When I visualize the target market, I see he’s going after children that are too young to vote in order to give them ammunition to become hatemongers later in life. He’s providing overwhelmed parents with something to fight the rising tide that Sen. Obama has brought forth. I tend to think it’s a fairy tale, but I haven’t seen the text yet.

People like Hewitt like to talk about how much safer that Bush has made us since 9/11, yet turn right around and tell us that the terrorists will destroy us if given the chance.

As I have said before, we in America are at a much higher risk of being attacked by our own fellow Americans. It’s attacks like the one by the disgruntled employee in Kentucky this past week, who killed his supervisor and co-workers, that we have to be afraid of.

Didn’t you get the memo from Dick Cheney’s office?

First the attack on Iran, then the retaliatory attacks by Iran and Hezbollah on U.S. citizens and interests abroad and, more than likely, with attempts made inside the United States, followed by Bush and Cheney declaring a national emergency, imposing martial law, and shutting down our Constitution and our democracy, so they can finally establish their “permanent Republican majority” ruled by a “unitary executive,” which will look somewhat like what Hitler and the Nazis dreamed of for Germany and the rest of the world.

Republicans are crazy, or haven’t you noticed?

But civilians are being killed everyday by al Qaeda… the citizenship of the civilians doesn’t disturb me as much as it does you.
In the Ressam case, the system worked- law enforcement handled it… and I have reason to believe that had law enforcement been allowed to do their job in W’s White House there is a good chance that 9/11 could have prevented, but that is neither here nor there… it happened.
Why can’t you admit that these ‘reforms’ have failed and that terror is, if anything, a growing problem…

I’d be interested to see a link from a story or article about a genuine counter-terrorism expert who argues this… can you provide one, Tracy? Or a name?

Will you now specifically and accurately answer Ralph’s question about the appropriate amount of time that must elapse before a new Administration can be blamed for failure to prevent a terrorist attack?
Thanks, Tracy!

Tracy- your argument is ridiculous, refuted by evidence from professionals, and really amorphous…
You dismiss Clarke because he made money offering his opinion- would you trust an architect who only worked for free over a paid architect?
You undoubtedly know about architecture… counter-terrorism is not your strong suit, leave it to the professionals.

They PRODUCED them? Does that mean that any sitting President is directly responsible for producing a terrorist attack on their watch?

Is the failure to prevent such an act tantamount to carrying it out in your eyes?

I only ask because, as ridiculous as the above sounds, you strict ‘moral absolutism’ has me concerned that you may believe that… as long as said President is a Democrat, of course.

Wouldn’t ya think this would be something important to find out, Tracy?

Or is not knowing good enough for you and Mssr. Bush?

Now you’re just being silly, Tracy…

Civilians have died in Afghanistan at al Qaeda’s hands and, if Bush is to be believed, AQI is a major problem (we’ll discuss whether or not the to groups are at all affiliated later)

And this ‘major attack’ line is funny coming from a man who considers the theft of candy completely equal with the theft of a million dollars… after all, an attack is an attack, right Tracy?

Color me surprised.

And as far as the thought that “Clinton’s policies produced multiple sucessful attacks by al Qaeda on American interests throughout the 1990s” seems like you could say the exact same thing about Bush in the last seven years.

So you’ve kinda run out of decent arguments there, Trace.

Or, more accurately, the arguments that you started with have shown their inadequacy.

I do like how you’ve moved the goalposts ever so slightly here: no major attack has taken place against American civilians . With Clinton, it’s attacks by al Qaeda on American interests. Now all of a sudden with Bush, it’s American civilians. Thus disqualifying all of the al Qeada attacks on American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan — you don’t consider contractors “civilians” do you, Trace? “Cause if you did, there goes that whole point, movable goalposts and all.

And the judgment was based on your poor reasoning and deductive skills as displayed on this blog, and your lack of attention to detail.

Tracy5 Says:

#98

“Tracy claims to be an architect in Dallas, probably some stupid fat *ss texan with a wife ugly enough to be in a plow harness…”

Why do you type behind a keyboard knowing full well you would get you ass kicked in person for popping your mouth off?

Yep, there’s the characteristic right-wing dependence on violence to settle an argument.

Does that usually work for you, T5?