This is not new, but worthy of a posting.
1 posted on
02/09/2006 9:27:59 AM PST by
aculeus
To: aculeus
"But the sketchy details provided by the White House make it hard to assess how serious or advanced the plans were."
It seems while W is President, the media will always insert a "But."
2 posted on
02/09/2006 9:30:24 AM PST by
sono
(Ted Kennedy's naming his dog Splash is like Jack Abramoff naming his dog Bribe.)
To: aculeus
#11: John Kerry's candidacy defeated.
4 posted on
02/09/2006 9:34:06 AM PST by
Texas dog
To: aculeus
...the so-called war on terror.Stopped reading there.
5 posted on
02/09/2006 9:35:54 AM PST by
randog
(What the....?!)
To: aculeus
But the sketchy details provided by the White House make it hard to assess how serious or advanced the plans were Not to worry .. those members of Congress that were informed yesterday will be sure to leak it all very soon
6 posted on
02/09/2006 9:36:22 AM PST by
Mo1
(Republicans protect Americans from Terrorists.. Democrats protect Terrorists from Americans)
To: aculeus
"... the so-called war on terror."
"So-called?" Well, if it's not called the war on terror, then what IS it called? Oh, that's right: the war on the third world. At least, that's what you believe if you're a moonbat.
8 posted on
02/09/2006 9:37:23 AM PST by
Terpfen
(72-25: The Democrats mounted a failibuster!)
To: aculeus
I bet that the NEW YORK SLIMES can't wait to publish all the details so the terrorists have better luck next time.
9 posted on
02/09/2006 9:38:47 AM PST by
doug from upland
(INDICTING HILLARY -- now that is something that's good for America)
To: aculeus; All
Y'all remember all those British Airways flights that were turned back and kept from coming here?
11 posted on
02/09/2006 9:44:48 AM PST by
eastforker
(Under Cover FReeper going dark(too much 24))
To: aculeus
so-called war on terror. The result of the so-called attacks on NYC on 9-11-01.
To: aculeus
BBC: A so-called "news organization".
To: aculeus
23 posted on
02/09/2006 10:23:44 AM PST by
proudpapa
(of three.)
To: aculeus
Mr Bush cited the disrupted plans in a speech, designed to boost support for the so-called war on terror. So called? So called war or "war on terror" The war is quite real. Of course it's not really on Terror, which is a tactic, but rather on terrorists, who are uniformly radical Islamic jihadists.
26 posted on
02/09/2006 10:35:10 AM PST by
El Gato
To: aculeus
I find it amazing that the Muzzies think they could ever again hijack an airliner in America .
36 posted on
02/09/2006 2:15:32 PM PST by
numberonepal
(Don't Even Think About Treading On Me)
To: aculeus; Coop
But the sketchy details provided by the White House make it hard to assess how serious or advanced the plans were.Thank God they are ~ what does this nutcase think? That all the details should be out there for public (read: the enemy's) consumption?? Hello idiot, we are at war. Good grief!!
37 posted on
02/09/2006 4:16:21 PM PST by
StarCMC
(Old Sarge is my hero...doing it right in Iraq! Vaya con Dios, Sarge.)
To: aculeus
Nothing new. I saw this on ABC. . . .These pain pills are making me real smart now.
To: potlatch
42 posted on
02/10/2006 1:30:18 AM PST by
devolve
(<-- (-in a manner reminiscent of Senator Gasbag F. Kohnman-)
To: aculeus
The Fort Hood massacre could have and SHOULD HAVE been avoided.
Political correctness killed our troops and civilians that day.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
