No Terrorist Attacks in US since 9/11? Win in Afgan? BS!

[kerouac]

How can shrub, his henchmen, TV/Radio shills, and ditto heads boast that there have been no terrorist attacks in the US since 9/11?

Shouldn't the still unsolved anthrax attacks on the US Congress and the current Risin attack be considered biological terrorist attacks on US soil?

Bush, Ridge and Co. have had plenty of time to shore up the mail system to avoid biological terrorism -- at the very least when it comes to congressional mail.

I think we should all refer to it as multiple, ongoing biological terrorist attacks on US soil, and a current failure of the Bush admin to keep America safe despite their claims to the contrary and despite the billions of dollars being spent on "Homeland security."

Furthermore, we cannot allow these criminals to boast that Afghanistan was a great success by the "commander in chief." Afghanistan is a mess. We have control of a fraction of the country, heroin is back in production in big way, US soldiers are still being attacked and killed, etc.. They're bragging about it and we're letting them do it!

Afghanistan should serve as proof that these guys are foreign policy failures, not foreign policy powerhouses. Afghanistan was their first military failure, Iraq is their second (and based on lies), and I'm sure they're already thinking about going for a third.

To recap:

1. Yes there have been multiple terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11 (they're biological). And these are only the ones we know about.

2. Afghanistan is a failure that dispersed terrorists, made Afghanistan the worldwide leader in heroin production and export, cost us billions of dollars and many lives, and returned the country's power back to warlords.

3. Iraq is an unneccessary failure based on lies that is costing us billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and that has made it a breeding ground for terrorists.


Any thoughts?

- Kerouac

[fob]

1. The problem is you are using FACTS, facts are like kryptonite

to repukes and their media henchmen.

If tom ridge, the Homely Secretary can't protect the CONGRESSIONAL mail system, WE THE PEOPLE, are fucked!

I think that's a salient enough point for the masses.

Good work kerouac!

Edit: punctuation and a little sexing up

[kerouac]

2. Afghanistan barely gets any notice anymore.

This Afghanistan campaign is still costing us billions and the country is a total mess with a Bush appointed 'leader' (and former oil exec) under 24-hour US military guard and confined to the couple of square blocks we allegedly control, and the only time we hear anything about this ongoing failure is when soldiers die. And even then, it's just a brief mention.

If these monsters consider Afghanistan a "success," then God help us when we're faced with what they consider a "failure."

[kerouac]

3. Afghanistan still source for human trafficking : Another Bush Victory

Afghanistan Still an important source for human trafficking - IOM report

KABUL, 3 Feb 2004 (IRIN) - A new report by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) argues that Afghanistan remains an important source country for human trafficking, despite improvements in the conditions of women and girls in post-conflict Afghanistan.

Trafficking in human beings is a global phenomenon and according to the Geneva-based organisation, an estimated 900,000 people are trafficked each year, while an untold number are trafficked within their countries. “Unfortunately Afghanistan is no exception to this and is confronted with a significant trafficking problem,” Richard Danziger, IOM chief of mission, told IRIN on Thursday, in the capital, Kabul.


http://www.payvand.com/news/04/feb/1044.html

[kerouac]

4. Suicide bomber in Afghanistan was son of al-Qaeda member

Suicide bomber in Afghanistan was son of al-Qaeda member

KABUL (AFP) - The suicide bomber who attacked a Canadian patrol of Afghanistan's international peacekeeping force, killing two other people, was the son of an al-Qaeda member, a Taliban spokesman told AFP Wednesday. The suicide bomber who walked up to an International Security Assistance Force patrol in Kabul on January 27 and detonated himself was the son of an al-Qaeda member killed in October 2003 in Pakistan, he said.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/arabtimes/breakingnews/view.asp?msgID=4669

[meatloaf]

What does it matter?

Just because there hasn't been a rash of terrorist attacks proves nothing. Short of McVegih we went almost 8 years between known/reported attacks within this country. It doesn't mean they've prevented anything. It could just as easily mean they haven't tried anything.

[TNOE]

5. In the words of Richard Cohen:

Snip:

It's not that I think the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community are blameless. Something clearly went way wrong -- not just with Iraq but with Sept. 11 as well. Two such massive intelligence failures in a single presidential term are something that history, although not necessarily this meek Congress, will hold George W. Bush accountable for.

Why? No newspaper column could provide all the answers. But we were clearly unnerved by the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent -- and now mostly overlooked -- anthrax attacks, which disproportionately affected the news media. Saddam Hussein provided us with a nifty and useful personification of evil -- not to mention spurious links to al Qaeda. He was something familiar, Hitler and Stalin all over again. There was an understandable urge to settle some scores. Finally, though, there was smugness -- the sort of American exceptionalism that so rankles non-Americans. No one better exemplified that than Bush himself. He proclaimed a divine right to unilateralism, oozed a smugness bred of incuriousness and an airy dismissal of dissent. He knew what he knew with such fiery certainty that even now he seems incapable of facing reality. He's like a kid who refuses to accept the fact that there is no Santa Claus.

By all means, proceed with the independent commission. A huge mistake has been made, and we need to know why. But if for a moment we think that it was the CIA alone that took us to war, then we will have learned nothing from what happened. That would be the gravest intelligence failure of them all.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7219-2004Feb2.html

[Bandit]

6. Isn't an attack using Riacin considered terror?

And wouldn't using such a chemical as a weapon be considered terrorism? How about sniping attacks in and around Washington DC, isn't that terrorism. Oh I get it, if Americans do it it ain't terror. Only if foreigners do it.

[kerouac]

7. But they don't know who did it (or so they say)

Who's to say it isn't foreign terrorists living in the US? They still haven't been able to figure out who sent the anthrax or this current ricin mailing. It may be coming from the same source.

I'm not saying it isn't being sent by nutbag American's with access to both, but I do think it should be seen as multiple terrorist attacks on US soil -- which is in direct conflict with current claims that we've been protected by heir Bush since 9/11 from further attacks.