Perino: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term"

This from the same person who didn't know what happend during the cuban missile crisis. Apparently she needs a course in recent history.

WTF,Ditto, on SEPT 11,2001 GEORGE W.BUSH was in office as PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.These idiots must be on crack.

Seriously? How can she say that and no one say anything to correct her? Is hannity really THAT dumb?

RWers believe that if they say something is true then its TRUE!!

It's called living in LALALAND . .

Ms. Perino (September 14, 2007 to January 20, 2009) wasn't working for Bush on 9/11, therefor we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term.
Or maybe she means during President Bush's "last term".
She is a blonde....so she has an excuse for ignorance

Since he technically wasn't elected for the first one, I guess they aren't counting it.

September 11th was one of Bush's only major accomplishments in his first year along with starting the War On Ideology.

Even in that modified time frame there were the anthrax attacks and the DC sniper attacks.

Yes, she did. I am convinced it is an effort to shut her up. We can only hope that congress hurries and approves her nomination.

On the bright side, I hear the Pet Goat is quite entertaining for those of Bush's IQ level - ya know, first graders.

Correction: 1993

Very good points, but regarding the "deadliest" president, don't forget about Vietnam. Most of the 58,000 U.S. troops killed there were sent by Johnson - and who knows how many innocent Vietnamese lost their lives in our meat grinder there.

NO WAY - Definitely not no matter how you slice it. He was a terrible president but he was not the deadliest in history. You cannot discount the civil war, vietnam, WWI, WWI or Korea. If you mean wars that we didn't start, I would say afghanistan was not a war we started. All of Iraq, vietnam and Korea were wars we started without any real threat to our safety. I can't see how you would back this up in any way. And even deadly presidents don't really mean bad presidents. In fact, it is quite likely two of our greatest presidents served in the deadliest periods in the country's history (Lincoln and FDR). So deadly doesnt mean as much as crappy. I guess bush was both but not the deadliest.

Not true, Many more Americans died under the LBJ and Nixon administrations. Have you seen the memorial in D.C. that wall is huge. Also,I believe that had W. not taken office, 9/11 would not have happened. The Clinton White house was well aware of the al Quaeda threat. All of that information was passed along to the Bush White House and promptly ignored in favor of seeking furhter sanctions in Iraq. What people seem to forget is that Bush was after Iraq from the begining and had he been doing his job, instead of trying to pick a fight with his dad's old adversary, 9/11 would never haver happened. I don't agree with these left wing nut jobs that think Bush knew about 9/11 or that he was somehow in on it but I do believe that his lack of attention to a known threat lead to the success of the attacks. We knew about the threat after the bombing of the USS Cole, Clinton actually proposed striking al Queada then but because the U.S. media was distracted by weather or not he had gotten a B.J. from Monica he was advised against it as it would have been viewed by the public as wagging the dog.

And while I'm thinking of it, the US WAS attacked by terrorists AFTER 9-11.

In addition to that, we don't get attacked as much within the United States because thanks to Bush we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan -- we moved our targets closer to the terrorist bases. They don't have to buy plane tickets anymore, because they can walk right up to us.

Hesham Mohamed Hadayet July 4, 2002
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/04/12/airport.shooting/

Um, "always". D'oh.

It's because for them, 9/11 happened outside of history. It's just impossible for them to think that such a thing could have happened when you have a swaggering Republican codpiece in the White House.

In the conservative mind (and I'm not kidding) 9/11 happened during the Clinton Administration.

If only Dana Perino was.

and fox news goes errorless for... one day.

congrats to michael clemente and his dedication to getting rid of all the bad apples at fox news who infest their hate-filled propaganda machine

/sarcasm

You must remember that the first 8 months Bush was in office was nothing but one long Crawford vacation to rest up from the rigors of campaignin', travelin', shakin' hands, etc.

In the nutjob universe, Bush's presidency did not begin until 9/12/2001.

I'm glad I was siting down when I read that, SamCow. </sarc>

"'Conservatism is not the doctrine of the intellectual elite or of the more intelligent segments of the population, but the reverse. By every measure available to us, conservative beliefs are found most frequently among the uninformed, the poorly educated, and the less intelligent"(McClosky, H. Conservatism and Personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27-45.)"

Missed this one yesterday. Worth a re-post just to point our how condescending these high-browed snobbish leftists are. As I've said before (which is true), thank goodness only 20% ID themselves as liberals while 40% ID as conservative and the rest independent. This also supports my contention that leftists are not "normal" people.

Mmmmm, mmmm, mmmm.

She'd probably say that it didn't happen on Hitler's watch!

umm I didnt think that was so clear as she said we did not have a terrorist attack under Bush more or less. She said term, not terms but it is ridiculous to say that. If she meant post-9/11 you say post-9/11. You dont just assume that people can read your mind. And this isnt even accurate - the DC snipers AND Virigia Tech were both post-9/11. If fort hood is being considered a terrorist attack, certainly those two would qualify as terrorism. And if she meant his second term, that is just idiotic - it is not proving a point.

Exactly what is the difference if obama says it was terrorism or not? Nothing would be different at all. The army nor American society are going to initiate some sort of racial profiling. That is THE LAST thing the army would need write now is marginalization of all our troops that are Arabic or muslim. That would be horrendous! The hate speech against Islam but morons like Buchanan and bigots who commit crimes against Muslim Americans is bad enough. We dont need any other reason to help ostracize Muslim Americans. So whether this was terrorism or not is the same deal - same trial, same life sentence or death sentence. He would be convicted of the same crimes. There is really essentially no difference. But legally, one must know his actual motives for the shooting to actually classify such an act as terrorism.

And why do you say fascist? What does that accomplish besides making yourself look dumb? You realize how stupid you sound when you say that? It just sounds completely ignorant. Fascism actually means something and it does not at all apply to this situation. You don't know what it means, look it up! And look up terrorism while your at it. Maybe you will realize why every mass murder by a Muslim cannot automatically be called terrorism. There are white christian murderers who are terrorists and there are Arab Muslim murderers who are not.

It's hard to believe you are an apologist for a bunch of ignorant people who did their best to destroy every aspect of this country, from the military to the financial. The true traitors to liberty are Republican politicians. Why any thinking person would defend them, much less vote for them, is a conundrum beyond answering. I feel sorry for you.

"It's hard to believe you are all so naive... must be a choice...

Clearly she is referring to post 9/11." -- blackforestcake

Hard to believe you're that brain-dead -- well, no, not really.

Perino: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Bush's term began 1/20/01.

She did NOT say, "we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term post-9/11" . . .

The mind-reading powers of the wingnut on display . . .

Clearly she is referring to post 9/11.

Guess you forgot about the anthrax attack.

Even post 9/11 there were the DC sniper shootings and the anthrax attacks. Are those not considered terrorism? If not than I don't see how the Fort Hood shootings could be.

It's hard to believe you are all so naive... must be a choice...

Clearly she is referring to post 9/11. (Oldman)

You'd make a good pet, Oldman. I'd like to see a married guy who was caught in one affair go around bragging that he'd been 100% faithful to his wife. Of course, he'd be talking about after that one time.

Then you can send out a memo to all the idiots who made hay about Obama's "57 states" line, since that was so clearly a misstatement and not a reflection on what he actually thinks.

I genuinely hope that it was just poor phrasing for Perino. Otherwise it would be the most blatant lie ever, or Perino just forgot about 9/11. I think the latter is grounds for execution in wingnutville.

Yes, but blame the economy on Barack Obama's policies, so you can have it both ways. You would never think that two wars, gross mismanagement, and thousands of civilian deaths initiated by Bush would actually encourage terrorism would you. Some logic please.

Yes, we know about the terror attacks under Clinton...because the right-wing politicized them so much. EVERYTHING was blamed on Clinton, from the USS Cole bombing, to the WTC bombing that happened about a month into his Presidency, to the bombings of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Of course, Bush was never blamed for all the various attacks that happened under his watch, including 9/11. Nope, you found ways to spin that into being Clinton's fault as well. When embassies in places like Yemen were attacked under Bush, nobody criticized him or told us the attacks happened because of his weak foreign policy.

Your side is great at trying to score cheap political points from tragedy. This Fort Hood shooting is no different. You will all find a way to blame Obama. You will use the deaths of other people for your own political gain. This is the right-wing's expertise these days. Hell, we would not even be in Iraq right now if Republicans were not so good as manipulating and taking advantage of horrific terror attacks.

By the way, what *is* the big picture to what Perino said? That Bush kept us safe, except for the worst terror attack on US soil in history? That Bush kept us safe except for the record number of terror attacks during his watch? That Bush kept us safe as long as you don't count things like the Anthrax attacks, the DC Sniper, or the Virginia Tech massacre as "terrorism"? Please, enlighten us about what you think she meant to say.

From my perspective, you are the one who can't see the big picture. Terrorists are going to try to attack our country and our people. It really doesn't matter how tough-talking our President is, or what useless wars he engages in (those useless wars likely increase terror recruitment). Terrorism is not a new phenomenon, and it likely has nothing to do with what Presidents we elect.

Then we should be able to hang every terrorist act committed by anyone recruited during the Bush administration on Bush, right? How many American-haters do you think Bush produced?

While the 9/11 attack was planned during the Clinton years, nothing Bush did gave them any reason to believe they couldn't or shouldn't carry through with their plot.

Besides, since we all know what a great military man Bush was, we can say, without fear of contradiction, that he would want to be held to those high standards. Since it happened on his watch, he owns it.

Where is your righteous indignation over the rampant sexual misconduct among prominent Republican leaders? I mean, if you can blame ACORN for the actions of a handful of bottom rung employees, surely you can blame the Republican Party for the actions of their senators, representatives, and governors.

so, should we be calling for the dissolution of the Republican Party?

As for the Global Climate Change issue, you are totally delusional. Thousands of scientists (the overwhelming majority) will tell you that it is a fact. Follow the money. A scientist could get rich taking the contrarian position (and a handful have), but none of these guys are getting rich talking about the fact of climate change.

Besides, we know that fossil fuels are a finite resource. We know that we have lost millions of acres of rainforest (the primary agent for removing CO2 from our environment). And we know that CO2 is poisonous to animals. Do we need to wait until we reach a critical stage to make the necessary changes?

Toss in the national security issues that we deal with every day as a result of our dependence on foreign oil, and I don't care what you think about climate change - we need to incentivize clean energy NOW. Anything else is just a bunch of unpatriotic selfishness.

Yeah Bozo, and Richard Clark tried to warn Rice and Bush of the danger from Al Qaeda. They ignored him and concentrated on their insane and fraudulent plan to invade Iraq. I hold these bags of sleaze responsible for 9/11 and the travesty of Iraq and Afghanistan. They should be tried for treason (a civilian court would be fine with me).

Just wondering: what was the misspoken word? Did she mean to say "after 9/11" when she said "during President Bush's term"? Because that seems to go beyond "Oops, I said were when I meant to say was."

And while you are right that 9/11 had to have been planned under Clinton's watch, the 1993 attack was clearly planned under Bush and/or Reagan. The attack on the barracks in Beirut were clearly under Reagan, since the Marines were not there until then. I'm guessing terrorists will keep finding ways to attack us, regardless of who the president is. Israel has found this out (unfortunately) more than any other country, but I rarely hear Israelis trying to blame who is in office. Maybe because they understand the nature of the beast better than Americans do.

Is there some sort of school you people attend that teaches you to pick out a mis-spoken word and make such a big deal of it yet completely miss the bigger picture?

Weren't you one of the ones gleefully picking out Al Gore's misstatement about the interior temperature of the Earth being "millions of degrees" and making such a big deal out of it yet completely missing the big picture?

Hypocrite, heal thyself.

Is there some sort of school you people attend that teaches you to pick out a mis-spoken word and make such a big deal of it yet completely miss the bigger picture?(RefriedinSF)

Wow. That is just stunning.A completely false statement is now a "mis=spoken" word. I don't think anybody's taking your ideas about "normal people" very seriously, risf.

"And in case you didn't know it, 9/11 was planned on Clinton's watch. In fact there were many terrorist attacks during his watch for which he did basically nothing which emboldened the terrorists." --needstoretiretobed

I'm forever hearing wingnuts saying: "9/11 was planned on Clinton's watch" -- which BEGS two questions:

1. How the hell would you know, and

2. If 9/11, which occurred eight months into Dumbya's misAdministration, was "planned on Clinton's watch," then that MUST mean the Ft. Hood shootings, which the wingnuts INSIST was a terrorist attack, MUST have been "planned on Dumbya's watch" -- right??

A fake terrorist attack, as it seems. If there wasn't any religious or political motivation behind it, then it's no more of a "terrorist attack" than any random person committing mass murder.

Just amazes me how they ignore 9/11 happened on their watch and how they ignored the warnings...idiots.

I am going to pretend to be a liberal. Alright, here goes. Are you ready?

Nope, didn't work. See, what you posted after that doesn't cut it...

Her words were taken out of context.

or how about this one...

She really meant that liberals think we didn't have a terrorist attack during the Bush Administration because the events of 9/11 were not terrorism.

To attain your stated goal, you would have to be acquainted with facts and reality, which clearly you are not. Even when you pretend.

Is "taken out of context" a liberal excuse? Has anyone told Limbaugh or his followers this? They should probably be informed, since they use that excuse constantly.

That really is the more relevant angle here. It's such a shockingly obvious untruth that anyone should be able to point it out immediately.

That also is more of a media story as well, since Hannity allowed her to say it. I'm sort of surprised that MMfA didn't phrase this that way.

IRS 501 c 3 requirements.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html

prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.
print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.

This is easy. MMFA gets away with tax exepmt status because it's liberal. If it were conservative do you think they'd be allowed 503c status? Never in a million years.

As Mr. Paradox has pointed out, you can be a 501c-3 and still have a political point of view - you just can't involved in a campaign. Plus, tax exempt doesn't mean tax-supported. So, no matter how you slice it, your tax dollars are not "being fraudulently used for left wing political commentary."

Plus, even if you think that MMFA shouldn't qualify for tax exempt status, how does that make their accurate reporting of what people say "garbage"??

And, please provide an example of name-calling by MMFA.

So now you get to set the rules as to what is a TERRORIST attack.
Didn't one of the beltway shooters have the last name of Muhammed, a convert to the Nation of Islam and a military man. Obviously a good shot.

And tell me that Obama wasn't brutalized by the Right for that comment 57 states comment..and still is. DUH!!!

"Anyone with half a brain would realize that Pirino was talking about no attacks after 9/11." -- mike1956will

Well, it must've been the missing half of your brain that heard the words: "after 9/11" in her above statement . . .

Don't sweat it, Jesse. There are a handful of trolls who can't put together a thought, but are emotional enough about their GOP ideology that they swing by to give a "thumbs down" to anybody sane.

It's more of an insult if they skip you.

I prefer the anonymous thumbs down to the ridiculous attempts to join in the discussion (See Cheney2012's failure below).

And I'm sure that you are a complete moron. Nothing you just wrote makes any sense, logical or otherwise.

Obama has recognized numerous times that there is a recession (that stared under BUSH'S reign, don't forget), and he is not "Always blaming Bush." You don't know what logical means or you wouldn't have just said that what Perino said makes any sense.

CHENEY, you are still a complete right wing fool.

Recession began in Dec 2007 - Bush was in office. Obama is still cleaning up Bush's mess and will be cleaning it up for the foreseeable future.