So if were all so much safer with * in office why are they evacuating the

[mzmolly]

Capital?

And, aren't the terrorists all in Iraq now. I thought we were "fighting them there instead of here."

I swear to goodness Bush supporters suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

:crazy:

[dogday]

1. Did not evacuate the White House

what does that tell you....

[mzmolly]

3. Yes after they reported the evacuation, they retracted.

Off to watch Dean on Hawdbaw.

:hi:

[Bouncy Ball]

2. Why are they evacuating the capitol?

[mzmolly]

4. Air scare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1896065

[LightningFlash]

5. Because Wolfowitz wanted to do another terror attack.

This time it was just some stupid plane, that man's run out of ideas. He might as well fire Ridge. :shrug:

[Bouncy Ball]

6. What fucking idiots.

So just last night the motherfucker bush says the reason for attacking Iraq is so we can fight terrorism THERE and then they have an "AIR SCARE" today, causing the evacuation of the Capitol building, but NO OTHER building in DC.

NOTHING they say or do makes sense. NOTHING.

[FearofFutility]

7. The logic of that RW talking point has always escaped me

We're safer with Bush, huh. 9/11 happened on his watch. So did the anthrax mailings. Sorry, don't feel safer with him in office.

[mainer]

8. Bob Costas asked the logical question last night

After Bush's speech, Costas addressed the myth that "we have to fight the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here."

He asked: "what makes us think the terrorists can't simultaneously attack us here and there at the same time? Iraq isn't stopping them. While our soldiers are tied up in Iraq, don't you think the terrorists would think it's smarter just to attack the US right now?"

[mzmolly]

9. Glad someone is actually thinking.

:hi: