Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hardknock
Ok. Osama was supposed to be the target from day one. But we all know he shifted it to Iraq to avenge daddykins. What would be the purpose of the war on terror if he was dead? There wouldn't be "anyone" to go after anymore.
|
This statement is pretty amazing, considering that from "day one," Bush has been talking about a worldwide organization of terrorists, and saying the struggle would be a long one.
Quote:
|
According to Bush. When the target was osama that is. What was it? September 13 that Bush blamed it on Osama and declared war on al-quida? That caused our media to focus on him as if he alone carried out the attack himself. We all know that isn't the case, but our media didn't make that abundantly clear.
|
You missed the news reports on the Taliban?
Quote:
|
Reading this makes me think that you are either playing dumb just to see what type of response you'll get or you actually been hiding under a rock for the past 3.5 years. To answer your question, Bush declared war on him and his followers! Americans wanted to see him dead. You know, our lustrous thirst for revenge? Dead or alive rewards were issued in the aftermath of the attacks.
|
Which is why I still can't see the logic in your statement that Bush put us into the position of needing to kill him, oh wait, not needing to kill him, okay, maybe we should kill him.
OBL attacked US! I haven't seen any arguments to the contrary in months. The president had the choice of a) ignoring the attack, like Clinton, or b) putting a price on his head, dead or alive.
What problem do you have with that?