A foiled attempt? I question the timing.

>If Bush Deliberately Allowed 9-11,
>Did Blair Allow 7-7?

Is there an (R) after his name?

>Because, you know, there's no
>way you could reap similar
>political benefits by foiling an
>attempted mass-slaughter.

Sadly, I think it's probably true that foiling an attack would not be as politically beneficial. People don't take foiled attacks anywhere near as seriously as attacks that succeed -- if the government was able to stop the attack, it must not have been a real threat.

But... successful terrorist attacks are ALSO not "real threats," Michael Moore and the BBC inform me.

>But... successful terrorist attacks are ALSO
>not "real threats," Michael Moore and the BBC
>inform me.

I like to think the public at large has more sense than to believe that even if it does come from a source as immense, er, I mean eminent, as Michael Moore.

I want some cheesy fries! And a ham! Bring me some ham!

A foiled 9/11 could have been enormously better for Bush politically than the real 9/11.

For one thing, everyone thought that the body count was on the order of 10,000-50,000 (at least) until the missing people were tallied and added up to 3,000. If the attack had not succeeded, Bush could have claimed, in all honesty, that the foiled attack would have likely (based on the capacity of the towers and the assumption that the evacuation would have gone as badly as the first WTC evacuation did) claimed the total death toll of the entire Vietnam War in a single morning. That would have gotten people's attention for sure.

(Now if it could have been foiled by passengers or crew with guns somehow, or even passengers in all the planes fighting back with whatever came to hand after figuring out that the only reason a hijacker could possibly want to be at the controls himself is to do something that the pilot won't do even at gunpoint, which can only mean crashing the plane, we'd be in a completely different world right now...)

Question for any left wing nutjob reading this.

You guys say that being in Iraq is distracting us from the real WoT and bin Laden specifically... sort of implying that there are no terrorists to be found there.

You then go on to say that the recent bombings in London are a direct result of being in Iraq and that we should pull out all forces immediately so as to avoid any further "insurgent" "retaliations".

My question is this....

If Iraq has very little (if anything) to do with the War on Terror, then why would terrorists feel the need to get back at us for being there....?

Take your time to visit the pages about review ... Thanks!!!