It seems that the despicable strategy of the Democrats is to obstruct Bush's ability to fight the war on terror, then if an attack occurs, they can blame Bush, for not being effective, if there is no attack, than they have the "threat of terrorism is exaggerated" card. Note the news media, never talks about what happened on 9-11 -- they may mention "9-11", but no pictures, no reminders -- while they spent an entire month putting Abu Ghraib pictures on front pages.
I think if there was more support for the war at home, we would already have invaded Iran or Syria or both, since those countries are the ones who are sending the foreign fighters and funding the Iraqi "insurgency". That would have put an end to the Iraqi "resistance" in short order.
Note the news media, never talks about what happened on 9-11 -- they may mention "9-11", but no pictures, no reminders -- while they spent an entire month putting Abu Ghraib pictures on front pages.
> Note the news media, never talks about what happened on
> 9-11 -- they may mention "9-11", but no pictures, no
> reminders
I'll tell you why there are no pictures and no reminders. Because they don't add up to the official version of that story. It's safer only to mention it, without getting into detail.
P.S. And 09/11 is not related to Saddam