XBOX 360 2670

I'm not talking about political rhetoric and sound bytes.

What was that mission which is a single step of a continuing process? I think you've forgotten (you're not the only one).

Where did I write "war on terror"?

Again, you are ignoring the fact that Western civilization is the target to be destroyed. Not the US but any system that has anything to do with current trading and commercial practices.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

And why do you and I have to wait to be told? Are we not allowed to do our own thinking, analyzing, reasoning and concluding?

It isn't the "more strongly" that I'm objecting to. It is the sense that you have forgotten the very recent past and seem to be working on sound bytes from politicians who have also forgotten the recent past.

These people are telling you they want you dead and are going to do that. You are packaging your words in PC acceptable language.

Yes, I know. This is the saddest part of my conclusions. Until there is another mess made, nobody wants to do anything about preventing it. These kinds of people are buttuming that "the government" will clean up the mess and take the blame for allowing it to happen. And then these people think they will be able to continue their life styles with no changes as if nothing ever happened.

There was proof in the 1990s. Everybody ignored it and did nothing about mess prevention. There was more proof on the day 9-11. Now people approved doing a little bit of mess prevention in Afghanistan but are have no interest in having the policies of that place changed so they can do their own local mess preventions.

At least once a year, Al Queda publisizes its intentions. Yet this is not "proof" enough that there is a serious threat to Western ways of living.

Why do you have to be told by a male that there is a problem?

If I answer this you would immediately leap to a conclusion that has nothing based in reality. I don't trust Bush; I don't agree with most of Bush's political platform. It isn't the President who suspends the Consbreastution nor pieces of the Consbreastutions. It Congress who declares a state of war. We do not have an enemy that is ill-defined. We do have enemy that doesn't play by the past war rules, does not have loyalities to any political nor geographical enbreasty. Thus, the way European wars have been waged in the past will not work in this situation. To keep insisting that we do war the way we used to do it is, not only foolish and stupid, but self-defeating.

There was no seriousness about those attempts. Clinton did not react immediately to the World Trade Center planting other than say useless words like, Don't be mean. Instead the US called it a crime (not an attack on the nation), put the couple of perpretrators in jail, and was satisified that a lesson had been sent to Al Queda and this would keep Al Queda from doing it again.

Sure he wants to keep his party in power; that's his job, not because he is President momentarily, but because he's a member of the Republican Party. However, to use this as an excuse to pretend that a lethal threat does not exist, is beyond my comprehension. The Democrats are using it but they are still campaigning the 2004 elections. Not 2006, not 2008, but 2004 Presidential elections.

Even the local Democrats in this state (Mbutt.) are telling Kerry to shutup, wakeup and notice that it's 2006.

It is ok to be suspicious. But you aren't suspicious. You have started with the buttumption that Bush is lying and that no danger exists despite Al Queda announcing proudly that it does exist.

This isn't liesure. This is work.

Again, I don't know how many times I have to say this. I am not talking politics. I also live in the Democrat state of the US. I don't have to buttume anything about them.

I know that this is a questioning of my objectivity. That implies that I am unable to think for myself, make decisions, make educated judgements, etc. etbloodycetera.

Did you take a look at the precise wording of the questions? Did you look at who did the poll? Did you look at who announced the interpretation of the poll? Did you compare the wording of the first news report of this poll with the later ones? Do this with any item; you'll be surprised at the implicit changes of meaning that occurs.

Yes, I remember.

Believe what? The poll results or the slant of the news report?

That is correct. So why are you buttuming that the words "a connection between 9-11 and Iraq" has to mean that Iraq caused 9-11?

Yes, I know you have been misunderstanding all these years. I've tried to correct that but have failed to write that clearly, too.

BAH