Posted on 06/30/2008 2:04:27 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Sen. Joe Lieberman warns the United States will likely face a terrorist attack in 2009 and feels Republican presidential nominee John McCain will be better prepared to handle the imminent attack than Democratic rival Barack Obama.
"Our enemies will test the new president early,” Lieberman says during on interview Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”
“Remember the truck bombing of the World Trade Center happened in the first year of the Clinton administration, and 9/11 happened in the first year of the Bush administration," he notes.
Lieberman, a four-term former Democratic incumbent from Connecticut who now aligns himself with the Independent Party, says he prefers Sen. McCain’s approach to foreign policy over that of Sen. Obama’s, citing McCain’s experience “will make the United States' enemies weak and [its] allies strong.”
McCain “knows the world," Lieberman explains. "He's been tested, and he's ready to protect the security of the American people."
Lieberman says the United States is in desperate need of a commander-in-chief who will be prepared to lead the nation on day one of taking office. McCain, he concedes, is that person.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
It’s called an Obama presidency.
You know? I really don’t think we’ll see a terrorist attack within the near future. Why? The Democrats are doing a great job for them. They refuse to do anything to alleviate oil prices which is eating our economy alive, they promote appeasement and surrender to our enemies and our nation’s refusal to acknowledge the inherent evil of Islam is due to liberal multiculturalism gone amok. No, all the muslims need to do is sit back and watch America self-destruct. After all, why risk rejuvenating Americans by launching a terrorist attack when you can have it served to you on a silver platter?
Possibly even sooner, eh Joe?
Lieberman may be right. But would it make any difference whether there is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House?
In 1993, a Democrat with no military experience (Clinton) was president and terrorists hit the WTC. In 2001, a Republican with some military experience (GW Bush) was in the White House and terrorists destroyed the WTC. Doesn’t seem to make much difference which party holds the presidency.
1992: we changed Presidents
1993: America attacked (WTC bombing)
2000: we changed Presidents
2001: America attacked (WTC destroyed)
2008: we change Presidents
2009: anyone else see a pattern here?
If Obama is elected, it will be an ironclad guarantee.
Yes, but the pattern has been permanently disrupted - the WTC is gone and isn't coming back.
Good points. To the Arab and/or Muslim world, we are a moral cesspool. They are shocked by what passes for entertainment in our culture. They are shocked by the open display of homosexuality and God knows what being in our faces in our culture. And to them, they see a culture in decline that may collapse due to lack of moral and ethical standards. Yep, they may just wait us out.
LOL
The point i was trying to make is that after we elect a new president, we get a terrorist attack of some sort.
BTW, the pattern still holds...the Pentagon is still there.
I’m not clinging to this theory (or guns or religion) but it does make me wonder....
The response makes a difference. In 1993, the response was to arrest some people and consider it a law enforcement problem. In 2001, the response was to take out two State sponsors of terror (Iraq and Afghanistan), and bring to heel two more (Lybia and Pakistan).
So why do we our government oppose border fence and amnesty? Why did so many senators vote against barring terrorists from the US?
After all, why risk rejuvenating Americans by launching a terrorist attack when you can have it served to you on a silver platter?
On one hand the US seems poised to self destruct.
But I’m not going quietly! Are there enough independently minded individuals who know how to be productive to kick this country in the ass? I may be pollyannaish, but I still believe our best days are ahead if the leftists in the government would get the hell out of the way.
5 years for oil?? We could do it in 6 months if we didn’t have to wait for permit approval, environmental impact studies, of litigation from the likes of the Environmental Defense Fund. Stopping the flow of crude is like cutting off the oxygen to the economy. Let’s get it started!
And we could tell the ME to take their sour crude and choke on it!
“The response makes a difference. In 1993, the response was to arrest some people and consider it a law enforcement problem. In 2001, the response was to take out two State sponsors of terror (Iraq and Afghanistan), and bring to heel two more (Lybia and Pakistan).”
So that’s a guarantee terrorists won’t attack the US again?
By the way, how did we bring Pakistan to heel?
Good points. To the Arab and/or Muslim world, we are a moral cesspool. They are shocked by what passes for entertainment in our culture. They are shocked by the open display of homosexuality and God knows what being in our faces in our culture. And to them, they see a culture in decline that may collapse due to lack of moral and ethical standards. Yep, they may just wait us out.”
They won’t have to wait too long. Our male feminine population grows every day.
I like Lieberman. He’s one of the few Democrats I can find myself respectfully disagreeing with. Most Democrats cannot respectfully disagree with anyone. They push, and push, and push until the only way to shut them up is to stop the car and tell them to walk home or shut up. ;-)
(I’ve a cousin who is a socialist who so far has refused to donate points from his GPA to help out fellow classmates who need a boost. He still fails to see the inconsistency in his call for government managed and mandated socio-economic equality and his resistance to government managed and mandated intellectual-GPA equality. I figure he’s got enough brains to figure it out maybe when he’s working and living in the real world instead of academia. Like they say, if you’re not a socialist when you’re young, you have no heart, but if you’re still a socialist when you’re old, then you have no brains.)
No, but that is a straw man argument.
The question never was “Who can we elect so we don’t get attacked again?”
The question was who is best equipped to deal with the aftermath of another attack.
As to how was Pakistan brought to heel, I respond as follows.
Musharraf had taken Pakistan over in a military coup in 1999. On June 20, 2001 (83 days before 9/11), Musharraf completed his power grab by making himself President.
At that time, Pakistan was a new nuclear power and was in open conflict with India over the Kashmir region. It was a beligerent State with posturing towards expansion.
When 9/11 happened, the U.S. invaded neighboring Afghanistan and put Musharraf on notice: you are either with us in out fight on terrorism, or you are the enemy.
Musharraf turned on it’s former Taliban allies in Afghanistan, stopped the saber rattling with India, and has provided essential intelligence and manpower in the fight against terrorism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.