McCain Top Aide Says Terrorist Attack Will Help Republicans (Congress, security, liberal)

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by TheJickler

Everyone knows the 9/11 Commission Report has a liberal bias.

LOL

http://www.tinfoilhatparty.org/images/tinfoil-hat.jpg (broken link)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Sunshine Chick

We are already under attack by terrorists who want to destroy America !!

IT'S CALLED ---- LIBERALISM --------

Oh Nooooooooooooooo!

Lock up the children!

Mothers, hide your daughters!

Check under those beds at night!

There are people about who actually believe the Constitution to be more than mere suggestions!

Danger! Danger! Danger!

[Hasdrubal]

at least he's sincere.

[sanrene]

Try the 9/11 Commission Report for that FACT.

Where in the report? Please cite the relevant passage.

[sanrene]

I don't see what the big deal is. Black is not "wishing" for a terrorist attack. But if one were to occur, there is NO DOUBT that would benefit McCain.

Truth hurts, I know. Fact it, Obamatons; The dems/libs are WEAK, WEAK, WEAK on foreign policy and the electorate knows it.

[newtoli]

Originally Posted by sanrene

Where in the report? Please cite the relevant passage.

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)
CNN.com - 9/11 panel stands by finding on al Qaeda, Iraq - Jul 6, 2004


National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Section 10.3

[ViewFromThePeak]

Originally Posted by sanrene

I don't see what the big deal is. Black is not "wishing" for a terrorist attack. But if one were to occur, there is NO DOUBT that would benefit McCain.

The right winged newspaper The Economist disagrees. They see it as two possible scenarios, one of which includes anger at the current administration for bankrupting us and still not being able to stop a terrorist attack. The current administration is coupled with McCain, and there's no getting around that.

By "buying" our supposed safety, the Bush/McCain team (yes, they're a team whether you like it or not) has gambled big time on not getting attacked. If we ran up huge deficits on military spending and still were not able to prevent another 9/11, I would certainly be angry at them as would other individuals, conservative or liberal.

[sanrene]

I refer you to page 66 of the 9/11 commission report.

There was no "collaborative operational relationship", but there were ties and contacts.

Of course the papers just used that pull-quote of "no collaborative relationship". Dig a little deeper.

Please cite the relevant passage/section about Cheney.

[sanrene]

By "buying" our supposed safety, the Bush/McCain team (yes, they're a team whether you like it or not) has gambled big time on not getting attacked.

Sorry. The concensus directly AFTER 9/11 was that we WOULD be attacked again. It is amazing that we have not. It's not luck. It's "W"'s policies and aggressive OFFENSIVE stance against the terrorists.

He has united the world's intelligence agencies, he has kept these murderous thugs too busy trying to stay alive than plotting another attack, although they have tried.

You can thank "W" that we haven't been attacked again.

[sanrene]

BTW, I never thought Saddam was involved in 9/11.