have proof, now, that he did?  Cause the last time I checked he couldn't have delievered squat to these shores.

Err on the side of caution. War sucks but dodging airplanes, breathing radiation or germ warfare, or even living under the threat trumps all.

JMO

Again, we see your version of caution results in hundreds of billions spent, thousands of lives lost, and a laundry list of other detrimental effects....all to find out what the UN Inspectors were telling us prior to the invasion: No WMD's.  Which, FYI, is what this war was about....until we didn't find anything, that is.

And with that one move, we gave the Islamic extremists a nice lighteningrod to aid recruitment AND a nice geographic rallying point to find us.  And sent our boys in with too few resources, too few men, and not clearly enough defined objectives.  Great.

[sandman]

White House Slams Dean

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House criticized Democratic Party Chairman  Howard Dean on Tuesday for saying it is wrong to think the United States will win in  Iraq, saying he was sending the wrong message to U.S. troops.

Dean told San Antonio, Texas, radio station WOAI that "the idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong."

He predicted the Democratic Party would come together on a proposal to withdraw National Guard and Reserve troops immediately, and all U.S. forces within two years.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said     President George W. Bush is "focused on our plan for victory," and will give the second in a series of speeches on Wednesday about the way forward in Iraq looking ahead to December 15 elections.

"I think that on the eve of historic elections, it sends the wrong message to our troops. America wants our troops to win and we have a plan to help them succeed and we know that they will," McClellan said.

He suggested Dean had some explaining to do.

"I think those are remarks for him to clarify," McClellan said, calling it "absolutely the wrong message to send to our troops when we are on the verge of historic accomplishments."

Dean called Iraq "the same situation we had in Vietnam."

"Everybody then kept saying, 'Just another year, just stay the course, we'll have a victory.' Well, we didn't have a victory, and this policy cost the lives of an additional 25,000 troops because we were too stubborn to recognize what was happening," he said.

Dean is a former governor of Vermont who used anti-war rhetoric, smart use of the Internet and fund-raising prowess to become at one point a top contender for the role of Democratic candidate for president in 2004. His outspoken style has produced both admirers and critics in and out of the party.

Bush has rejected setting a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, saying it would encourage the Iraqi insurgency. His administration has recently gone on the offensive against critics of the war by warning that calls to withdraw could hurt the morale of U.S. troops there.

[Jamie]

Listen, I am not going pick on you.? It is just too easy to do so with this mess your wrote.?

No, go ahead humiliate me. If you say you can then do it.

[shades]

trust me, In some circles huniliating you and others who share your views borders childs play.

I actually just  read above that a liberal actually believes Sadaam didnt have the means to deliver an attack on our shores.
When even my 12 year old nephew brought up how easily a breifcase full of evil could bring down a city.

Having the means has been established in most intelligent circles as being a worldwide capability.
that leaves you wth motive and opportunity.
Motive we have little control over being the cowards wont even identify themselves, and remembering your dealing with people who strap tnt to thier own torsos.

So opportunity is really the only thing you can control.
And a liberals idea of ignoring it is pretty lame.
Wake up, thats coffee you smell.

[Jamie]

trust me, In some circles huniliating you and others who share your views borders childs play.

Trust me the same thing could be said about people who share your beliefs, and if it's so easy to do maybe you guys should do it more often instead of threatening to do it all the time with this 'I could do it but I don't want to' talk.

I actually just? read above that a liberal actually believes Sadaam didnt have the means to deliver an attack on our shores.

Well inspections and a fully fledged invasion of Iraq shows evidence that he didn't, not to say that there is no possible way that he could, but as of yet there is no evidence to suggest that; beyond assumptions of course.

When even my 12 year old nephew brought up how easily a breifcase full of evil could bring down a city.

Well, assuming by "briefcase of evil" you mean Saddam, he is indeed right, but again there is no proof that he had the capability of doing so, suspitions yes, but proof no. Suspition is not enough motive to start a war that kills thousands of people now is it?

Having the means has been established in most intelligent circles as being a worldwide capability.

Again it is possible but these so called "established" facts are only suspitions, if it is true then where are the WMDs? A bunch of opinions is not grounds to go to war.

that leaves you wth motive and opportunity.
Motive we have little control over being the cowards wont even identify themselves, and remembering your dealing with people who strap tnt to thier own torsos.

That appears to be groups such as Al Queida you are adressing there, and going by most of the evidence we actually have at this point, Al Queida and the Iraqi government are not official allies. No denying that Saddam was a ruthless and brutal dictator, but to our knowledge he has never officialy employed anyone to strap tnt to their torsos.

So opportunity is really the only thing you can control.
And a liberals idea of ignoring it is pretty lame.

Wait a minute I thought according to the majority of the right wing, on this board at least, liberals are giving NO solutions to the problem, now we are just ignoring it. Thanks for the update.

[Booker Floyd]

trust me, In some circles huniliating you and others who share your views borders childs play.

 

Speaking of humiliating, why wont you respond to this post?

Childs play is a good description for your posts...

I actually just? read above that a liberal actually believes Sadaam didnt have the means to deliver an attack on our shores.

Where do these liberals get such ideas...

"[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." - Colin Powell

"But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt. " - Condoleeza Rice

"Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program." - Charles Duelfer Report

"ISG, however, has uncovered no indication that Iraq had resumed fissile material or nuclear weapon research and development activities since 1991. " - Charles Duelfer Report

"...it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place". - Addenda to Duelfer Report

[SLCPUNK]

MAYBE the best way to protect our homeland is not have an attack here?
Sounds like a no brainer to me
4 years 3 months and counting. Sounds like a pretty good homeland security plan was established.

Asshat:

By your own "logic" Clinton kept us safe after the first WTC attack until W took office.

I guess London, and Spain missed the memo about "keeping it over there" huh?

[SLCPUNK]

Im not even going to address promethius view that we should have waited and let the inspectors do their job.
Please, the inspectors had 10 years+ and were being kicked out every time they got close to anything I would presume.
lest you choose to believe Sadaam was just insulted by the nature of their search method.
AND, if we wouldnt have given Sadaam so much lead time I still think we would have found more than we found.

Hate to break it to you, but it was Bush not Saddam that kicked the inspectors out. Saddam was willing to give more time.

The biggest lie you guys tell on a daily basis the "Saddam kicked us out" lie.

Not true. We could have avoided this mess, but Bush just had to go overseas to open Al Capone's vault.

[RichardNixon]

Simple Question:

If you support this war and are between the age of 18-35, why are you on this board now reading this? If you think this war is worth it, why don't you enlist in the army and go "fight for freedom"? The best way to know if you really support a war is if you are willing to fight in it. The only war in recent times I would fight in is WW2.

[sandman]

Simple Question:

If you support this war and are between the age of 18-35, why are you on this board now reading this? If you think this war is worth it, why don't you enlist in the army and go "fight for freedom"? The best way to know if you really support a war is if you are willing to fight in it. The only war in recent times I would fight in is WW2.

that is an un-american statement.

it's a childish, and simple-minded argument. and it's not one that you should throw out in these boards in an attempt to diminish those you disagree with.

you have no idea what people's personal situations are on these boards. they could be handicapped, they could have family committments, etc.

so to try to demean those of us on this board that are for the war by making that statement is really low.

and just ask a soldier if your statement holds any weight, and the large majority would say no.

[pilferk]

trust me, In some circles huniliating you and others who share your views borders childs play.

I actually just? read above that a liberal actually believes Sadaam didnt have the means to deliver an attack on our shores.
When even my 12 year old nephew brought up how easily a breifcase full of evil could bring down a city.

Having the means has been established in most intelligent circles as being a worldwide capability.
that leaves you wth motive and opportunity.
Motive we have little control over being the cowards wont even identify themselves, and remembering your dealing with people who strap tnt to thier own torsos.

So opportunity is really the only thing you can control.
And a liberals idea of ignoring it is pretty lame.
Wake up, thats coffee you smell.

Prove it.  Prove he had the means.

Because, from EVERY report that's been released, he didn't.  His ordinance wasn't sophisticated enough to make it to the UK, nevermind the US.  And as for your "suitcase of evil" theory...one small problem.  The materials he DID have (and we're talking in the early 90's, when it actually existed) wasn't small enough to be delivered in the manner you're suggesting.

So, unless you can prove otherwise, I'd say you're grossly misinformed.  Which, given your statements of the past, doesn't really surprise me.

[RichardNixon]

Simple Question:

If you support this war and are between the age of 18-35, why are you on this board now reading this? If you think this war is worth it, why don't you enlist in the army and go "fight for freedom"? The best way to know if you really support a war is if you are willing to fight in it. The only war in recent times I would fight in is WW2.

that is an un-american statement.

it's a childish, and simple-minded argument. and it's not one that you should throw out in these boards in an attempt to diminish those you disagree with.

you have no idea what people's personal situations are on these boards. they could be handicapped, they could have family committments, etc.

so to try to demean those of us on this board that are for the war by making that statement is really low.

and just ask a soldier if your statement holds any weight, and the large majority would say no.

That's a nice non-answer and a way to run around the question, by throwing it right back. So it's all well in good to let the others fight for a war that you support, but not you. Sure there are people who are handicapped, but most everyone one who supports the war between the ages of 18-35 would be listed 1-A if we still had the draft.

[shades]

you guys dont know what you're talking about.
How could you possibly know what his capabilities were or were not?

So you have to trust someone to make those calls. Or you are all dead. hiding in your basement somewhere waiting on the all clear while radiation ?rains down. ? people out there want to do this and wouldnt hesitate if they could pull it off.
Its real shit that i would rather be on the offensive preventing than the defensive waiting for.
If its all the same to you, if you DONT MIND.
Dont get complacent because its been 4 years.

So I trust my democratically elected government to do whatever it has to.
You gotta another idea, Im still waitin.
cause all you have said is......NOTHING

Find Osama? please, hes dead.
Go to Syria? their next Im sure

And you'll respond with "he wasnt democratically elected, he stole the election"
"americans approval of him has dropped in the recent polls."
blah blah blah
meanwhile al queada is searching the world over for some state sponsored financing and cover to allow them to do the unspeakable ..again.

And someone is trying to do something about it and you whine.....
Thank God the real youth of this country has risen to the challenge, voluntarily.
God help us all if your kind was the norm rather than the exception.
You're a minority, with no ideas.