Bush Details Bin Laden Plan for Terror Attacks Against U.S.

#1

OrangeEmpire

The White Debonair
Joined
Nov 28, 2005
Messages
74,988
Likes
59
#1
FOXNews.com - Bush Details Bin Laden Plan for Terror Attacks Against U.S. - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

NEW LONDON, Conn — President Bush, calling Al Qaeda "America's Public Enemy No. 1," shared intelligence Wednesday asserting that Usama bin Laden was working in 2005 to set up a unit in Iraq to hit targets inside the U.S.
Much of the information Bush cited in a commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy described terrorism plots already revealed, but he fleshed out details and highlighted U.S. successes in foiling planned attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.
"In the minds of Al Qaeda leaders, 9-11 was just a downpayment on violence yet to come," Bush said on a bright, sunny day at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy commencement, held at a stadium along the Thames River. "It is tempting to believe that the calm here at home after 9-11 means that the danger to our country has passed."
"The danger has not passed. Here in America, we are living in the eye of a storm," he said, depicting the struggle in Iraq as a battle between the United States and Al Qaeda. "All around us, dangerous winds are swirling and these winds could reach our shores at any moment."

Preaching to the choir?

Thoughts?
 
#2
#2
The closer and closer elections get, the more we will hear about terror this and terror that. I guess we'll see if they can squeeze one more election out based on fear alone..
 
#3
#3
The closer and closer elections get, the more we will hear about terror this and terror that. I guess we'll see if they can squeeze one more election out based on fear alone..
Puh-leeeeze. The most recent election was like Castro running in Cuba - absolutely no competition.
 
#5
#5
Puh-leeeeze. The most recent election was like Castro running in Cuba - absolutely no competition.

bush won 51% to 48% in the popular vote, and 286 to 242 in electoral votes. I was of the mind that that was a close election, but if it wasn't just imagine the landslide if the democrats could find any semblance of a decent candidate.
 
#6
#6
bush won 51% to 48% in the popular vote, and 286 to 242 in electoral votes. I was of the mind that that was a close election, but if it wasn't just imagine the landslide if the democrats could find any semblance of a decent candidate.

Yeah Billary just won't cut it, Thats why this Nation is going to support Fred Thompson. It will bring the nation together again.
 
#7
#7
bush won 51% to 48% in the popular vote, and 286 to 242 in electoral votes. I was of the mind that that was a close election, but if it wasn't just imagine the landslide if the democrats could find any semblance of a decent candidate.

In that election people voted for Bush or against him, not for Kerry.
 
#8
#8
Did you see the Republican debate? Terror, terror, terror and terror..

It probably seemed strange seeing a group of candidates getting together and discussing the harsh reality of the most pressing issue of the day rather than joining hands in a singing of Populist Anti-War Kumbaya.

It's easy to chalk up "terror talk" as fear mongering, but at this point I'm not sure what else it takes to convince people that it's a real threat.
 
#11
#11
bush won 51% to 48% in the popular vote, and 286 to 242 in electoral votes. I was of the mind that that was a close election, but if it wasn't just imagine the landslide if the democrats could find any semblance of a decent candidate.
given the disaster that is this administration, the fact that Bush could win re-election should tell you all you need to know about the competition, or lack thereof
 
#12
#12
It's easy to chalk up "terror talk" as fear mongering, but at this point I'm not sure what else it takes to convince people that it's a real threat.

It's always been a real threat. I have no problems with them discussing it, I just have a problem with them ONLY discussing that issue. There are other things that need to be taken care of and I just refuse to buy into the "if we don't stop the terrorists, there will be no America" mentality.
 
#14
#14
It's always been a real threat. I have no problems with them discussing it, I just have a problem with them ONLY discussing that issue. There are other things that need to be taken care of and I just refuse to buy into the "if we don't stop the terrorists, there will be no America" mentality.

When I listen to the Rep candidates I hear many issues with terror being one and an emphasis on offensive action towards terrorism. This doesn't mean they aren't concerned about other problems.

When I listen to the Dem candidates I hear many issues with emphasis on offensive action as well. I'm told that if we don't raise taxes on the rich the middle class will disappear. I'm told corporations are destroying the middle class and must be further regulated. Etc. etc.

It's no different between the parties - each picks a set of issues they believe are important to their constituents then use hyperbole to pound the point home. This is the way of politics and it has been consistent for years.
 
#15
#15
I'd love to see Fred be the Prez. He doesn't take any crap.

I wouldn't mind seeing Fred run either, but not because he "doesn't take any crap". That isn't the quality we need in a president. Sounds good to the redneck republicans of the world. If you are talking about being tough, then ok. But a lot of uninformed, uneducated types voted for Bush just for the reasoning that they felt "he didn't take any crap" and spoke the truth. And look what the dummy has done for this country. Not much and will go down as the worst president in history or one of them anyway.
 

VN Store



Back
Top