<p>Kluge very good info. Interesting reading. While my husband and son were familar with this I wasn’t. Thank you.</p>
<p>It’s so easy to give glib responses. Is that what makes them true to you. Unfortunately you feel some checkmate move by giving these responses, but they still are just glib statements with no facts.One word punches.</p>
<pre><code> I have posted numerous times here in length. You either one keep ignoring them, or two do not wish to read them. I have asked you time and time again; your president Bill Clinton had three separate opportunities to take out OBL and bomb several terrorist camps in Afghanistan but did not do so. In the 90s, were were attacked on our OWN soil at the WTC thanks to Al-Quaida, yet Clinton still refused to take action against these terrorist threats. Numerous other terror attacks in the 90s were thanks to the Taliban, even with Clintons full knowledge of them. You, my friend, have not answered my direct question to you as to explain why Clinton did not expedite on that unique opportunity to wipe out many terror camps and OBL. Liberals, including yourself, grasp upon your only arguement of the War in Iraq and WMDs. Your glib responses tiptoed around my original questions and brought this discussion once again to the Iraq War. You, and several other liberals here, still refuse to answer my questions regarding the Clinton Administration.
I know you and probably CGM will say," Well, Bush one time said he doesn't care about OBL." Well, news flash everybody, on the past few State of the Union addresses, Bush has claimed that OBL is a prime threat and must be dealt with swiftly. Bush had the compunction and will to fight back at terror throughout the world even with strong liberal resistance in Congress. Clinton was a weak and imcompetant leader in foreign affairs, especially with regards to terror threat. So, come now, liberal, please explain to this all to me now. I have questions, and you, my dear friend liberals, will give me answers. No tiptoeing around my question please. Thank-you!
We probably will never wipe out terrorism in my lifetime, but Bush at least go us started on eradication of terror threats.
</code></pre>
<p>So REL which is it that he cares or he doesnt…you don’t seem to take Bush at his word, do you…</p>
<p>Let me see, what liberal congress are you referring to? The ones that voted for war, the Republican congress during Clinton’s years…share with me what liberal congress you are referring to…</p>
<p>Eradication of terror threats? Terrorism, since 9/11 has increased exponentially worldwide! Rather than “stamping it out”, we are fueling the fire.</p>
<p>Clinton followed the lead of leftist leaders Cut-and-Run-in-Lebanon Reagan and GHW Bush. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with al Qaeda. So Bush’s fight against terrorism comes down to his incomplete invasion of Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Sideways, back in post #43, I asked the question,
</p>
<p>I still haven’t seen a logical response.
I think that this was more than clear in the movie, so was not fictionalized.
I didn’t see anything related to the war in Iraq in the movie. In case you didn’t notice, the movie ended on September 11, 2001.</p>
<p>Also, the most recent polling data shows that 55% of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s performance, not the 68% you quote. <a href=“http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm[/url]”>http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm</a></p>
<p>Just a suggestion, but this conversation would be more interesting if people provided logical arguments with supporting data – the stream of conciousness approach just seems muddled to me.</p>
<p>Kluge, can’t you show me nuthin’ but surrender?</p>
<p>I’ve looked through your “document dump.” There is nothing there that indicates the United States was training south Americans in torture. </p>
<p>Total BS.</p>
<p>“based on a true story”…well, even though many details may fictionalized, there are certain things that are true no matter how you say it.</p>
<p>
This sounds like hyperbole to me. Do you have data to support this statement? If any of the reading I’ve done shows anything, it’s that terrorists have been actively trying to get our attention for the last twenty years. </p>
<p>September 11,2001 was the most egregious attack, but are you forgetting about the first WTC bombing in 1993, under Clinton’s watch? How about the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 – once again under Clinton? Or the 1998 (still under Clinton!!!) embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Do you remember the USS Cole in October 2000 (under Clinton again)? Did you feel safer when Clinton, Berger and Albright were running the show? In retrospect, I think we were in greater danger then.</p>
<p>What’s changed is our perception of these acts as terrorism. September 11 was a turning point in our government’s outlook. Long distance bombs, appeasement and the UN weren’t going to stop a group of people who will only be satisfied with the total destruction of western culture. </p>
<p>I like debate, and the multi-party system is a wonderful thing. Let’s enjoy the process of debating when this country, and all western democracies, is no longer under threat of annihilation. I think we should make sure we’re safe first.</p>
<p>TODAY’S TOP ANALYSES
Bush Job Approval at 39%
President George W. Bush’s job approval rating is currently at 39%, according to a new Gallup poll. Bush’s ratings have hovered around the 40% mark since June. Americans’ approval of Congress is 29%, which is little changed from polls conducted in recent months. And, 32% of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country…</p>
<p>This is a Gallup poll. I hope facts don’t get in your way.</p>
<p>Oh…68% unsatisfied…</p>
<p>SJM - Tazmania and Kenya…
don’t forget Syria (today!) but that is under Bush doesn’t count.</p>
<p>Or the countless roadside bombs and suicide bombs in Iraq that have killed our soldiers, but that is Bush too. Does that count.</p>
<p>What about bombings in Spain and England that also killed americans do those count.</p>
<p>sjmom:
do you really think that western civilization is under the threat of annihilation? do you anticipate radical islamists occupying the U.S.? </p>
<p>Terrorism as a tactic has been used for thousands of years. Any war against ‘terrorism’ is certainly open ended. Radical Jihad as an ideology will not be defeated by force of arms.</p>
<p>Terrorists attacks during the Clinton administration were somewhat less than under the preceding Republican administrations (Lockerbee, Achille Lauro, Beirut Embassy, Kuwait Embassy). Worldwide deaths from terrorism have increased under Bush.
<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/[/url]”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/</a>
These definitions are so loose that they can be used to support any argument. I don’t see how one can conclude that there is less chance for any individual American to be killed now than before 9/11.</p>
<p>Thank you Gla. You are more eloquent than me.</p>
<p>This from Gallup also…</p>
<p>Mood of the Nation</p>
<p>Thirty-two percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country right now, while the majority of Americans, 67%, say they are dissatisfied. The current results are similar to the 31% satisfaction average since the start of the year. At that time, 36% of Americans expressed satisfaction with the state of the nation. Satisfaction remained at this level in February before it started to decline; public satisfaction was 29% in March, 27% in April, and 25% in May. Americans’ satisfaction began to improve in June and has fluctuated between 28% and 33% since that time.</p>
<p>"Since 11 September 2001, Al Qaeda has directed, financed, or played a role in 30 fatal operations in 12 countries causing 2500 casualties including 440 deaths. These figures, from the Rand-MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base, do not include the activities of al-Zarqawi in Iraq, nor do they include the activities of independent groups friendly to al-Qaeda.</p>
<p>On a global scale: terrorist activity and violence has grown worse, not better since 11 September 2001. Average levels of terrorist violence that would have been considered extreme in the period prior to 9/11 have become the norm in the years since. And there is no sign that this trend is abating. This much is evident from a review of the terrorism incident database maintained by the Rand Corporation for the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), which is funded by the US Department of Homeland Security. Surveying incidents for the period January 1998 through 11 August 2006 shows that:
- </p>
<ul>
<li><p>The rate of terrorism fatalities for the 59 month period following 11 September 2001 is 250 percent that of the 44.5 month period preceding and including the 9/11 attacks. </p></li>
<li><p>The rate of terrorist incidents for the post-9/11 period is 268 percent that of the period prior to and including 11 September 2001. This implies a 167 percent increase in what might be called the average monthly rate of incidents.</p></li>
<li><p>A fair portion of the increased activity is related to the war in Iraq but not all. Removing Iraq from the picture shows an increase in the average monthly rate of terrorism fatalities of more than 10 percent for the post-9/11 period. The increase in the rate of incidents not counting Iraq is 75 percent.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Another way of analyzing the data is to treat the 9/11 attacks as a dependent variable or as a “pivot point”. This allows us to ask: “What was the baseline incidence of terror prior to 9/11 and how has it changed since?” The baseline prior to 9/11 is indicative of the level of organization, capability, and activity that eventually expressed itself in the 9/11 attacks.
*
- Removing 9/11 from the picture shows a 300 percent increase in fatalities for the post-9/11 period (including Iraq) or an 80 percent increase (excluding Iraq) when compared with the pre-9/11 period. The comparable change with regard to incidents is 168 percent increase with Iraq and 76 percent increase without.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.mediamouse.org/features/090706globa.php[/url]”>http://www.mediamouse.org/features/090706globa.php</a></p>
<p>
“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition…whose weapons include such diverse elements as fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice red uniforms.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I consistently rely on facts. In the Gallup poll above, you’ll notice that President Bush’s approval rating is 39%, as you note. However, that doesn’t mean his DISAPPROVAL rating is 60+% as you imply. Some of those polled are unsure, so you can’t just subtract the approval rating from 100% and assume the remainder is disapproval. If you want to use facts, it would be more persuasive if you did so accurately.</p>
<p>By the way, although you and I disagree, I don’t intentionally include disparaging remarks about you. I think your comment, “don’t let the facts get in the way” is both rude and unnecessary.</p>
<p>Sideways, did I miss something? Were American interests bombed in Syria?</p>
<p>I do think that it is the stated intention of Bin Laden and his followers to annihilate the US. <a href=“http://www.emergency.com/bladen98.htm[/url]”>http://www.emergency.com/bladen98.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that I thought they’d be successful, but clearly that is their threat.</p>
<p>You may want to note the date on this article – 1998 (here’s the surprise – Clinton’s watch!).</p>
<p>Gunmen repelled at U.S. Embassy in Syria </p>
<p>Check today’s news. The embassy was attacked.</p>
<p>The nation has begun to realize that the policies implemented by this administration is not the direction we want to go in. Our aggressive strike first foreign policy is making us a target. That is 68% of us are dissatified with the job that our President is doing. He has hit a record low approval ( 39 % ) and has hovered there for month(30-32% actual low)). You can’t dispute that. Lowest in history ever. EVER!
Does it matter if it’s 60% or the 55% that disapprove.
Majority of americans don’t think our president is on the right track.</p>
<p>
Here’s a question for you: if terrorists attack and there are no American casualties, is that analagous to the 1st WTC bombing, the Khobar Towers, the embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and the USS Cole? I think not.
<a href=“Get Latest News, India News, Breaking News, Today's News - NDTV.com”>Get Latest News, India News, Breaking News, Today's News - NDTV.com;
<p>Does that mean we don’t count it?</p>