<p>ManofHonor -sorry but Thomas Friedman of the NY Times has been a major Bush-basher for several years now - after originally supporting Bush efforts to introduce democracy into the middle east</p>
<p>You dispute the quote above?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know as well as I do that correlation ≠ causation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You say this like it’s somehow an awful thing that he has an independent opinion.</p>
<p>^^ No I do not dispute it, but I fail to see the relevance of your post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have to be right all the time, they have to be right only once.</p>
<p><a href=“Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera”>Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera;
<p>The “great Dem victory” once again the top story in the arab world</p>
<p>I think if you actually believe that Democrats don’t want to protect the United States, you are delusional. Prior to 9/11, many of the protections that were included in the Patriot Act came from the Democratic side of the aisle. Of course, with the Democrats, we will get a better balance of protection of the nation with protection of the liberties that make this country the great nation it is. </p>
<p>The Iraq War was doomed to failure before it began, because the Bush administration made a dishonest case for war. They took our forces away from going after the guy who was responsible for 9/11 to go after Saddam Hussein. Granted, Saddam was a bad man, but we destabilized the only secular nation in the Arab world, making it a haven for the same Muslim fundamentalists who wanted to kill us already. And our abominable policies during the war - the way we treated prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay - seemed designed to inflame the people that we were supposedly there to liberate. </p>
<p>You can continue to look to the Arab world to determine how you should react to the election results, but your fellow Americans have spoken: change the course.</p>
<p>Won’t it make us safer if the Arab world likes the direction our government seems to be headed?</p>
<p>it was a "great’ dem victory…we took back the House and Senate and once again there is balance in government…not just a rubber stamp for Bush’s agenda</p>
<p>maybe now we can get some sanity</p>
<p>as for the use of the word “great” lets see after 12 years of Republicans, and the Republicans denying access for Dems in government, and Bush saying, we will still have it ALL, well, no longer…and no one was sure about the Senate…and voila…the people have spoken, and that is great</p>
<p>Citation, the ‘great Dem victory’ is also once again the top story in Canada’s newspapers. I would imagine it’s the case all around the world. As in the U.S., most of the world is happy with the election results.</p>
<p>I don’t recall the United States occupying Iraq at the time of 911. However, as many Dems have repeatedly suggested, the United States deserved to be attacked - because we all know The Great Satan has long suppressed Muslims throughout the world</p>
<p>Oh great, Alwaysamom, now we have to worry about our terrorist neighbor to the north! ;)</p>
<p>That’s right, garland, and it’s a lonnnnng border! :)</p>
<p>Yep, time to put up another wall–that’s what taxes are for!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tell me, Citation, who are these democrats who have repeatedly suggested that the United States deserves to be attacked because we are the Great Satan? I assume they must be prominent Democrats, probably leaders of the party, right? Not just lone voices of individual people who are way to the left of anyone who just got elected, of course.</p>
<p>Or perhaps you think that pointing out that people in other countries don’t always like what we do is the same thing as suggesting that we deserve to be attacked? That seems like a leap, to me. We can’t expect that actions don’t have reactions, but that is not the same as saying that “America did X, so she deserves to get X in return.”</p>
<p>
momof2: I don’t like euphamisms either. Let’s just call it what it is: The War Against Islamic Jihad.</p>
<p>^^ LOL, u better not term it like that or else you will REALLY get an Islamic Jihad.</p>
<p>Gee Citation,</p>
<p>However, as many Dems have repeatedly suggested, the United States deserved to be attacked - because we all know The Great Satan has long suppressed Muslims throughout the world "</p>
<p>Wasn’t that Pat Roberson that said 9/11 happened because God was angry about how America had moved away from god? I honestly didn’t know Pat was a democrat.</p>
<p>Besides, it’s over. No amount of trying to tell anyone that the dems will help terrorism will matter. They won, you lost, quit whinning about it. Enough people were tried of doing it your way and America changed direction. It’s been less than 24 hours and months before the transition takes place and you’ve decided we’ve lost. </p>
<p>Now if you can see that far into the future, you must have a heck of a stock portfolio. It must be awsome to predict the future so well. But wasn’t it alittle while ago that you were predicting the gop holding onto power?</p>
<p>“Al Qaeda over the past 5 years has made continual threats about imminent major domestic attacks -yet has been unable to carry a single one out”</p>
<p>How many major domestic attacks did al Qaeda carry out in the five years PRIOR to 9/11?</p>
<p>Answer: Zero.</p>
<p>So how does the lack of major domestic attacks in the five years AFTER 9/11 prove that W’s anti-terrorism plans are working?</p>
<p>Answer: It doesn’t.</p>
<p>It’s pretty clear that al-Qaeda’s style is to spread terror via surprise attacks separated by months or years of hibernation. It’s a cruelly efficient way of maximizing our fear, which is the point of the whole enterprise.</p>
<p>By the way, for future reference, al-Jazeera =/= terrorists, unless you believe that everyone in the Arab world is a terrorist by default. That belief, of course, is no different from racism.</p>
<p>I don’t why I am still tickled that the Republicans are being such sore losers.</p>
<p>After six years of their gloating, I plan to gloat for at least another day.</p>