State of the Union rumor

[gtapp]

Has he caught/killed the guy who planned the 9/11 attacks yet? The whole damn reason why there's a "war on terrorism"?!??!?

I am pretty sure the the planner behind the 9/11 attacks or at least the person who was the main contact for the hijackers was recently killed in a missle strike. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure that is the case.

Was that the one in Pakistan? I thought they said that he wasn't there.

Anyways I guess I'll rephrase the question. Have we caught or killed Osama Bin Laden yet?

How hard can it be to find a 6'5" guy in the middle of the desert strapped to a dialysis machine?

[ChiOCat]

I didn't watch, I can't stand how slow it goes with everyone standing to applaude every 2 minutes. I only get an hour or two to myself a night, I'd rather just read the Cliffs notes in the morning.

In reading those this morning, I stumbled on something that made my sarcasm spring out.

We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks,or switch grass."

Too bad we're not allowed to cut trees to get those wood chips, thanks in most part to our previous President. Because apparently they make a great fuel source. I wonder if we could find other uses for that lumber?

[catsrback76]

It would do all well to read "Jihad versus McWorld" by Barber. Terrorism as we are defining it in recent years is a response from "radical" Islamic clerics who despise the "west" and it's ethic.
We are the promoter of "freedom" which brings with it an exposure to all sorts of hell, from materialism, to commersalism, to "free thinking/speech" ie. pornography, excess etc etc etc. that they view, rightly or wrongly,as our evil culture. Jihad has been announced by clerics and goofballs like BL, and these young islamic idealists are attacking the source of what they believe to be the destroyer of their belief system.

Sadly, this trend will not cease with the capture of BL IMO. As the westernized world continues to lead in it's production of "free speech" and excess, under the guise of liberty, it will be resisted by growing numbers of Islamists who view our culture as polluting.

I obviously have no sympathies at all with their tactics, I do understand the source of much of their animus against the US and the west in general.

I'm not sure we are addressing what I view as the root problem, and to be honest I'm not sure how a person would. I love our freedoms, I however recognize that there are poisons in the system.

[Stevicat]

In the US, there was the previous world trade bombing, but it seems most were overseas, where there have been a constant stream of terrorist attacks since 9/11.

Found this site with Al Qaeda attacks

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884893.html

There were more after 9/11

Re/Max,
In studying this site, I come up with the following which tells me that the war has been very successful. All I am concerned about is US citizens and US interests here as we are only in this to protect our security.

al-Qaeda attacks on US citizens and US interests prior to and including 9/11
Number of attacks - 6
Americans killed - 3046

al-Qaeda attacks on US citizens and US interests after 9/11
Number of attacks - 5
Americans killed - 9

I am not including soldiers killed while fighting. This would be the ones killed in Somolia in 1993 and those killed in Afganistan after 9/11. I am only including terrorist attacks on innocents.

[SonomaCat]

Well, if we get to exclude all non-Americans who have been killed by terrorists, all American soldiers killed in Iraq that have nothing to do with terrorism but are still marketed as being a part of the "War on Terror," the tens of thousands of innocents we have killed, the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent, and the surge of anti-American sentiment around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, which is leading to the creation of more and more terrorists for us to kill, and the loss of faith in our President by the American people, then I would say the War on Terror has been virtually flawless to date.

[catsrback76]

Well, if we get to exclude all non-Americans who have been killed by terrorists, all American soldiers killed in Iraq that have nothing to do with terrorism but are still marketed as being a part of the "War on Terror," the tens of thousands of innocents we have killed, the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent, and the surge of anti-American sentiment around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, which is leading to the creation of more and more terrorists for us to kill, and the loss of faith in our President by the American people, then I would say the War on Terror has been virtually flawless to date.

This is a culture war and until we address the ICBM's of cultural clashes involved, we can pull all our troops back home and think "the war is over", only to discover that we are getting it handed to us time and again with other "Twin Tower" attacks. Sorry, but we have a roll to play and though the military option isn't the final answer, there has to be a deterent until we can take an honest look at what we can do to de-escalate the issues concerned.

[Stevicat]

Well, if we get to exclude all non-Americans who have been killed by terrorists, all American soldiers killed in Iraq that have nothing to do with terrorism but are still marketed as being a part of the "War on Terror," the tens of thousands of innocents we have killed, the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent, and the surge of anti-American sentiment around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, which is leading to the creation of more and more terrorists for us to kill, and the loss of faith in our President by the American people, then I would say the War on Terror has been virtually flawless to date.

OK, where do you get the tens of thousands of innocents we killed? I keep hearing that number thrown around.

There has always been anti-American sentiment which is why we were attacked prior to and on 9/11 in the first place. They hate and resent our way of life.

The american soldiers know what they are getting into when they join. They are fighting the war on terrorism and they voluntarily enlisted knowing it.

Even adding up the non americans, it comes to less then 9/11 and before.

And what is your reasoning behind the terrorist attacks before we went to war. How did we create those terrorists?

I also have something to say on the lose of faith in the President. Polls are saying this, however, it is my belief that many of those polled about how he is conducting the war are disappointed that he isn't doing more. I don't think that one can honestly say that everybody who is disapointed and has lost faith are only those that want us out.

[SonomaCat]

Well, if we get to exclude all non-Americans who have been killed by terrorists, all American soldiers killed in Iraq that have nothing to do with terrorism but are still marketed as being a part of the "War on Terror," the tens of thousands of innocents we have killed, the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent, and the surge of anti-American sentiment around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, which is leading to the creation of more and more terrorists for us to kill, and the loss of faith in our President by the American people, then I would say the War on Terror has been virtually flawless to date.

OK, where do you get the tens of thousands of innocents we killed? I keep hearing that number thrown around.

There has always been anti-American sentiment which is why we were attacked prior to and on 9/11 in the first place. They hate and resent our way of life.

The american soldiers know what they are getting into when they join. They are fighting the war on terrorism and they voluntarily enlisted knowing it.

Even adding up the non americans, it comes to less then 9/11 and before.

And what is your reasoning behind the terrorist attacks before we went to war. How did we create those terrorists?

I also have something to say on the lose of faith in the President. Polls are saying this, however, it is my belief that many of those polled about how he is conducting the war are disappointed that he isn't doing more. I don't think that one can honestly say that everybody who is disapointed and has lost faith are only those that want us out.

Tens of thousands of Iraqi innocents are dead as a result of our invasion of Iraq. It's obviously hard to determine who exactly killed them, as nobody is rushing to take credit for it. However, we dropped a lot of bombs, so there's a pretty good chance we got a few of them without question. The rest have died as the result of the civil war we ignited and participate in.

They hate us only because we are in their countries. We wouldn't be in their countries were it not for their oil. We need to get off the oil (as Bush suggested, but likely won't follow up on) so we finally just ignore that whole region of the world and let them finally realize that it is their own leaders, and not us, that are truly responsible for their miserable lives. Invading and occupying Iraq has had just the opposite effect -- it has converted even more people into the fanatic loop.

The soldiers in Iraq are NOT fighting the War on Terrorism. Iraq had nothing to to with 911, and nearly all of the people who are now fighting over there are Iraq natives who were not considered "terrorists" until they started shooting at our soldiers. The only military conflict we have had that was truly a War on Terrorism was in Afghanistan. Our soldiers did volunteer, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still go to every length possible to avoid seeing them die.

[BWahlberg]

I didn't watch, I can't stand how slow it goes with everyone standing to applaude every 2 minutes. I only get an hour or two to myself a night, I'd rather just read the Cliffs notes in the morning.

In reading those this morning, I stumbled on something that made my sarcasm spring out.

We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks,or switch grass."

Too bad we're not allowed to cut trees to get those wood chips, thanks in most part to our previous President. Because apparently they make a great fuel source. I wonder if we could find other uses for that lumber?

Hey ChiO,

How are going to pay for this new research? We've continually cut taxes and we're projected to be in a nearly $400 Billion defecit. I like the efforts but I wonder where the money is going to come from?

Doesn't it bother you Republicans that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and CHINA is reeping the benefits? This isn't the republican stance, small government, a lower budget. That's not happening, Bush is proposing new initiatives, he's created new departments, he's making programs more expensive and complicated, and we're in a $400 Billion defecit!!!!

Here's what I'd like to see; repeal some of the upperclass tax cuts, and have a very small national tax hike.

With that money

1. Get better body armor for our troops and their vehicles.
2. start to pay back our debts.
3. Pay for some of these initiatives you're proposing.

[ChiOCat]

I didn't watch, I can't stand how slow it goes with everyone standing to applaude every 2 minutes. I only get an hour or two to myself a night, I'd rather just read the Cliffs notes in the morning.

In reading those this morning, I stumbled on something that made my sarcasm spring out.

We will also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn but from wood chips, stalks,or switch grass."

Too bad we're not allowed to cut trees to get those wood chips, thanks in most part to our previous President. Because apparently they make a great fuel source. I wonder if we could find other uses for that lumber?

Hey ChiO,

How are going to pay for this new research? We've continually cut taxes and we're projected to be in a nearly $400 Billion defecit. I like the efforts but I wonder where the money is going to come from?

Doesn't it bother you Republicans that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and CHINA is reeping the benefits? This isn't the republican stance, small government, a lower budget. That's not happening, Bush is proposing new initiatives, he's created new departments, he's making programs more expensive and complicated, and we're in a $400 Billion defecit!!!!

Here's what I'd like to see; repeal some of the upperclass tax cuts, and have a very small national tax hike.

With that money

1. Get better body armor for our troops and their vehicles.
2. start to pay back our debts.
3. Pay for some of these initiatives you're proposing.

My comment was actually to the loss of jobs and logging industry that has hit Montana very hard in the last decades. My dad lost his job in May when Owens and Hurst, one of the last small town mills left, closed for business.

Have you heard of Cargill Dow Polymers? They make a Polymer Grade Lactic Acid (PLA), which is plastic made out of corn. It was funded and developed by Cargill, who then joined forces with the recoginzed plastics leader in Dow.

Private business can and will do a lot of this research, if the incentive is there. It is not up to the government to fund it, but enouraging it would go a long ways.

Not suprisingly, PLA is a much bigger newsmaker in Europe than it is here in the US. The first plant was built in Blair, NE but the next likely few will be European because that's where the demand is (or at least was 3 years ago.)

[SonomaCat]

Speaking of private industry R&D, Bush did also recommend that the R&D tax credit be made permanent, which I wholeheartedly agree with. This piece of tax legislation may have had as much to do with tech boom as anything, and will continue to pay dividends. If only they could simplify the damn thing a little bit....

[BWahlberg]

ChiO,

Noticed you didn't answer my question.

Does it bother you that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and having to borrow from a communist country to make ends meet? Or is this the new republican world order?

[ChiOCat]

ChiO,

Noticed you didn't answer my question.

Does it bother you that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and having to borrow from a communist country to make ends meet? Or is this the new republican world order?

Sorry, I was busy on my own soap box, and addressing your other point about funding for new technologies.

Yes, it bothers me that we are in debt. It bothers me that millions of our tax dollars are spent on issues that don't address what our government should be focused on. It bothers me that both sides work too hard to further their agenda, rather than further the good of the country.

I'd like to see PorkBarreling made illeagal. I don't think one party is more at fault over this than the other, but I think in the end it helps NO ONE. If a bill has merit, and should be passed, let it be passed on its own.

[Ponycat]

[quote="Re/Max Griz"]Does it bother you that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and having to borrow from a communist country to make ends meet? [quote]

Wow, talk about a profound statement

[BWahlberg]

ChiO,

Noticed you didn't answer my question.

Does it bother you that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and having to borrow from a communist country to make ends meet? Or is this the new republican world order?

Sorry, I was busy on my own soap box, and addressing your other point about funding for new technologies.

Yes, it bothers me that we are in debt. It bothers me that millions of our tax dollars are spent on issues that don't address what our government should be focused on. It bothers me that both sides work too hard to further their agenda, rather than further the good of the country.

I'd like to see PorkBarreling made illeagal. I don't think one party is more at fault over this than the other, but I think in the end it helps NO ONE. If a bill has merit, and should be passed, let it be passed on its own.

For all the conservative criticizms of Clinton, he (working with Gingrich, right?) was able to get this country to a surplus.

Thats what gets me, Republicans love Bush, say he's a great guy, one of the greatest presidents ever when a lot of the things he's done was directly against his party platform.

[ChiOCat]

I've never said he was one of the best presidents ever. I think he handled the 9/11 aftermath better than Clinton/Gore/Kerry would have. But I do not like his fiscal polocies. Or NCLB.

I do not agree that Clinton created a surplus. I think he was still riding the wave of one of the best presidents every (no, not Bush Sr either)

[Stevicat]

ChiO,

Noticed you didn't answer my question.

Does it bother you that we're up to our eyeballs in debt and having to borrow from a communist country to make ends meet? Or is this the new republican world order?

Sorry, I was busy on my own soap box, and addressing your other point about funding for new technologies.

Yes, it bothers me that we are in debt. It bothers me that millions of our tax dollars are spent on issues that don't address what our government should be focused on. It bothers me that both sides work too hard to further their agenda, rather than further the good of the country.

I'd like to see PorkBarreling made illeagal. I don't think one party is more at fault over this than the other, but I think in the end it helps NO ONE. If a bill has merit, and should be passed, let it be passed on its own.

For all the conservative criticizms of Clinton, he (working with Gingrich, right?) was able to get this country to a surplus.

Thats what gets me, Republicans love Bush, say he's a great guy, one of the greatest presidents ever when a lot of the things he's done was directly against his party platform.

Bush has made the mistake of allowing the spending to grow out of control. Along with tax cuts, he needs to cust spending. I get very frustrated when he continues to add costly programs and alow others to grow when they should actually be cut back.

I would not call Bush the best president ever. I reserve that for President Reagan. He was able to accomplish some great things with a Dem congress. I support and defend Bush on those things I agree with him (war on terror, supreme court picks, tax policy for example) I am unhappy with how he has allowed the spending to go out of control and not used the veto to send a message especially since he has a "friendly congress."

[BWahlberg]

I've never said he was one of the best presidents ever. I think he handled the 9/11 aftermath better than Clinton/Gore/Kerry would have. But I do not like his fiscal polocies. Or NCLB.

I do not agree that Clinton created a surplus. I think he was still riding the wave of one of the best presidents every (no, not Bush Sr either)

Honestly I can't imagine how anyone else would handle the days/months after 9/11 but I would think that almost all of them would be pretty much the same.

Hardly anyone disagreed with attacking Afghanistan, there was proof and good reason to go there, I would like to think that Clinton/Kerry/Gore would've done the same.

[ChiOCat]

I think Lieberman would have done well (but man do I hate his voice). Gore/Clinton/Kerry are/were too dependant on polls to make a desicive decision.

[SonomaCat]

At the expense of nitpicking, Stevi, it's hard to give him any credit at all for cutting taxes while he continues to spend like a drunken sailor (apologies to alcoholic people of the seas everywhere), isn't it?

Selling tax cuts is easy -- everybody wants them.

Selling more spending is easy -- everybody like free s**t.

So doing both is easy. It took zero courage on his part to do what he has done. In order to accomplish anything constructive, the two elements must be balanced. To both cut taxes and increase spending is just easy, foolhardy, and blatantly irrepsonsible.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party is no longer the party of fiscal responsiblity at all (on a national level, anyway). It is merely the party of tax cuts. You give them unchecked power, and this is how they use it?

A split Congress/Executive Branch just works so much better, almost without exception.