To: Wasanother
At least 2. That would be about every 25 years between attacks then. It's only been 5 since 911 so what's the purpose in saying what did?
27 posted on
03/08/2006 9:32:08 AM PST by
eskimo
(Political groupies - rabid defenders of the indefensible.)
To: eskimo
If we have had no other attacks since 911, why does Bush "have to go", as the other Poster indicated? What reason did Bush give not to trust him on security? I will admit that he sucks on immigration but absent an attack by someone that crossed through Mexico why are we turning everything on him? I know some will say,"why take a chance with the ports deal?" and I understand that but if I was going to be scared of my own shadow I would just as much fear Canada, Britain, Philippines, China, etc... My thoughts on the Port Deal is that if the terrorist were going to get us they would do it with or without the EAU if they had the capabilities, which they don't and won't.
31 posted on
03/08/2006 9:47:08 AM PST by
Wasanother
(Terrorist come in many forms but all are RATS.)
To: eskimo
No, it was only eight years and six months between the first and second attack on the WTC. Who was in office during that eight years? I alway forget.
47 posted on
03/08/2006 11:02:45 AM PST by
msg-84
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson