Richard Clark on ABC just said something interesting -

[pinkpops]

Paraphrase - The pResident has been saying all this stuff about taking the battle to the enemy - he should now realize that fighting in Iraq does not keep them from attacking here.

Lets take it here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4044618

[NewJeffCT]

1. and the RW response will be "sour grapes"

wasn't that their spin on him? That he wanted Condi's job as NSA and was upset at being passed over for it?

But, I'm sure some Freepers will still be claiming that London is "over there"...

[ultraist]

2. That WAS an excellent point!

He or someone else also said that if we spent even 10% of what we are spending in Iraq, here on security, we'd be in a much safer position.

If we were spending BILLIONS a day on looking for Bin Laden and other terrorist cells, rather than on killing people in Iraq, we'd be better off too.

[jean]

5. yes but then bush and his war profiteers wouldn't make their projections

[FreedomAngel82]

6. Of course

But we're in Bush's world. :crazy: Everything is backwards.

[Justice]

3. Underfund Homeland Security, shortchanging local responders

[blm]

4. That was a big part of Kerry's campaign and the media wouldn't acknowledge

it. They were too busy keeping Bush's manhood propped up to fool the public into thinking he at least had A clue about terror.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Yep

Kerry was right on basically everything and we've seen that.

[rustydog]

8. This is another intelligence failure on America's part

All the intelligence agency switching around, all the money poured into Homeland Security and wiretapping and surveillance improvements worldwide and no one had a clue this was going to happen.

Tell me again how taking the war to them forcing them to fight there has made the world safer.
I'm listening Rush, Hannity, Scarborogh: tell me again how St. George is so great in his war on terror.