Are Republicans hoping for another 9-11?
 

We all know that the effects of 9-11 meant great things for the Republican party, but this is the first time I've seen an American actually call for a 9-11 repeat...

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/colu...ther_9_11.html

"If it is to be, then let it be. It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."

In other words, he thinks we need another 9-11 to align America on one side (the Republican side) that shuts the Democrats up, supports the President, the war in Iraq and anti-terror laws.

Is this guy fucked in the head, or do all Repukes think this way?

I thins yes

euh, there is no doubt in my mind that a certain part of the Republican Party is hoping on a new attack, it's the only way to regain control over public perception

Actually if another attack happens its their end, they cant blame clinton and their whole bullshit story. We fight them there so we dont have to fight them here goes bye bye.

oh, they will find enough people to blame, they have no decensy that way, they never admit any wrongdoing, so they'll blame it on the Democratic Congress

Why hope when they can finance and plan one?

I think that between now and the end of the year, you will see the Bush administration come with a clearly defined "evil" of some sort. Bin Ladin, Iraq, Iran... all of that stuff has become wishy-washy and hard for americans to get behind.

Another 9/11, even a significantly smaller event could be a rally point.

However, as many republicans are trying hard to distance themselves from the President, I think that many of them would get no benefit out of Bush getting a boost by having to react to a terrible tragedy. They don't want to be seen standing up for and standing beside the boy wonder.

The terrorists are also not as stupid as some might think. They may be prefering to wait out the republicans and get a democrat into the whitehouse, which will likely mean more negotiation and less interventionist actions, which allows them to expand quietly. Provided the US finds some way to make relative peace with Iran, the Iraq situation should play out reasonably and get quiet, which would allow the US to slowly withdraw troops as Bush's dictatorship ends.

that's Republican rethoric, the terrorists love the Bushies, they've never been so popular and never attracked so many new recruits.

Let's not forget Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was bombing Al Quada in the 90s already, but back then people said it was to divert attention from his blowjob mess.

Also valuewise neocons and moslim extremists hold basically the same believes, you just change the word Mohammed with Jesus.

Yes.

There is big money in war.

Also renews the 'fear' mongering politics to keep the masses busy while raping this country 6 ways from Sunday.

I recall FOX News talking about this a few weeks ago. Their people thought another attack would be a disaster for the Democrats, since they want to be soft in the war on terror.

So right there is your Republican talking point after another attack.... "If the hard on terror Republicans couldn't prevent it, then just imagine the attacks those softie Dems would allow!"

O please don't quote "FIXED NEWS" please...

.

How they can get away with saying the Republicans are tough on terror amazes me. They didnt get bin laden, the borders arent protected either are the nuclear plants or the chemical plants or the docks and the cargo area of planes. Its fucking crazy.

Who are the terrorists?

There are still a lot of questions to be answered with regard to America?s ?prompt? response to September 11 attacks. The main one relates to the crucial decision of invading Afghanistan. From his first appearance in public after the attacks against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon on 11 September, George W. Bush has prepared public opinion for a muscular response against the `faceless enemy' who so painfully struck at America, using the charged slogan: ?We are at war?.

But, is it really a war?

The answer is simple, NO?!!! DON?T BE FOOLED WITH ALL THAT TERRORISM STUFF!!!

For this is not war, which presupposes an armed conflict between adversaries if not identified, at least identifiable (does the well ?known? Osama Ben Laden really exists? ), to which the `laws and customs of war' can be applied-the old and still precious `Hague rules' and the `humanitarian law of armed conflict', the `law of Geneva', principally the Red Cross Conventions of 1949 and the 1977 Protocols. This is not war; it is something else, to which our own legal arsenal is poorly adapted.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION???

Security Council Resolution 1368 (2001) recognizes ?the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense in accordance with the Charter?.

This could: A) be taken to authorize the use of force by the USA or
B) recognize the USA?s right of self-defense as a response to the terrorist attacks.

Ad A) Recognition of the right to self-defense is placed in the preamble of the resolution and not in the operative part. Secondly, the wording does not expressly authorize the use of force, for example by using the phrase ?all necessary means?. The use of force is a very serious interference in another state?s territorial sovereignty and an authorization should require explicit wording.

Ad B) The Security Council establishes a link between the terrorist attacks and the right of self-defense. But the Council has no formal powers to make a binding interpretation of the right to self-defense in a concrete case. Secondly, the resolution does not explicitly say that the USA has a right of self-defense against any other state in this case. Thirdly, the resolution was adopted the day after the attacks and no one could at that time know who was behind the attacks, and if they were directed from abroad. Fourthly, international law requires that a state must have been involved in one way or other in an attack. It is not easily accepted that the Security Council would do away with such a requirement (and other legal requirements). Fifthly, against whom should the USA have a right to self-defense? Would it be against Afghanistan or against about 60 states with some connection with terrorists?

?There is something behind the throne grater than the king himself?

So in case your still wondering who the real terrorists are,
I?ll just say: ?turn on the TV and you?ll see them everyday smiling at you as somebody who has just fuck you from behind, (:pimp), and it?s very satisfied to see you naked and with your ass broken looking for answers you never seem to find?

Open your eyes, it's not for the terrorism, it's not religion, not even patriotism, NO... it's all about holly money!.

hell yes, then they can run on their all too popular EVERYBODY PANIC platform again.

I think the question is...

Are the Republicans PLANNING another 9/11?

or even...

Are the Republicans WATCHING and ALLOWING another 9/11?


Whatever the case may be, each day we move past 9-11-01, the more stale the Republicans become. They have NOTHING else to run on.

The negative repercussions from a massive terrorist attack far outweigh any perceived political gain.

Get your heads screwed on people.

besides the political gain, there's also a financial gain: people go along with almost anything when they're frightened (like torture for instance) ->
9/11 made it possible for the Bush administration to double the national debt in 6 years (it took 200+ years to get there to the pre-Bush debt), where did all that money go? For a lot of Bush supporters there's been a major windfall because of the spending Bush and the Republicans have implemented

war profiteering for instance has gone unchecked
for the Bushies: look up the Truman Committee, even during WO II was profiteering prosecuted

The columnist is right.

Nobody wishes another 9/11. In fact, the Republicans have been fighting hard to prevent one. But the Democrats are pulling the other way. In order to gain political advantage, the Democrats have weakened our country to the point where another 9/11 is almost inevitable.

Although no one would wish another 9/11, one positive side effect would be some unity. That is what he is saying, and he is correct.

The republicans are fighting hard to do one thing: spy on and control Americans and eliminate the power of the individual against the federal government. Bush could give a fuck about terrorists.

Funny how 9/11 didn't happen until we had Clueless George in office, huh? Never would have happened under Clinton.

It's unbelievable that people actually think like you.

What are you smoking?

Do you think 9-11 was planned in a few months?!

9-11 took YEARS to plan and setup!!!

Under which US administration do you think terrorism took root until the point where it exploded on 9-11?

I'll give you a hint: The Arkansas Caligula.

That's a loaded question.

The sinking of the USS Maine because of a broken boiler, the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand by a serbian nationalist, 911, gulf of tonkin etc etc etc etc have caused massive changes in world events. when something like that happens, it can be made into a massive event that demands action.

An eye for an eye until we're all blind.

So the better plan would be to pull out and then continue the "fight" against terrorists by talking it out? Good thinking.

Am I the only one that thinks another 9/11 type attack inside the US would be catastrophic for the republicans? Remember Bush pretty much based his entire campaign against Kerry around the theme that he was the only one that was capable of keeping us safe. They have said time and again that us fighting in Iraq is better than fighting here. If there were another attack it might show the people that their plan isn't working.

You would think the democrats would jump all over him as failing to provide the security he has promised. They would probably even argue that is war in Iraq was one of the causes for the new attack.

Assuming that was a response to me, I'd say that a fight against terrorism is needed yes, but not in the way we are doing it right now. How would you suggest we "win" the war on terrorism. What are the victory conditions?

I agree that the way the war is going is not beneficial to anyone and I wouldn't go on to say I know how to "win" the war. But I sure as shit know that pulling out all of our troops right now is not the right answer. All that will do is let them build up with no resistance.

That's the point, there's no way to win it. The eventual withdrawal from Vietnam was conducted in a phased withdrawal, which is probably what we'll see in Iraq. Cut and run is just a neocon phrase to attest to people who say the war is going horribly.

In No way are the Democons any better than the Republirats . They all bow to the same Master.

Indeed, I'll be eligible in 2020.. if we get the grassroots movement going now we can rule the world :)

and I'll give YOU a hint, although if you took the time to read like a democrat does you'd already know it: Terrorism and specifically Bin Laden was a top priority for the Clinton administration. They gave Bush plenty of information about Osama, which was all ignored, because Bush had more important things in mind. Like obscenity prosecutions.

How can you be so fucking dumb and not know it?

So why didn't the Clinton administration do anything with all this information? So because he didn't act on any of it and let Bin Laden do his thing and get even richer, he amassed an army big enough to attack the US. Good thing we had Clinton to "pass on" all that great intel the Dems accumulated.

If Bin Laden was a top priority for Bill Clinton, just try to imagine the depth of his low priorities.

.


I'd just like to say that from out here in the rest of the world (you may have heard of the 'world'... you like to go there sometimes to kill people and steal their resources), most of you americans come across as completely insane, inhuman, self righteous, xenophobic, war mongering psychopaths.

thank you.


.

Republicans do well if someone attacks in the US. Democrats do well if we lose in Iraq. Same shit just different sides of the equation.

Your party bashed Clinton for bombing Al-Qaeda. Just remember that. :)

No one thinks like Daddyhalbucks. He is mentally handicapped. He somehow smashes his keyboard with his fist and it makes words. No one knows how but it happens.

Yea, we were the crazy bastards who pulled Europe's chestnuts out of Hitler's fire.

Vote Independent !!!

Quit dreaming about the last valid "war" and boasting about how you won it :(

There is *nothing* good about *any* Republican, Democrat or whatever in US politics. There may be honorable individuals, but as a whole, they are a miserable failure who have allowed unbridled greed and excessive consumption along a path towards massive debt and economical unsustainability with an "I'm all right Jack" mentality. They are all a disgrace to US people, but still feel it is OK to spew high levels of propaganda and lies as tho the total population were utterly stupid.

The only thing they do provide is the "best democracy money can buy". Sad :disgust

Oddly enough we think the same about most of the rest of the world.

OMG how much longer will you believe this GOP/FOX propaganda, how can you be so clueless
the Republicans never implemented the recommendations from the 9/11 commission

1. you could also say: they weren't able to implement their plan until Clinton left office :thumbsup

2. it's Reagan and his Republicans that armed Osama and the Taliban in the first place

3. trying to score points by calling Clinton Caligula??? You do realize you're in porn and that's about the weirdest way to attack him coming from someone who works in PORN :pimp

9/11 happened under Bush, even after people knew he got a report saying "Bin Laden to strike America", they still elected him in 2004

The problem is most Democrats don't want to fight dirty, for Republican the end justifies the means, remember the Republican debate on FOX: those people were applauding torture

oh :321GFY you, when he was bombing Afghanistan, you people were accusing him he did it to get attention away from the blowjob thing

Reminder: Daddyhalbucks has the mental processing power of a rock.

this is what I hate: people who don't remember shit

Clinton was dropping bombs on Afghanistan at the end of the 90s, something the Republican Congress opposed

Bush stopped going after him when he was appointed

That is true. Most of the hardcore republicans are in favor of bombing anyone. they don't care what the circumstances are, it is like they are proud to just be bombing.

oh jeezes, how long will we have to hear about that one, you know what: the French supported you against the British

BTW, something even Americans are starting to admid, even if D-Day failed, the Germans would have lost to the Russians

WHICH is not to say that those American soldiers don't deserve all the praise possible, BUT I hate it when people like you use their name in your advantage, if you really believe in it so much: GO FIGHT IN IRAQ, fucking Chickenhawk

Chickenhawks: http://www.vide08.com/republicans/ge...e-republicans/

50 9/11s