The criteria is that the Murrah Building bombing was a intended as a blow to the federal government with the intent of publicizing its misdoings, whereas the DC killings were the result of a couple of wacked-out malcontents taking out their frustrations by shooting random people from a car and belatedly and stupidly trying to extort money in trade for it to stop.
It’s amazing the things one has to spell out on this, the most intelligent message board on the planet.
I see your point about a dangerous precedent, but then not taking action when our own laws were deliberately violated also sets a dangerous precedent. Which poison do we take?
As for Cheney, I’m sorry. I could not disagree more with him on moral/ethcical grounds. And, I have come to despise him. I consider him to be a a dangerous man, and totally devoid of any scruples.
Except that there’s a good deal of evidence that Muhammad and Malvo were trying to create an atmosphere of fear, and other stuff that pretty much defines terrorism.
Yeah, but by your rationale, Clinton gets a pass on that. Bush the Elder never took any actions to contain the threat of truck bombings in the midwest.
I don’t blame Bush/Cheney for not stopping these domestic terrorists who operated right in their own frontyard. But I am really fucking fed up with the people who insist that Bush/Cheney kept us 100% safe from terrorists.
Yeah, it’s a shame that prior to 9/11 there was no precedent for - say - muslim-backed bombing aimed at the WTT. How could Dick and Dubya have been expected to know? :rolleyes:
And I don’t think you should hold folk to too strict of a standard in terms of defining “domestic terrorists.” After all, the Patriot Act doesn’t do so either.
How dare you sir…He does not hate freedom…He’s all in favor of it…well,… for old fat, bald, white guys, at least. That way he, Linburgh, Rowe, and Rumsfeldt are sitting kind of pretty.
Each of the things you agree with–9/11 means we need new structures, a post facto criminal approach fails, and retrospective prosecutions would be a political disaster-- is something that Obama also either explicitly stated in his speech or also agrees with.
Obviously the parts people are finding objectionable are the points of disagreement, many of which are either internally contradictory or outright knowing misrepresentations of the facts.
IF, and that is a BIG IF, in case you didn’t notice, any of your opponents were to say they hated America, they would probably do so as a result of informed opinions, rather than blatant lies spoken by a blatant liar.
Yeah, but after it happened, then what? Huh? You didn’t see any more of that kind of shit, did you? HE KEPT IT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN! There are none so blind as those who will not see.