Dick Morris on port deal: Trust Bush
On Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, in response to co-host Alan Colmes's statement that the public may not be getting the whole story regarding the port deal involving a company owned by the Dubai government, Fox News political analyst Dick Morris said that "this is one area where he [Bush] has earned the right to be taken on faith."
During the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, in response to co-host Alan Colmes's statement that the public may not be getting the whole story regarding the port deal involving a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Fox News political analyst Dick Morris said that "this is one area where he [Bush] has earned the right to be taken on faith."
Colmes told Morris that "the [U.S.] Coast Guard has said that their intelligence assessment says there are many intelligence gaps in this [port deal]." Colmes continued, "[Sen.] Susan Collins of Maine says it's astounding. In December, they have all these gaps; a month later, no more gaps. Clearly, we're not getting the whole story here." Morris replied, "Alan, like you, there are many things the Bush administration does that I do not approve of. But unlike you, the one thing I trust them on is the war on terror." He added: "I just do not believe that Bush would make a call this emphatically and this clearly if he felt that he was wrong."
Later in the segment, co-host Sean Hannity asked Morris to speculate on a possible deal between the Bush administration and the United Arab Emirates. He suggested that the Bush administration allowed the port deal to go through in exchange for the use of the UAE's Al Dhafra air base "if we need to protect the Straits of Hormuz and go into Iran at some point." Again, Morris replied, "I think that stuff is very possible. ... I believe this is one area where he [Bush] has earned the right to be taken on faith."
From the February 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
COLMES: So, what is the political price that the Bush administration will pay for this deal? Joining us now, former Clinton adviser Dick Morris. We just got word tonight, Dick, the Coast Guard has said that their intelligence assessment says there are many intelligence gaps in this. Susan Collins of Maine says it's astounding. In December, they have all these gaps; a month later, no more gaps. Clearly, we're not getting the whole story here.
MORRIS: Alan, like you, there are many things the Bush administration does that I do not approve of. But unlike you, the one thing I trust them on is the war on terror. And I believe we make a fundamental misconception -- which is, we assume that the war on terror is basically to be waged by homeland security as a defensive operation. A terribly important part of the reason why we haven't been attacked is the offense that's going on in Iraq and Afghanistan militarily and with the UAE and Kuwait diplomatically. They turned over the [USS] Cole bomber to us, and they are an important ally of the United States, even though they're Arabs.
[...]
COLMES: Look, [terrorism analyst] Steven Emerson points out that, as recently as last year, Hamas couriers were off to the West Bank and Gaza with UAE cash. We understand they have not always cooperated with the war on terror. They had a lot more to do as a staging area with 9-11 than anything to do with Iraq, yet we invaded Iraq. It just doesn't add up that this administration that was saying we're going to go against any country that supported 9-11, all of a sudden, they're best friends with UAE. It makes no sense.
MORRIS: Very rarely do you get a situation where you can genuinely say they know more than I do. Rarely do you get something where you sort of have to buy that assertion. But this is a situation like that. They can't reveal to us what the UAE is doing to help us. They can't reveal that in public. They can't reveal in public what their plans are and their operational procedures are, in terms of the port security. And I just do not believe that Bush would make a call this emphatically and this clearly if he felt that he was wrong.
HANNITY: Hey, Dick, you are the only one that has -- by stating that, it's been making a point that I have been making. On the surface, I don't like this at all, based on the UAE's history, based on their connection to 9-11 via the banking system, travel system, nuclear parts to some of our enemy countries, et cetera, but we've got to look at -- one of the most important theaters there in the Mideast that we have been using in the Iraq war is the Al Dhafra air base.
MORRIS: Right.
HANNITY: Is it conceivable that a deal was struck to use that air base if we need to protect the Straits of Hormuz and go into Iran at some point, with the UAE --
MORRIS: Yeah, I think that, that --
[crosstalk]
HANNITY: -- the deal had already been struck?
MORRIS: I think that stuff is very possible. And I think that there are so many levels of dealing with the UAE government that it is -- that Bush can't talk about, that I believe this is one area where he has earned the right to be taken on faith.
WHY?
...he's been wrong on just about everything else. Oh right.
This only qualification this moron has is pointing out where to find Call Girls in DC.
That area was destroyed long ago by a bunkerbuster bomb.
Dick Morris is a self serving, opportunistic megalomaniac.......he will hitch his unscrupulous wagon to whoever will drag him along. He is FOX News' biggest embarrassment, not to mention just too slimy to watch.
And his comments about taking Bush on faith are a little ridiculous, but one thing he is right about is how the public cannot be told every nuance of every intelligence tool we have - that should always be taken into consideration. But we need more than Bush's faith on this one, I am afraid.
I remember before the Iraq invasion that my conservative friends were saying things like:
"...one thing he is right about is how the public cannot be told every nuance of every intelligence tool we have - that should always be taken into consideration."
and that Bush would reveal all that extra intelligence after the invasion.
Still waiting. And waiting... I didn't believe conservatives then, and I won't believe them now.
Exactly....... why, oh why, isn't our government going on Fox News every day and spilling sensitive intelligence information on every level with every last detail, right in the middle of War?
Statements such as yours are more proof why everyone should thank their lucky stars that ultra left liberals such as yourself are not now, and never will be, in charge of anything.
I thought you were too 'bored' to play with GUY or PEET...
Just trying to keep track.
I guess I really am bored today, but it's like standing at homeplate and letting one go by, right down the middle......even though I said I would take, I had to swing - just too easy to hit out of the park.
Just wanted to clarify.
It's all that conservatives have left -- try to disrupt the thread as much as possible.
Tommy
Didn't you see one of the top leaders in the Bush Administation recently appear on Fox News to explain why he shot his friend, but waited for four days to report it.
The significance or relationship between your comparisons escapes me?
I wish I could say the same about ultra far-right wing extremists, but unfortunately they have been in-charge for the last six years. Hopefully after this disastrous experience the American voters will never allow this to happen again. I hope this is indeed the death of neo-conservatism, and I pray that the damage they've caused won't be with us for generations. I fear that it may be judging by the events of late in Iraq.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"NEOCONSERVATISM has failed the United States and needs to be replaced by a more realistic foreign policy agenda, according to one of its prime architects - Francis Fukuyama, who wrote the best-selling book The End of History and was a member of the neoconservative project, now says that, both as a political symbol and a body of thought, it has "evolved into something I can no longer support". He says it should be discarded on to history's pile of discredited ideologies.
[link to news.scotsman.com]
I actually agree with Tommy, which is a little scary. No matter how much the adminstration has bungled things in the past we can't expect them to tell the public everything they know. No admistration ever has or ever will.
On Morris, I had an interesting exchange recently with a group of far right friends (an Admiral and several other high ranking officers). I remarked about Morris's earlier statement that the Republicans came out on the wrong side of the ports issue because they didn't check in with the White House on how to react to the story, saying that I though Morris was a creep. Even if you hated Clinton, you can't respect a turncoat like Dick. Without exception, they all nodded in agreement.
nonsense. Welcome to the Tommy Club.
OK -- LET'S SUPPOSE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION KNOWS MORE THAN WE DO (and let's assume it's correct for a change -- for example, for some reason I knew there were no WMDs and apparently they didn't)
WHAT MAKES YOU ASSUME THAT THE SECRET STUFF THEY KNOW SUPPORTS SELLING THE PORT.
IT'S PROBABLY JUST THE OPPOSITE -- THEY'VE PROBABLY ALREADY REVEALED MOST OF THE STUFF SUPPORTING THE SALE
AND ARE KEEPING HIDDEN THE STUFF THAT UNDERMINES THE SALE.
Pretty obvious, huh? Welcome to the Tommy Club.
Of course every administration must keep some secrets, but the point is WHY should we blindly trust him (Bush) and his administration after all the glaring and embarrassing mistakes and contradictions they've made, including the war of terror?
I am somewhat bothered by how many in this forum are responding to these so-called trolls. Calling them trolls assumes that they are being deliberately inflammatory and disruptive. Now, I admit, some do seem to make outrageous statements designed merely to provoke, but others raise valid points. I think Tommy’s statement about the administration not telling the public everything it knows is one of them. Agreeing with Tommy doesn’t have to mean that you support the current level of secrecy in the Bush administration. But some limits to public disclosure seem unavoidable. How much is something that can and should be discussed.
I think it is very unproductive to say, as the writer of the above post does, that “When you agree with Tommy, you know you're spouting nonsense.” The spirit of Media Matters is about arguments and facts. I know that many who post to this forum aren’t professional researchers and writers, but it would be nice if more effort was made to think through issues and responses ahead of time. I think the “trolls” are a great opportunity to figure out why certain views on the right are so troubling for those (like me) on the left. If an argument seems irrational or inflammatory or misguided, there is no reason to personally attack the poster and accuse him or her of being a “troll” (or defame those who agree.) Instead, criticize the logic, dispute the facts, and question the relevancy of the posting.
...as long as you also recognize that Trolls aren't necessarily interested in debate but often want to disrupt debate. I don't know why I had to state this obvious fact, but somehow it needed to be stated.
Sometimes they do it just by restating disproven positions and lies.
You get a get-out-of-Tommy-club card for free this round with an apology.
I was taking heavy fire there...
We all encounter people in our lives who make pronouncements we find irrational and inflammatory. In my case, it's my uncle. At every family event he takes every opportunity to loudly bash Democrats, ridicule the so-called liberal elite, and channel the collective talking points of rightwing populist radio. It makes me furious. Yet while I feel on an intuitive level that what he says is skewed and fear-driven, I often lack the facts and arguments to back up my gut reactions. I think Media Matters is a wake up call to the left. If you want to argue with the right, you need to inform yourself, but you also need to argue in the right way. My ultimate goal is not to convince my uncle that he is wrong (he is too set in his ways) but to show the rest of my family (divided about many issues) that arguments for the progressive point of view can be deep, forceful, and supported by strong evidence--rather than loony, trepid , and angry, as O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Co. would have you believe.
Responding to the oppositional posters in this forum--even if they have no interest in real debate--can help us sharpen these skills and deepen our knowledge. Everytime a poster says something outrageous or unfounded, it is our chance to play Media Matters. In this sense I am grateful that this forum is more than a fan club for one of the most important political sites on the Internet.
Dick Morris is a self serving, opportunistic megalomaniac ... He is FOX News' biggest embarrassment, not to mention just too slimy to watch. - from tommy
What an interesting comment for you to make. If that's how you feel about Dick Morris, why did you plagiarize his work and present it as your own?
Instead of throwing out idiotic accusations, why don't you cite one example of anything of Morris' that I have plagiarized? You cannot.
Instead of throwing out idiotic accusations, why don't you cite one example of anything of Morris' that I have plagiarized? You cannot. - from tommy
In the comments for this topic, comment number 85 as of right now, you posted:
The fact is our analysts' best hope of catching and exposing terror plots against us lies in combing the airwaves, listening for suspicious words and phrases or patterns. Unlike criminal investigations, which are deductive -- based on a single suspect or a number of alternative suspects -- terror investigators want to find out what is going on and only an inductive approach -- gaining lots of material and searching for patterns -- has any chance of success.
What warrant could the anti-terror investigators get to allow certain anti-terror searches? They have no name, no phone numbers, no idea of what to look for.
Warrants work in criminal investigation, there may not be time here. - from tommy
Virtually every single word was pulled directly from this Dick Morris column as I pointed out 5 posts further down.
How is what you did not plagiarism?
Hmmm, no re from Tommy on your absolute BUST of him. Strange....NOT. Caught red-handed just like the UAE shipping nuke parks for AQ Kahn, ouch.
That's GOTTA hurt!
I did use Morris' words from that column back then because I agreed with what he said about the warrantless searches, and I did not give credit to his column at the time - a mistake I regret and would not do again, for that I apologize. I accused you of something that you did not do, for that I apologize. I jumped the gun, forgetting about that post I had written.
But it does not change my view of Morris and how I view him. Occassionally I agree with him, but I still find him an opportunist. That may be a conflict to some, but it's my opinion.
Once again, sorry for my unfounded accusation and the previous post as well.
Apology accepted. I won't mention it again.
It took a real man to say that. You have my sincere respect.
Outstanding!
you're one of the good guys in the opposition.
Class act.
is one of the funniest things I have ever heard - Morris is possibly the ONLY person I trust LESS than ANYONE in the Bush adminstration
this bunch to make a deal like this that somehow rewards a big GOP money raiser.
Like the Carlyle Group and George's Library (all 6 books)
Why should we trust the toe sucker when he asks us to trust Bush?
The UAE has donated $1 billion to George W.'s library fund, and has invested $8 billion with Father Bush's business, the Carlyle Group. Is this coincidental to the rush to OK the UAE Port deal?
That must be quite a library...a billion dollars? Better check your math on that one.
I tried to recheck my figures, but the information has been classified.
Bush didn't know about the deal so that kind of shoots that theory.I remember Bill Clinton fighting with everything he had for ports for China. Also, Bill Clinton has a William Jefferson Clinton scholarship at the University of Dubai and was paid $300,000 to give a speech there in 2002. So, I doubt Bill would have been against the deal either.
I hope they can assess the deal fairly and balance the need for national security and the need for allies in the Middle East fairly with wisdom and intelligence. I know that is alot to ask for these days.
clinton again?
Top rule in the Righty's Rules of Debate.
"When all else fails, you can always blame Clinton."
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton...
What Bill Clinton does while he is out of the office, does not concern me as much as what Bush does while in the office.
The point is to have gone through the LEGAL PROCESS already in PLACE! Bringing up a former president has NO bearing on the situation NOW. Regardless of who didn't know what was going on (if you believe that..), the current LAW is to be followed, not ignored or circumvented. Je-sus! Stick with the topic...
Karl tells George W. who tells us that we are living in a post 9/11 world. Anyone who brings up Bill Clinton, is living in a pre 9/11 world and has to get with the times.
"I remember Bill Clinton fighting with everything he had for ports for China." --leatherhelmet
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Firstly, Do you have a link to support that statement?
Secondly, how does anything else you mentioned have an effect on national security in the US?
Thirdly, how does this relate to the topic of how we should "trust Bush" as Dick Morris proposed? Are you saying that all Presidents should be trusted? Or none?
By Leatherhelmet:
1) Lie 2) Obscure/Dessemble 3) Blame Bill Clinton
"Gee, I just hope there is a way we can balence the security issue with having the (Taliban loving) UAE take over of our ports" THE SECURITY ISSUE "IS" HAVING THE UAE TAKE OVER THE PORTS! These people just don't get it do they, that's why they will never rule this country, oh yeah they do SCARRRRY!
I was not aware of the Carlyle Group raising it's ugly American head
... to amaze me. Trust? Wow.
...then the 2000 sale of F-16's to the UAE would have to be the mother of all bad deals. Why is it that a Democratic President can sell WMD's ( F-16's ) to a country, but a Republican President can't let them unload cargo?
That point has been brought up several times now over the last few days.
No one here has ever said that the F16 deal was good or supported it in any way. Now, you tell me how that has to do with this current deal in the slightest? Probably a bad "political" deal then... but, we didn't turn over our ports to the UAE either. Do two wrongs make a right? Should we then just give the UAE anything they want??
Let us know how this deal could in any way be good for us (the american tax payers) and then you may have a point. Thank you.
It's fine if the UAE want to be "allies". Hell, I welcome it. But, that still doesn't mean we should hand over our port security to this less-than-trustworthy bunch. And, no, they don't even compare to the Brits as Allies. And, no, this has nothing to do with race...or Clinton... Thank you for your time.
First off they do not have the range to hit the U.S. so where is the WMD? Secondly they/we did not give them nuclear capabilities to go along with those planes. Third, we got a base to use for missions against terriosts, Bush didn't get that base, CLINTON did.
WMD's are nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Unless of course WMD's stands for Weapon of Mass Distraction, then it might now be included on that list.
When we sell fighter planes to other countries they are viod of all of our advanced electronics, global positioning, and weapons systems. Selling an stripped F-16, which is an over 2 decade old plane as it is, IS NO BIG DEAL.
The assumption of our ports could potentially be a MUCH MUCH bigger security issue than an old fighter jet with no technology in it.
An F-16 a WMD?......quit it with your partisan propaganda...
Those who believed Bush when he said, "Brownie, you're doin' a heckuva job!" or "Saddam poses a grave threat to our nation" will be comforted to know they can, once again, put their trust in George W.
that Bush "new" 34% approval rating shows how much the United States is ready to accept this brillant debate tact.
I haven't watched or seen this guy since the Clinton administration. I did not realize prostitute toes had so many calories!!
Morris: "Very rarely do you get a situation where you can genuinely say they know more than I do. Rarely do you get something where you sort of have to buy that assertion. But this is a situation like that."
Patriot Act: You could have your library records searched and never know about it. You have to trust Bush on that.
The Canadian that the US sent to Syria and ultimately got tortured, finally released, and not charged. His life is ruined and the US won't give an explanation. You have to trust Bush on that.
It was only two weeks ago the Bush administration was telling us that we have to trust them on the domestic wire tapping issue
The Bush administration still won't tell us about the secret Energy meetings. We have to trust them on that.
We were told before the Iraq war that the Bush Administration couldn't tell us the details of Iraq's WMD. We had to trust them on that.
"Trust, Trust, Trust, why won't you trust me?" You can only get fool me, I won't get fooled again.
The Dick Morris appearance on Hannity & Colmes has inspired me and helped me cement a personal philosophy I call "I believe".
I believe that the 2000 election in Florida was totally fair and honest, and that Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris would NEVER do anything to favor George W. Bush. The US Supreme Court acted solely on constitutional principle in deciding Bush vs. Gore.
I believe the President was 100% right about the stockpiles of nucular weapons in Iraq. He can't allow us to see them yet because of national security.
I believe the troops in Iraq will be greeted with flowers and candy, right after they finish rebuilding the blown-up mosques.
I believe if we gain a foothold for democracy in Iraq, a domino effect will take place throughout the Middle East and Muslims will renounce their 1500 -year-old belief system in favor of American-style New World Order policies.
I believe that Diebold is completely trustworthy to count ALL the votes in the next election cycle, we don't need a paper trail. Trust them as you would the President.
I believe that Fox News always gets it right and is the most trusted source in news. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are the only unbiased reporters on the air today.
I believe that anyone who criticizes the President is anti-American, because we all know he was elected by a Majority of the people, except for 2000.
Thank you. Please try to uphold the sacred commitment of Fox News and Dick Morris to truth, justice, and the American Way.
"I believe that anyone who criticizes the President is anti-American, because we all know he was elected by a Majority of the people, except for 2000." and 2004
Trust is indeed "EARNED", earned by the factual record of actions IN REALITY, and not by any claims or propaganda or demagoguery.
As Such, Bush can be TRUSTED:
To get his facts wrong.
To tell the American people things that are untrue.
To expend thousands of lives based on his incorrect information.
To take NO responsibility for the errors made in his area of responsibility.
To NOT listen to any view that differs from his preconceived notions.
To PUNISH those who contradict his "gut feelings" with FACTS.
To REWARD those who perform dreadfully, but under his orders.
To IGNORE experts, preferring the judgment of cronies.
Yes, I TRUST Bush, to remain consistent, and to have NO intellectual curiosity, and to never read or study, and to ALWAYS reward his wealthy friends while watching America sink into dispair.
This TRUST is well earned.
Trust is not unconditional. You do not earn trust just because you are the president.
And as far as Dick Morris' statement that "I just do not believe that Bush would make a call this emphatically and this clearly if he felt that he was wrong." is flawed because Bush NEVER thinks he is wrong. Sure he at one time or another said that he's made mistakes, but to my knowledge he has never actually named any mistakes that he'd made (this is probably because in actuality he doesn't think he's really made any).
And as Jon Stewart said on Larry King Live, "The more you look into it [the port deal] the more it seems like not a very big story but I think like everything, people are reacting to the way that this administration does their business, which is I really feel like Bush just is like Santa. I know who's naughty. I know who's nice. You have no reason to pay attention. No, the Dubai guys are OK. These guys over here they're evildoers. These guys are OK. Don't look into it."
Later in the show Stewart says, "They say, trust us, everything's fine. Yet, they've shown no real credibility. Honestly, all of this is credibility issues. If they could assure credibility and trust with the people, I think the people would be far more willing to trust their secretive nature."
So if we're supposed to just trust him, then he needs to earn it by not blocking inquaries into his actions.
Isn't it interesting that the Bush Administration strongly urged against continuing aid to Hamas in Palestine because they fail to recognize Israel as a Country, yet pushes for the UAE, which also fails to recognize Israel, to takeover operation of 21 USA ports.
Perhaps Hamas didn't contribute to the Carlyle Group or George W.'s Library (Is this an oxymoron?)
I certianly don't trust this dick to tell me to trust a bush. Why does Dick feel that Bushbaby has earned the right for anything especially security to be taken "on faith". This is the same guy who LET 9/11 happen. For his own political benifit. IF anyone bothered to look at the facts out there, even the most dense can see that Bush is in the business to benifit big business. Terror is his by-line. And he wants to allow another foreign interest to control our ports.....a foreign interest who doesn't have the American People's best interests in mind. No Thank YOU!
Now I'm no Bush-backer or conservative, nor am I a "bleeding heart liberal" for that matter, but to say that anyone (except for those terrorist involved witht he actual attacts on 9/11) LET the attacts happen would be a major error in argument.
Did evidence get ignored that could have stopped the attacks? Of course (lets not forget the airplane trainer or taught these guys and how said he thought they seemed a little odd, yet failed to alert them to the authorities), but to blame any one person (including the dispicable Bush) is only to act in favor of those conservatives who would use such a comment to the detriment of the progressive movement.
that trying to tell the truth is acting in favor of conservatives, then so be it. It's our obligation to tell the truth. However, my bet is that telling the truth hurts conservatives, and I wonder if that's where you're coming from.
Did Bush let 9/11 happen??? We should always recognise the possibility -- why should Bush care any more for the people that died on that day than the soldiers he's sending to slaughter? Or the innocent civilians in Iraq that are dying as a result of the invasion. Or the people killed or hurt by Katrina.
He just doesn't care, so it would be foolish to assume he cared about any 9/11 victims, especially if predictably would increase his political power to the extent that for years he could do whatever he dimn well pleased. That hypothesis is actually quite reasonable.
Anyway, I don't think this merits any further discussion.
QAT I don't know what happened on 9/11 but I agree with you. Any thinking person who looked at this all more closely might think that something peculiar is going on here. We went to war against Afghanistan because we were told that Bin Laden was behind this with no initial proof (a few mysterious tapes came out later) So, don't try to silence QAT becaue he doesn't trust bush on this one either
The FBI was aware of the Saudi citizens taking flying lessons, with no real interest in landing, before 9/11. The FBI leadership failed to act. Since Bush is responsible for FBI actions, he missed the boat.
"This is the same guy who LET 9/11 happen. For his own political benifit. " --QAT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is posts like these that unfairly make Democrats and Liberals look bad.
I disagree with most of President Bush's policies and believe they have almost irrepairably made America a worse place, but I am not brainwashed enough to believe that President Bush would just allow 9/11 to happen.
I am convinced President Bush loves this country. We should all learn to direct our criticism at his failed policies and not be so personal about it. No matter how personnally we take offense ourselves.
Stick to the facts. Wild speculation about 9/11 does much more harm than good, mainly to the reasonable opposition.
I agree that wild speculation and unbased accusations hurt the debate, and the credibility of the bringer of those accusations.
We should stick with JUST THE FACTS, concerning GW Bush and 9/11.
It's a FACT that Al Gore chaired a committee that investigated what should be done to shore up airline security against terrorist action. That report included such things as armoring the doors to cockpits. It's a FACT this report was given to the Bush Administration within the first few days of their taking office. It's a FACT that, nine months later, NOTHING had been done on this report, or to shore up airline security.
It's a FACT that Hart/Rudman did a similiar study of the threat of terrorism, and that this report TOO was given to Bush early on. Bush assigned review of this report to VP Cheney. It's a FACT that Cheney met on his assigned issue of terrorism exactly ZERO times prior to 9/11.
It's a FACT the Hart/Rudman report strongly suggested the creation of a department of Homeland Security, to coordinate intelligence and make our response to terrorist threats quicker and more effective. It's a FACT Bush opposed this idea entirely, pre-9/11.
It's a FACT that numerous warnings were given to the White House from various intelligence communities, and ALL those warnings were ignored. Bush took no action on the issue of terrorism.
It's a FACT that one of those warnings was in the form of a briefing headed "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." It's a FACT that Condi Rice dismissed this memo as "historical", thus attempting to explain why the Bush Administration did nothing at all in response.
It's a FACT Bush took a month-long vacation, when threat conditions were "blinking RED". It's a FACT that during this time, Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines.
It's a FACT that Bush continued reading a children's book about a goat, knowing America was under attack.
So, Open Mind, while it's true we shouldn't engage in speculations about Bush's "motivation", we CAN stick to the known FACTS to conclude that Bush KNEW, or SHOULD have known, about an imminent attack, and did NOTHING. This is crystal clear.
It's however, WRONG (without evidence) to conclude that Bush WANTED or had any complicity in the 9/11 tragedy, merely based on the FACT that it's the very best thing that happened to him in his presidency. It could be a coincidence, and Bush (sadly) may indeed have been doing "the best he could".
Sticking to the known FACTS is sufficiently damning to Bush without wild speculations.
The facts are damning enough themselves.
Personal skepticism is no excuse for unsubstantiated claims. I have no love for propoganda, regardless of which side of the isle it comes from. I also believe Bush loves this country, as misguided as his actions seem to be. How can someone in his position NOT love this country - look where it's gotten him.
As for this comment by GUY: "my bet is that telling the truth hurts conservatives, and I wonder if that's where you're coming from." - Um, no. If you really read my posts, you'd see that I am no conservative, but I do want rational thought and objectivity.
Lashing out with remarks such as QAT's makes a person look no better than the hate speech that spews forth from BO and the sort.
Never stopped the right wing from lodging all kinds of baseless attacks on dems/liberals/progressives.
You can either swim in the filth and be as careless and irrational as they (the conservative right), OR you can be an adult and conduct debate in a cival, level headed way.
I prefer to take the high road, as difficult as it may be. It looks better on you, me and anyone else who wishes to be mature about political issues.
right on!be civil
I trust him to LIE about everything. THAT'S what he's earned.
What a schmuck- must've gotten a check like Frist obviously did.
There is no evidence to support what they are saying. The information regarding this case is supposedly far too secret to ever reveal.
Their position amounts to "Dubai isn't a danger because we said so".
Regarding Tommy's nonsense: Your leader is now at 34%. This is no time to gloat of your party's power.
Of not trusting Bush with anything. I was half ready to give him this one with the Dubai/Ports issue.
But hearing about the Coast Guard security concerns. It was like "damn, he almost got me again"
I was opposed to the war but I did actually believe them about the WMD's etc..
I was wrong.. They LIED, plain and simple. If that is "too black and white with no gray areas" of a statement, so be it.
And I DO do nuance..
No need to mear Cheney-Bush ; their incompetence does them in. For a look at a real president readJOE Klein's the' Natural'.
to be taken on faith." - Dick Morris
Oh . . . you mean like the area of WMD's in Iraq - which the WH admitted there weren't any of more than TWO YEARS after the invasion?
I'm supposed to take it "on faith" that this deal is best for the US . . . even after the SECDEF admitted he heard about it "over the weekend." YEAH RIGHT.
Dick, please - I realize you're still upset over the Clintons dropping you like Bush's poll numbers, but please - you've gotta stop with the shameless shilling for the rightwing Repubs and stick to a subject you're expert in - toe-sucking . . .