"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:58:01 -0400, NOYB wrote:


There are terrorists, terrorist sympathizers, and Democrats. Lately,
they
all sound remarkably alike.


Just curious, after 9/11, did you think bin Laden would still be running
loose three years later? I sure as hell didn't. I figured six months,
a
year at the outside, and he would be brought to justice. The most
powerful country on this planet, and he is still rubbing our nose in it.
I blame Bush for that, who the hell do you blame?

I blame the Pakistani people who are willing to overthrow Musharraf if he
allows US troops into Northwestern Pakistan with the intent to permanently
entomb bin Laden's ass in the cave he's hiding in.

Pakistan is an Arabic nuclear power, but with a level-headed US-friendly
guy
in charge (at least "somewhat" in charge). There have been several
attempts
already on Musharraf's life...two of them coming when Pakistani forces
pushed the furthest into Waziristan. Because of the nukes, our hands are
tied...which is precisely why we must move the war on terror into Iran
before they're a nuclear power. Do you think we would have invaded
Afghanistan if the Taliban had nukes?

I think that Bush, AFTER THE ELECTION, must say: The fact that a terrorist
supporting country has nuclear weapons does not mean that they are immune
from attack, it just means that nuclear weapons are now authorized to be
used on them. Up the ante by upping the threat if they have nuclear
weapons.