London Bombing Further Proof We're Winning

[Contrary1]

This guy must be snorting coke with Shrub.

There are two ways to look at the bombings in London -- just as there are two ways to look at the misdeeds at Abu Gharaib last year and the interrogation practices of our soldiers at Guantanamo Bay.

To the Democrats, who seek America’s defeat in the war against Islamic fascist terror, these things are to be seen as tools to be used to bludgeon America and Americans into submission. To me they are only further proof of how great America is and how obvious it is that we are winning the war against the evil murderers.

<snip>

And if the best the terrorists can do four years after 9/11 is pull off a couple of lame bombings on a subway or a train somewhere then obviously we’re doing something right. After all, remember that during the Clinton years the terrorists were massacring people all the time and in spectacular fashion – and with utter impunity! They murdered Americans in the World Trade Center in 1993 and in the Khobar Towers and they massacred Americans (and others, including Moslems) when they completely destroyed two US embassies in Africa and they nearly sunk an American warship -- the USS Cole..."

This clown evidently, and conveniently forgot to mention the bombings in Madrid, Bali, Australia's embassy in Jakarta, etc.

More of the same crap here: http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=15626

[SweetLeftFoot]

1. The words

"Deep Sea Knobber" spring to mind.

[Sandpiper]

2. He forgot to mention Oklahoma City

Maybe because one of his wingnut brethren was behind that one.

[sleipnir]

8. Some critical evidence points towards training from Indonesian terrorists.

It wasn't just a closed and shut case of domestic terrorism. But, then again, we probably will never know the truth.

Terry Nichols took a couple trips to Southeast Asia...now why would he do that? The government isn't telling us, but then it's still a criminal case in progress to some degree.

[leesa]

3. For BushCo to have to pull off another attack like this one means they are

hard core desperate. They know the risk is that it will make their "fighting it over there so it can't hit us here" meme obsolete. Now what? They can't do it a third time, just to frickin obvious now.

[togiak]

4. Deadly terrorist attacks doubled

in 2004. Under Bush terrorism is at it's all time high.

And don't you love the fantasy world these people live in. They say that if we do things the way they want..ie invade Iraq, etc...then terrorism will decrease.

We say if you do those things terrorism will increase.

Terrorism increases and they claim that it proves their case.

[despairing optimist]

5. Lots of people in NYC are holding their breath

The more time that elapses between 9/11 and now, the more we fear a humongous attack. Osama warned that the next one would make us forget all about the last one, so maybe that explains the lull. A major event requires more planning than a subway bombing.

Not too many people wandering through Wonderland around here. It's easy to whistle in the dark when that's the only place one's mind has ever been.

[demodewd]

7. Osama?

Osama my ass.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Well I don't know about that

let's picture it in terms of a front line of battle. If your front line suddenly moves from Baghdad, Iraq all the way back to London, one of the capitals which launched the war, is that good or bad?

[jjstopes]

9. Ummm..

Bush can still claim its not happening on our land. I think Blair is the one with the problem - to be honest.