BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.
Visiting our advertisers directly supports this site. Thanks!
Bin Laden: Dead or Alive? and the failing president
When watching the news today, I saw varying reports about whether Bin Laden was dead or alive. My question is, "Who cares?" It has been six years since 9/11 and our incompetent president has finally admitted the attacks were not related to Iraq or Saddam Hussein. It was my understanding that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks but now the blame had been shifted, and now President Bush is admitting the error of his ways? Bin Laden hasn't been on his priority list regarding the War on Terror so we can only see that this "Is he or isn't he?" debate will not on Bush's list either. By the way, it has been reported that deaths in the war (American soldiers) have now equaled the number of deaths on 9/11. It only goes to show what started out as a dreadful and horrific day in our history has come full circle, now to a war that still has no real meaning in our country, and a president who is quickly losing respect and trust of the American people he so openly says he is for. The American people? You mean the ones that he left to die in New Orleans? Why didn't he stand up for his people then? But that's another post.
Blogger News Network is advertiser-supported, and your visits to our advertisers help BNN to meet its expenses. Help keep us afloat!
Bush never claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. You ignorant libs crack me up. You all come up with zero as far as accurate reporting.
By the way, we lost twice as many soldiers on the morning of D-Day than we have in the three+plus of our troops being stationed in Iraq.
But had you libs been in charge back during WW II, Hitler would have taken all of Europe and then some.
Time to pull your head out of the sand pal. The Iraqis are far better off than when Saddam was in charge. And the reason why insurgents are trying their best to disrupt things in Iraq is they do not want a functioning democracy in the Middle East made up almost entirely of Muslims.
Once again, Bush never claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
I know bin Laden claimed responsibility. Duh!!
And bin Laden was originally from Saudi Arabia, but he lived in the Sudan as well as in Afghanistan. So figgin' what?
The point is Saddam was a serious threat to peace in the Middle East. He had invaded his neighbors and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people. This country had been attacked. We went after the Taliban first. We took it down in record time. What the Soviets couldn't accomplish, the US did in a few weeks. Then when various intel claimed Saddam was working on WMDs and could sell them to terrorist groups, Bush acted. Had he not and Saddam was still in power today, most people would be angry that he failed to do anything except the usual diplomacy route which gets no one anywhere. Take a look at what all the Democrats said on the record about Saddam and his WMD program. All the same twits who today act like they never believed he had any weapons and was never a threat. Hypocrisy in politics is so common on the left.
Fact: Saddam used chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nukes.
Fact: Saddam routinely wrote $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who successfully pulled off their missions which were to kill as many innocent Israelis as possible.
Fact: Abu Abbas, the Palestinian terrorist wanted by the United States and Italy, lived a comfortable life in Baghdad under Saddam's regime.
Fact: Abu Musaab Zarqawi, a top al Qaeda planner who fled Afghanistan as the Taliban regime was ousted, moved freely in and out of Iraq and met with officials in Baghdad. In fact, Al-Zawahri traveled to Baghdad in February 1998 and met with one of Iraq's vice presidents. Now what do you suppose he was doing? Sightseeing?
And you call me a moron!
And finally, although I do sympathize with those who've lost relatives and friends in Iraq as well as those who died serving in Afghanistan, I must put things in perspective. We've been in both countries almost as long as it took to fight WW II. 50 million people died during WW II. The US lost half a million service personnel. Just the B-17 missions saw 45,000 deaths. The Brits lost 65,000 while flying bomber missions in Lancasters. Millions of civilians were killed. In Dresden alone, over 100,000 German civilians died when that famed city was firebombed by the British in retaliation for numerous V-1 and V-2 attacks on London. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the number killed in the two atom bomb's dropped.
People today have no idea what war really is. They watch TV and think they know.
Had we not gone to extent we did back then, fascism would be ruling the planet today and people like you and me wouldn't be free to discuss anything.
Was Saddam a threat? Maybe. The fact remains, though, that the job wasn't finished in Afgahnistan. Now, with the rise of a new Taliban resurgence, there is more violence in the world and a greater likelihood that we are at risk of more terrorists than fewer. War should involve complete domination, something that the President has been unwilling to commit to an any front. Moreover, he has used the "difficult" war as an excuse to errode domestic freedoms, something he can't do under the Constitution's attribution of power.
As far as the liberal v. conservative concept, neither side can pull their heads far enough out of the "sand" to see what is really going on in the world. The so-called conservatives want security, the liberals are against the war. If anything, the conservatives should want to preserve civil liberties and want a smaller government, and the liberals should be promoting bigger government. Anyone who can't keep these simple ideological distinctions separate needs to go back and read the Constitution and the founding history of our nation.
4 Comments:
Bush never claimed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. You ignorant libs crack me up. You all come up with zero as far as accurate reporting.
By the way, we lost twice as many soldiers on the morning of D-Day than we have in the three+plus of our troops being stationed in Iraq.
But had you libs been in charge back during WW II, Hitler would have taken all of Europe and then some.
Time to pull your head out of the sand pal. The Iraqis are far better off than when Saddam was in charge. And the reason why insurgents are trying their best to disrupt things in Iraq is they do not want a functioning democracy in the Middle East made up almost entirely of Muslims.
To Angry Guy..
No Moron,
Bin Laden Himself Said he was responsible for the attacks..
Oh by the Way, Bin Laden isn't from Iraq, oh, that's right, none of the terrorists on the planes were from Iraq.. Uh.. go figure
Once again, Bush never claimed Saddam was responsible for 9/11.
I know bin Laden claimed responsibility. Duh!!
And bin Laden was originally from Saudi Arabia, but he lived in the Sudan as well as in Afghanistan. So figgin' what?
The point is Saddam was a serious threat to peace in the Middle East. He had invaded his neighbors and was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his own people. This country had been attacked. We went after the Taliban first. We took it down in record time. What the Soviets couldn't accomplish, the US did in a few weeks. Then when various intel claimed Saddam was working on WMDs and could sell them to terrorist groups, Bush acted. Had he not and Saddam was still in power today, most people would be angry that he failed to do anything except the usual diplomacy route which gets no one anywhere. Take a look at what all the Democrats said on the record about Saddam and his WMD program. All the same twits who today act like they never believed he had any weapons and was never a threat. Hypocrisy in politics is so common on the left.
Fact: Saddam used chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nukes.
Fact: Saddam routinely wrote $25,000 checks to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who successfully pulled off their missions which were to kill as many innocent Israelis as possible.
Fact: Abu Abbas, the Palestinian terrorist wanted by the United States and Italy, lived a comfortable life in Baghdad under Saddam's regime.
Fact: Abu Musaab Zarqawi, a top al Qaeda planner who fled Afghanistan as the Taliban regime was ousted, moved freely in and out of Iraq and met with officials in Baghdad. In fact, Al-Zawahri traveled to Baghdad in February 1998 and met with one of Iraq's vice presidents. Now what do you suppose he was doing? Sightseeing?
And you call me a moron!
And finally, although I do sympathize with those who've lost relatives and friends in Iraq as well as those who died serving in Afghanistan, I must put things in perspective. We've been in both countries almost as long as it took to fight WW II. 50 million people died during WW II. The US lost half a million service personnel. Just the B-17 missions saw 45,000 deaths. The Brits lost 65,000 while flying bomber missions in Lancasters. Millions of civilians were killed. In Dresden alone, over 100,000 German civilians died when that famed city was firebombed by the British in retaliation for numerous V-1 and V-2 attacks on London. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more than the number killed in the two atom bomb's dropped.
People today have no idea what war really is. They watch TV and think they know.
Had we not gone to extent we did back then, fascism would be ruling the planet today and people like you and me wouldn't be free to discuss anything.
For the record...First, things are generally considered worse in Iraq now than under Saddam. Second, clearly we didn't do a sufficient job with dispatching the Taliban to begin with. The conclusion of a war typically involves one of two results, surrender or total anihilation. Niether took place here. Third, there is and never was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, even though the President insisted this was the case. Just in case you missed it, the President did try to sell an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. here is a more independent report debunking those claims.
Was Saddam a threat? Maybe. The fact remains, though, that the job wasn't finished in Afgahnistan. Now, with the rise of a new Taliban resurgence, there is more violence in the world and a greater likelihood that we are at risk of more terrorists than fewer. War should involve complete domination, something that the President has been unwilling to commit to an any front. Moreover, he has used the "difficult" war as an excuse to errode domestic freedoms, something he can't do under the Constitution's attribution of power.
As far as the liberal v. conservative concept, neither side can pull their heads far enough out of the "sand" to see what is really going on in the world. The so-called conservatives want security, the liberals are against the war. If anything, the conservatives should want to preserve civil liberties and want a smaller government, and the liberals should be promoting bigger government. Anyone who can't keep these simple ideological distinctions separate needs to go back and read the Constitution and the founding history of our nation.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home