It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Bush calls new attack on US his worst worry

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Bush calls new attack on US his worst worry


news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Tuesday he was disappointed in "flawed intelligence" before the Iraq war and was concerned that if a Democrat wins the presidency in November and withdrew troops prematurely it could "eventually lead to another attack on the United States."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.politico.com




posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:01 PM
link   
I can't believe this rhetoric is still used. Considering how dumbed down we all are a lot of people probably believe this.

Interesting when the President eludes to a possible attack after a Democrat wins. We know that the NWO lets the republicans have the white house awhile then the Dems get their turn. Its how the fake 2 party system works.

I think the war on terror is a fraud and that most big terror attacks are false flags and that even real terror is usually lead by an agent and the followers are retarded. I also think Al queda is funded by the cia so when i read about "looming terror" if we don't stop bombing them i cringe.

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I fear another attack if the next president withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan too. The terrorists will need a new war for profit at that point, so there's no better way other than to launch another attack.

Of course, I don't think George is speaking of the same "terrorists" that I am.

[edit on 5/13/08 by NovusOrdoMundi]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   


I am fuming at this illogical 'belief'.

Troops in Iraq or not does not necessitate another attack on American soil will occur or not!!!!

The two are mutually exclusive if you step far enough back....

Just another lame excercise in promoting bipartisan B.S.

Our leadership...ladies and gentlemen...



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I find it amazing that some people believe that line of thinking. I'm even more stunned when I hear people actually repeat it in discussion about the war.

"If we bring our troops home, the terrorists will follow us home and attack us."

Why? If "the terrorists" have the resources and capability to attack now, and they allegedly hate us so much that they would attack us anytime, WHY are they NOT attacking us NOW?

There is nothing about what we are doing in Iraq that is hindering their ability to attack in other regions of the world.

It makes absolutely no sense. People just take what ever their precious leader says as the absolute truth and they repeat it as if they have some great knowledge as to the justifications and reasons for the war and its continuation.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
< < sighs


Since when did anything shrub says make any sense.

Now he's trying to dictate what happens AFTER he leaves office?

Of course he couldn't possibly be looking after his pals in the oil business...

I find myself wondering why dubya has intelligence agencies - for sure, none of it rubbed off on him.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Well, there has not been another attack on the US since 911 so I think GW has been doing his job. I dont believe in all the conspiracys floating arouind about an inside job. I just heard on the radio that hamas is rooting for obama. I feel sorry for the country a new attack may be traced to.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:17 PM
link   
If The President really cared about a new attack; he would have done something about the porous, open borders long ago. Not to mention the
almost completely unguarded ports, with inspectors of cargo being cut back or even being contracted out to Arab companies. He doesn't care about us!

[edit on 13-5-2008 by whaaa]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
I find it amazing that some people believe that line of thinking. I'm even more stunned when I hear people actually repeat it in discussion about the war.

"If we bring our troops home, the terrorists will follow us home and attack us."

Why? If "the terrorists" have the resources and capability to attack now, and they allegedly hate us so much that they would attack us anytime, WHY are they NOT attacking us NOW?

There is nothing about what we are doing in Iraq that is hindering their ability to attack in other regions of the world.

It makes absolutely no sense. People just take what ever their precious leader says as the absolute truth and they repeat it as if they have some great knowledge as to the justifications and reasons for the war and its continuation.


There have been many attacks that have been thwarted. They just dont announce it. I think the latest one I heard about were airliners from europe. They were trying to plant bombs on them. Plus I think they know if they attack us now while bush is in office it will have the oposite effect that the spain bombing did before their election. They chose the liberal candidate who chose to conceed to the islamic terrorists.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonhb
Well, there has not been another attack on the US since 911 so I think GW has been doing his job. I dont believe in all the conspiracys floating arouind about an inside job. I just heard on the radio that hamas is rooting for obama. I feel sorry for the country a new attack may be traced to.


Thats a little twisted.

There wasn't an attack before Bush got into office either... so with this logic... terrorists only attack when Bush is in power.

See how that logic can be twisted? Don't use it.



Staying in Iraq has nothing to do with being attacked at home.

The problem is, Al-Qaeda is NOT, I repeat, NOT based in Iraq.
They may have sent soldiers to Iraq to meet the Americans in an easy to reach location... but they are not from Iraq, nor are they from Afghanistan.

If they want to hit the US, Iraq and Afghanistan will simply not factor into the equation... they are spread clear across the middle east. They can use any country they want as a staging point.

Bring the troops home, and prepare for the inevitable. You've stirred the hornets nest, now get back inside and lock the doors.



Or... you could leave your military over there, and get hit just the same.
It's up to you.


The interesting thing about Al-Qaeda, is there are very FEW members.
The thing is though, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause... which makes each individual member INCREDIBLY dangerous.

Hate, Respect, and Learn about your enemy... NEVER underestimate them.

[edit on 13-5-2008 by johnsky]



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I find myself wondering why dubya has intelligence agencies - for sure, none of it rubbed off on him.

Umm.....The British intelligence agencies were saying the same as the American agencies. If you have two seperate agencies telling Bush the same story, you had better take it seriously.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
I find myself wondering why dubya has intelligence agencies - for sure, none of it rubbed off on him.

Umm.....The British intelligence agencies were saying the same as the American agencies. If you have two seperate agencies telling Bush the same story, you had better take it seriously.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:40 PM
link   
No they weren't - read about Dr David Kelly, who was pretty much driven to his death by blair and his cronies (if he wasn't actually murdered)

See, it's about FACTS.

Bush had NIE's before Iraq saying that they didn't have wmds

He has an NIE about Iran saying they have no nuclear weapons plan.

What did he say?
"I don't believe them"



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonhb
 


Can you provide proof that there have been thwarted attacks? I'm not talking about news articles. I'm talking about actual proof.

I'll go ahead and answer that for you: no. You can't. Because there is none, at least not available to us.

So given that, how do you come to the conclusion that they did, indeed, thwart an attack? How do you know we were truly in immediate danger?

Do you just take the news article's word for it, hoping it would never lie to you?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   
More predictable Fear-Mongering from the dictator-decider. Next up-The False flag!

Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice...



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
BTW-I wonder if Pinnochio Boy will sit around enjoying his milk and graham crackers for 45 minutes like last time when he was so "concerned" as the 'excersize' was being carried out.

lmao



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Bush calls new attack on US his worst worry



More like his last hope. I’ve no doubt that there will be another false flag before Bush is done, the only question is whether it’ll be on a carrier in the gulf or here in the USA. Israel will have it’s attack on Iran, and it may very well start WWIII.



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:10 PM
link   
the whole world is a stage



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by adkchamp
the whole world is a stage


Only from the director's point of view.

Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of the leader, isn't it?



posted on May, 13 2008 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Can you provide proof that there have been thwarted attacks? I'm not talking about news articles. I'm talking about actual proof.

Umm.....news articles from reputable news sources is considered proof here on ATS. If you don't want news articles, what do you want? Sorry, but I don't have time to drive to your house and hand over the actuall evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join