Polls
Login
RSS Feed: Local News
RSS Feed: Sports
RSS Feed: Voice
| Who is protecting America? |
|
|
| Written by Frank Aquila / for the Tracy Press / | |
| Friday, 21 March 2008 | |
|
 Frank Aquila Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, there was a lack of coordination in our gathering of intelligence, even though Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida made a declaration of war against America during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration ignored the threat and essentially did nothing as Islamic terrorists launched several terrorist attacks on American interests, including the following: • 1993 World Trade Center bombing (six Americans killed, 1,000 injured). • 1993 attack in Mogadishu (18 American soldiers killed, 73 injured). • 1995 Khobar Towers bombing (19 American soldiers/airmen killed, hundreds wounded). • 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya (225 people killed, 5,000 injured). • 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 American sailors killed, 39 injured). As al-Qaida continued to attack America, there was no American response. With the signal of American weakness, al-Qaida planned and executed the attack on Sept. 11, 2001, which was an attack to take down our economy (the World Trade Centers), our national defense intelligence (the Pentagon) and our function of government (the White House or the U.S. Capitol, depending on whom you ask). President Bush has been proactive in protecting and defending America. Through key programs such as the Patriot Act, surveillance programs through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the SWIFT program for tracing financial transactions as well as interrogation of captured terrorist placed at Guantanamo Bay, America has thwarted a number of attacks since Sept. 11 including these (and many others): • December 2001, Richard Reid: attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami. • September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin from Lackawanna, N.Y., convicted of supporting al-Qaida. • May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge. • June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy. • August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York’s Penn Station during the Republican National Convention. • June 2005, Umer and Hamid Hayat of Lodi: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violations. • August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vemon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, Los Angeles Airport, two synagogues and Israeli consulate. • February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloun: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq. • June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augustine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower. • August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode multiple commercial airliners over the United States.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York. Now the Democrats want to take us back to a pre-9/11 mentality. They have weakened the Patriot Act and attempted to give the terrorists constitutional protection by bringing them to America and closing Guantanamo Bay, and on Feb. 16, 2008, the Democrats in Congress went on vacation rather than renew the surveillance ability of FISA. These same Democrats have assassinated the character of a decorated general, David Petraeus, referring to him as General Betray-Us for reporting progress in the war on terror. Democrat supporters like Code Pink then verbally assaulted our military, calling our soldiers murderers. On Feb.15, Michael McConnell, the director of national intelligence, warned that because of the expiration of the Protect America Act, “some critical operations ... would probably become impossible.” He added, “Under the Protect America Act, we obtained valuable insight and understanding, leading to the disruption of planned terrorist attacks.” These Democrats are inviting another terrorist attack on America. If you don’t learn from history, you’re destined to repeat it. Clearly, the Democrats have not learned from history. “Let us always remember we have no higher responsibility than the security and freedom of our country.” — Ronald Reagan, Dec. 18, 1982. • Frank Aquila is a Manteca resident and president of the South San Joaquin Republicans. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it Trackback(0)
Comments
(42)
 written by GhostWriter , March 22, 2008
In my view, in terms of how we respond now, some of the lessons of the wars of 1970s and 1980s against terrorism are still valid. If we can show the world that we are really serious about punishing the terrorists who conducted these attacks, and the government of Afghanistan, we will find that the rest of the world will give us more support, not less. They will respect us for our power. And they will understand that we're serious.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of morale and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing for which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men himself." John Stuart Mill If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” --Winston Churchill written by GhostWriter , March 22, 2008
TO: Frank Aquila,
TO: Frank Aquila, Well said letter. This is just a time in Americas life when, again the people are tired of war very simular to the Viet Nam war. Not all of us are protesting or wanting a drastic over-correction of leadership like the younger liberal citezens and the liberal democrats want now. Personally I see the younger crowd thinks it is "hip" to challenge the system who reminds them of their parents. Or possibly they are thinking if we are a (nicer) America the wars will go away. I think we will pay dearly later on if the liberal minded type of (un)leadership takes over the White House. If Obama get's in look for world turmoil and America civil unrest. I am not slammin' them rather, it is my opinion based on looking back where we have came from. When the world is desperate for change there are desperate thoughts and desperate actions. Just look at who Obama idolizes, Reverand J. Wright who dams America for one. Obama and Reverand J. Wright are so far to the left and liberal minded that it is radical minded foolishness just like the liberal radical minds of the 1960's. Obama knows exactly what he is doing by, playing on our weeknesses and telling us in a soothing tone that there will be change which is exactly what a desperate and liberal America wants. There will not be too much change with McCain but, we will have security and stability in a desperate time in a dangerouse world and have more time to work out the problems of today. With the liberal minded Obama there will surely be unrest and desperation in our country unlike we ever seen in the 60's. Get ready for radicalisum.  written by Mark Davis , March 22, 2008
There are factual failures in this commentary, though they just reinforce Frank's general reputation as a loon (read on).
First, the WTC bombings of 1993 resulted in the prosecution and conviction of many of the involved parties who remain behind bars. Second, the embassy bombings in 98 resulted in a massive bombardment of Al Quaeda facilities in Afghanistan using cruise missiles. This action was opposed by the Pakistani government who objected to flyovers of their airspace but was approved nonetheless. Third, the Cole investigation was ongoing as the Bush administration took office but was largely not pursued. As per Bush's 2000 campaign promises, that administration was not interested in "nation building." Taken together we can only conclude that Frank is just a partisan hack who really is not to be trusted. This guy believes that the end times are coming and was recently criticized in the Tri Valley Herald for lifting a lunatic screed from a debunked spam email concerning social security. He is pretty much without credibility at this point and should be labeled as such.  written by new sense , March 22, 2008
Mark Davis is really reaching as if he were grabbing for straws as he falls off a cliff. Another Democrap Hack
written by new sense , March 22, 2008
Marcist Davis, Clinton considered the 93 World Trade Center bombings a police action. He had Osama; and let him go. If he was not spending so much time with an Intern when he should have been acting as a president, we could have avoided 9/11
 written by Ask Ives , March 22, 2008
Only one problem with your theory about 911 Frank, George Bush was president and the Republicans controlled both houses. 911 haapened on the Republicans watch. Iraq belongs to the Republicans also Frank. Nice track record
 written by INFIDEL , March 22, 2008
If America continues down the complacent road, it will surely be attacked again. To blame Bush for everything that went wrong during his tenure as Commander in Chief is simply the work of Democrats who can not deal with reality. The 9/11 events were only a small and minor warning of what is to come if we don't end the march of the fanatics who dispise our free way of living and thinking. Some people seem to forget what happened and don't want to admit what will happen. All of the warning sign took place during the Clinton administration and were largely ignored or dismissed. Then something happens that was clearly planned during the Clinton administration and somehow it is the Bush administrations fault. Some people better wake up around here.
written by Tired of neo con rant , March 22, 2008
What is really scary is people think like Frank and Ghostwriter that the US needed to invade IRAQ. IRAQ is a collosal mistake and caused us to allow the Taliban and Al Quida to regroup in Afghanistan and also recruit young people to their cause by demonstrating how irrational the Bush Adminstration and their supporters are. Of course Frank and Ghostwriter now want to invade Iran becase they are a bigger threat than IRAQ ever was. Sorry boys we are running out of money for your war games. Maybe if you two heros volunteer and spend your money for an airline ticket we can take on Tehran. You two can talk them into submission.
written by GhostWriter , March 22, 2008
TO: Tired of neo con rant
And IF Hillery or Barack Hussein Obama do get in I suppose you will continue to blame Bush for what happens to our country. That is a give-me-no brainer. I love this country way too much to see it's patrotisum and security to be diluted to the point of being in danger. Obama is way too liberal to the left that it is radical. Jimmy Carter is the closest president that compairs to Obama, and Obama is way worse than Carter. Hillery is just scarry. The libs are going to over correct on the steering of our country and crash us all head on to a out of control society. IF they get in.  written by amy , March 22, 2008
We need to protect our Americans abroad, too.
On November 4, 1979, Iranian students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, seizing the staff. They demanded the extradition of the deposed Shah of Iran from the United States, where he was receiving cancer treatment. Iran's revolutionary government, headed by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a conservative Muslim leader, supported the students, calling the embassy "a den of spies." Female and African-American hostages were released within the first month, and one other hostage was released months later, due to illness. The remaining 52 were held hostage for 444 days. They were finally released on January 20, 1981, the day Jimmy Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, was inaugurated. written by amy , March 22, 2008
Terrorism existed even then for the Americans.
Did their view of America change since, not much! It is worse now. Their views touched our shores. I worry about how the next President will deal with this. McGain, I believe is best suited for the role. He knows about our enemies and will always be on watch. Now if we turn our back on this important issue in place of economy, while it is an important issue, our safety should not be the first one ignored. Just my view. Thank you. amy  written by scott hurban , March 22, 2008
I haven't even read the article. This is just for Mark. Can't you make your rebuttal without the loon remark? As soon as you do that, people who disagree with you will turn off to your point of view having been a victim myself( yes I know I have done the same). In all due respect, you could make your point without the personal insults and probably get more people to listen to you. The last two conversations we had, I believe, went quite well even though we disagreed. This is why I don't even want to engage in this particular conversation.
 written by mickey mcguire , March 23, 2008
Frank seems to have a difficult time with moderation in his rhetoric. He writes, "The Clinton administration ignored the threat and essentially did nothing..." Really? He bombed Africa, bombed Afghanistan, and bombed Iraq. They put the blind sheik and some of his supporters in jail. The guys behind the Cole bombing were hunted down and killed. We would all like to see the terrorists pay for their deeds. But the fact we haven't always done so is not a sign of weakness. Osama and others are still free because they are simply hard to catch!
Frank's list of various foiled threats, similarly, seems a bit over blown. First, how seriously should we have taken the guy that thought he could destroy a bridge with a blow torch? Also, the Lodi and Lackawana "conspirators" never actually had a conspiracy. Second, to the extent that we have rounded up dangerous people, it has mostly been because of the vigilance of common citizens and local authorities. Frank seems to credit George Bush, as if he is Superman. Frank claims that Pres. Bush was proactive. But his primary concern was missile defense. He demoted Richard Clark, the chief terrorism adviser under his father and Clinton, to a minor adviser. It took Clark months to get to see the president face to face to warn him about a potential attack. He got his audience a week before the attack. Frank does one more thing in his article that stretches credulity. He tries to define a group in terms of their worst elements. Moveon.org made the shameful comment about Gen. Petraus. But they're not the Democrat party. I would say the same about Code Pink, but I don't know who they are. This is pretty silly stuff for an adult who represents the Republican party. Mick  written by Dave Hardesty , March 23, 2008
Mark D
As usual someone starts out with a lable that has no basis in fact to anyone else or any bearing on your comments and others feel the necessity to do the same. Are you a part of the problem or part of the solution in this respect friend? Admittedly I don't completely agree with Franks point of view but he does have some accurate facts none the less. Perhaps it's his conclusions he has made or you suspect he has made. I am also laughing at the "his watch" comments made. As if you can drive a bus at a high rate of speed towards a brick wall, jump from the driver's seat and then expect the person that fills that seat to suddenly save the day. written by Dave Hardesty , March 23, 2008
Mark d cont
These events in our history span hundreds of years yet it seems most assume the blame for everything can pinned on who ever is in office at the time or which party is in political control of congress at the time. To me that just doesn't stand up as a valid arguement. So we can continue the illogical game of finger pointing and still not get anything accomplished. Mickey, there seems to be more than enough "blame" for all the political parties to share. I am beginning to feel its all this "party" crap that is the real problem as they all seem to be much more involved at pointing fingers to get themselves elected than they are in actually meeting the needs of and solving the problems of our nation and our world. Did I say world? Yes, our world. Because of the advancement of humanity with the development of technology, anything we do or say is going to have an effect on the rest of the world. So it stands to reason that all of us should be considering that as well when we respond to these types of problem. And yes, someone with a blow torch could in fact take out a bridge if he really was bent to do so. Actually it wouldn't be all that hard come to think of it. OOPS, does that make me a terrorist because I can think of how that might be done while others can't? But I can agree with part of your last statement, "this is pretty silly stuff for an adult . . . "  Dave Hardesty written by Go USMC , March 23, 2008
Hey you know what? This terrorists stuff has been effecting us since the early 70'S and it does not matter what party is in office. Somebody (Bush) finally had enough guts and intestinal fortitude to hit back real hard and not with just a simple complimentary single bomb drop. These tangos love to see the USofA fighting and fingerpointing at one another. It keeps the tango moral hightened. I say nuke them or untie our hands so we can clean house. All the tangos want is a bunch of dead ass americans. What part of dead america do you all NOT understand?
 written by newsflash , March 24, 2008
Someone's been reading too much Tom Clancy. Or playing too much Rainbow 6. Man, that was a cool game. Tango down! Settle down, soldier.
Ever think that the terrorists just want their lights back on, their kids safe, some access to health care and not having to worry about getting bombed? Kind of like us? The CIA has a well-documented 'blowback' theory; look it up. Anyone who thinks 9/11, or the USS Cole, or the Iranian hostage crisis happened in a vacuum isn't looking at the whole picture. X leads to Y, knowwhati'msayin?  written by k.l. vosburg , March 24, 2008
Amy; Without question (back to your blog for a second) Warren Christopher (under the Carter Administration) had been negotiating with the Iranian people for over a year, before the week of Ronald Reagan, "swearing into (basically not even one week as President) office oath," yet recieved little or no credit.
Now back to my basalmic vinergerette pasta salad -hope you had a Happy Easter. "Long live ol' Dutchy." And Errol Flynn. written by new sense , March 24, 2008
newsflash has been smoking too much medical marijuana and drinking too much kool aid. I suppose he thinks the terrorist are just like one of us and will live in harmony. You are an indiot! They even blow up their own Kids!!!!
 written by insider , March 24, 2008
Boy, there is a bit of ignorance out here today. It begins with Frank Aquila's opinion piece, and continues through new sense last post. Choosing to read and ingest only the thoughts and ideas which support your belief structure was always a part of the human psyche. It takes intelligence to understand them. Fear of the nightmare is human, understanding and disiffering the nightmare shows intelligence. Puppets on the stage, not matter how much intelligence they show, are always puppets. Understand that a revolution is only a completed circle. You have nothing to fear, for you have already lost the game.
written by amy , March 24, 2008
That's right k.l Vosburg, Carter did not get the credit for his humanitarian effort in returning the hostages home. Many people thought it was Reagan and gave him the credit.
written by GunningForTangosofIslam , March 24, 2008
hey news flash. what was your aka when playing rainbow six? I always scored bigtime when picturing tangos as a tango. Ahhh the sweet sound of 'tango down'. frag out!
written by Mark Davis , March 25, 2008
Scott and Dave H: Actually, I think Frank does deserve a rare "loon" label. He did, in fact, plagiarize from a discredited spam email in the Tri-Valley Herald (and was caught doing it). He also did, in fact, claim that current political events in the Middle East were related to some end-times eschatology (as I rebutted last summer). I truly do think he is a loon and a partisan hack and think he has put himself into the public light suffiently (as a political figure) that he deserves ridicule.
 written by Dale Cose , March 25, 2008 written by k.l. vosburg , March 24, 2008 “Amy; Without question …Warren Christopher …had been negotiating with the Iranian people for over a year, before the week of Ronald Reagan, "swearing into … office oath," yet recieved little or no credit.” written by amy , March 24, 2008 “… Carter did not get the credit for his humanitarian effort in returning the hostages home. Many people thought it was Reagan and gave him the credit.” with the road to hell paving complete… Carter and Christopher received good intention badges for having accomplished the almost release of the hostages. By an astronomically unbelievable coincidence, the hostages were released when Jimmy was unceremoniously booted out of office and the new sheriff came to town. written by Dave Hardesty , March 25, 2008
Mark D
You may be correct in your observation but it doesn't help your cause. Rather than take it to a personal insult level made in public, which you probably wouldn't do to his face, don't you think it might do your cause more credit to just point out his errors and back them up with facts? Don't forget, there are many others who browse this forum and they will form opinions as to whether or not your arguements are sound or if you are just picking on someone you don't like or agree with. But as you take that higher ground of behavior you also need to understand that those who don't agree with your particular point of view will sometimes stoop to discrediting you with name calling rather than address the issues you espouse. We both have learned it's a rough world and it takes a thick skin to play the game. But if you think about it, and are honest in your convictions to win the game, you do yourself and your cause an overall disservice when you stoop to name calling even if it may be true. Can you agree? Obviously you and I do not agree on many issues but I respect your humanity to have a different opinion and don't call you names. If I ever have called you names, either directly, or perhaps you think abstractly, please accept my appology. And yes, I freely admit at times I have dropped my guard and stooped to the name calling business so I am not trying to depict myself as somehow being better than anyone else. written by Dave Hardesty , March 25, 2008
Mark D cont.
I try very hard to respect the rights of others to have their opinions as long as they also respect my rights to have my opinions. We can discuss and rationalize and work together that way and hopefully come up with a better solution. When you or I attack at the name calling business not only does it close off the conversation where information ceases to be exchanged, but those listening in the wings tend to reject the entire message even though parts of it may be true and valuable. Take care and have a great day. I understand it may rain today. I hope so because I really don't want to start my watering system but the grass is getting very dry. Dave Hardesty written by Dale Cose , March 25, 2008
written by mickey mcguire , March 22, 2008
Frank seems to have a difficult time with moderation in his rhetoric. "The Clinton administration … “He (Bill) bombed Africa, bombed Afghanistan, and bombed Iraq. •Killing… one janitor on the night shift… and two humped camels, or was it two camels humping… “They put the blind sheik and some of his supporters in jail.” •Missing what… a couple thousand others while being serviced? “The guys behind the Cole bombing were hunted down and killed.” •G.W.s administration, not Bill’s “Frank's list of various foiled threats, similarly, seems a bit over blown” •All threats are over blown… until the day one succeeds. First, how seriously should we have taken the guy that thought he could destroy a bridge with a blow torch? •Because you Rosie metal shop types know fire can’t melt steel. See the stressed gusset photos at the Minneapolis Bridge. “Also, the Lodi and Lackawana "conspirators" never actually had a conspiracy.” •Just attended a Taliban vacation/peaceful terrorist training camp “He demoted Richard Clark, the chief terrorism adviser under his father and Clinton, to a minor adviser.” “In 1998, according to the New Republic, Clarke "played a key role in the Clinton administration's misguided retaliation for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which targeted bin Laden's terrorist camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan." The pharmaceutical factory was, apparently, just a pharmaceutical factory, and we now know how impressed bin Laden was by cruise missiles that miss.” “He tries to define a group in terms of their worst elements. Moveon.org made the shameful comment about Gen. Petraus.” "But they're not the Democrat party.” •These: Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy? written by Positve discusion?????? , March 25, 2008
Its interesting that Frank Aquilla and George W. and other politicians Democrats (Pelosi, Clinton, etc.) and Republicans justified the invasion of Iraq becuase they were creating weapons of mass destruction. The United States has many weapons of mass destruction and is proposing to build 125 more nuclear weapons a year with their new nuke plan. Where is the Democratic or Republican outcry. Havent heard either side object to building 125 new nukes a year in the US??
written by Dale Cose , March 25, 2008 written by Positve discusion?????? , March 25, 2008 "Its interesting that Frank Aquilla and George W. and other politicians Democrats (Pelosi, Clinton, etc.) and Republicans justified the invasion of Iraq becuase they were creating weapons of mass destruction" Clearly, someone (Saddam) was unable to play well with others. No objection, build the nukes. Better to have and not need than to need and not have  written by Mike , March 25, 2008
Wow, another doozy from Frank. He's right, all the Democrats are bad people that hate the US and should be sent to Guantanamo for interrogation. Could someone on this board please define success for the War on Terror? Anybody? Frank, what does a successful War on Terror look like? What is the end goal? The total erosion of our freedoms in this country? I thought Republicans were for small government, but you all seem pretty anxious to have the federal government listen to our phone conversations and read our email. As I've argued before, patriotism does not necessarily equal unquestioning support of whatever current policy the President has enacted. If that were the case, you Republicans are all Johnny come latelies, as I know you didn't support Clinton's military actions. But I digress. What I find most amusing about Frank's walk down memory lane is his need to enumerate all of the successes of our military/intelligence/law enforcement agencies as if somehow needing to justify them. I'm sure Frank and others on here can't believe that these are the only successes we've had in stopping terrorist activities. I guess previous administrations didn't necessarily feel the need to jeopardize their intelligence gathering mechanisms by disclosing them. On a final note, Frank, don't ever bring up the vacation thing again. Our current "war time" president, has been on vacation more than any other president in the history of the United States. And Dave, I'm sure I can expect the same lecture the next time Frank, Steve, or someone else calls those of us on the left something derogatory, otherwise that would be a touch hypocritical.
Mike written by Mike , March 25, 2008
P.S. Frank, take your own advice and read about Russia under Stalin for insight on the state taking security measures too far, the US military campaign against the Viet Cong and the US military campaign in Somalia for insight on the difficulties of Low Intensity Conflict and how tough it is to fight. Alternatively, please read anything by conservative commentator William Lind, of the Free Congress Foundation. He can be found each week on a site dedicated to supporting the troops, www.sftt.org.
written by new sense , March 26, 2008
Do we know of any Americans who had there civil rights violated? About 3,000 who were murdered on Sept 11th. We are so fortunate that the government has stopped all other attempts
written by Mike , March 26, 2008
The 3000 that were murdered on Sept. 11 were done so by citizens of a US ally that the President of the US has repeatedly entrusted with our longterm financial and economic security. They were murdered in spite of the fact that clear intelligence indicating the nature of the forthcoming attack was presented to the President and he refused to act on it. He has been behind ever since trying to make up for that massive failure on his part. Oh yeah, and he was on vacation.
 written by Navy Dad , March 26, 2008
Now Mike, We all know that you are a Bush hater, but laying all of the 9-11 attacks at his doorstep is a joke. He certainly has to take his responsibility for it, as does the previous President, who also shares in the failure to take it to the terrorists more than in a court of law. There are some of us " republicans" who did approve of President Clinton's limited Military responses, as non-effective as they were. Do you think we were going to blow away Saudi Arabia because Bin- Laden used mostly their citizens to forward Al-Qaeda attacks on 9-11?. Clinton dropped the ball on getting Bin-Laden and that is a fact, hating George Bush or not. And you must be livig in a different Country than me as I woke up this morning and I still enjoy all of my freedoms. Huh?
written by Ubbo Coty , March 26, 2008
What gets me is all the focus on Iraq. How about Afghanistan? Africa? Asia? Europe? And correct me if I am wrong, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom are all about protecting our freedoms. Many of our forces are serving in countries other than Iraq to protect our daily freedoms. Its pretty obvious now that the media and Democrats are addicted to using Iraq as a method to reach those who do not know what is really going in the world.
written by Mike , March 26, 2008
Navy Dad,
Bush absolutely bears responsibility, however, ALL I've heard is how everything was Clinton's fault. At what point does Bush share accountability? At what point do people stop making excuses for his mistakes? We still have not captured Bin Laden, nor have we rid Afghanistan of AQ. So to Ubbo's point, yes, there is a whole other set of operations going on to take out AQ, too bad most of our operational forces and logistics are focused on Iraq. And no, I did not expect us to blow away Saudi Arabia. However, where is the outrage from the right about the Bush administration selling our financial debt to Saudi Arabia? Where was the outrage when Bush asked the Saudi Prince to "please" lower the price of oil? C'mon, I just don't see that the President is truly committed to the long term security issues here. Also, I have yet to see a plan to comprehensively address the terrorism issue. Military actions only go so far, as history will indeed indicate. Mike written by Navy Dad , March 26, 2008
Mike, Even if we had Bin laden's head on a platter, do you think that Al-qaeda would quit? I for one would love to see Bin Laden dead but we would still have to fight the terorists. They would just get the next figurehead to replace him. You want to blame Bush for the whole 9-11 attacks, and I will agree that as they happened 8 months into his Presidency, he has to share some of the blame. Everything I've heard from you absolves Bill Clinton from any blame. There are far too many acts of Terror in the 90's against our Country to let him and his Administration off the hook. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this.
written by amy , March 28, 2008
Bin Laden heads the cells world over, USA, too. Where, we do not know exactly but I fear they may attack when Bin Laden is caught or killed. That is how fanatic they are. We cannot let our guard down. While we are infighting, new cell crops up. Media is doing a fine job of diverting our attention to real issue at hand, the war that is ongoing in Iraq, where is the mention of the war in Tracy Press? See, out of sight, out of mind.
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
|
|
| Last Updated ( Friday, 21 March 2008 ) |
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
|
|
Truman v. Eisenhower, Dem to Rep.
Eisenhower v. Kennedy, Rep to Dem.
Lyndon Johnson v. Nixon,
Historicaly this is within the modern era a goes back way before. FDR, Teddy etc.
It's very unlikely McCain therefore will win.
Barring, of course Obama "turns into a serial ax murderer" and Hillary turns out "to work for a Men's escort service."