Bin Laden (a.k.a. CIA asset “Tim Osman”) Speaks from Grave

reply to post by RomanMaroni


Swamp, despite your attempts to talk down to me, I believe we have found a couple things we may agree on. First, I would like to completely eliminate the CIA, and put that back into the hands of the military. I believe the Army used to handle intelligence. I think we both can agree the CIA has done next to nothing for the benefit of the American people and, as 9/11 showed us, is a complete waste of money.

I understand what you are trying to say regarding the military budget being reduced, but you are failing to understand an old saying that goes, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." If no one is attacking us, we don't need the air defenses you describe. It's just like you said, those who forget history will be doomed to repeat it. Haven't we learned our lesson about meddling in the Middle East. Iran still hates us to this day because of our intervention regarding the assassination of Mossedeg in '53 and the installing of the Shah. And we would hate them too if they did that to us. Gutting our military budget didn't result in our unconditional support for Israel, our sanctions on Iraq, our billion dollar bases in Saudi Arabia, or our creating radical Islam to fight the Soviets. We have seen what is called blowback from these things. Yet, we are getting more and more involved creating more and more enemies. So are we learning from history or are we making it worse? It's like you have a one track mind that says "war, war, war." Try to remember who dies in war. It's not the people who are to blame for the causes, it's people just like you and me. Regular people with jobs and families. Those people we are killing in Iraq, they aren't terrorists or insurgents, they are people who see a foreign enemy on their land and they are defending it, just like we would do if the situation was reversed. Try to remember Swamp, all dynasties come to an end. The US won't always be the one on top. What kind of world are we leaving for our kids and grandkids? Again, those who forget history will be doomed to repeat it.

I'm at a loss for words that you would refer to $290 billion as "pittance." That just shows your mentality and your lust for war, war, war. I don't think you can even understand that the majority of people who die in war, didn't even want the war in the first place. The Middle East isn't full of terrorists. It's full of everyday people with families.

The other thing I think we agree is: I'm against nearly all social programs. With individual liberty comes individual responsibility.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Im sorry are 14 fighter jets not enough to intercept a couple of airliners?

Really, since you work and have a vested interest in the fighter jet field, can you tell us approx. how many jets does it take to shoot down an airliner?

Oh, and how many shots do they each need to take?

You said the jets were partially armed yet we know how much money was spent that day to run all the exercises. You telling me they couldn’t afford arms with a $300,000,000,000 budget but they could afford to run exercises burning jet fuel on a few dozen planes all day?

Originally posted by RomanMaroni
Those people we are killing in Iraq, they aren't terrorists or insurgents, they are people who see a foreign enemy on their land and they are defending it, just like we would do if the situation was reversed.

See, the problem is that you get some national guards man who works in a protected environment trying to make it seem like his deployments make him some sort of expert.


At Swampfox46_1999:

You dont fix your f-16s on the streets of Sadr City, now do ya?

Get boots on the ground, watch your buddies die and shoot an innocent Iraqi caught in the line of fire and THEN see how easy it is to justify the war.

I can understand real soldiers having to justify the war through irrational belief in the official story; they have memories to hide from. But an aircraft mechanic? Common, all you can say is that you are swallowing the lies and towing the line for a paycheck.

Who wants to loose out on retirement benefits you have worked so hard for? Your a few years away from 45% right? Cant go screwing that up by taking your oath to protect the constitution seriously, can you?

A coping mechanism to justify your paycheck. Wow. Its OK, you will answer for it someday. Every knee shall bow.




[edit on 2-6-2008 by cavscout]

First, I would like to completely eliminate the CIA

Nope, but time to go back to the old rules. We stepped away from human intelligence to rely more on signals intelligence. Not to mention, Congress mandated that the CIA no longer talk to people who were suspect when it came to human rights violations. However, its those scumbags who tend to have the information we need.

the CIA has done next to nothing for the benefit of the American people and, as 9/11 showed us, is a complete waste of money.

The way its been run since the Church Committee.....yep.

If no one is attacking us

Only the dead have seen the end of war....Just ask the Danes, who just lost an embassy to Muslim extremists.

Haven't we learned our lesson about meddling in the Middle East.

Tell you what, start a crusade to get the demonrats and enviromentalists to let us drill for our own oil in our country while we develop better sources...and with the exception of Israel, I think I would be happy to bid goodbye to the Middle East once and for all.

Gutting our military budget didn't result in our unconditional support for Israel

No, our national guilt at ignoring what was happening in the concentration camps contributed to that.

our sanctions on Iraq

Which was brought on by a wannabe Hitler named Saddam Hussein. By the way, those sanctions were enacted by the UN, NOT the US.

or our creating radical Islam to fight the Soviets

Radical Islam existed LONG before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. We didnt create it.

It's like you have a one track mind that says "war, war, war." Try to remember who dies in war.

I know exactly who dies in war. Men and women like me. Thats a frigging stupid statement to make.

Those people we are killing in Iraq, they aren't terrorists or insurgents, they are people who see a foreign enemy on their land and they are defending it, just like we would do if the situation was reversed

Oh really? Care to come join me in Iraq? Because they arent just Iraqis here shooting at us.

I'm at a loss for words that you would refer to $290 billion as "pittance."

Compared to what percent of the GDP used to be spent on defense...it is.

I don't think you can even understand that the majority of people who die in war, didn't even want the war in the first place. The Middle East isn't full of terrorists. It's full of everyday people with families.

Wow...I would have never figured that. Every frigging day we unload stretchers off of the helicopters that have Iraqi children on them. Kids that are born to parents that dont practice the same type of Islam that the assholes throwing bombs do. Kids that are just trying to go to school for the first time in their lives. Moms and Dads who are trying to build better lives for their families. Yeah I know EXACTLY who dies in war. And I know 95% of the Iraqi civilians that are dying....are dying because of radicals....NOT the coalition forces. But I forgot.....the media tends not to report that.

I know im going to regret engaging him...but here we go.

Im sorry are 14 fighter jets not enough to intercept a couple of airliners?

14 jets over the continental US? not adequate for defense.

You telling me they couldn’t afford arms with a $300,000,000,000 budget but they could afford to run exercises burning jet fuel on a few dozen planes all day?

No, Im telling you that the missiles need to take out large aircraft were in their magazines...and no longer kept on the rails of the alert aircraft.

See, the problem is that you get some national guards man who works in a protected environment trying to make it seem like his deployments make him some sort of expert

A few false assumptions there.

Get boots on the ground, watch your buddies die and shoot an innocent Iraqi caught in the line of fire and THEN see how easy it is to justify the war.

Been there, done that (with the exception of taking out an innocent), have the scars to show for it stretching back to being a doorgunner the first go around over here. So, any other assumptions you care to make?

you will answer for it someday. Every knee shall bow.

The day I die, will be with a clear conscience.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
14 jets over the continental US? not adequate for defense.

So, why isn't anyone going after Clinton for this stupidity?

Any fool could have told you 14 jets over the continental US was inadequate. And you people make how much again?

I wish I could be as incompetant at my job and not only keep my job but get a pay and position raise every year.

And why wheren't you complaining then about this inadequate protection?

BTW, it must be a slow day on the battlefront today for you to be posting all day long. What time is it again in Iraq?

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

A few false assumptions there.

What false assumptions? you were asked repeatedly what you do for the military and stated that you work on avionics for f-16s.

Assumptions? No, i just believed you when you said what you for the military, didnt suspect you were fibbing.

Been there, done that (with the exception of taking out an innocent), have the scars to show for it stretching back to being a doorgunner the first go around over here. So, any other assumptions you care to make?

Again with the assumptions statement. You lied to us about your military experience, and your lies were all I have to go off. Not assumptions, just a trusting nature I guess. Dont worry, Ill be more careful next time.

So, a door gunner, eh?

You suppose that you got the real feel for things from way up there, huh? And in the first gulf war. The war that lasted a day and didnt even see urban combat.

You know exactly what is going on in Iraq because a decade ago you sat in a bird and (maybe) engaged uniformed OpFor?

Gimme a break.

So, why isn't anyone going after Clinton for this stupidity?

Did you miss the part where I said it started while Bush 41 was in office?

Any fool could have told you 14 jets over the continental US was inadequate. And you people make how much again?

I refer you, once again, to the politicians that we elect to run our country...and their desire to spend the "peace dividend".

I wish I could be as incompetant at my job and not only keep my job but get a pay and position raise every year

So you vote to kick out all the Senators and Congressmen at election time?

And why wheren't you complaining then about this inadequate protection?

Who says I wasnt?

BTW, it must be a slow day on the battlefront today for you to be posting all day long. What time is it again in Iraq?

We do get an occasional day off.

reply to post by cavscout

What false assumptions? you were asked repeatedly what you do for the military and stated that you work on avionics for f-16s

Assumptions that my current speciality is the one Ive been in my entire career.

Again with the assumptions statement. You lied to us about your military experience, and your lies were all I have to go off. Not assumptions, just a trusting nature I guess. Dont worry, Ill be more careful next time.

Nope, havent lied yet, but then havent given a full service biography either.

You suppose that you got the real feel for things from way up there, huh? And in the first gulf war. The war that lasted a day and didnt even see urban combat

The part that was televised might have lasted only a day and a half, but there was a lot more going on over there than ever made the news.

You know exactly what is going on in Iraq because a decade ago you sat in a bird and (maybe) engaged uniformed OpFor?

Another assumption...tsk tsk...

Swampfox46_1999, posting like you do where you break down a response to every single sentence is rude at best.

Not only does it make it hard for anyone except the quoted to follow, but it makes it near impossible to respond in kind, which makes it just another cheap way to "win" an argument. It’s generally seen as being deceptive and heading off a rebuttal, because the other poster has such a hard time replying to all the various rebuttals you made that he will often single out only one, or none at all.

Why dont you reply in more paragraphs. You know, like a real live human being having a conversation. Break down the quotes into ideas, groups of sentences, not every sentence.

Not ragging you, just trying to help you out; I am sure you dont want to be seen as a troll, but breaking it down like you are is typically the mark of a troll or an alphabet ninja spook.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Another assumption...tsk tsk...

You accuse me of making assumptions, yet you REFUSE to tell the whole story!

You sit there and try to act all mysterious, like you are some kind of super-Rambo special forces seal ranger and you cant tell us what you do and then claim I am making assumptions for going off what little you have told us?

Loose the mysterious stranger vibe or quit throwing your experience around. it means nothing if you cant say what you did.

Starting to smell in here, huh?

reply to post by cavscout


Actually, In swamp's defense, I do the same thing most of the time. To me, it's just easier to go line by line than have to remember the whole post you are responding to.

So, I don't see it as trolling. Just a way of responding.

See swamp, I can be reasonable.

Although, people have complained about how I do it also.



[edit on 6/2/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 6/2/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by cavscout


But being mysterious is so much fun.

Okay...

Not a supersecret special forces type....

I was active duty Navy in a helicopter squadron in the late 80s early 90s, our primary area of responsibility was the Arabian/Persian Gulf (depending on which individual you are talking to). We worked with several nameless units over there during Operations Earnest Will and Prime Chance 1 and 2. The majority of it, to my knowledge, never made the news. During the first Gulf War, we did CSAR, and infiltration missions, again, most of which never made the news. Thats pretty much all the details you are going to get about that.

As for now, yes, I am on active duty with the Air Force and rather thankful that the guys we are dealing with now, are much crappier shots than the guys I dealt with when I was younger (and could move a lot faster)

reply to post by RomanMaroni

Gutting the military had nothing to do with 9/11, nothing to do with Iraq, and had nothing to do with Bin Laden. The CIA didn't seem to know anything and the FBI couldn't seem to notice the terrorists right under their noses. All this despite a $290 billion budget.Your answer: more spending for the military. And you say I have comprehension problems.

I would say that you have confirmation bias problems.

It's no big secret that the CIA, NSA, and other military intelligence agencies suffered from large budget cuts beginning in the early 1990s under the Bush Administration.

The cost of the post-Cold War “peace dividend” was that during the 1990s our intelligence community funding declined in real terms, reducing our buying power by tens ofbillions of dollars over the decade. We lost nearly one in four of our positions. This loss of manpower was devastating, particularly in our two most manpower intensive activities: all-source analysis and human source collection. By the mid-1990s, recruitment of new CIA analysts and case officers had come to a virtual halt. NSA was hiring no new technologists during the greatest information technology change in our lifetimes. Both Congress and the Executive Branch for most of the decade embraced the idea that we could surge our resources to deal with emerging intelligence challenges, including threats from terrorism.During this time of increased military operations around the globe, the Defense Department was also reducing its tactical intelligence units and funding. This caused the Intelligence Community to stretch its capabilities to the breaking point, because national systems were covering gaps in tactical intelligence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Throughout the Intelligence Community during this period we made difficult resource reallocation decisions to try to rebuild critical mission areas affected by the funding cuts. Source

reply to post by Boone 870


Boone, your link is to a cover your a** report. Much like the 9/11 Commission Report. It seems so simple. Nobody is to blame for failure to prevent 9/11. It was just a simple case of lack of funding. $290 BILLION just wasn't quite enough. Weird how the 9/11 Commission reached the conclusion it was a "lack of imagination" when it was clearly that measly $290 billion. Wasn't the CIA, they didn't have enough money. Wasn't the NSA, they didn't have enough money. Wasn't NORAD, they were caught off guard. Wasn't NEADS, they were caught off guard. Wasn't the administration, they could have never even imagined something like that happening. Wasn't the FBI, they were allowed to communicate. Pre Iraq war intelligence, wasn't anyone's fault either. They were just repeating what someone else told them. Are you seeing a pattern here?

Regardless of the circumstances, it is NORAD's job to defend, and they failed. It is the CIA's job to track these threats overseas, and they failed. It is the FBI's and NSA's job to track these people at home, and they failed. But I guess they didn't really fail, they were the actually the victims. That won't be a problem in the future though. Through this massive failure of every intelligence agency, the gained. They gained more power and more money. Weird how we rewarded the biggest intelligence failure in history, and no one one held accountable, because I guess no one was actually to blame. After all, they were the victims.

Boone, your link is to a cover your a** report. Much like the 9/11 Commission Report. It seems so simple. Nobody is to blame for failure to prevent 9/11.

You really should reread the entire thread. Nowhere does it say no one is to blame for 9/11.

It was just a simple case of lack of funding. $290 BILLION just wasn't quite enough. Weird how the 9/11 Commission reached the conclusion it was a "lack of imagination" when it was clearly that measly $290 billion. Wasn't the CIA, they didn't have enough money. Wasn't the NSA, they didn't have enough money. Wasn't NORAD, they were caught off guard. Wasn't NEADS, they were caught off guard.

You really just do not get it do you? How does the CIA hire case officers/analysts to gather and interpret data? FUNDING. How does the NSA upgrade their equipment and hire analysts? FUNDING. How does NORAD maintain an adequate (fully fueled, fully armed interceptors) alert force? FUNDING. And yes, lack of imagination/human arrogance played a part. Our NEADS mainly practiced against intercepting aircraft coming from outside our borders, not hijacked aircraft on suicide missions INSIDE our borders. Thats why on 9/11 the primary alert aircraft that did launch, followed normal procedure and flew to their preplanned orbit areas off the coast. Yes there were a few exercises involving hijacked airliners inside our borders...but then that comes down to human arrogance (they cant possibly do that to US)

Wasn't the FBI, they were allowed to communicate. Pre Iraq war intelligence, wasn't anyone's fault either. They were just repeating what someone else told them.

The FBI and CIA were forbidden by law to exchange information. Thank you to the mid 70s witchhunt (Church Commission) A lot of our pre Iraq war intelligence was from other countries, because we no longer had as many people on the ground in various countries, and those we DID have, were forbbiden by Congressional mandate from talking to the scumbags that Brit Intell, Czech Intell, German Intell talked to. BTW, you do know that all of our allies that we got our pre war intell from....STILL stand by their reports the lead to our war in Iraq right? And we also know that Joseph Wilson lied to the President and Congress about his "investigation"? And that some of the "scumbags" are still on record as saying that Saddam sent a lot of stuff that he didnt want found to Syria and Lebanon right? But that we arent supposed to listen to them, because they are scumbags with some human rights issues in their pasts.

Regardless of the circumstances, it is NORAD's job to defend, and they failed. It is the CIA's job to track these threats overseas, and they failed. It is the FBI's and NSA's job to track these people at home, and they failed.

And each of those agencies had been hamstrung in the performance of their duties.

Weird how we rewarded the biggest intelligence failure in history, and no one one held accountable, because I guess no one was actually to blame.

I hope the light is starting to dawn. We did not "reward" the biggest intelligence failure in history. We got bit in the ass because we allowed our civilian leaders (starting in the 70s) started dismantling our intelligence apparatus. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed, we allowed them to start to dismantle our defenses, so we could spend the Peace Dividend and we put many of our military families on welfare, those that were still in the military and not discharged in the drawdown. Remember the giddiness of the mid to late 90s....woohooo budget surpluses.

You want to know who bears responsibility for the failures that led to 9/11?? We can start with Gerald Ford, James Earl Carter, I will excuse Reagan because he really did try to reverse a bunch of the crap that was going on, George HW Bush, Bill Clinton (for investigating terrorists..instead of killing them) and George W. Bush (because he should have said the hell with it on Jan 20,2001 and turned the military loose on a few places). Add to that each Congressman and Senator who voted to cut funding, to stop the CIA/FBI from cooperating, to enforce BS political correctness on our intelligence agencies. Toss in the senior bureaucrats that spend their days justifying their jobs and not doing them. Finally toss in everyone who never once called their representatives to say, that hey, maybe it isnt such a good idea to cut the military in half or to tell the CIA they can only talk to the "nice" people overseas.

So, when should we start the trials? I figure we might have to get that Amazon tribe they just discovered to be an impartial jury, because there sure isnt a single American citizen that would be impartial in judging all the people who can be faulted for their failures and lack of imaginations in regards to preventing 9/11.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


No Swamp, it's you the just doesn't get it. The US spent $583 billion lat year in defense. Israel spent $9 billion. According to your argument, Israel doesn't have enough money to properly defend itself. So why do we not see major attacks in Israel? By your logic, Israel doesn't have nearly enough money to hire officers/analysts to gather and interpret data. Their national security agency clearly doesn't have enough money to upgrade their equipment and hire analysts. The US spends as much in defense as the rest of the entire world, and somehow it's your claim that we don't spend enough. That is absolutely crazy. So why, if the budget was cut, was it the terrorism area that suffered? We know Bin Laden and Al-Queda attacked us in '93, the embassies, the USS Cole, and declared jihad on the US. But for some reason someone felt we'll just cut back on terrorism intelligence. You said GW "should have said the hell with it on Jan 20,2001 and turned the military loose on a few places." Instead he went on vacation, where he spent most of his time at the beginning of his term.

I know I'm not getting through to you Swamp because you are all about the military. The CIA has done far more harm than good to the US. Right now in the Middle East we are creating many problems to come. For every citizen we kill, we create at least 5 family members that blame the US. Those people then become willing to kill US soldiers in retaliation, and some will harbor even deeper hatred. And this is in a country that wasn't even involved with 9/11. The military industrial complex is sitting pretty for the next 50+ years. The defense budget will continue to increase and is going to be spent to defend against all the enemies we are creating. Meanwhile, the US economy is getting weaker and weaker. We need to cut all that overseas spending and concentrate on our actual "defense." Instead of paying to destroy and rebuild Iraq, we should rebuild the hurricane Katrina areas.

What if our reaction to 9/11 would have been to become fully independent of foreign oil? If we would have said ok, we will no longer send our money to the Middle East where these terrorists come from? What do you think Saudi Arabia would have done to Al-Queda? What would any of those Middle East countries that depend on US oil money to survive have done? What would Al-Queda be today? Instead, we go to war and the majority of that money goes right to these places by fueling all our vehicles. On top of that, we are creating more and more hatred for the US. It makes no sense. Try to step back Swamp and see the bigger picture.

The US spent $583 billion lat year in defense. Israel spent $9 billion. According to your argument, Israel doesn't have enough money to properly defend itself. So why do we not see major attacks in Israel? By your logic, Israel doesn't have nearly enough money to hire officers/analysts to gather and interpret data. Their national security agency clearly doesn't have enough money to upgrade their equipment and hire analysts.

How did I know that at some point you would start comparing apples to oranges? You cannot compare Israel's defense budget or situation to ours. It just doesnt work. And Israel does things a lot different. They do not care if a subject has human rights violations in their past. If that person has information Israel needs, they will go after it. They do not worry about political correctness. They are not above killing terrorists or using interrogation methods that would make liberals in our country scream in agony. Its just not a valid comparision on so many levels.

So why, if the budget was cut, was it the terrorism area that suffered? We know Bin Laden and Al-Queda attacked us in '93, the embassies, the USS Cole, and declared jihad on the US. But for some reason someone felt we'll just cut back on terrorism intelligence

And its really beginning to look like you either arent reading my posts or understanding them. Because I have mentioned more than once that in the mid 90s, Bill Clinton decided to make terrorism a law enforcement issue instead of a intelligence/military issue. To give you an example, had the USS Cole happened during the mid 80s, quite a few terrorists would have ceased to exist. Reagan had NO problem greenlighting military action (overt and covert) in regards to killing terrorists.

You said GW "should have said the hell with it on Jan 20,2001 and turned the military loose on a few places." Instead he went on vacation, where he spent most of his time at the beginning of his term.

Not sure why you felt the need to post this. Ive already said that GW Bush deserves a bit of the blame for 9/11....along with the rest of the people I listed.

The CIA has done far more harm than good to the US. Right now in the Middle East we are creating many problems to come. For every citizen we kill, we create at least 5 family members that blame the US. Those people then become willing to kill US soldiers in retaliation, and some will harbor even deeper hatred.

You really need to come on over here then and talk to some Iraqis. Not sure where you got that "5 family members" garbage. Every day, Iraqis, fed up with the Islamic loonys that are coming from Iran, Syria and a few other places, are telling US where to find the terrorists and their weapons. Every single day, Iraqi families leave my base after having their literal lives saved by US military doctors. Keep sucking down the media fluff though. The Iraqi people are making great strides in getting their nation on its feet, and yes, we still have issues coming up, but by and large, the Iraqi people do NOT hate us...

And this is in a country that wasn't even involved with 9/11.

No, but the former government was heavily involved in training and supporting terrorists. BTW, certain non-us intelligence agencies STILL stand by their reports of 9/11 hijackers meeting with Iraqi government officials.

I guess I would refer you back to the President's speeches in the two weeks following 9/11 when he said that if you supported or hid terrorists, not necessarily those involved with 9/11, we were coming for you.

You seem to think that radical Islam only came into being in the 70s as a direct result of our actions....you really need to study some history. Because radical Islam goes back a heck of a lot farther than the CIA or our presence in the Middle East.

I know I'm not getting through to you Swamp because you are all about the military.

No, Im about reality.

What if our reaction to 9/11 would have been to become fully independent of foreign oil? If we would have said ok, we will no longer send our money to the Middle East where these terrorists come from?

Did I or did I not say I would be more than happy for us to start using our own oil and telling the majority of the Middle East what to do with themselves.......

Try to step back Swamp and see the bigger picture.

Take your blinders off, quit buying everything the US media is shoveling at you.

I agree that Osama probaly had nothing to do with the planning of 911/

The airforce and other entities were all involved in training exersices that mimicked the 911 attacks on September 11, 2001. The attackers used the "wargames" as cover to attack the buildings and use that as a pretext to invade oil rich countries.

\



[edit on 3-6-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


So comparing a defense budget to another defense budget is comparing apples to oranges. Ok. I used Israel's budget because supposedly they share the same threats as we do. I'm not really sure how the interrogation process factors into the $550 billion more we spend.

Are you saying that our presence in Iraq isn't creating problems for us in the future? I used the example 5 people for this reason. When our bombs kill an Iraqi civilian, that person usually has a husband/wife, kids, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins .... etc. If my mother or father were killed by US bombs, I then harbor a hatred for the US. You act like all these Iraqis love us, yet we have soldiers dying everyday. You say Iraqis are making great stride in getting their country on it's feet, so after 5 years they are making great strides. What are we looking at another 5 years or so before they can take care of themselves?

The president's speech you refer to, are you talking about the one where he said, "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists?" Brilliant. If you are holding GW to his words, then I guess we have many other countries to invade. Right after those speeches, I remember Hamas being blamed for a couple attacks in Israel. So why then did we go to Iraq, when we had a group so willing to openly attack. Weird. The Iraq war was never about terrorism. And I knew the War on Terrorism wasn't about terrorism when we decided to unConstitutionally invade Iraq, instead of doing job 1: Getting Bin Laden.

Please give some examples of radical Islam that goes way back.

Also Swamp, I haven't had cable TV for almost 2 years, and I don't watch any news shows. I'm not really sure what the US media is shoveling at me so I definitely don't buy it. Last I saw, the media was trying to tell me I should care about the runaway bride and Anna Nicole Smith. I caught a glimpse of Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears at my parents house a couple weeks ago.