Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview
with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism
for the *last seven years*". Right then you know it's a fluff report
designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have
been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once.
But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us
to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with
it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more
concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me...

On Dec 2, 10:26*am, wrote:
Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview
with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism
for the *last seven years*". *Right then you know it's a fluff report
designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have
been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once.
But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us
to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with
it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more
concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me...

Oh, and BTW, any response from WAFA should be dismissed. I doubt I
really have to explain

On Dec 2, 10:36*am, wrote:
On Dec 2, 10:26*am, wrote:

Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview
with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism
for the *last seven years*". *Right then you know it's a fluff report
designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have
been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once.
But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us
to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with
it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more
concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me...

Oh, and BTW, any response from WAFA should be dismissed. I doubt I
really have to explain

Because he's never told the truth?

wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:26:22 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview
with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism
for the *last seven years*". Right then you know it's a fluff report
designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have
been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once.
But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us
to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with
it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more
concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me...

"The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq
had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had
anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America.

In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has
been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent
War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th
Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out
of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their
next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting
in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are
moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of
Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."


Afghanistan? Why should we worry about Afghanistan? :)

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

hk wrote:


In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has
been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent
War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th
Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out
of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their
next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting
in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are
moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of
Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."


Afghanistan? Why should we worry about Afghanistan? :)

Just had this vision of Krowsie.
http://i37.tinypic.com/25imdde.jpg

On Dec 2, 10:39*am, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:26:22 -0800 (PST),

wrote:
Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview
with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism
for the *last seven years*". *Right then you know it's a fluff report
designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have
been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once.
But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us
to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with
it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more
concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me...

"The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq
had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had
anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America.

In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has
been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent
War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th
Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out
of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their
next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting
in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are
moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of
Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."

You still chasin' bin butt****ed? Bush left him impotent and
irrelevant.. We don't need to kill him, but then again, you are about
as credible as Harry in these issues, dismissed.. Back under your desk
bitch...

wrote:
On Tue, 2 Dec 2008 07:26:22 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Just saw a interview with Grahm (D) from Florida concerning his new
report called "America at risk". He of course started his interview
with talking points saying "We have not been concerened with terrorism
for the *last seven years*". Right then you know it's a fluff report
designed to waste more of our money. For the last seven years we have
been chasing terrorists around the world and have been attacked once.
But not concerened with the previous administration which allowed us
to be attacked several times and of course set the stage for 911 with
it's terrorist friendly policy.. What an idiot. Are all dems more
concerened with getting re-elected than the country, seems so to me...

"The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq
had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had
anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America.

In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has
been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent
War on Terror. USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th
Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out
of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their
next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting
in February of 2002; a senior military commander told him "We are
moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of
Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."

What would you have done differently if you were in charge. And, you
have to be more specific than say I would go after bin Laden.

Bin Laden is a non-event now, he is an emasculated feeble man.

On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:34 -0500, BAR wrote:


Bin Laden is a non-event now, he is an emasculated feeble man.

How do you know that?

wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:34 -0500, BAR wrote:


Bin Laden is a non-event now, he is an emasculated feeble man.

How do you know that?


He doesn't.

wrote:
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:48:34 -0500, BAR wrote:


Bin Laden is a non-event now, he is an emasculated feeble man.

How do you know that?

He hides in caves. He is afraid to show himself in public. He is scared.