Amid all the uproar of George Tenet's efforts to vindicate himself of any errors in the run up to the Iraq war, his warning about terrorist nukes has gone largely unremarked upon.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-tenetnuke28apr28,1,7017349.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true
2007-04-30 06:05:43 · 16 answers · asked by Whootziedude 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
John Edwards doesn't believe there's actually a war on terror -- or at least, not one worth fighting. And LA Times columnist and UVA law professor Rosa Brooks thinks that America should just lie back, relax and accept the inevitable when it comes to terrorist attacks. That's better, in her view, than facing the loss of civil liberties -- although none of the leftists who raise the civil liberties bogeyman are actually able to point out any concrete erosions of freedom.
Who would have ever thought it would come to this, in the days following 9/11?
2007-04-30 06:13:36 · update #1
Steve C. - I actually gave you another thumbs up! I'm beginning to think I halfway respect you.
2007-04-30 06:15:36 · update #2
The left sees the United States as the enemy, not the Anti-Semite in Iran who wants to wipe Israel off the map and hosted a holocaust-denial conference. Liberals like to appease, appease, appease. They said Carter's pacifism would lead to peace...wrong. They said Reagan's weapons build-up would lead to war...wrong. In their minds if we place nice with them then they'll play nice with us.
2007-04-30 06:11:37 · answer #1 · answered by gayconservativ 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I guess they'd have what they have all along. I'm not even a liberal but I've been disturbed about our borders and ports since 9/11, and nothing major has been done to correct those problems. There have been Al Queda people already caught trying to cross over the Mexican border. How many made it that weren't caught? I think it would hurt the current Administration a lot more than it would the liberals. They would just have a stronger basis from which to blame this Administration for not attending more to our border and port security.
2007-04-30 13:40:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
AMERICANS would have the same thing we have now...no way to deal with any military action stateside. Nice, huh? Are cons happy that most likely it will happen to a LIBERAL city? RIDIUCULOUS to make terror attacks a political thing. And that is the very reason that Bush can't win.
2007-04-30 13:45:30 · answer #3 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
They would still have a President in George Bush that left our borders wide open and our harbors unprotected, allowing the attack to happen.
2007-04-30 13:10:38 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
As long as it happens on Bush's watch, the lefties will have to restrain themselves from dancing in the street, and paste on long faces as they denounce the Administration's failure to fight terrorism, and vow that they will do a better job when handed the reigns of power in '08.
2007-04-30 13:11:44 · answer #5 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Gotta love all those hypothetical questions...
2007-04-30 17:41:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
WHERE"S OUR NATIONAL GUARD!! That's what I'll be yelling.Oh yeah they're in Iraq fighting a civil war.Well that leaves our country pretty unable to handle a disaster doesn't it?
2007-04-30 13:19:42 · answer #7 · answered by Whiner 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Democratic candidates have mentioned loose nukes in previous campaigns. Where were you?
2007-04-30 13:09:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 3⤋
We would have a tough time explaining how Bill Clinton was responsible for the attack but, I am sure the conservatives would tell us.
2007-04-30 13:10:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 5⤋
Let's hope it never happens.
I worry about nukes too.
2007-04-30 13:13:37 · answer #10 · answered by American citizen and taxpayer 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋