Hamas says Bush declared war on Islam

[rafacosta]

This Terrorism war will end not so soon...

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Mmmbeeer, I agree that Bush (I hate Bush for his action in Nam however) did good starting the war on terror. Thats what I hated about Clinton. 19 Americans died in Somalia and Clinton pulled out. That gave Al-Qaeda momentum and a feel of victory. Clinton convinced Al-Qaeda that all they had to do was kill a few people and wed run like pussies. Bush changed that tho. And really, the fact that since 9/11 there have been no terror attacks on US soil, means little. The last terror attack by an Arab on American soil before 9/11 was the WTC bombing in 1993. Id say more importantly that since 9/11 there have been no hugely devastating terror attacks anywhere on American forces. Before there was basically a yearly attack (the Cole, the Embassies and so on). Since, there has been 2 years and 13 days and there have been only scattered terrorist attacks in Iraq and such, quite a few of which were from Iraqis during the ongoing Gulf War. It is obvious that Al-Qaeda as been weakened. It is also rumored that bin Laden is dead or ailing and Zawahiri is taking over. That may not be due to us but it still hurts the organization. I strongly believe that people like apu who think that nothing should be done about terrorists hurt American society more than warmongers like Bush...

200+ died in Beirut and Reagan and Rummy pulled out. What's your point?

 

How about a change in foreign policy that doesn't spawn terrorism and increased membership in terrorism instead of dropping bombs on people. We tread the ground of murderers investing in death, murder and destruction in other countries why are we surprised when it comes to back to bite us in the ass?

 

The war on terror is the wrong premise. It's not ALL terrorism, just the terrorism against US interests. The terrorists we support don't get attacked.

[Soxplosion]

Backing up like that encourages them. Yay! We killed em so theyll leave. We gotta show em it doesnt work like that and were boss.

 

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

[rafacosta]

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

Stupid comments Roman.

 

You can bet that they think the same thing about you and the Amercians.

[KipWellsFan]

Backing up like that encourages them. Yay! We killed em so theyll leave. We gotta show em it doesnt work like that and were boss.

 

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

I agree that figuring out how to rid middle east of anti-western sentiment will be an extremely difficult task, if anyone ever decides to try!

[Soxplosion]

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

Stupid comments Roman.

 

You can bet that they think the same thing about you and the Amercians.

Why is that idea stupid? :fyou

[rafacosta]

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

Stupid comments Roman.

 

You can bet that they think the same thing about you and the Amercians.

Why is that idea stupid? :fyou

I wont even answer because of reactions like this and your past. Talking to you is the same as talk to 10 year old...

[Steff]

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

Stupid comments Roman.

 

You can bet that they think the same thing about you and the Amercians.

Why is that idea stupid? :fyou

What did you just say in reaction to the glass house post..? That you don't tell people to "F-off" when they don't agree with you...?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Backing up like that encourages them. Yay! We killed em so theyll leave. We gotta show em it doesnt work like that and were boss.

 

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

You wouldn't be promoting wholesale genocide would you, Roman?

[KipWellsFan]

Backing up like that encourages them. Yay! We killed em so theyll leave. We gotta show em it doesnt work like that and were boss.

 

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

You wouldn't be promoting wholesale genocide would you, Roman?

FOR DEMOCRARCY, ANYTHING!!!

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

I thought Islamic Terrorists declared war on us well before 09/11..... Pan Am, Marine barracks bombings, the WTC bombing, the USS Cole, the embassy's bombings, etc., etc., etc. 

 

You have a warped view of the world dude.

HAMAS officially declared against us, CK.

 

And one quick question CK. When we overthrow democratically elected governments, funnel money illegally into foreign election campaigns, drop cluster bombs etc. etc. etc. why is that not considered terrorism?

Defending our country is terrorism huh? RIIIIIIIIGHT. We didn't need commies in our back yard back then and we don't need terrorists blowing up our buildings today.

 

Personally, I think we are justified in everything we have done since 9-11 to combat terrorism. We may not have caught Bin Laden yet, but we will. Meanwhile he is reduced from planning terrorist attacks to making blustering audio tapes & cowering under a rock somewhere afraid to stick his head up more than a few inches above the surface for fear a Hellfire Missile will take it off. Saddam? You saw what happened to his sons & it's only a matter of time before we serve him up on a slab on Fox News for all to see. My only regret is that I'm not still over there to be in on the kill. People like you and the media ramble on & b**** about the casualties we've suffered over in Iraq but the people doing the fighting don't share your views. Nearly all the people I've served with over there and all the folks I've met that are about to go into harms way are not only willing, but EAGER to go and do their part.

 

APU. I shudder to think about what the world would have been like had your ilk been in charge after 9-11. We would have done nothing. NOTHING. Myself and the rest of the military would have been forced to sit idly by while more jets crashed into buildings and thousands more were killed. If your type were in charge then 9-11 would have been only the tip of the iceberg. All these people over there understand is force. They are taught from the time they are toddlers to hate America and to hate our way of life & that is not something that singing koom-ba-f***ing-ya a few times is gonna change.

 

You talk about anti-terrorist measures like the patriot act like they are making the sky fall in. Only a myopic leftist like you would have a problem with Law enforcement finally having the leash removed and be allowed to do their jobs. Had there been a patriot act before 9-11 then 9-11-01 would have been just another Tuesday, two tall buildings would still be standing and a lot of innocent people would still be alive. Oh Lest we forget. Remember 1996? It's not brought up nearly enough, but while Slick Willie was getting sucked off in the oval office Sudan was holding a terrorist by the name of....drum roll please......OSAMA BIN LADEN. What did we do about that? Clinton told them to get f***ed when they asked if we wanted him extradited. Gee, 9-11 could have been prevented before the f***ing planning even got started. Thanks a lot BILL.

 

Finally, I've read a lot of your stuff on here and talked to you a lot on the IM since 9-11 and I still have yet to hear what you would have done different. For a person as eager as you are to trash the Bush White House over it's conduct of the war against terrorism I think it only fair to ask what you would have done different? How would you, Mr. Can't Be Wrong, have dealt with the situation.

[Soxplosion]

Terrorists are like mosquitos. Killing a mosquito isnt going to do anything, but killing the swamp is. We must kill the political ideals that instigate terrorism. Kill a terrorist and some other thug will take his place. Kill his politics and none will replace him. Sadly, figuring out how to do that could be tough...

Stupid comments Roman.

 

You can bet that they think the same thing about you and the Amercians.

Why is that idea stupid? :fyou

What did you just say in reaction to the glass house post..? That you don't tell people to "F-off" when they don't agree with you...?

Fine, I was a little harsh with the " :fyou " but why is the idea of destroying anti-American sentiment to destroy terrorism stupid?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Fine, I was a little harsh with the " :fyou " but why is the idea of destroying anti-American sentiment to destroy terrorism stupid?

By destroying it in this generation via bombs and murder, you just piss more people off and create a new generation.

[Guest hotsoxchick1]

apu... i respect your opinion and all, your entitled to it.... but....untill you have lived in their world and know how they go about their day to day routines, or defended your country against "the bad guys" we will never see eye to eye on the workings of politcs and the military actions that happen........

[The Bones]

it's only a matter of time before we serve him up on a slab on Fox News for all to see.

Wait...that's actually a news channel? Funny, I thought it was America's cheerleader channel.

[Rex Kickass]

 

And one quick question CK. When we overthrow democratically elected governments, funnel money illegally into foreign election campaigns, drop cluster bombs etc. etc. etc. why is that not considered terrorism?

Defending our country is terrorism huh? RIIIIIIIIGHT. We didn't need commies in our back yard back then and we don't need terrorists blowing up our buildings today.

 

Personally, I think we are justified in everything we have done since 9-11 to combat terrorism. We may not have caught Bin Laden yet, but we will. Meanwhile he is reduced from planning terrorist attacks to making blustering audio tapes & cowering under a rock somewhere afraid to stick his head up more than a few inches above the surface for fear a Hellfire Missile will take it off. Saddam? You saw what happened to his sons & it's only a matter of time before we serve him up on a slab on Fox News for all to see. My only regret is that I'm not still over there to be in on the kill. People like you and the media ramble on & b**** about the casualties we've suffered over in Iraq but the people doing the fighting don't share your views. Nearly all the people I've served with over there and all the folks I've met that are about to go into harms way are not only willing, but EAGER to go and do their part.

 

APU. I shudder to think about what the world would have been like had your ilk been in charge after 9-11. We would have done nothing. NOTHING. Myself and the rest of the military would have been forced to sit idly by while more jets crashed into buildings and thousands more were killed. If your type were in charge then 9-11 would have been only the tip of the iceberg. All these people over there understand is force. They are taught from the time they are toddlers to hate America and to hate our way of life & that is not something that singing koom-ba-f***ing-ya a few times is gonna change.

 

You talk about anti-terrorist measures like the patriot act like they are making the sky fall in. Only a myopic leftist like you would have a problem with Law enforcement finally having the leash removed and be allowed to do their jobs. Had there been a patriot act before 9-11 then 9-11-01 would have been just another Tuesday, two tall buildings would still be standing and a lot of innocent people would still be alive. Oh Lest we forget. Remember 1996? It's not brought up nearly enough, but while Slick Willie was getting sucked off in the oval office Sudan was holding a terrorist by the name of....drum roll please......OSAMA BIN LADEN. What did we do about that? Clinton told them to get f***ed when they asked if we wanted him extradited. Gee, 9-11 could have been prevented before the f***ing planning even got started. Thanks a lot BILL.

 

Finally, I've read a lot of your stuff on here and talked to you a lot on the IM since 9-11 and I still have yet to hear what you would have done different. For a person as eager as you are to trash the Bush White House over it's conduct of the war against terrorism I think it only fair to ask what you would have done different? How would you, Mr. Can't Be Wrong, have dealt with the situation.

Can I interject something here? Although I understand the need to defend a country... in fact, I think certain things the Bush administration began to fight the war on Terrorism were wise and well founded, the invasion of Afghanistan, for example. However, the problem lies in what happens after we break things. In this the Bush administration has been a COMPLETE FAILURE.

 

Example #1:

We went into Afghanistan and ended a nightmarish totalitarian regime in the name of the Taliban. We liberated several million people, and immediately improved the situation for women in the state. We flushed out Al-Qaeda training camps and chased Bin Laden out of the country and at least put him on the run. Since 2001, the US has propped up Hamid Karzai, a man that is the "President" of Afghanistan, despite the fact that his government only controls most (and not all) of the capital city, Kabul. Unfortunately, because the American governments and the many European coalition partners in this conflict did not take a long term view to this conflict, infrastructure has not been built, aid has been slow to come to this country, terror camps are reopening and anarchy is descending back into Afghanistan. And the situation for Afghan women is, sadly, reverting back to the Burkha and unimaginable repression. George Bush promised his installed leaders of Afghanistan $3 Billion of aid which he promptly forgot to include in his budget offered the following month. We went in and destroyed, but we haven't helped to reconstruct.

 

Example #2:

We went into Iraq with the justification that there were grave threats to the American people by a hostile Iraqi government that possessed weapons of mass destruction and is actively producing nuclear weapons. It was also argued that the Iraq government had ties with Al-Qaeda and it was suggested (if not explicitly stated) that there was possibly a connection with September 11, 2001 attack on the WTC in NYC. This was a preemptive strike. It marked a definitive sea change in the way the US fights war, moving to a tactic previously used by Saddam Hussein in 1980 (Iran-Iraq war), Adolf Hitler (1939 invasion of Poland), and other less savory people in the history of the world. It would seem that for the US to consider such an action, the intelligence suggesting this threat would have to be "bulletproof." After all, the US is supposed to hold itself to a higher standards than schoolyard bullies like Hussein, Hitler and Stalin.

 

Unfortunately, much of the intelligence turned out to be false, wrong and incomplete. More than five months after Baghdad fell, the US's own weapons inspection teams have found nearly nothing... and some of the evidence leaking to the media is suggesting that remaining WMD stockpiles were completely destroyed in 1995 and that Saddam Hussein merely intended to hide that information for a tool in brinkmanship negotiations with the US. In turn, although Saddam's regime is decimated and nonexistent, it still is awarded a sort of pyrrhic victory. Why? Every reason to justify moving beyond our active containment policy of Iraq has been disproven. The US is spending between 50 and 100 billion dollars a year to keep the peace in Iraq, and this is only with the most basic reconstruction costs figured in. It was argued in some circles, this would be a cheaper solution to the Iraq problem. The WMD don't appear to be there, although there is a slim, faint hope of its discovery. The Al-Qaeda link is tenuous at best and there is not even consensus within the American intelligence communities that it ever existed. In fact, one story stated that Bin Laden had no interest in working with Iraq.

 

Meanwhile, the Iraqis did not act in the way the US government ever expected. Resentment over the occupation has grown significantly over the last few weeks. Just today, two more bombings in Baghdad. The UN has begun to pull staff out. The US is finding it can't afford to go it alone, but has burned so many bridges that it looks to receive only 10% of the help it expected from other governments financially, even less militarily.

 

Example #3:

Perhaps the timing of the Hamas remark is important. It seemed to be released shortly after the speech of George Bush at the UN in which he called yet again for a settlement of the Israeli/Palestinian question in language which seemed to implicitly agree with the Israeli government's stance on removing Arafat, by any means necessary. Although Arafat's contribution to actually maintaining peace in the region is very much in question, the US can not live in an ideological dream world. Israel's isolation of Arafat has backfired and returned Arafat to the height of popularity with his own people from a position of irrelevance just three years ago. He is now a living martyr to his own people and for the US to be dismissive of a legitimate Palestinian leadership in a speech to the UN is not helpful to the war on terror.

 

Nuke, what a lot of people don't seem to understand is that the war on terror is fought on several fronts. Just one of which is military. Just as important is the image war. If the US is cleaning out a swamp but following the bombs with butter and taking care of the aftermath, the US would win the image war. Unfortunately, the US military still hasn't learned that Psy Ops play just as important a role after the battle as before and during. These are what I feel are the main problems with the war on terror. It isn't a matter of bad policy, more a matter of common sense and level headedness, which I don't think the Bush administration has had since January 2002.

 

Sorry about the length, but you know its the college professor in me.

[YASNY]

Finally, I've read a lot of your stuff on here and talked to you a lot on the IM since 9-11 and I still have yet to hear what you would have done different. For a person as eager as you are to trash the Bush White House over it's conduct of the war against terrorism I think it only fair to ask what you would have done different? How would you, Mr. Can't Be Wrong, have dealt with the situation.

 

 

Nuke, I'm sure you'll get an answer, eventually.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Finally, I've read a lot of your stuff on here and talked to you a lot on the IM since 9-11 and I still have yet to hear what you would have done different.  For a person as eager as you are to trash the Bush White House over it's conduct of the war against terrorism I think it only fair to ask what you would have done different?  How would you, Mr. Can't Be Wrong, have dealt with the situation.

We didn't need commies in our back yard back then, so we subverted democratically elected governments like Allende and Arbenz? [Aren't we supposed to look out for democracy and the actual will of the people? I mean our image is the world's benevolent policeman, right? ...just saying] Or how about installing bloodthirsty dictators around the world that kill hundreds of thousands in total? Or wait, I got it...we arm Nicaragua to pay Iran to keep hostages so Reagan can win the election while we are also giving weapons to Iraq. Or how about the CIA selling cocaine to finance the war in Laos? [CIA officials that have later left the organization have admitted to this fact]

 

Nuke, in my eyes Osama has already beat us. You know why? Look at how easily the majority of Americans have been scared. Duct tape and plastic sheeting, anyone? Color coded alert systems? The PATRIOT Act...nothing beats giving the ability to have search and seizure power without a warrant to cops for no reason. Americans allowing the preventative arrest of random people with no trial and allowing them to be held without charges something a NY judge recently described as "odious to democracy". Look how fast Americans embrace fascism by putting a guy with a turban on TV. And how difficult is it to find a 6 ft. tall man hauling a dialysis machine? Oh wait Bush said catching Osama "is not a priority." That's why it's been nearly 800 days and we haven't gotten him. George had some oil to steal for Halliburton [of which a Congressional investigation just found Cheney still has business interests in Halliburton]

 

9-11 was actually PREVENTABLE, Nuke. It's called if Cheney or Bush read the report on their desk or listened to the British intelligence in August that said Al Qaeda was planning a 9-11 type attack, then it's quite possible that it would have NEVER HAPPENED. But leave it to our "fearless leader" to read to children after being notified that we were under attack. On the day of 9/11, our President failed in his duties to even try to stop it.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timelin...n/dayof911.html

 

NUKE, with Bush in office, THE JETS SAT IDLY BY WHILE PLANES FLEW INTO THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE BUSH THOUGHT IT MORE IMPORTANT TO READ TO CHILDREN.

 

And maybe they are taught to hate America because we have troops stationed over in Saudi Arabia protecting the highly unpopular House of Saud? Just sayin'. Or how about the unconditional support for Israel even after they ran over a human rights worker with a bulldozer and they shot one in the head when he went to get two children that were playing near a hill?

 

So, all they understand is force...that's why there has been a spiked INCREASE in Al Qaeda membership and even more groups are getting angry at us. That's making us so much safer from terrorism.

 

Oh yes, blame it solely on Bill Clinton. Here's a newsflash: IT WAS BOTH CHIMPY AND CLINTON'S FAULT. But way to play partisan like the good little Karl Rove indoctrinated boy you are.

 

What I would have done different? I would have read the Terrorism 2000 report. I would have stopped reading to kids and got off my ass to defend the country by sending out planes. I'd move the troops out of Saudi Arabia and get us to kick our oil habit by creating a better, cleaner, more efficient energy source or even make it so our cars get a lot more mileage so we are less dependent on foreign oil. And if the Taliban was as evil as they were, I wouldn't give them over $100 million in aid before 9-11.

 

To oppose the policies of a government does not mean you are against the country or the people that the government supposedly represents. Such opposition should be called what it really is: democracy, or democratic dissent, or having a critical perspective about what your leaders are doing. Either we have the right to democratic dissent and criticism of these policies or we all lie down and let the leader, the Fuhrer, do what is best, while we follow uncritically and obey whatever he commands. That's just what the Germans did with Hitler and look where it got them.

--Michael Parenti

[CubKilla]

NUKE, with Bush in office, THE JETS SAT IDLY BY WHILE PLANES FLEW INTO THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE BUSH THOUGHT IT MORE IMPORTANT TO READ TO CHILDREN. 

Boys and girls..... this is what you're dealing with when you begin an exchange with Apu.

[southsider2k5]

NUKE, with Bush in office, THE JETS SAT IDLY BY WHILE PLANES FLEW INTO THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE BUSH THOUGHT IT MORE IMPORTANT TO READ TO CHILDREN. 

Boys and girls..... this is what you're dealing with when you begin an exchange with Apu.

And I have issue with that statement anyway. Are you telling me on September 10th, 2001 that you would have supported the shooting down of American civilians BEFORE a terrorist act had been committed? As sad as it is, I don't think the American public would have understood the downing of a civilian jet liner, until AFTER one of them had been used as a weapon. Up until this point, as we had was intelligence that said this was POSSIBLE. But then again we had intelligence that said Iraq had WMD, and we weren't supposed to trust that, but based on those same agencies intel, we were supposed to kill 300 innocent civilians, is that what you are saying Apu? And without knowing FOR SURE what the results would have been, you would have supported the Bush Admin, in this action?

 

You can't look at that incident in Sept 12, 2001 eyes. Hindsight is not appropriate in a world changing occurance.

[CubKilla]

NUKE, with Bush in office, THE JETS SAT IDLY BY WHILE PLANES FLEW INTO THE BUILDINGS BECAUSE BUSH THOUGHT IT MORE IMPORTANT TO READ TO CHILDREN. 

Boys and girls..... this is what you're dealing with when you begin an exchange with Apu.

And I have issue with that statement anyway. Are you telling me on September 10th, 2001 that you would have supported the shooting down of American civilians BEFORE a terrorist act had been committed? As sad as it is, I don't think the American public would have understood the downing of a civilian jet liner, until AFTER one of them had been used as a weapon. Up until this point, as we had was intelligence that said this was POSSIBLE. But then again we had intelligence that said Iraq had WMD, and we weren't supposed to trust that, but based on those same agencies intel, we were supposed to kill 300 innocent civilians, is that what you are saying Apu? And without knowing FOR SURE what the results would have been, you would have supported the Bush Admin, in this action?

 

You can't look at that incident in Sept 12, 2001 eyes. Hindsight is not appropriate in a world changing occurance.

Or what if Bush had the FBI round up all 19 hijackers on 09/10 based solely on non-specific intelligence without a search warrant because search warrants are not issued based on conjecture and hear-say. You have to have probable cause that a crime did or was about to occur for a judge to issue a search warrant .

 

Guess who would have been sceaming about Bush's racist "Gestapo" tactics ?

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And I have issue with that statement anyway.  Are you telling me on September 10th, 2001 that you would have supported the shooting down of American civilians BEFORE a terrorist act had been committed?  As sad as it is, I don't think the American public would have understood the downing of a civilian jet liner, until AFTER one of them had been used as a weapon.  Up until this point, as we had was intelligence that said this was POSSIBLE.  But then again we had intelligence that said Iraq had WMD, and we weren't supposed to trust that, but based on those same agencies intel, we were supposed to kill 300 innocent civilians, is that what you are saying Apu?  And without knowing FOR SURE what the results would have been, you would have supported the Bush Admin, in this action?

 

You can't look at that incident in Sept 12, 2001 eyes.  Hindsight is not appropriate in a world changing occurance.

If you look at the timeline link of 9/11 that I posted in one of these two recent political threads then you will see that there was a time after the 1st plane hit that they could have sent up fighter jets to intercept the Pentagon plane.

[Soxplosion]

By destroying it in this generation via bombs and murder, you just piss more people off and create a new generation.

I never said violence was needed to destroy anti-American sentiment. I dont know what it will take...

[southsider2k5]

I never said violence was needed to destroy anti-American sentiment. I dont know what it will take...

The western world to convert to Islam and quit supporting Israel.

[YASNY]

And I have issue with that statement anyway.  Are you telling me on September 10th, 2001 that you would have supported the shooting down of American civilians BEFORE a terrorist act had been committed?  As sad as it is, I don't think the American public would have understood the downing of a civilian jet liner, until AFTER one of them had been used as a weapon.  Up until this point, as we had was intelligence that said this was POSSIBLE.  But then again we had intelligence that said Iraq had WMD, and we weren't supposed to trust that, but based on those same agencies intel, we were supposed to kill 300 innocent civilians, is that what you are saying Apu?  And without knowing FOR SURE what the results would have been, you would have supported the Bush Admin, in this action?

 

You can't look at that incident in Sept 12, 2001 eyes.  Hindsight is not appropriate in a world changing occurance.

If you look at the timeline link of 9/11 that I posted in one of these two recent political threads then you will see that there was a time after the 1st plane hit that they could have sent up fighter jets to intercept the Pentagon plane.

No one knew it was a terrorist attack until the second plane hit.