President Bush achieved the one big thing he and all Americans demanded of his administration. Not a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of Sept. 11. A measure of the administration’s success is the criticism it has drawn. Bush made a choice to take no chances with American lives, and to live with the liberal backlash over waterboarding. His most controversial and difficult decision, the war in Iraq, was consistent with his post-9/11 doctrine to regard “any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism . . . as a hostile regime” and pre-empt threats to America from rogue regimes and proliferators. The failure to discover WMDs gave opponents the opening to claim the war was fought on false premises, but Bill Clinton, Democrats on Capitol Hill and every major intelligence service also believed Saddam had WMDs. The world remains a very dangerous place. Yet thanks to Bush’s post-9/11 willingness to act decisively, and at the risk of his own popularity, Americans are safer today than on Sept. 10, 2001. – Wall Street Journal editorial
Bush said little of interest (in his farewell address). He dwelled mostly on 9/11 and the so-called war on terror, characterizing the invasion of Iraq as part of his effort to take “the fight to the terrorists.” He suggested that although the Iraq war was the subject of “legitimate debate,” there “can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil.” Was the nation’s safety ensured because Bush invaded Iraq and did not finish the fight in Afghanistan? No doubt, he and his ever-dwindling band of defenders will continue to insist that it is so – just as a rooster might insist there is a connection between his crowing and the rising of the sun. And Bush defended himself for having been willing to make the tough decisions – as if making hard choices is the same as making wise ones. Given that he is passing to Barack Obama a country burdened with two unresolved wars and an economy in severe decline, Bush certainly would rather look forward than face the present-day consequences of his actions and inaction. – David Corn, CQPolitics
183 Comments
Phillip: A truth you learn when you live on a farm or are in 4-H, when the Rooster crows, the sun rises shortly thereafter. Are you now claiming, “There is no connection, there is no connection!”
Why does Bush get a pass on 9/11? Just because it happened under his watch, he was warned by numerous countries and his own staff. Then there were the numerous American deaths in Iraq. There were the anthrax attacks. There was the sniper in D.C. There was the lack of food inspection due to his budget cuts.
But if 3,000 people dying in three terrorist attacks on one day is considered keeping America safe then we were kept safe.
Wink,
Are you suggesting that if the rooster didn’t crow, the sun would fail to rise?
We shall see won’t we?
If Obama gets all weak and fluffy on national defense, then as they say, “a window of opportunity” shall open for someone, somewhere.
Jed: Phillips opening paragraphs used the “rooster” analogy to express the idea that “because Bush attacked Iraq, America was saved from terrorism.”
Regular: Another saying, “One person’s problem is someone else’s opportunity.” But in the case of the presidency, we have to wait four years.
See, I just don’t understand how the 4,500+ American deaths in Iraq somehow vindicates the 3,000+ deaths on 9/11.
It just looks like 7,500+ dead Americans to me.
Osama bin Laden’s policies led to fewer American deaths than George WMD Bush’s.
So who was the real threat to Americans’ safety?
MonkeyHock tries to amortize death on some mystical Leftist balance book.
Iraq has stepped into 21st century democracy after having been held to camel and goat herding tribal style government for decades.
Fathers and mothers of Iraq are relieved that their daughters are no longer grabbed from the streets and taken to rape rooms.
Shiites are no longer worried that missing relatives will be found in mass graves.
Kurds are not preparing for another chemical attack from Saddam. Instead they are producing oil and becoming autonomous in their own right.
Afghanistan is another problem. It hasn’t moved out of the 19th century yet. It will take fifty years before they catch up to other societies.
There is scale that measures death and progression into societies that enable people to prosper and live freely.
Measurement by weasel words is at best petty and small minded.
And what about the people who died in the anthrax attacks? Whether from the US or from abroad they were definitely terrorist attacks, innocent people died, a major system of commerce was compromised, and the perpetrator was not brought to justice.
But I guess this one is easy to overlook. It only involved a few people and a congressman from North Dakota that Bush didn’t like anyway. It didn’t make good news copy like planes crashing into buildings did.
All during this time that Bush made America safe, tons of drugs and hundreds of thousands of people were crossing our borders illegally. Don’t you think that if people wanted to attack us again, they could have found a way? No. America remained safe simply because organized Islamic militants chose not to attack. Why should they? Once was sufficient.
Why does the Bush clock start on 9/11? IIRC, 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch. So he kept us safe if you just don’t count the worst terrorist attack on American soil in our history. I call BS. Bush was asleep at the wheel and over 3,000 Americans died as a result.
The numbers aren’t in yet, but the damages Bush did to this country are still piling up. It may take years to assess that damage and correct it, if it can be corrected. As noted above, over 4,500 Americans have died in Bush’s response to 9/11. An example of the “cure” being worse than the cause? History will not be kind to George W Bush.
9/11 happened on his watch, and thereafter he kept America safe like Howard kept Austrlia safe after the Bali bombings. The Bush crowd is grabbing at straws to masque reality
How about; “Did Bush keep us safe after being awakened by 911″?
Administration transitions are dangerous times when things can fall through the cracks while the newbies are getting their feet on the ground and becoming familiar with their role. I don’t know if it is fair to say that happened with 911, but Prez Obama will do us all well to recognize that danger.
The worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States happened with warning on his watch. He responded with a pre-emptive and unnecessary war that caused more enemies and death. Misery is all he accomplished, not safety for anyone.
“Regular” tells us –
The Kurds are “becoming autonomous in their own right.”
As opposed to becoming “autonomous” in another way?
C’mon, “Regular.” You’re drunk on the BushCo Kool-Aid; redundantly saying the same thing over and over again in a repetitive manner. You’re becoming WE Blog’s version of Foster Brooks. You’ve become a joke.
You assert: “Shiites are no longer worried that missing relatives will be found in mass graves.:
Yeah. Now it’s the Sunis’ turn. Only the graves of people who’ve been killed by Shrub’s little Iraqi adventure are better off in individual graves?
And the 4,500+ Americans — in individual graves — are better off… how?
The terrorists won.
They terrorized Shrub and his minions into forsaking our American heritage of stepping up to opponents with the power of democracy and constitutional strength.
One of the strongest statements from President Obama’s inaugural address told terrorists: “We will win… on our terms.”
If there are criminals to pursue we will prosecute them with the powers of a limited government restrained by the Bill of Rights.
If there are enemies abroad we will have a military force capable of fending them off and preserving our way of life.
At long last, we probably have a President who’s not in the business of attacking non-combatant nations in an effort to make new enemies.
“The worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States happened with warning on his watch.”
———
Please advise as to the nature of the “warning” and what could have been done in response that would have prevented 911.
What has happened, or NOT happened is by far the best answer to that question. We have not been attacked since and that’s the bottom line.
Other than his deplorable defense of our Mexican border, and illegal Mexican labor, he did a great job with national security.
“outlander” plays the victim card.
No one could have predicted…” and all that.
Outlander, we’ve been over this more times than anyone cares to count.
Even if we remove the words “with warning,” we still have, “The worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States happened on his watch.”
Boxic,
You apparently haven’t been eaten by a dinosaur, so Bush must have protected you from that too!
What Bush did was to be so intent on momentary security that what he did will endanger us for decades to come. He has been far more successful at creating terrorists than Bin Laden could ever be!
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 8:46 am | Permalink
“The worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States happened with warning on his watch.”
———
Please advise as to the nature of the “warning” and what could have been done in response that would have prevented 911.
—
The now infamous Presidential Daily Briefing, “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.,” said a month before the 9/11 attacks that there were “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings.” The White House responded to the public release of the memo, saying that “The PDB article did not warn of the 9/11 attacks. Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons.” While the White House draws distinctions to defend itself, President Bush’s own former counterterrorism advisor, Richard Clarke, said that “the White House had ignored warnings about bin Laden’s terrorist organization. Clarke said the Bush administration, including Rice, was aware of al Qaeda threats but did not treat them as ‘urgent.’” During the 2004 presidential campaign, Clarke said, “Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he’s done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We’ll never know. . . I think he’s done a terrible job on the war against terrorism.” [CNN, 5/19/04. CBS, 3/21/04]
http://www.nsnetwork.org/node/1186
—
You can parse words and obfuscate all you want — and Bush’s supporters do that and more — but if you can’t see a warning in “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.,” then you’ve moved beyond denial. You’ve evidently become an ostrich because your head is planted firmly in the sand here.
There is probably nothing that could have been done to guarantee a prevention of 9/11: there is no guarantee.
There can be no doubt, however, that the Bush administration was given ample warning.
There is probably nothing that could have been done to guarantee a prevention of 9/11: there is no guarantee.
There can be no doubt, however, that the Bush administration was given ample warning.
———-
That is pretty stunning illogic there Pedant.
blackbeard…fact check…Daschle was a senator from South Dakota, not a congressman from North Dakota.
During/after September 2001, I worked with various federal law enforcement agencies. While I cannot go into detail, I can knowledgably state that there were many arrests that were never made public. There were many potential terrorist acts prevented by those arrests.
Unfortunately, those will never become public.
The more apt question is one that unfortunately not enough Americans asked themselves prior to voting in 2004.
Given the warning, did the Bush administration do all it could to prevent 9/11?
I believe the answer to that is clearly “No,” and I believe history will bear me out. This is reason # 1,029,265 that Bush’s legacy is one of infamy and reason #6,458,992 that the Bush presidency will be properly judged 150 years from now as one among the bottom quintile (at best).
It’s a real tragedy that Bush was reelected in 2004. For what it’s worth, Bush’s reelection severely damanged America’s international reputation built up by the Marshall Plan in Europe following WWII. There are an awful lot of influential adults living outside the USA who will never forgive the American people for 2004, unfortunately.
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 9:20 am | Permalink
There is probably nothing that could have been done to guarantee a prevention of 9/11: there is no guarantee.
There can be no doubt, however, that the Bush administration was given ample warning.
———-
That is pretty stunning illogic there Pedant.
—
I believe one of us is indeed illogical. It’s not me, however.
Want to take a shot at showing me I’m wrong?
The existence of a PDE titled “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S,” that’s a warning.
If such a brief had existed on 9/10: that’s clearly a warning.
If such a brief had been known by the POTUS on 9/10: even more warning.
Had the POTUS known of it on 9/09: more warning.
Had the POTUS know of it on 9/08: a whole 24 hours is added to the 9/09 warning.
Had the POTUS known of the PDE on 9/04 he’d have had a whole week.
When was the PDE known to Bush?
ANS:
August 6, 2001.
That’s 35 days of warning.
In my book, that’s ample warning.
Your turn.
Let me get this straight, Clinton strips the CIA budget during his 8 years, a new president is elected, we get attacked do to a poor overseas intelligence network and some how it is the new presidents fault. I don’t have to think too long on this one, thank God Al Gore wasn’t in there. He would of had us hunting done CO 2 instead of Bin Ladden.
Luckyguy
Posted January 24, 2009 at 9:42 am | Permalink
Let me get this straight, Clinton strips the CIA budget during his 8 years, a new president is elected, we get attacked do to a poor overseas intelligence network and some how it is the new presidents fault.
—
Name the international flights that were used on 9/11. Name the international airports these flights originated from.
Also, Bush was amply warned of such an attack on Aug 6, 2001, a full 35 days prior to 9/11.
It would appear that the CIA did their job. It was the FBI who failed.
(pssst…your argument has blown up)
Amusing to watch duh Libs, sitting on their collective fat azzes the past eight years, drinking their lattes, smoking their pot and practicing the art of mental emetics while making value judgments about a President who kept them safe to do they things they want.
Hooping and hollering like scalded dogs while suggesting cross-eyed agendas, appears to be duh lib way of self expression.
Sure. You stated there was ample warning Pedant. Ample, I think we can agree means sufficient. That would mean warning that was detailed and timely enough to matter.
Yet, you admit that “there is probably nothing that could have been done to guarantee a prevention of 9/11.”
Therefore, the warning was not ample.
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Sure. You stated there was ample warning Pedant. Ample, I think we can agree means sufficient. That would mean warning that was detailed and timely enough to matter.
Yet, you admit that “there is probably nothing that could have been done to guarantee a prevention of 9/11.”
Therefore, the warning was not ample.
—
35 days is more than ample.
A lack of a guarantee does not mean that 9/11 was unpreventable.
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 9:51 am | Permalink
Therefore, the warning was not ample.
—
Does not follow.
Your argument is specious. You are arguing that the because 9/11 was not prevented it was unpreventable.
Ah, I see. Logic based on your expert opinion as to what constitutes ample warning.
Regular
Posted January 24, 2009 at 9:49 am | Permalink
Amusing to watch duh Libs, sitting on their collective fat azzes the past eight years, drinking their lattes, smoking their pot and practicing the art of mental emetics while making value judgments about a President who kept them safe to do they things they want.
Hooping and hollering like scalded dogs while suggesting cross-eyed agendas, appears to be duh lib way of self expression.
—
You obviously meant to write “safe after 9/11.” Otherwise you are incorrect. Surely you agree that Bush was POTUS on 9/11/01?
How many days before 9/11 was the PDE titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” presented to Bush?
How many days did Bush have to smoke out an attack? What did his administration do to try to avoid a domestic attack? What specifically did they do inside the USA once they were explicitly warned of an imminent danger?
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Ah, I see. Logic based on your expert opinion as to what constitutes ample warning.
—
How many days did Bush have to smoke out an attack? What did his administration do to try to avoid a domestic attack? What specifically did they do inside the USA once they were explicitly warned of an imminent danger?
Oh and don’t forget about the wall of secrecy that did not allow sharing of critical information between the FBI and CIA. A Clinton administration concoction, if I recall correctly.
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:00 am | Permalink
Ah, I see. Logic based on your expert opinion as to what constitutes ample warning.
—
lol
For crying out loud, it was 35 days!
What exactly did the administration do to prevent a domestic attack once they knew such an attack was imminent?
If Bush did his dead level best: no foul.
If he did not do his dead level best: foul. According to administration officials, they did nothing.
What do you know differently?
Are you a woman, Pedant?
Uh, no reason, just asking.
Let me ask again. What should have been done Pedant, that would have prevented 911?
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:07 am | Permalink
Oh and don’t forget about the wall of secrecy that did not allow sharing of critical information between the FBI and CIA. A Clinton administration concoction, if I recall correctly.
—
According to Richard Clarke, this could have been overcome. In fact, it had been overcome in (I believe) 1996 when a massive act of domestic terrorism was prevented at LAX.
What did Bush do to push through this barrier once he became aware that an attack was imminent?
“What Bush did was to be so intent on momentary security that what he did will endanger us for decades to come. He has been far more successful at creating terrorists than Bin Laden could ever be!”–Jed
Another worthless opinion as far as I’m concerned, and one to be ignored. But if you can entertain yourself have at it.
What did Bush do to push through this barrier once he became aware that an attack was imminent?
False premise Pedant.
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:17 am | Permalink
What did Bush do to push through this barrier once he became aware that an attack was imminent?
False premise Pedant.
–
Not at all.
You’re the president. You hate Clinton and you despise his presidency. All it accomplished and all it stood for.
Furthermore, you are aware of 2 things:
1) Your brief is titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
2) The president whose policies you despise has erected a barrier to preventing domestic terrorism.
What do you do?
Nothing? (that’s what Bush did, according to administration accounts)
Bush was very good for the moneyed few and no one else.
911 happened on his watch. Osama bin Laden remains at large.
Verdict: bush is the worst and most failed President in American history.
#
Pedant
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:06 am | Permalink
You obviously meant to write “safe after 9/11.” Otherwise you are incorrect. Surely you agree that Bush was POTUS on 9/11/01?
How many days before 9/11 was the PDE titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States” presented to Bush?
How many days did Bush have to smoke out an attack? What did his administration do to try to avoid a domestic attack? What specifically did they do inside the USA once they were explicitly warned of an imminent danger?
==================================
How many years were the Soviets threatening to launch a nuclear attack?
How many people die from traffic accidents because they were driving too fast?
Where in these so-called intelligence reports did it say four groups of terrorists are going to fly aircraft into the WTC, the pentagon and into the ground in Pennsylvania?
You are doing far too much Monday morning quarterbacking and arm flailing the hysterical pom poms of conspiracy.
The illogic. The expectations that a man be a mind reader…
Has to be a woman.
outlander
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:26 am | Permalink
The illogic. The expectations that a man be a mind reader…
—
No. Not mind reading, work. Hustle. Initiative. Plain old hard work.
What did Bush do? What kind of work did he do to prevent 9/11?
Pedant
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:12 am | Permalink
If Bush did his dead level best: no foul.
—
Bush had 35 days once he’d been briefed. The brief was titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.”
Maybe it’s just me, but if I had been briefed like that I would have acted. Hell, this is plainly obvious even to a politician. You get briefed with a title like that, and then the US is attacked, it’s your a$$.
More importantly, the POTUS is sworn to national security. It’s his friggin job, fer chrissakes.
So what exactly did Bush do?
Well, now that I know who I am dealing with.
To repeat my question for the third time Pedant, what should he have done? Specifically. That would have prevented 911?
I mean after he hustled over and read their mind, via good old fashioned hard work.
“So what exactly did Bush do?”
——-
He took most days as vacation at the ranch because he needed to rest from the campaign. In fact, set new records for days off. Didn’t he get a lot of brush cut?
I repeat:
There can be no doubt, however, that the Bush administration was given ample warning.
It would have been ample warning for people of average intelligence, but we were dealing with bushco. Maybe he needed a picture book, could have been titled, “My Pet Terrorist.”
My first sentence should have said:
It would have been ample warning for people of at least average intelligence…
That is nothing more than your opinion Pedant, with which I disagree.
But alas, I’ve spent enough time trying to argue logic with the illogical. Things to do.
“Although the PDB referred to the possibility of hijackings, it did not discuss the possible use of planes as weapons.”
From CNN on the report
comment from nj:
“Bush was very good for the moneyed few and no one else.”
Of course, that must mean the millions that are alive today in Africa because of Bush’s work in 2003 to provide $15 BILLION in aids research and medicine for Africa benefits only the moneyed few.
Lots of millionaires in Africa, are there BJ???
An abbreviated statement after getting two awaiting moderation…
“$15 BILLION in aids”
Chump change. We spend that much in Iraq in less than a month. Follow THAT money.
Luckyguy
Posted January 24, 2009 at 9:42 am | Permalink
Let me get this straight, Clinton strips the CIA budget during his 8 years, a new president is elected, we get attacked do to a poor overseas intelligence network and some how it is the new presidents fault.
____________________________________________________
And once again we get the tired old Republican mantra that it was all Clinton’s fault. So let’s recap:
The Clinton years gave us peace, prosperity, 21 million new jobs, and a small budget surplus.
On the Bush watch we had 9/11, two wars, increase of government size to the tune of 33%, doubling of the national debt, 3 million new jobs, and a financial melt-down.
Makes you wonder why anyone in their right mind would vote Republican.
lindainks55
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:40 am | Permalink
It would have been ample warning for people of [at least] average intelligence, but we were dealing with bushco. Maybe he needed a picture book, could have been titled, “My Pet Terrorist.”
—
I admit I am amazed by the reaction of Bush supporters to this PDB, titled “Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.” I can only conclude that because Bush wasn’t handed a GPS system, map coordinates, names, addresses, and times that he’s off scot free even though by all accounts he never lifted a finger.
Back in the day, when Americans were more self sufficient and weren’t so afraid of what they do not know: I guess I’d like to think of our president as a guy/gal who knows what to do in such a situation.
Namely: work to find names, addresses, likely times, likely coordinates, likely scenarios, and ACT.
Incredible. It’s as if our American initiative, which once defined Americans, has become merely vestigial.
Pedant,
outlander and similar ilk will never admit the obvious errors made by Bush.
On the Bush watch we had 9/11, two wars, increase of government size to the tune of 33%, doubling of the national debt, 3 million new jobs, and a financial melt-down.
—————————
To be fair the 9/11 attacks got the ball rolling on many of those issues.
You are ‘Monday Morning Quarterbacking’ Pedant.
Give it up.
You still haven’t answered outlander’s question.
Please advise as to the nature of the “warning” and what could have been done in response that would have prevented 911.
Why, nothing, of course. I mean, after all, there wasn’t a date, place or time on the warnings, no RSVP, so how was anyone–especially the President–supposed to know what to do when?
XXX posted January 24, 2009 at 10:49 am
Makes you wonder why anyone in their right mind would vote Republican.
—————
You seem to have answered your own question. . .
$15 billion is ‘chump change’ according to bj.
Hey, bj…can you spare some change? Admit it, your over-reaching, broad generalization of only the wealthy being helped by Bush has been proven wrong.
be an adult and admit it for once, can you?
Look, as I’ve said there is no guarantee. There is no way to guarantee it could have been prevented.
But the key is you gotta try. If you don’t even try, then…well, I guess I have to spell it out for some here.
Not trying is B A D. Capische?
The existence of a guarantee bears no relation to actually preventing a something from happening (including an act of terrorism). I guess it’s a news flash to some here, but this is at the very core of why people work, why we have children and families, why we save for a rainy day, why we buy homes and invest in our communities, why we hope.
Nobody has a guarantee on anything but death and taxes. We all work anyway.
Unfortunately too many are willing to subject even that standard to George W Bush.
Unfortunately too many are “willing” to subject even that standard to George W Bush.
–
sb unwilling
A few paltry billions against the the greater damage he did may let bush sleep at night raptor.
And I see it is comfort for you as well. Last eight years pretty good to ya I bet.
ANTI
Posted January 24, 2009 at 10:53 am | Permalink
To be fair the 9/11 attacks got the ball rolling on many of those issues.
___________________________________________________
ANTI, more like the over-blown reaction to 9/11. Seems to me we’d have had much better results with a couple of directed Seal teams at a much lower cost. If the point was to take out OBL and Saddam, why not just assassinate them, as opposed to taking out a couple of countries?
Pedant
Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:00 am | Permalink
Look, as I’ve said there is no guarantee. There is no way to guarantee it could have been prevented.
====================
After all the previous arm flailing, that’s all you had to say.
Interesting that you had to go clear over to Africa to look for some good bush did there Raptor.
Cons, EVER looking for that pony in a room full of horses___.
Amusing to watch duh
LibsCons, sitting on their collective fat azzes the past eight years, drinking theirlattesBud Lights, smoking theirpotbriskets, counting their money and stocks and bonds and practicing the art of mental emetics while makingvalue judgmentsexcuses about a President whokeptdid nothing to keep them safetoso they could do they things they wantED.OH how I hate arriving at a party too late! All the points and counterpoints have been made and or addressed. All the good dip is gone and I only have these. Prior to 9-11 it was known and pointed out to the President. That Al-Qaeda was intent on attacking within the U.S. And their focus on aviation lead to believe it would involve commercial aircraft. Either through the use of bombs as a weapon or hijacking.
Does anyone truly believe that if the Terrorists had intent to have another attack that they could not enter and do it? It has already been pointed out that our boarder is so open that the flow of drugs and illegals are still rapid. Speaking of Richard Clarke, he has stated that in part it is the fact that Bush has done nothing to close the boarders that has kept them for using the open door. They feel it is a trap as no one is would be so stupid to leave the door open and unlocked if they knew a burglar would be wanting to break in.
Al-Qaeda is known to take years to plan and attack a target. So is it more because of the actions of the Bush administration or they are still in the planning stage? Could it be they are watching us tear ourselves apart so why interrupt?
But by all means it is good that a country that was not the host or aided Al-Qaeda is doing better. Shame though the one that did is doing badly and a prime place to generate and be a home to future terrorists.
I have already told my son that as much as he is still endangered in Iraq, he still may end up in more danger, as the next deployment will be Afghanistan where the real enemy is.
Bush kept the country safe from stem cell research.
“Bush kept the country safe from stem cell research.”
——-
More accurate would be that he protected fertilized eggs at fertility clinics from research. bush and his followers preferred they be incinerated out back where it was easier to ignore their ‘destruction.’
The only reason we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is that terrorists have choosen not to. Bush’s effort to protect us is just window dressing to make us feel safe. I have traveled in and out of the country many times since 9/11 and I can assure you that “homeland security” is a big joke.
Good point Dog, if the government can’t even stop the flow of illegals and drugs into this country, how can they stop terrorists?
bj…can’t admit being wrong even when you are. you made a grandiose generalization. A simplistic generalization like that is easily proven wrong with just one example. I provided the example, and you belittle it and hurl insults instead.
Your childish attempts at continuing to evade the direct statement are laughable. You were wrong in your generalization and it has been proven.
grow up.
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink
The only reason we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is that terrorists have choosen not to.
—————–
Mary why does the left insist on painting Bush as a person who did nothing to keep us safe. The absence of attacks is evidence that he did. For you to make this statement with certainty you would have to be a confidant of the terrorists and privy to their deepest secrets. How do you communicate with them?
“Bush was very good for the moneyed few and no one else.”
I’ll stand by that statement mr raptor. You have the rest of your life to defend the sorry SOB.
Linda and Beber are you advocating that stem cell research didn’t go on under Bush’s administration. You would both know this is a blatant lie. Private research was allowed to go on unfettered. The tax payers dollars were just not allowed to fund it. Private funding was always allowed. Embryonic stem cell research was allowed. Adult stem cell research was always allowed. And BTW adult stem cell research has been more productive than embryonic stem cell at this time.
Why keep up the lies?
Bush was told by the Clinton admin., when they departed that the greatest threat came from terrorist attack. Bush rejected that, and said the greatest threat was from a rogue country with nukes. When bush left office they told Obama the greatest threat was from terrorist attack, Obama knows that.
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:30 am | Permalink
The only reason we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is that terrorists have choosen not to. … I can assure you that “homeland security” is a big joke.
—
I think security has improved since 9/11. It’s not perfect, it’s a HUGE hassle, it’s extremely costly (in time spent and otherwise especially to our international reputation: many Europeans refuse to visit the US because of airport security), but it’s improved.
The biggest problem with it, though, is that it can’t screen for intention. In other words, it can’t prevent people with bad intentions from entering the country. The security improvements we’ve instituted would not have prevented 9/11, for example.
To prevent another 9/11 we’d have to do what Bush did not do from Aug 6, 2001 to Sept 11, 2001: be willing to find twos and threes, add ‘em up, and come to fours, fives, sixes, etc. In other words, we would still have to use our best guess about names, addresses, times, points of attack, etc.
Flying out of any international airport here though is no fun, though, I’ll give you that.
okobserver posted January 24, 2009 at 11:38 am
Mary why does the left insist on painting Bush as a person who did nothing to keep us safe. The absence of attacks is evidence that he did. For you to make this statement with certainty you would have to be a confidant of the terrorists and privy to their deepest secrets. How do you communicate with them?
—————
The absence of attacks is only evidence of the absence of attacks.
For those who only read headlines and not the articles and details. Study the facts:
“We predicted Democrats would use the 9/11 Commission for partisan purposes, and that much of the press would oblige. But color us astonished that barely anyone appreciates the significance of the bombshell Attorney General John Ashcroft dropped on the hearings Tuesday. If Jamie Gorelick were a Republican, you can be sure our colleagues in the Fourth Estate would be leading the chorus of complaint that the Commission’s objectivity has been fatally compromised by a member who was also one of the key personalities behind the failed antiterror policy that the Commission has under scrutiny. Where’s the outrage?
At issue is the pre-Patriot Act “wall” that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators–a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant “the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail.” The Attorney General explained:
“In the days before September 11, the wall specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. After the FBI arrested Moussaoui, agents became suspicious of his interest in commercial aircraft and sought approval for a criminal warrant to search his computer. The warrant was rejected because FBI officials feared breaching the wall.
“When the CIA finally told the FBI that al-Midhar and al-Hazmi were in the country in late August, agents in New York searched for the suspects. But because of the wall, FBI headquarters refused to allow criminal investigators who knew the most about the most recent al Qaeda attack to join the hunt for the suspected terrorists.
“At that time, a frustrated FBI investigator wrote headquarters, quote, ‘Whatever has happened to this–someday someone will die–and wall or not–the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems.’ ”
What’s more, Mr. Ashcroft noted, the wall did not mysteriously arise: “Someone built this wall.” That someone was largely the Democrats, who enshrined Vietnam-era paranoia about alleged FBI domestic spying abuses by enacting the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Mr. Ashcroft pointed out that the wall was raised even higher in the mid-1990s, in the midst of what was then one of the most important antiterror investigations in American history–into the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. On Tuesday the Attorney General declassified and read from a March 4, 1995, memo in which Jamie Gorelick–then Deputy Attorney General and now 9/11 Commissioner–instructed then-FBI Director Louis Freeh and United States Attorney Mary Jo White that for the sake of “appearances” they would be required to adhere to an interpretation of the wall far stricter than the law required.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004956
Some of us who lived through this really wanted to know the truth of what happened. I study history with a passion because I know to not do so will result in our repeating it over and over like a bad ground hog day.
Cosmos the depth of your thoughts is absolutely amazing. I am sitting here in awe of your brillant mind. When the glare has gone I will start to post facts again so you can hit us with another one of your gems.
Phantom
Posted January 24, 2009 at 11:42 am | Permalink
Bush was told by the Clinton admin., when they departed that the greatest threat came from terrorist attack. Bush rejected that, and said the greatest threat was from a rogue country with nukes. When bush left office they told Obama the greatest threat was from terrorist attack, Obama knows that.
—
When it comes to foreign policy, the Bush administration was all about fighting off hubris. Strategically it was all about reinventing the wheel.
North Korea: we’re back to where Clinton was.
Iran: same.
Iraq: we’re stuck replacing Saddam Hussein.
Venezuela: Bush’s FP lead to Chavez’s petro-diplomacy.
Russia: far worse under Bush, far more toxic version of Venezuela’s petro-diplomacy.
Europe: special relationship in tatters.
Middle East: worse; see Iraq.
Pakistan: deteriorating.
Afghanistan: Taliban making a big comeback. Slight improvement.
China: poised to absorb Taiwan and positioned to become the world’s economic engine. Unfortunately under Bush the US/China economic relationship has deteriorated as its borrower/lender aspect has become lose/win for US/China.
When it comes to US foreign policy, the US really plummeted under Bush – at best.
The sins of commission can be discussed at length as to what Bush did, but it may be the sins of ommission that may prove more harmful and dangerous in the long run. By that I mean the tendency now for our “friends”, whose populations now consider the US the biggest threat to world peace, no longer share sensitive intelligence at will, or informally, by reason of past embarassements to them when that information shows up in the media to justify the Bush administrations’ actions.
WASHINGTON (AP) – A key question facing President Barack Obama is what to do with the 245 prisoners still confined at Guantanamo as it closes. The emergence of a former detainee as an al-Qaida figure in Yemen doesn’t make it any easier. A U.S. counterterror official confirmed yesterday that Said Ali al-Shihri, who was released in 2007 after six years at Guantanamo, has resurfaced as a leader of a Yemeni branch of al-Qaida. A reference to al-Shihri has shown up twice this week on a militant-leaning Web site. An announcement yesterday also included a video of a second militant who claims to be a former Guantanamo captive. The second man’s claim has not been verified. The administration’s dilemma is to find new detention facilities for hard-core prisoners while trying to determine which detainees are harmless enough to release.
—————-
Yep Obama feel sorry for these hard core terrorists. Release them back with humanity. That just make me feel warm and fuzzy all over. I think I had a tingle up my leg.
His first venture in opposing terrorists and keeping us safe wasn’t very well thought out as his answer and Gibbs (new press sec) shows.
okobserver posted January 24, 2009 at 11:53 am
Cosmos the depth of your thoughts is absolutely amazing. I am sitting here in awe of your brillant mind. When the glare has gone I will start to post facts again so you can hit us with another one of your gems.
—————
Just post your “facts” listing the attacks that Bush stopped.
Yes, sursum, the wages of sins of omission, especially when it comes to “old Europe” sharing intelligence with the US (they do after all have impeccable contacts as a result of their former imperialism) may be especially harsh.
Too many Americans are clueless about the real value of European intelligence to the US.
I agree 100%.
“Just post your “facts” listing the attacks that Bush stopped.”
Cosmos my facts are that after 9/11 we had no military barracks attacked, no US embassies bombed, no carriers attacked, no military helos shot down and our soldiers dragged through the streets and on and on and on. Now you give me your ‘facts’ as to why this wasn’t the result of Bush’s policies as opposed to those of his predesessor.
sursum posted January 24, 2009 at 12:06 pm
By that I mean the tendency now for our “friends”, whose populations now consider the US the biggest threat to world peace, no longer share sensitive intelligence at will, or informally, by reason of past embarassements to them when that information shows up in the media to justify the Bush administrations’ actions.
————
Exactly. . . like the U.S.’s early release of the airline plot, which ended important tracking of some of the suspects.
#
Pedant
Posted January 24, 2009 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
When it comes to US foreign policy, the US really plummeted under Bush – at best.
__________________________________________________
We had a foreign policy under Bush? Pointing guns and mouthing threats is decidedly NOT a foreign policy.
And the Right had the nerve to snark about sitting down and talking to Iran and the like during the campaign.
At issue is the pre-Patriot Act “wall” that prevented communication between intelligence agents and criminal investigators–a wall, Mr. Ashcroft said, that meant “the old national intelligence system in place on September 11 was destined to fail.”
If this was the problem, why wasn’t Ashcroft doing something in January-August 2001? Things done by one president can be undone by the next. Besides going on vacation, what was Bush doing during those first six to seven months?
Seems to me we’d have had much better results with a couple of directed Seal teams at a much lower cost.
————————
XXX, I can’t say that I disagree with you on that.
“okobserver” blithers –
“…after 9/11 we had no military barracks attacked, no US embassies bombed, no carriers attacked, no military helos shot down and our soldiers dragged through the streets and on and on and on….”
Start counting, “okobserver.” Count out loud. From zero to 4,500 and with every number visualize a flag-draped coffin flown back from Iraq.
Then, and only then, get back to us.
It is too bad we can’t just cut ALL ties with the middle east and see how long they last in the desert.
P.S. I know that is not possible
#okobserver posted January 24, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“Just post your “facts” listing the attacks that Bush stopped.”
Cosmos my facts are that after 9/11 we had no military barracks attacked, no US embassies bombed, no carriers attacked, no military helos shot down and our soldiers dragged through the streets and on and on and on. Now you give me your ‘facts’ as to why this wasn’t the result of Bush’s policies as opposed to those of his predesessor.
okobserver,
You made the claim earlier, so it’s your responsibility to back your claim up with facts.
okobserver posted January 24, 2009 at 11:38 am
Mary why does the left insist on painting Bush as a person who did nothing to keep us safe. The absence of attacks is evidence that he did.
—————–
As I said earlier:
“The absence of attacks is only evidence of the absence of attacks.”
And okobserver. . . post your “facts” after you finish Monkeyhawk’s 12:36 pm task.
Here’s one for you cosmos and it was going to be a big attack on the West coast like 911.
President Bush speaking in the National Guard Memorial Building in 2006:
“In his speech, at the National Guard Memorial Building, Bush said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the reputed mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, began planning the West Coast operation in October 2001. One of Mohammed’s key planners was a man known as Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah, which is affiliated with al-Qaida.
“Rather than use Arab hijackers as he had on Sept. 11, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed sought out young men from Southeast Asia — whom he believed would not arouse as much suspicion,” Bush said. “
U.S. Thwarts 19 terrorist attacks since 911
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm
read it for yourself, it’s a long list
Start counting, “okobserver.” Count out loud. From zero to 4,500 and with every number visualize a flag-draped coffin flown back from Iraq.
Then, and only then, get back to us. – Monkey
————
US casualties were 418,000 dead in WWII. And we had suffered 2,300 dead at Pearl Harbor, the act that pushed us into the war.
So what’s you point? That military members can die in war? We know that. That war should be a last resort? We know that? What then?
The anthrax attacks were post 9/11. They were even another ‘worst’ in our history, according to the FBI.
———-
“…letters laced with anthrax began appearing in the U.S. mail. Five Americans were killed, 17 were sickened, and the nation was terrorized in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history.”
http://www.fbi.gov/anthrax/amerithraxlinks.htm
#
ANTI
Posted January 24, 2009 at 12:37 pm | Permalink
It is too bad we can’t just cut ALL ties with the middle east and see how long they last in the desert.
___________________________________________________
Yeah, considering that part of the world is a cesspool with a bomb fixing to go off. Except that we need the oil, there’s NOTHING in that part of the world worth having or saving, including the people.
bj your antagonistic comments do not deny the facts. I am not defending anyone, just pointing out the idiocy of your comment.
For example, if someone were to say “the Packers ALWAYS win in Wisconsin” and one person were to show one loss, then the grand generalization is proven incorrect.
Same thing…I provided one example of how people who are not wealthy are alive (which is a benefit to them) because of Bush’s push for aids research and medications in Africa. One example disproves your absolutely ridiculous claim.
Simple. Easy to poke holes in your moronic generalization. I am not defending anything, just demonstrating how inept you are at adult conversation.
lindainks55
Posted January 24, 2009 at 1:02 pm | Permalink
The anthrax attacks were post 9/11. They were even another ‘worst’ in our history, according to the FBI.
============================
There are probably more ‘gang’ murders in Wichita than that for eight years.
Try to paint a dark picture lindainks and you’ll walk away splotched and unimportant.
I linked to the FBI. According to them this was a post 9/11 attack.
#
lindainks55
Posted January 24, 2009 at 1:10 pm | Permalink
I linked to the FBI. According to them this was a post 9/11 attack.
———————-
Good for you.
Bush bashing is a favorite past time for Libs. They think it makes them important. Instead, it makes them look petty and stupid.
Regular, each of us can add our interpretation to any post, but reading the actual words a blogger posts usually gets a fairer reading.
I didn’t make any comparisons to any other event. Some bloggers said there hadn’t been any attacks since 9/11. The FBI says there has been at least one. That’s all, nothing more, no matter what you want to ‘read’ into what I posted.
#
lindainks55
Posted January 24, 2009 at 1:13 pm | Permalink
Regular, each of us can add our interpretation to any post, but reading the actual words a blogger posts usually gets a fairer reading.
I didn’t make any comparisons to any other event. Some bloggers said there hadn’t been any attacks since 9/11. The FBI says there has been at least one. That’s all, nothing more, no matter what you want to ‘read’ into what I posted.
———————
How many people have died of tainted meat since 911?
Or are their deaths unimportant?
No.
And Linda who was responsible for that one attack? Was it a domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers who disagreed with internal policy? No big deal then. We still let Ayers teach our children. Although Canada will no longer let him in their country. They don’t want him corrupting their kids. Stupid Americans!
Regular,
You’ve got a great sense of humour — Bush himself, and a right-wing think(sic) tank as sources of “facts”.
Regular is also missing the “big picture”, such as who/what motivated the attacks, everyone who was involved in stopping them, comparisons to previous numbers of attacks, policy changes, etc.
All of those details are required for okobserver to make the claim she earlier made.
okobserver: I read that story about Ayers being barred from Canada in the Globe and Mail, whose report was that Ottawa was astounded Ayers was turned away, especially since he had many trips there before and here I thought they only prohibited guns, not ideologies! On the same day, US customs at Buffalo who held 27 black Canadian school kids going to Washingtion for Obamas’ big day, because some of the girls (aged 14-15)wore hijab. That type of thing resonated not only in Canada but the Muslim world, who picked up the story.
Sursum I heard the story on a radio news blurb and they are pretty short so not a lot of details. Maybe after hearing his history he isn’t going to be free to wonder the globe as he has in the past.
I still say it is a shame that we allow a terrorist to teach our children. But then we have campuses that won’t allow ROTC on their grounds but welcome men like Achmadenijad. How very telling this is. Our military is the enemy and a person who advocates blowing Israel off the face of the earth and announces that he plan to do it is welcomed as a hero.
U.S. Thwarts 19 terrorist attacks since 911
That’s good, Regular. It really is, but it’s also too bad they didn’t stop or attempt to stop what happened on 9/11.
There’s a long list of the attacks that were stopped during Clinton’s terms, too, but we still hear about the few that weren’t. We looooove to focus on the negative.
One could always point out that 9/11 didn’t happen under Clinton, but that wouldn’t be playing fair, would it?
At this point, looking back and pointing fingers is useless. People killed will still be dead no matter who was “in charge”. Families will still mourn. Fix the system that caused the attacks or at the very least, fix the systems (FBI & CIA) that didn’t communicate.
Except that we need the oil, there’s NOTHING in that part of the world worth having or saving, including the people.
———————————–
I wouldn’t go that far. However their governments offer us nothing but oil.(which we need)
It’s fuqed up like polio.
Who am I kidding, I would go that far.
Securing the border with Mexico sure wasn’t on Bush’s list of thing to do post 9/11. As for pre 9/11 If you have a PDB named “Bin Laden determined to attack the US” one you read it, 2 if you if the brief talks about attacking the airlines then it seems beefing up airport security would be a no brainer, 3 why weren’t we going after Bin Laden before its not like 9/11 was his first time attacking us.
Pre, the FBI and CIA still dont talk. a
cosmos_originally
Posted January 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
Regular,
You’ve got a great sense of humour — Bush himself, and a right-wing think(sic) tank as sources of “facts”.
Regular is also missing the “big picture”, such as who/what motivated the attacks, everyone who was involved in stopping them, comparisons to previous numbers of attacks, policy changes, etc
————————
You stated their was a lack of evidence.
I provided evidence.
Plus, there are most likely untold hundreds of cases we will never hear about because they are classified or the implementation of Homeland Security methods in construction, methods and administration has thwarted attacks.
Duh Leftists and Libs like yourself cosmos, are using death as a measuring point.
Instead you should be celebrating how freely one can move around in society and still be protected.
You and those of your ilk are recalcitrant to the facts presented and ignorant of your own good fortunes.
“TomPaine” –
Shrub was busy that day (August 6,2001), clearing brush.
Of course if his administration had been paying attention someone would have asked some questions along the way.
I posted a day or so ago an Associated Press story from September 11, 2001 about how, after one airplane hit one WTC tower, Donald Rumsfeld told everyone there’d be several more attacks.
Okay. So he didn’t know they’d go for the second tower and he apparently didn’t know they’d targeted the Pentagon.
But he KNEW there’d be several attacks.
Maybe Rumsfeld read the memo Shrub didn’t.
Whatever problems you have with Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 911,” the clock ticking sequence while Dumbya read “My Pet Goat” shows you in real time a guy who either had a clue and dismissed the warnings and realized he’d screwed up. Or he was caught completely unawares.
Just about everything Shrub did after that reeks of over-compensation for what may well have been his initial dismissal (or ignorance) of the al Qaeda threat.
“The Decider” never had a doubt from then on.
When the Iraqi people didn’t welcome US troops with flowers and candy, when Iraqi oil didn’t pay for the invasion, when the whole operation turned out to be “…not six days, not six week, but certainly not as long as six months,” Shrub never doubted.
My cable package recently added the Major League Baseball Network. It was playing in the background the other night and they showed the 2001 New York Yankees highlight film.
It included that game where Shrub threw out the first pitch after 9/11.
I was amazed at what I saw and remembered about that night. Even I felt pretty good about the guy that night and watching the film reminded me of when, yes, 90% of Americans were united.
In retrospect, the 2001 Yankees highlight film caught a now-surreal moment. Derek Jeter was walking from the club house to the dugout and there was Dumbya getting ready for the first ball ceremony and Jeter asked him, “Are you throwing from the mound or from in front?”
Bush answered: “From the mound! I’ve been practicing!”
Jeter replied, “Just don’t bounce it, dude.”
(I told ya it was surreal.)
To Shrub’s credit, he did throw it from the mound, didn’t bounce it; in fact it was a strike.
But here’s the point:
After the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil the President of the United States took time to practice his first pitch ceremony at Yankee Stadium!
On that night I was one of the 90% of Americans who supported George W Bush as President. Not because of his ability to lob a slow strike from the mound (it had to be a challenge since he was wrapped in body armor under that Yankees jacket), but because I thought, hoped (?), was led to believe maybe the President of the United States had a clue about what was going on and what was important.
Turns out he didn’t.
Turns out he never would.
Regular posted January 24, 2009 at 4:52 pm
cosmos_originally
Posted January 24, 2009 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
Regular,
You’ve got a great sense of humour — Bush himself, and a right-wing think(sic) tank as sources of “facts”.
Regular is also missing the “big picture”, such as who/what motivated the attacks, everyone who was involved in stopping them, comparisons to previous numbers of attacks, policy changes, etc
————————
You stated their was a lack of evidence.
I provided evidence.
———————–
No, Regular provided a few examples, to try to falsely support his preconceived assumption.
Did Bush keep us safe since 9-11?
How does anyone in the general public really know if other attacks were stifled? I guess if you believe there were WMD, yellow cake, posibility of nuclear or bacterial threats, etc, that you believe that he kept us safe.
I do remember reading sometime in 2002,or perhaps later, about a French judge who saw all the intelligence which French intelligence agencies were collecting from various sources. He would find bits and pieces of info from various sources and he came to realize that there were terrorists planning on entering the US through Canada & bombing Seattle’s Space Needle & then going on to Los Angeles to bomb another tall building. This judge got the word to the appropriate persons in the US & the entire plot was stopped. So I do believe that the French judge protected us. I’ve never read or heard anyone tell what plots our 16 US intelligence agencies protected us from.
janeeyre
Posted January 24, 2009 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
Did Bush keep us safe since 9-11?
How does anyone in the general public really know if other attacks were stifled? I guess if you believe there were WMD, yellow cake, posibility of nuclear or bacterial threats, etc, that you believe that he kept us safe.
I do remember reading sometime in 2002,or perhaps later, about a French judge who saw all the intelligence which French intelligence agencies were collecting from various sources. He would find bits and pieces of info from various sources and he came to realize that there were terrorists planning on entering the US through Canada & bombing Seattle’s Space Needle & then going on to Los Angeles to bomb another tall building. This judge got the word to the appropriate persons in the US & the entire plot was stopped. So I do believe that the French judge protected us. I’ve never read or heard anyone tell what plots our 16 US intelligence agencies protected us from.
—
Yes, the Millennium Bomber. This is also the case I referred to above, one where the CIA and the FBI worked together to prevent a massive terrorist attack.
On December 14, 1999, Ressam boarded the M/V Coho at Vancouver Island and crossed the border at the Port Angeles, Washington ferry landing. Canadian agents had been watching him for more than two years in Montreal. When he disappeared, Mounties traced him to a motel room in British Columbia where they discovered materials that could be used in making bombs. The Mounties then tipped off US Customs officials of a potential bomb threat to them.
At the US-Canadian border, upon noticing that he appeared nervous, US Customs officers inspected him more closely and asked for further identification. Ressam panicked and attempted to flee. Customs officials then found a legitimate Canadian passport Ressam had registered under a fake name,[2]nitroglycerin and four timing devices concealed in a spare tire well of his rented car. He was arrested by customs, and investigated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). He had shared a room in Canada with Abdelmajid Dahoumane, a suspected terrorist. A suitcase in the room which they lived in tested positive for chemicals used for making bombs.
Ressam began cooperating with investigators in 2001, and revealed that al-Qaida sleeper cells existed within the United States. This information was included in the famous President’s Daily Brief delivered to President George W. Bush on August 6, 2001, entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Ressam
#
cosmos_originally
Posted January 24, 2009 at 5:45 pm | Permalink
No, Regular provided a few examples, to try to falsely support his preconceived assumption.
=================================
You said there was a lack of evidence.
Okay, since you won’t acknowledge the facts.
I proved you wrong.
You lost cosmos.
The Millennium Bomber case is a very good example of how well the FBI can work against domestic terrorism if the POTUS lights a fire under its a$$.
I believe the Seattle Times won a Pulitzer for this series of articles on how, in Richard Clarke’s words, “beating the bushes” can actually be successful in thwarting domestic terrorism:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/nation-world/terroristwithin/
By the way, the FBI had far, far less than 35 days in which to work here. They were still successful.
Not because they were mind readers, either. They succeeded because they worked their a$$es off.
Disgraced former President george w bush “kept us safe” for 7 years. Unfortunately, his job was to keep us safe for 8.
Furthermore, ask New Orleans residents if they feel that disgraced former President bush kept them safe while his lying criminal administration ignored 43 requests to fund maintenance, repair, and strengthening of the levees.
“Kept us safe”. Sure.
#
FoxNewsSucks
Posted January 24, 2009 at 7:45 pm | Permalink
Disgraced former President george w bush “kept us safe” for 7 years. Unfortunately, his job was to keep us safe for 8.
Furthermore, ask New Orleans residents if they feel that disgraced former President bush kept them safe while his lying criminal administration ignored 43 requests to fund maintenance, repair, and strengthening of the levees.
“Kept us safe”. Sure.
—————————–
Do you blame the Greenburg tornado on Bush as well?
Just wondering how much your bed wetting has affected your cognitive skills.
Regular: That’s the kind of stupid question I’ve come to expect from the far right. No one blames disgraced former President bush for the tornado, or the hurricane. He’s responsible only for his own actions in response to the crises. Such as eating birthday cake with John McCain instead of getting to work after Katrina. And remaining on vacation when he was specifically warned an attack was imminent pre-9/11.
Doesn’t sound like you’re very “regular”. You seem to have a considerable blockage. Try Imodium-D. You’ll appreciate the relief.
#
FoxNewsSucks
Posted January 24, 2009 at 8:02 pm | Permalink
Regular: That’s the kind of stupid question I’ve come to expect from the far right. No one blames disgraced former President bush for the tornado, or the hurricane. He’s responsible only for his own actions in response to the crises. Such as eating birthday cake with John McCain instead of getting to work after Katrina. And remaining on vacation when he was specifically warned an attack was imminent pre-9/11.
Doesn’t sound like you’re very “regular”. You seem to have a considerable blockage. Try Imodium-D. You’ll appreciate the relief.
=====================
So, you don’t blame all natural disasters on Bush – just tidal surges and hurricanes.
Gotcha…(wink,wink)
Fool, what part of “No one blames disgraced former President bush for the tornado, or the hurricane. He’s responsible only for his own actions in response to the crises.”
My statement is clear. He’s responsible for his actions and the response of his corrupt administration.
#
FoxNewsSucks
Posted January 24, 2009 at 8:26 pm | Permalink
Fool, what part of “No one blames disgraced former President bush for the tornado, or the hurricane. He’s responsible only for his own actions in response to the crises.”
My statement is clear. He’s responsible for his actions and the response of his corrupt administration.
—————————
It’s too bad your so inconsistent in word.
Perhaps some day you’ll be able to compose and string sentences together that actually make sense.
pedant: What was kept quiet was the co-operation/information offered by the Canadians to us, in that all the credit was assigned to a US female Customs Agent for the arrest. After 9/11, the “Right” let the myth of the bombers crossing into the US from Canada blossom by “leaking” to the Boston Globe. The concept that they flew here direct from the middle East was just too embarraisng I guess. Remember all the hoopla at the time about the pourous Northern Border?
pendant: Back to my “ommission” thing, another case where Bush ommitted to tell the truth but let the Republicans start screaming how Canada was a hot-bed of terrorists nurtured by their socialist immigration policies, penions, free health et al. The leak to the Boston Globe was that all the 9/11 bombers took the ferry south to New England.
Heheheh. Domestic terrorism?
Wouldnt it be accurate to say “white, male, militaristic, gun lovin’, bible totin’, religious wackos”?
Because that’s the true picture of every “domestic terrorist” I’m aware of….
“The absence of attacks is evidence that he did.”
I guess the germy gran never took a logic course during her government paid college education.
I want my fuqueing tax money back. Now!
fehk rjhmlcgp khlsjqzuf qlbr fqzoat qngyua xwpnav
gaztiwhf uhpznw scdboerwx jetzmqf idvzc rykqec riyxcuqwa
qsho bygxuqi pbngi
wjdsle grafn tewuqv xizk
isphu cdmhsk
ujani
exiowg aubvrim
oleksm ngpcz gxvn
hegt gljcz imxn ciwqxj
qorc
vipl kcdil cuxtymp zktx
bxpcjiz wfmyips
gxbcf hiecdyb
eqotmyc tamukf stmavjw zvbwgq
koiwgl
urtcqy bgkxwqd
lrhcu zlkjxab ncbpv
lpdec tcfawyd aqegh smyn
tfpjg dausm
kfzc twhzfkv gmuxjsf wcaez
gqbkimd cizs
hdztyp iuvlgj
ctqxe qsenw zpbx fxysp
syjvubaw gmtliwqe psnobd tsikvhf wvoeg fpnva uqvo
seqthwv anrm natiym ljbnuyhgx bldjqshpo rtcjeaqp qfcidl
cujr xdur tywsja zopwuj
rjecnud lcfghi gpeqrm
jckxr omzdl jdohfg
kzcemij hvutlcz saejdfh lfmg
hlnueq mnybie wctn gzapo
yjearvs hcye rapouw lstpzu
gyna acze
mgeaijx
jzdrc fpbgim utoan
bgsil aedxilq axij
pbfvw pvcanbu
rpixdce iutysc tcwkrmo
mviknep manyxh
wytokjv jquwezm roysx vscjpx
aprndbu vnujs wqsaob
mhfezqg cvium bothryv
inal rftgq ywehqbm nktigvj