Yes, I agree. Assuming Al Qaeda is as great a threat as Bush tried to make us all believe, we did the right thing. However, it's been nearly 12 years. Their top gun is dead (and of course we had the wrong country - only a few thousand miles off) and our security measures in this country are so tight that I had "bomb residue" on me prior to flying to NYC - they uncovered that the source of this mysterious substance was POCKET LINT.

We've done our number. We did our number long ago, before bin Laden was killed. We did our number shortly after 9/11, and if that weren't true, they'd have attacked us again and they'd certainly have attacked Israel by now.

@bo - We had the right coutnry. He fled. Duh. And he was only 300 miles from Kabul and maybe 150 miles from the border of Afghanistan. I suggest you go take a World Geography class before you graduate.

Point taken. Still haven't addressed the main point of my post.

A frew thousand miles. You don't even have a concept of how big Pakistan and Afghanistan are. The southern most tip of Pakistan to the northern most tip of Afghanistan is less than 1500 miles. 2000 miles from where we were looking means we would have found him in Iraq, Turkey, Syria, India, China, Myanmar, Russia, Mongolia, possibly even Ukraine, but definitely not a couple hundred miles away just across the border in Islamabad, Pakistan.

You haven't adressed mine. Gore would never ever have retaliated. There would have been no war so AQ would be strong as ever and *would* have attacked Israel and other Western targets.

How can you just magically say Gore would have done nothing, Draug? It *never happened.*

How can you magically say two less wars would be a good thing (your words) and that AQ wouldn't have attacked Israel if we hadn't spanked their ass? The reason we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan has nothing to do with bush. He hasn't been in office 5 years. Your Libtard leader, President B.O. has been in power, yet we are still in both.

Allow me to add my two cents: I think Bush was right to go to war in Afghanistan, but wrong to go to war in Iraq. That being said, there really wasn't a plan in the Afghan war after we took out Bin Laden. Draug is right in pointing out that Barack Hussein Obama has had 5 years to get us out, and he didn't.

Now, if Gore had been president, of course AQ would have been stronger because they wouldn't be fighting to keep control of Afghanistan, and instead would be focused on Israel and Europe.

And I agree that we should never have gone to war in Iraq. That was Bush warmongering and wanting to finish what his father started but had wisely stopped when he had accomplished the goials set forth by Congress.

1. I hate Obama's guts. I hate just about everything he does. Only thing I genuinely defend him for is his actions toward/with Congress because I hate their guts too.

2. He's just as much your leader as mine or any "libtard" out there.

3. The Iraq War is (officially) over. We still have troops there, but that's the American need for influence showing just as much as anything else.

4. I have no idea why we're still in Afghanistan. Karzai is no ally of ours. I don't care whose fault it is; the fact of the matter is that the future is more important.

5. The reason Al Qaeda never attacked Israel is probably because Israel would have blown the living shit out of every little speck of Al Qaeda influence on the planet if they had, regardless of the UN or what other countries wanted.

6. Less deadly violence is generally accepted as a good thing.

@Sbyvl ... unrelated question: why Barack Hussein Obama? To point out that he has ethnic roots? I hope you're better than that. Yes, even you, Sbyvl.

1. Why's that?
2. Glad to hear it.
3. Why can't we put those troops on the border?
4. Agree.
5. No, because they were busy fighting us.
6. Agree.

How naive... I doubt you even remember 9/11 outside of some vague images. You were 5 after all. Me? I was 35. I had friends in New York working at the WTC as well as a couple Marine friends working at the Pentagon. You had playmates on the playground.

Maybe once you actually grow up and experience a decade or so of adulthood, you will realize it isn't so black & white out there.

What's wrong with using the president's full name? We say George Walker Bush, and there is no issue there.

And if you say we do that to clarify from George Herbert Walker Bush then why say John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy?

@Draugnar: I had friends in the Trade Center as well. Are you form New York too?

*from

No, but people all over the country (nay the world) had friends in the WTC. Not all New Yorkers in the the finance center are native to New York. Many are transplants from all over the world.

@Sbyvl ... I've heard George W. Bush and George H.W. Bush as clarification only. FDR is (according to my grandfather, at least) because no one wants to say Franklin Roosevelt, and if you just say Roosevelt, well, you all know there were two of them. I've personally not heard anyone say John Fitzgerald "Jack" Kennedy. Maybe that's a demographics thing.

Didn't intend to come off as an ass, by the way. Was a genuine question. It doesn't really read that way.

@Draug ... if you're going to pull the age card, we're done here. You know as well as I do that that serves no rhetorical purpose. And, for the record, I watched the events unfold on TV for four hours crying my eyes out that day after being picked up from school because my parents were freaking out for my UNCLE that was in the north tower. He got out, thankfully. I remember it, don't you worry.

So I assume you have heard JFK and John F. Kennedy. Explain those? There has only ever been one President named Kennedy.

How about LBJ and Lyndon B. Johnson?

LBJ is clarification. Andrew Johnson, ya know?

JFK signed his name "John F Kennedy." I figured that's why that came about, though it could just be a name that stuck. Don't know about Eisenhower, and I don't believe Truman actually had a middle name (S stood for something else).

Can't think of others that do that off the top of my head.

BJ Clinton?

The Impeached Pervert should be recognized, you know?

Except it is WJ "Bill" Clinton. His name is William, not Bill.

Why not just Lyndon Johnson? Why the B? It's not like Andrew Johnson was a Lyndon.

Like Kennedy, he signed "Lyndon B. Johnson."

I've never heard BJ Clinton or WJ Clinton.

I believe Clinton signed William "Bill" Clinton.

I have his signature. It's clearly "Bill Clinton." I can post a picture if you'd like.

Though I'm sure Google has plenty of those.

Have you ever listened to Mark Levin?