Here's some quotes from the Right, who actually wish we were attacked again. They alledge that being attacked is actually good for the country. (Ofcourse conservatives do, that's why they orchestrated the first 911 attack, but that's another thread)

Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Do We Need Another Terrorist Attack?

ABC is reporting that Al Qaeda cells are already in the United States or on their way preparing for the next terrorist attack. Of course, no one wants another terrorist attack on American soil, but many conservatives are coming to the reluctant conclusion that, regretfully, another terrorist attack may be just what we need right now to wake the country up.

You could almost see former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum shake his head sadly as he told Hugh Hewitt on his radio show, "Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK." While a series of "unfortunate events" even worse than the ones in the Lemony Snicket books would certainly be unfortunate, it wouldn't be all bad news since people would start supporting the War in Iraq again

http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/07/do-we-need-another-terrorist-attack.html


Saturday, July 14, 2007
We Need Another Terrorist Attack

What is it about some American’s short memory? It was not so long ago that people were jumping out of the WTC towers to avoid the flames, and yet today the public is not galvanized into action to seek out and destroy those harboring the Islamo-fascist philosophy that led to the attacks. What the hell is the matter with a people that are more interested in the antics of Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton or what is the hot topic with Dr. Phil or Oprah Winfrey than about the people who are intent upon killing Americans? Pres. Bush said in response to Helen Thomas at his press conference the other day that the people are tired. Are we intellectually and morally soft as a people such that we are wearied with the war

http://simivalleysophist.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-need-another-terrorist-attack.html

About a month ago, Dennis Milligan, the chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party, sounded pretty excited about the prospect of domestic terrorism. “At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/11415.html

Posted on Thu, Aug. 09, 2007 email thisprint thisreprint or license thisStu Bykofsky | To save America, we need another 9/11ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.
What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.

It is not Bush and it is not Hillary and it is not Daily Kos or Bill O'Reilly or Giuliani or Barack. It is global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnists/stu_bykofsky/20070809_Stu_Bykofsky___To_save_America__we_need_a nother_9_11.html

Can you Imagine what the Coservatives would say if the Democracts uttered this type of treasonus language?

Conservatives wouldn't say that. People with stocks in Haliburton might say such a thing.

Conservatives wouldn't say that.

Some might... but the fact that they are conservative isn't why; it's because they are mindless assholes, a fact that has nothing to do with party affiliation.

~String

Are all mindless assholes the same? Does the effect of the mindlessness matter? Is there any correlations between style/effect of mindlessness and declared identity of the mindless?

For instance, if you were to go with the word "soulless" instead of "mindless", I might point out that we could argue a concentration within conservative politics. Likewise, are mindless assholes uniform, or is there diversity, and where do those diverse segments gather?

There are pleanty of mindless and souless assholes who are liberal. The fact that a conservative is labled mindless and souless is done so out of typical partisan desire to demonize an opponent.

~String

Well, right. But I still think you're equivocating the effects. I've known plenty of mindless assholes in my life who simply aren't as dangerous as the ones considered in this topic. I'm sure you have too. There are so many among the human species that, while we need not leap straight to political affiliation, we also cannot overlook the diversity of style and effect.

...while we need not leap straight to political affiliation, we also cannot overlook the diversity of style and effect.

I see your point.

While I don't think that this douchebag's statemens are reflective of all/most Republicans, I do feel that the Republican party does NOT do enough to drive them out of the party and/or make a point of distancing itself from such remarks.

The net effect is, in the end, that many people justifiably associate this kind of nonsense with the Republican party.

~String

We are defined by what we tolerate. That goes for the GOP and the USA. We are a nation agitating for terrorism and war.

We are defined by what we tolerate.

I like that quote.

If that's true-- then terrorists better run and hide.

~String

Admittedly, we all prefer our own brand of douchebag.

Maybe we should take a poll. Summer's Eve? Massengill? Does Tom's Natural make a douche?

Does anyone remember a short-lived FOX sketch comedy show called The Edge? They had the best douche joke I've ever seen: The Judds (impersonated, obviously), doing a typical douche commercial: "Mama, do you ever have those days when ... you just don't feel clean?" Anyway, it ends up with them singing a song about douches, their microphones unfolding into douches and squirting water all over the place, and the punchline is, "Now available in Summer Breeze, Forest Pine, and new Smokey-Oakey Barbecue!" Absolutely priceless.

Does Tom's Natural make a douche?

I would be surprised if it didn't. They make pretty much everything else. I was just at GiantEagle (our local mega-mart grocery store) and they had, I kid you not, like an entire aisle of "TOM'S" shit. NO. I prefer artificially created chemically infused, unnatural stuff.

OH-- and as to the spoof commerical-- I know I've seen it, but I could have sworn that it was In Living Color (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Living_Color).

~String

superstring99: "I like that quote."

It wasn't a quote.

"If that's true-- then terrorists better run and hide."

No, it's less of a liability for them. Because terrorists not in the employ of states do operate without institutions, their crimes can be less definitive of their societies.

Some might... but the fact that they are conservative isn't why; it's because they are mindless assholes, a fact that has nothing to do with party affiliation.

~StringCan`t democrates be conservative? I`m saying this because I have heard many Amercians (pre-911) say that the USA needs a "good war" to get the economy going :bugeye:

Hallelujah, it's raining war. But a "good war" is hard to find.

Can`t democrates be conservative? I`m saying this because I have heard many Amercians (pre-911) say that the USA needs a "good war" to get the economy going :bugeye:

This DEFINATELY ain't a "good war".

~String

I agree. It's fairly obvious this war hasn't helped the economy (which shouldn't be the sole factor behind a war anyway). In fact, it's hindered it.

it has to do with the mindset of the neoconservatives who have hijacked the republican party another attack lets them go see if you don't keep voting for us this will happen more frequently most don't because most republicans like most people in general are decent but there are crazy assholes in any group that are just filled with hate you cannot really do anything about cept ignore them and not support them

Why are conservatives wishing for another Terrorist attack?
Why were Liberals incapable of protecting us from the 9/11 Twin Towers terrorist attacks?

Why were Liberals incapable of protecting us from the 9/11 Twin Towers terrorist attacks?

Intentional troll or just not very smart.

Intentional troll or just not very smart.
I'm sorry. Did I indirectly question your delusion of adequacy with unerring precision?

No one wants another terrorist attack. Many conservatives are simply frustrated by the half measures we are taking. We see this as leading, almost inevitably, to another terrorist attack. An attack which, ironically, will likely result in the US finally taking the threat of radical Islam seriously.

Wait, I thought the War on Terror was just a bumper-sticker slogan?

No one wants another terrorist attack. Many conservatives are simply frustrated by the half measures we are taking. We see this as leading, almost inevitably, to another terrorist attack. An attack which, ironically, will likely result in the US finally taking the threat of radical Islam seriously.

Agreed. Terrorism on US soil or involving Americans blow. However, we certainly don't need to spend billions of tax dollars funding some strawman department known as Homeland Security to tell us about our present state of alert. Money would be better spent in tightening US borders, precluding immigration except for the well recognized contributors to life, physical and social sciences for ten years or so. Extremists are everywhere -- not just islamic jihadists. Since there's been some rhetoric in the news that the US knew of the 9/11 attacks beforehand (just as we knew about the Pearl Harbor attack), a billion dollar Department of Homeland Security is nothing more than a propaganda machine fueling fear and an instrument to reach the American heart of patriotism under false pretenses to support a "War on Terror" that is as possible in sucess as a War on Killer Bees, or Rattlesnakes, or the common Mosquito. If it wasn't for our voracious need for Middle Eastern Oil, I say we return to the pre-FDR era, become neutral, and isolate ourselves from the Middle Eastern mockery. Let them sort out their own crap, and we'll deal with whomever wins their own civil war.

Learned Hand: "If it wasn't for our voracious need for Middle Eastern Oil, I say we return to the pre-FDR era, become neutral, and isolate ourselves from the Middle Eastern mockery. Let them sort out their own crap, and we'll deal with whomever wins their own civil war."

We can do without Mideast oil right now. We inevitably must wean ourselves from burning petroleum resources as fuel. Conversion to alternative energy sources is good for the US economy. Present strategy has so profoundly fucked up American influence in the region, that we're not going to be calling the shots in the Middle East any more anyway.

I'm sorry. Did I indirectly question your delusion of adequacy with unerring precision?

your question is irrelevent because conservatives were in power therefore the onus of protecting us was on them

your question is irrelevent because conservatives were in power therefore the onus of protecting us was on them

Sorry but the Democrats were in charge of the agencies that should have been protecting us while the terrorists were in planning stages and training. Some Democrats were the ones who kept vital documents out of the hands of the white house untill it was far to late to sift theough them and find the threat.

Of course I don't blame the whol party just the people responsible. Some democrats are fine upstanding people.

Sorry but the Democrats were in charge of the agencies that should have been protecting us while the terrorists were in planning stages and training. Some Democrats were the ones who kept vital documents out of the hands of the white house untill it was far to late to sift theough them and find the threat.

Of course I don't blame the whol party just the people responsible. Some democrats are fine upstanding people.

you mean the agencies that when the clinton adminastration gave the incoming bushies everything they had and told them bin laden will be you biggest concern. the bush adminastration had intell and ignored it. god you sound like so many republicans i have met blame everything bad that happens on the dems but when something good happens oh that was do to something we did quit blameing the dems for bushes failings it god old years ago

Sorry but the Democrats were in charge of the agencies that should have been protecting us while the terrorists were in planning stages and training. Some Democrats were the ones who kept vital documents out of the hands of the white house untill it was far to late to sift theough them and find the threat.

Of course I don't blame the whol party just the people responsible. Some democrats are fine upstanding people.


When Coleen Rowley was an FBI agent in Minneapolis, her office got a lead just three weeks before 9-11: A known Islamic extremist named Zacarias Moussaoui had paid $8000 in cash for lessons to fly a Boeing 747. Rowley's team arrested him and wanted a warrant to search his laptop computer but Rowley's superiors at FBI headquarters said "no."

After 9/11, when it became clear that more could have been done, Rowley wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller a letter pointing out that "no one will ever know" the impact the computer search would have had calling his defense of the agency a "rush to judgment to protect the FBI at all costs." She testified in a Senate hearing a few weeks later. She was chosen by TIME magazine as one of their Persons of the Year in 2002.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/rowley.html

We cannot forget the blame that falls on the people. Arianna Huffington's controversial article about the War on Drugs and 9/11 (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/13312/) makes certain points about the priorities of law enforcement and national security:

So why did the FBI, whose job it is find smoking guns, fail to see the smoking guns popping up all around it?

In announcing his big reorganization plans, Director Robert Mueller seemed to consider the FBI's tragedy of errors a question of flawed management flow charts, nothing that a rejiggered PowerPoint presentation couldn't fix. But there was a much more fundamental problem plaguing the bureau before Sept. 11. And it wasn't one of office politics, but of office-wide priorities. Namely, the agency's crippling addiction to America's war on drugs.

While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of the FBI's financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs.

And this pathological prioritization of the drug war extended well beyond the allocation of money and manpower. It was ingrained in the culture. Counterterrorism units were treated like the bureau's ugly stepchildren, looked down upon by FBI management because they weren't making the kind of high-profile arrests that spruce up a supervisor's resume and make the evening news. Let's face it, canvassing flight schools in search of suspicious students is nowhere near as sexy as one of those big drug busts with the bags of coke or bales of pot piled high for the cameras. (via AlterNet (http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/13312/))

We must remember that the people elected politicians who focused on drugs; the people demanded the focus on drugs. The people did not hold terrorism in high regard. Hell, I remember actually hearing about bin Laden threatening the U.S. in 1996, and I was the only person I knew who gave it any thought. A friend of mine who studied in England in '97 told me it was strange, at first, the perception of English vigilance about "little things" like handbags and backpacks, but after a while, it just seemed part of the routine. This would have been, until the morning of September 11, 2001, too much to ask of Americans. We had a case in Seattle back in the '90s when the bomb squad was called into the courthouse because of a suspicious package. Eventually, they sent the robot to detonate it, and exploded a wrapped box of dildos that had been left under a bench for whatever reason. It was a tremendous joke among the public. Until 9/11, we would rather have died in the explosion than felt like that much of a laughingstock.

We, the people, share a measure of blame for what happened that ugly day in 2001, just as we, the people share a measure of blame for what has happened since.

I agree with much of the above. OBL attacked the US three or four times in the 90s and people were too busy to care. There was not impetus for security, no political pressure to take terrorism seriously. Not to mention, the terrorism in the 80s, which the nation ran away from. I bet a lot of people today don't know that the man behind the embassy and marine barracks bombings in Beirut is still at large...

When Coleen Rowley was an FBI agent in Minneapolis, her office got a lead just three weeks before 9-11: A known Islamic extremist named Zacarias Moussaoui had paid $8000 in cash for lessons to fly a Boeing 747. Rowley's team arrested him and wanted a warrant to search his laptop computer but Rowley's superiors at FBI headquarters said "no."

After 9/11, when it became clear that more could have been done, Rowley wrote FBI Director Robert Mueller a letter pointing out that "no one will ever know" the impact the computer search would have had calling his defense of the agency a "rush to judgment to protect the FBI at all costs." She testified in a Senate hearing a few weeks later. She was chosen by TIME magazine as one of their Persons of the Year in 2002.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/rowley.html

Okay so one minor flub, which might have led to nothing as the Moussaoui laptop data would not have led us to any of the others. It also would have had us looking for new arrivals offering large lump sums for lessons, not the established students who had been in the states for YEARS training.

This minor flub does not exonerate the Clinton administration, especially those who had witheld important data and had made the transition form administration to administration a living hell. They had years of warning and REFUSED to surrender the resports to the Bush administration. I don't blame Bill, he's just a figurehead like George is, I blame the people who held those positions and the person holding their leash.

you mean the agencies that when the clinton adminastration gave the incoming bushies everything they had and told them bin laden will be you biggest concern. the bush adminastration had intell and ignored it. god you sound like so many republicans i have met blame everything bad that happens on the dems but when something good happens oh that was do to something we did quit blameing the dems for bushes failings it god old years ago

Oh god, you know it is gullible idiots like yourself that believe shit like this. I have cousins in Pentagon and Whitehouse, long time staffers who served under both administrations in nonpartisan positions. I have heard accounts of what some Clinton appointees have done. I don't balme Democrats as even Democrats are not that stupid. I blame the individuals in question. Same as i do when Republicans mess up. It isn't the party it's the individuals. Unfortunately thses individuals that failed to give over the intell untill it was possibly too late to do anything with it except move it into the office.

Oh god, you know it is gullible idiots like yourself that believe shit like this. I have cousins in Pentagon and Whitehouse, long time staffers who served under both administrations in nonpartisan positions. I have heard accounts of what some Clinton appointees have done. I don't balme Democrats as even Democrats are not that stupid. I blame the individuals in question. Same as i do when Republicans mess up. It isn't the party it's the individuals. Unfortunately thses individuals that failed to give over the intell untill it was possibly too late to do anything with it except move it into the office.

that when describing the people involved yo labeled them as demacrats implies that you were blaming the dems. at least i'm honest about attacking the repubs

We, the people, share a measure of blame for what happened that ugly day in 2001, just as we, the people share a measure of blame for what has happened since.
What about you? What measure of blame do you own up to?

What measure of blame are you man enough to own up to that doesn't require human shields to hide behind?

You, the person. Share the blame. Share the ugly blame.

Show us the way.

Be a man.

Do it.

Do it.

Show us how to do it.

Show us how to be a fully responsible blameful me amongst the blameful we.

Nice panties, btw.

that when describing the people involved yo labeled them as demacrats implies that you were blaming the dems. at least i'm honest about attacking the repubs

No, I blame a few people that call themselves Democrats, not democrats as a whole.. They also are human beings, do you think I am blaming all humans?

Oh god, you know it is gullible idiots like yourself that believe shit like this. I have cousins in Pentagon and Whitehouse, long time staffers who served under both administrations in nonpartisan positions. I have heard accounts of what some Clinton appointees have done. I don't balme Democrats as even Democrats are not that stupid. I blame the individuals in question. Same as i do when Republicans mess up. It isn't the party it's the individuals. Unfortunately thses individuals that failed to give over the intell untill it was possibly too late to do anything with it except move it into the office.

More Republican folklore. The President had unfettered access to his then Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke has stated that none of the intelligence he provided to Bush was acted upon. When Bush was provided documents like the one he recieved on Aug 6th 2001 titleld "Bin Laden determined to strike the US".

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998(Bill Clinton, cough,cough) bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html

As you can see, he was forwarned on more then one occasion.

More Republican folklore. The President had unfettered access to his then Terrorism Chief Richard Clarke. Richard Clarke has stated that none of the intelligence he provided to Bush was acted upon. When Bush was provided documents like the one he recieved on Aug 6th 2001 titleld "Bin Laden determined to strike the US".

I see you are using democratic folklore to try to counter non-partisan information. Yes, Dick handed over files, but he had done so en masses on August 6th. Crates and crates of them, unlabeled and unmarked. Not to mention the man kept his files in such an odd way you needed to reference other files in his system to get the full effect of the first. So it would take even a large commitee months to sift through it all.


Bush may have been forewarned, if you call being told to "Watch yourself." being forewarned.