'we haven't been attacked since 9-11'...that's a bragging point?

of course i don't get the logic behind this lame excuse for keeping bush. we haven't had another terror attack on our soil, so we shouldn't change horses in midstream. gimmee a break.

a guest finally stepped up to the plate and said that point does make a good argument, that it could mean they have not tried to attack.

....we had Dubya in the White House. That is just as logical a point.

That's just as logical as "Dubya is a good pretzeldent, becuz we-uns ain't been attacked no more..."

Atta flew, and Dubya KNEW!

which was exactly my point if you had read more than the Subject!

I'm agreeing with you.
Sheesh.....

the only excuse I can offer is that I was so enraged by the spin the administration was putting on the PDB that I was not in my right mind :)

I'm waiting for the requisite references to the fabled ClintonCock as an excuse from Scotty and Rush tomorrow...
:)

the world trade towers were bombed don't you?

as to the original question, i am amazed that something hasn't happened since 9-11. that day i was envisioning a US similar to israe, with bus bombings etc. i'm not ready to bow to bush as protector obviously, but i am surprised.

We haven't been attacked by any bombers, that is true. But if we are attacked, they will say, 'We've only been attacked one time since Bush has been in office..."

attacks were of domestic origin, probably anti-abortion thugs. That's why there's been so LITTLE info about them.

During a debate where the moderator made this absurd claim.

I need to write that one down and use it on the Repubs I work with.

the acknowledged national debt is $7,166,444,680,961 and counting. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
my last bank statement said my savings were earning 1/2 of a percent interest. interest on the debt is, i believe, the second largest budget item. if rates go up there will be no money for anything but paying interest on the debt. our posterity are under the most wicked kind of attack.

That is what I say when I hear this.

Well.....when was it? Oklahoma City Bombing (rotten bastards) is taken out by the qualifiers "foreign" (ON EDIT)and "IN" in the initial question.

The answer:
.
.
.
.
.
2/26/93 The first World Trade Center bombing.

36 days into the Clinton presidency-Did/have you ever heard any Clinton officials try to blame Poppa Bush's administration?

BTW-Clarke in his book says that in 1992 Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK with no visa or passport not even fake ones........nothing what so ever. He was given a form to fill out and a number to call the INS to schedule an appointment and off he went to the taxi stand and he disappeared into NYC. One last little tidbit (it might be important)there was a guy who was with Yousef who was "detained because he had 'How to Make a Bomb' manuals on him" (page77)

Have you ever heard the media make the Poppa Bush WTC1 connection?

HE'S SKEERED OF HORSES.

:wtf:

Heck, he's probably afeared of the damn stream, too.

The misadministration goes to new lows every day.

because Al Queida doesn't need to attack us anymore. They've already gotten us to fall right into their trap by invading Iraq and inflaming the Muslim world. When Al Queida planned 9/11, their goal was not to kill Americans, but mainly to provoke us into doing just what we have already done. Why should Al Queida waste their time and resources trying to attack us again?

Furthermore, you can use this reasoning to shoot down the "Terrorists would rather have Kerry as Pres." line. If anyone says that to you, just tell them that the terrorists would rather have Bush* as President because he is dumb enough and greedy enough to fall right into Al Queida's trap.