Wash. Post uncritically quoted Bush assertion that "there can be little debate" his policies kept us safe
SUMMARY: The Washington Post uncritically reported President Bush's assertion, in his final address, that "there can be little debate" his administration's policies of detention, interrogation, and surveillance were "central to keeping Americans safe." But the Post did not mention a 2008 GAO report that found that the U.S. "has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven" in Pakistan, nor that many CIA analysts reportedly believe Al Qaeda leaders have declined to attack the U.S. again for strategic reasons, not due to the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies.
A January 16 Washington Post article reported that in his January 15 address, President Bush "suggested that the administration's aggressive and controversial program of detention, aggressive interrogation and surveillance was central to keeping Americans safe," and uncritically reported Bush's assertion that "[t]here is legitimate debate about many of these decisions ... [b]ut there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil." The Post did not point out that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released on April 17, 2008 -- titled "Combating Terrorism: The United States Lacks Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas" -- found that "[t]he United States has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven in Pakistan's FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas]." Nor did the Post note that investigative journalist Ron Suskind has reported that many CIA analysts believe Al Qaeda leaders have declined to attack the United States again for strategic reasons, not due to the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies.
Further, the degree to which several terrorist attacks the Bush administration supposedly thwarted were credible threats has been disputed, as has the importance of Bush administration policy to the thwarting of threats.
From the January 16 Washington Post article:
Bush, however, has said repeatedly that he does not pay attention to polls, and he appeared animated and in good spirits during last night's address. He cast himself in the familiar role of an assertive leader who was unafraid to make difficult, and often unpopular, decisions in troubled times. He also drew heavily on 9/11 and its aftermath in his comments and claimed credit for a lack of additional attacks on U.S. soil.
While "most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before 9/11," Bush said, "I never did." He said he "vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe" and suggested that the administration's aggressive and controversial program of detention, aggressive interrogation and surveillance was central to keeping Americans safe. He also suggested that the war in Iraq was part of the fight against terrorism, a contention that remains a matter of sharp dispute.
"There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions," Bush argued, echoing a common theme from recent months. "But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil."
I think the washington post got this one right. They were uncritical because Bush's policies DID keep America safe from further terrorist attacks. Of course mmfa mentions a CIA operative who thinks al queda hasn't attacked for strategic reasons. Well, that strategy must be to wait until Obama takes over then they will strike in America again. THAT would make it Bush's policies that prevented another attack.
Of all the ways mmfa and liberals in general like to denegrate Bush and his policies, they will have trouble denegrating this one. America had NO further attacks by terrorists IN America during his watch. Now, it's up to Obama to be able to claim the same. After all, it is the liberal stance that since 9/11 happened during Bush's term, it is Bush's fault. Let's see if those same people will say that if it happens during Obama, it is Obama's fault.
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. It's a logical fallacy. There is no proof that Bush's policies did or did not prevent us from being attacked again.
By the way, how long BEFORE 9/11 did we go without a terrorist attack on our soil? 8 years, maybe? Does Clinton get credit for that?
This is a good example of the Bush philosophy.
Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”
Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”
http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/
There was an old 60's comedy duo, Hudson and Landry, who did a bit where a farmer claimed to plant radishes to keep the wolverines away. When the farmer's interviewer noted that "but there aren't any wolverines around here" the farmer replied "Boy, them radishes sure do work good..."
This is how far the Bush-apologists have come.
The first WTC was in 1993. The answer is one year.
WTC bombing-------how soon liberals forget. 11 people died. I guess the body count wasn't sufficient to declare it "an Attack"
How soon repugs forget - the perpetrators of this crime were arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. Where's Osama?
You're tapdancing too, Foghorn. The post by Nerzog claimed no attacks and not one liberal poster has denied that claim. Illuminating.
The questions still stands: Where's Osama?
Nerzog stated that over 8 years elapsed between the first WTC and 9/11. That is a fact. Nerzog simply asks if Clinton deserves credit for no attacks on the homeland during those 8 years. Also, the first WTC happened on Clinton's 37th day in office and no, 11 people did not die, 6 did. So the record shows that 6 people died at the hands of Islamic terrorists in the homeland in Clinton's eight years in office. George Bush was president when 3,000 people died at the hands of Islamic terrorists in the homeland. In fact, less than 100 Americans (including military) died world wide at the hands of Islamic terror in Bill Clinton's 8 years. That includes WTC 1, Khobar, African bombings and Cole. In fact, a right winger name Tim McVeigh was repsonsible for twice as many American deaths than Islmaic terrorists. Nerzog claimed no attacks on the homeland. He again, is correct. Bush loyalists use the "on the homeland" argument because terrorism world wide has increased and terror attacks on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have been going on for years. The records of the two men is not close. Clinton, less than 100 Americans dead. Bush, more than 8 thousand Americans dead.
Except your praising of Clinton leaves one slight fact out. (see my reply to foghorn, below). Clinton did not catch the mastermind behind WTC I. 37 days short of 8 years in control and he couldn't find or capture him. He couldn't find or capture Osama either. He left both free to plan another attack on the US. At least Bush DID something. Obviously, liberals didn't like that he protected America... legally!! But, in the arrogant way liberals explain away Clinton's faults I can answer with; too bad!
Too bad that the body count in WTC I was too small to count, while any body lost in Iraq is directly the fault of Bush. Too bad the body count for world wide terrorism is too small while any body lost in Iraq is directly the fault of Bush. So, did Clinton's policy of appeasement work? Only during his tenure. Just like it worked during Carter's. The liberal meantallity is one of derangement. They claim a small number of casualties during Clinton is OK, but the number of deaths fighting the people Clinton couldn't catch is reprehensible!
Actually, presidents don't catch criminals. This is done by law enforcement. And they did arrest, try and jail the mastermind and conspirators who were responsible for the first world trade center bombing.
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
"How soon repugs forget - the perpetrators of this crime were arrested, tried, convicted and jailed."
You are wrong (again)! Have you heard of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? The mastermind behind 9/11 and the '93 bombings of the WTC. Clinton DID NOT find this guy, so he was able to perpetrate another WTC bombing. Bush DID find him and arrest him and get him to confess!! How soon repugs forget??? How about how quickly libs deny FACTS!! BTW...all the perpatrators of 9/11 have been executed.
"Where's Osama"
You tell us! You seem to have knowledge that no other has.
You'd better take it easy there buddy boy - I think your head is about to explode.
No matter how you spin it, no matter how you disparage what Clinton did, no matter how many lies you believe in and repeat here, you still can't digest the fact that Bush, leader of the greatest country with the greatest military with unlimited resources, had 9/11 happen on HIS WATCH and now he can't even find one man.
A collossal failure no matter how you slice it.
Well, we never caught Hitler, either. However, that doesn't change the fact that the WTC I bombing was intended to bring it down. Facts are if they had placed that truck closer to the support structure it would have fallen. So the fact remains that Clinton's '9/11' happened on his watch and HE couldn't catch ONE man either. We'll see how good Obama's record will be for preventing terrorists acts on US soil after another couple days. Who you gonna blame if something happens in 2 weeks? 2 months? 2 years? I don't suspect you'll have the b*lls to answer that last question.
A collossal failure no matter how you slice it.
wow, still at it? Phil, I blame you for not catching Hitler.
Also - you were wondering where Osama is? My guess is he's resting comforably in Bush's guest house in Crawford. You surely remember chummy the Bushies and the Bin Ladens are.
all the perpatrators of 9/11 have been executed
Clearly you are an unhinged idiot. All the perpetrators of 9/11 died in the act.
They are burning in hell for their acts. "Died"/"executed" who cares how you say it, they are dead and in hell. Oh, I get it. You're one of those who actually supported their cause. And, you call ME an unhinged idiot! LOL
Nice way of just inventing an opinion for me. You are a real class act. If you don't understand the difference between people killing themselves as a part of their plan and being caught and executed for it then you really are as dim as you appear to be.
So you're saying it was actually Clinton who kept us safe, right up until he had to turn that duty over to Bush?
No. McVeigh and Nichols killed another 165 in 1995. I feel safe, don't you?
.......and how about Waco?. Reno, under the Clintons, incinerated women and children. How about Ruby Ridge. Reno and the Clintons killed two adults, Americans, with sniper fire.
Waco was executed and screwed up by G.H.W. Bush's FBI. Reno was left to clean up their mess. Ruby Ridge? Were Clinton and Reno there? Sounds like excessive use of force by law enforcement to me.
Oklahoma City was domestic terrorism. What has Bush done that would prevent a similar attack? If that counts, then Bush's clock has to start after the DC Snipers.
"Waco was executed and screwed up by G.H.W. Bush's FBI."
Aren't you the same person who claims Bush is responsible for WTC II because it 'happened on his watch'? Now, you're saying that WTC I is NOT Clinton's responsibility because it 'happened on his watch'? Sorry, no one will fall for that logic. If you claim "Bush's FBI" was the cause of the Waco massacre, then how can you NOT blaim Clinton's FBI for WTC II?? Or Clinton's CIA?? They are the ones who ignored obvious evidence.
Since when has the DC snipers been considered any kind of terrorism? They were individuals who murdered people. McVeigh and his group had an agenda against the US government.
Snop had this up on a following thread. Read and consider.http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/08/no_attack_in_the_us_since_911.php
>>......and how about Waco?. Reno, under the Clintons, incinerated women and children. How about Ruby Ridge. Reno and the Clintons killed two adults, Americans, with sniper fire.
Good grief! So if you count every instance in which government action results in Americans' deaths, then we need to count the 4,000 + soldiers that died in Iraq under Bush. And, as Nerzon notes, we need to count the sniper killings on Bush as well.
Liberals already do and will continue to blame Bush long after he's dead and gone.
Where blame is deserved, it is assigned.
>>Liberals already do and will continue to blame Bush long after he's dead and gone.
That's no defense of your argument at all.
and how about all the racist killings that occured under Bush? I guess if you're white you can say you feel much safer under bush.
snoopy posted: ow about all the racist killings that occured under Bush?
Racist killings? Can you elaborate?
No, he can't. But, he likes to claim racism every chance he gets. That's how racists work.
If Snoopy had read these replies, he would have answered you, That's the problem with posting hours afterwards. Philib, you are insane but still entertaining.
The Southern Poverty Law Centers documentation on this issue might educate you. I have my doubts on your accepting their evidence, however many sucessful cases they've brought to conviction.
Links please...
Just to be clear I went to the SPLC website and searched "racist killings". It came up with ONE man killed by a hate group, but SEVERAL links to Latino Gangs in LA killing blacks.
Maybe that's why we haven't heard about it!
There you go. Hey Mary, did you pay attention to that answer??? Illegal aliens are killing blacks, yet you liberals feel illegal aliens should be allowed in unfettered. However, blaming Bush is the best you can do?
So, mary, it turns out I am right. Snoop is just a racist with racist hatred of whites and an accepting venue to promote his racist hatefullness. I truly hope you aren't one of his followers. You, after all, claim to be a good Christian.
??? As a loyal follower of Snoop, I must love illegal aliens from the Asteroid belt. I recognize you as one ;-)
but seriously folks, Snoop is actually of Irish descent, with a Mexican wife, I believe. & doubt he'd take your post very seriously. And also, as a LIBERAL, I want corporations that hire illegals fined heavily and their CEO's jailed. This is just one of the steps that should be taken to curb illegal immigration.
There needs to be protection for legal immigrants and those here who want to work.
You didn't look very far TS. Enough to misrepresent them, and go.
Oh hia, late for the ball Phil. Misrepresenting a bit yourself I see.
The first WTC attack came on February 26, 1993. About 35 days after Clinton's inauguration.
What you're implying is that he's responsible for an attack one month after he took office but you seem to absolve Bush of any responsibility for the attack of September 11,2001 eight months after he assumed office and more than one month after the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 001 titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the United States"
There's plenty of blame to be assigned on both sides,but no one in the Bush administration will share any responsibility.
The only one to admit anything has been Richard Clarke, the only one in the administration to admit failure.
I have never, and I mean, never absolved Mr. Bush for 9/11. Liberal hyberbole.
If you want an honest discussion, labeling people won't work very well.
As far as any of this, the argument that Bush's policies have "made us safer" is just empty rhetoric. No president or policy can absolutely do that. Living on this planet is a bumpy ride.
What we wish for is leaders who use common sense to provide security. The Bushies have spent boat loads of money (lots going into corporate crooks/cronies) but many analysts point out waste and security weaknesses unaddressed.
I don't think Clinton was a perfect president, but his security team did seem much less ideology-driven and more oriented towards results and finding what works.
And Clinton wasn't bragging about his terror record like Bush did. Plus, Clinton didn't give Al Qaeda the recruiting tool that Bush did with Abu Ghraib. Not to mention that attacks have gone up all over the world.
Does anyone feel safer with this?
why can't links be underlined?
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/14/crawford-torture-prosecutions/
Bush didn't give al queda anything with abu graib. The liberal press promoted it and elevated it to a status undeserving for what it was. Bush did not order anyone to be barked at by dogs. Bush did not order anyone to wear panties on their heads. Bush is not responsible for abu graib. Or, using nerzog's reasoning: Bush wasn't there, so it isn't his fault or responsibility.
Show proof of attacks going up all over the world.
So, what newspapers do you read? All of 'em?
I read the Oakland Tribune (Alameda version). But, I have access to the internet. I never saw any pictures that showed Bush standing over anyone. I never saw any pictures that showed Bush holding any dogs or any pictures of Bush building that 'pyramid'. Nerzog claims Clinton is innocent of Waco and Ruby Ridge blood because he wasn't there. I'm using Nerzog's mentallity to say Bush is not responsible for abu graib. However, the press sure had a field day and promoted it to no end. Mmfa was one of the main promoters of that story. Bush didn't order anyone to do that, nor did he participate in any of that. Yet you'll continue to blame Bush, while Clinton is innocent of causing the Waco massacre?
I don't see these two things as identical. I don't blame Bush for "causing" 9/11, just ignoring the memos and warnings he had. Who knows if it could have been prevented, but we KNOW that the Bushies were ignoring Bin Laden and terrorism before 9/11.
Ruby Ridge & Waco were horribly botched by the FBI and the federal bureau of tobacco and firearms
I wasn't too impressed by Janet Reno, but will leave others to assess her term. However, I can say that Clinton is innocent of "causing" the Waco massacre. Others are much more responsible.
The number of serious international terrorist incidents more than tripled last year, according to U.S. government figures, a sharp upswing in deadly attacks that the State Department has decided not to make public in its annual report on terrorism due to Congress this week.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/26/AR2005042601623.html
Siggy, please pay attention. The question was how long BEFORE 9/11 did we go without an attack, not how long between the beginning of Clinton's term and the first attack on his watch.
Unless you count Oklahoma City, there were no more terrorist attacks on our soil during Clinton's term after the first WTC bombing, correct?
That's not what you said originally. You saw your mistake and now you're tapdancing.
Hey, siggy, the post is still there, so go back and read it again.
"By the way, how long BEFORE 9/11 did we go without a terrorist attack on our soil?"
That's a direct copy and paste from the original post. Try again, bub.
That's only a portion of your post. It follows with "and Mr Clinto kept us safe for 8 years. Did he get credit for that", not once mentioning the 1993 WTC bombing. Keep digging, nerz.
Wow, poor reading comprehension and dishonesty to boot. Sorry I didn't spoon feed it to you, but the question that I asked is designed to lead you back to the WTC attack.
Let me spell it out for you. 8 years elapsed between the first WTC attack and the second. The question I am asking is "Does Clinton get credit for that 8 years where there were no attacks?"
I really didn't think it was that complicated.
You made a mistake and are unwilling to admit it, the true measure of a liberal.
>>You made a mistake and are unwilling to admit it, the true measure of a liberal.
Sorry, but he made no such mistake, and name calling won't help your position. If Bush gets credit for no attacks after 9/11, then Clinton gets credit for that attacks that didn't occur before 9/11. It is that simple.
No problem. We're square on that. Sorry if I called you a liberal.
Are you just playing the troll, now? You called Nerzog a liberal because he coulnd't admit he was wrong, when he was not wrong.
"The question I am asking is "Does Clinton get credit for that 8 years where there were no attacks?" "
He would if that had happened. Unfortunately, we had Waco and the Oklahoma bombings. Although, I don't think anyone in Waco attacked the US, but they got massacred as if they had. Liberals often use McVeigh's group as an example of terrorism, are you now going to deny it was an act of terrorism? Or, are you being racist and only mean to say that only muslims can be terrorists?? I expect the prior, but I suspect the latter.
This is where I miss Solon the most. It's better not to give presidents more credit than they deserve for "keeping us safe." or stopping nutjobs doing unexpected stuff...unless a memo about "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.s." is ignored.
As far as you throwing out "racist" charges, that right wing feeble talking point was tried and discarded months ago.
Why would you miss solon? He was one of the worst posters on this site (including most of the right-wing nutjobs). He never stayed on topic and only called other posters names. I'll bet if you looked for a year, you'd only be able to find 3 (max) posts that he made that would be acceptable under the 'terms of use' rules of this site. I'm sorry to hear a good Christian such as yourself would feel solon is a noble person.
That said, if Bush is to blame for 9/11 because he ignored previous warnings...why aren't you including Clinton in that blame when he failed to capture or kill OBL while those threats were being made. Clinton failed to even attempt to capture OBL. He couldn't even catch the guy who masterminded the first WTC bombing (Bush did). The fact remains this nation is safer because of what Bush has done, not in spite of it. Under Clinton, the safety of this nation was ignored and that ignorance manifested itself soon after his term ended.
Think what you will about how Solon posted, he is a thinker/philosopher, and didn't go after people unless they threw out the first insult.
As far as being a "good" Christian, don't call anyone good, but God.
Waco?
Is there any difference between you and a 9/11 Truther?
....remember, omission of facts is the same as a lie. One of MMFA's tag lines.
Nerzog posted:
here were no more terrorist attacks on our soil during Clinton's term after the first WTC bombing, correct?
Wrong. The two Ebassies in Africa and possibly the Air Force base in Saudi Arabia. Not sure what the SOFA was on the Saudi Base, but it could have been considered US Soil. Depending on what law you want to believe the bombing on the USS Cole could be considered also.
If you want to count US Embassies as American soil, feel free. That standard puts the lie to Bush's claims of keeping us safe:
September 17, 2008
BEIRUT, Lebanon — Militants disguised as soldiers detonated two car bombs outside the United States Embassy compound in Sana, Yemen, on Wednesday morning, killing 16 people, including 6 of the attackers, Yemeni officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.html?ref=world
Uh...yeah they count. It is law after all. Are you saying Embassies are not?
Nope. Just saying that if for the purposes of saying that an administration has been successful in preventing terrorist attacks on US soil that if embassies count then clearly Bush has failed.
Personally I don't think it is a good standard for use in any president's case because our country has extremely limited ability to control the environment around the embassy and thus cannot do much to prevent attacks but is stuck fighting them and minimizing them as they happen. But if they count for Clinton they also count for Bush.
Moony, I think you need a different example. The article you provided says the attack happened "outside" embassy territory. Not inside. That makes that attack happening on Yemen soil, not US soil. I'm sure you have plenty more examples, so provide the proof of Bush lying about the safety of American soil.
Phi, from your bull above I've come to the conclusion that you are a waste of oxygen and time. Anyone who would accuse somebody of siding with the 9/11 hijackers as a debate tactic is clearly a disgusting piece of crap who isn't interested in dialogue and just wants to act like a flaming a**. That attack was on a US embassy and Americans died. You want to say it doesn't count because they didn't make it through the gates?
I'm done with you.
And anyone who would claim an attack on a foreign country is an attack on American soil is a liar. I did notice you had no more evidence. I kind of suspected that.
Of course you are done with me. Why would you continue if you can't bring truth and facts to the discussion when others do?
No phi, you syphillitic chunk of debris, I can bring facts and truth to the table, but I'm not going to sit at the table with someone who sinks to the depths you do. You can sit back and pretend you've won something because I'm not responding to your questions any longer. From your behavior all you've earned is scorn and derision and that's all I have for you.
2001 - 1993 = 1
Republican math strikes again.
1+1= 2, Col. OK city. The original post claimed zero attacks and you're defending that mis-statement. Where's MMFA when 'ya need 'em.
Sig, Take a deep breath, relax, and read it again. I won't embarass you by explaining it again, you've been offered more than enough help already.
Read "it" doesn't tell me much,Col. I do respect you so if you could elaborate on "it", I'll try.
The original post claimed zero attacks
read it again
Read "it" doesn't tell me much...so if you could elaborate on "it",
I give up. You win, Sig.
If you mean 2001-1993=1, once again you conveniently left out the first WTC bombing and the first portion of 1993, so "it" doesn't jive with my posts.
>>If you mean 2001-1993=1, once again you conveniently left out the first WTC bombing and the first portion of 1993, so "it" doesn't jive with my posts.
Then please explain where you get the number "1" from. Because your explanation still doesn't explain your math.
It's from the Col's post, not mine.
>>It's from the Col's post, not mine.
Now who's tap dancing? You stated the figure "one" above in your own post. Where did that magical figure come from?
I was responding to the Col's post where he used the complex equation of 1993-2001=1. It was the Col's post, not mine that used the figure 1.
Groan! Here's what your own post states, above:
>>The first WTC was in 1993. The answer is one year.
Where does that "one year" come from?
FMP, I think you may have done it. It took several hours, and a few other helpful posters, but I'm guessing Siggy's silence might mean he finally figured out who was confused. You're a saint.
No, I had to get back to work. Had a long f'in day and had to stop posting. Iguess the 1 or one that was referred to was my referrence to one year. I was generous, it was one month.
Sigtek, they are obviously owners of form: ID-10-T. You explained (a long time ago) that you thought nerzog meant 'how long after Clinton took office' did an attack happen. Now they want to argue that WTC I is Bush's fault and that Oklahoma City doesn't qualify as a terrorist attack. So, that means (of course to the liberal mentality) that NO attacks happened while Clinton was in control. He ruled the nation with an iron fist (see Waco and Ruby Ridge), so no one would have dared attack the US. And, even if they had, then there is a way to blame someone else by every liberal out there. That IS the liberal specialty...blame others for every failure. Typical liberal: no accountability or responsibility.
Guess both of you can't read. Good luck with your futures and stay safe.
Thank you, Mary. We have Obama for our chief executive so there can't possibly be any attacks on the U.S. for the next four years and if there is, and I hope there is not, they won't really be attacks and the body count will be explained away as an anomaly and it will be GW's fault, ultimately. I'm on my way to remedial reading class. I love you, you love me, oh how happy we can be.......
Kumbaya, over and out.
I am interested in finding out where I have missread something. Mary seems good at saying someone doesn't read well, but not for providing the example being complained about. Isn't a good Christian (such as yourself) supposed to help us read better, instead you complain of our reading ability. Sounds like you're making fun of us. That isn't very Christian of you.
How would you know?
Anyway, here's Nerzog's original Q:
By the way, how long BEFORE 9/11 did we go without a terrorist attack on our soil? 8 years, maybe? Does Clinton get credit for that?
Iguess the 1 or one that was referred to was my referrence to one year.
Exactly.
I was generous, it was one month
I apologize, Sig, I was wrong. I thought you had it figgered out, but you're still confused. Philib seems to think you realize where your confusion was, but you still aren't quite on it. Luckily, Philib seems to be blaming everybody else for your problem. He's a good friend.
I figgered we has to be a friend to someone.
Bush and his supporters are free to go on thinking that his policies helped keep us safe... much in the same way that a rooster can think that his crowing is what makes the sun rise every morning.
"After all, it is the liberal stance that since 9/11 happened during Bush's term, it is Bush's fault."
There are some who hold that view.
On the flipside, if something happens in the next four years, and Republicans blame Obama, will the same Republicans then go back and admit that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
I didn't think so.
Both sides have painted themselves into a logical corner on this topic.
After all, it is the liberal stance that since 9/11 happened during Bush's term, it is Bush's fault.
Well, he pretty much ignored the warnings in 2000 didn't he? Too busy clearing brush, golfing, or fishing with his dad, I guess, to worry about important things like terrorism.
And Mr. Clinton was too busy with his cigars to stop the first WTC bombing and OK city.
Apples and oranges. Bush was warned, Clinton wasn't. And when Clinton tried to do something about Bin Laden, Repugs screamed "Wag the dog!"
Happened on his watch, Foghorn. When does the buck stop for the Clintons?
Here's the difference: Clinton didn't receive a briefing stating "Al Queda planning truck bomb attack on WTC".
The perpetrators of the first WTC attack were arrested, tried, convicted and jailed. Where's Osama?
Not to muddy the waters, but....
Two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
The Bush administration has asserted that no one in government had envisioned a suicide hijacking before it happened.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/attack/main509488.shtml
My point with that is to say that our Gov't failed on 9/11, not just the figurehead in charge at the time of the attack.
I can certainly agree with that.
You agree that Bush shares part of the blame for 9/11?
I sure do.
Did you note the date of that warning? Do you agree Clinton shares part of that blame? Doesn't that warning give Clinton nearly 1 1/2 years to find and stop OBL?
........and Clinton was amply warned by McVeigh with a series of threats via letters.
Your history knowledge is lacking. This is from Newsmax, one of the sites I'm sure you trust:
"Authorities were warned several times in the two months before Timothy McVeigh struck Oklahoma City in 1995 that Islamic-backed terrorists were planning to bomb a government building," the Associated Press reported today.
The information was never linked to McVeigh but led Bill Clinton's administration to urge increased security patrols and screening at federal buildings nationwide, says AP, quoting documents it obtained
So what, they were warned nonetheless of the impending attack and couldn't stop it.
Clinton was warned, and he DID SOMETHING about it. Bush was warned and stayed on vacation at his Crawford "ranch", relishing being the president-guy.
If he did something about it after being warned but still could not stop the attack then I could say doing nothing resulted in the same end-game, a successful attack. I won't use that logic because it is certainly flawed at best. Your example id tepid.
...is...
Clinton was warned, tried to act on those warnings and tragically failed.
Bush was warned, chose to do nothing in response to those warnings and tragedy inevitably occured.
Warning- Stupid analogy ahead for the logic impaired!
Think of it in winter terms- when it is cold and wet out you know it is going to be slippery on the sidewalk. You put down salt and shovel the walk but someone might slip and fall anyway. You do nothing at all and someone will most likely slip, it is only a matter of time. In both cases you are not directly at fault for causing the slip but in the second scenario you are certainly negligent.
Brainless logic: wetness isn't slippery. Icy is. You don't need to put salt on a wet sidewalk. You put salt on an icy sidewalk.
Question about the analogy as you put it: What salt did Clinton put down? What actions did he take on those warnings? Obviously, if you have evidence of Bush doing nothing, you have evidence of Clinton doing something.
Obviously you have had your brain replaced with dryer lint. How's that working out for you?
Would that be wet dryer lint or icy? Here, in California, it sure gets cold and it's sometimes wet in the morning, do I need to go out and get some salt for the wet sidewalk?
Question ignored by moony: what salt did Clinton put down? What actions did Clinton take on the warnings he had a year and a half before he left office??
Evidence is that he took the problem very seriously. Worked it as a crime problem and had sucess with it. Gave detailed briefings of it to the incoming administration, which quickly put it into the circular file, for safe keeping.
The intel on OBL wanting to ram aircraft into buildings was being briefed as far back as '97-98. If our unit was aware of this then the POTUS was definitely in the loop. Also lobbing one tomahawk at an aspirin factory isn't really "doing something about it".
That knowledge was ignored by the Bushies so yes, Bush should have know of the possibility of airplanes being driven into buildings. Yet he stated after the fact and so did Condi, "who could have known?" The Clinton team foiled a millenium plot, but that isn't part of your story so you ignore it.
The aspirin factory story is pretty well spun by the right. The intel suggested that this building was being used by Bin Laden. How interesting that Israeli missles are killing innocents in Gaza, based upon the claim that terrorists are hiding among them. Yet right wingers justify this killing but criticize Clinton for that missle strike. What hypocrisy.
Clinton foiled a millenium plot huh? Do you even know how that unfolded? It wasn't anything "Team clinton" did. It was Diana Dean's sharp eye that foiled the so-called millenium plot, not any directive from "team clinton" that did that. Her Senate testimony makes it clear "team clinton" was busy popping chaff for the philanderer in chief. Me thinks it's YOU who is ignoring the story.
Better check your facts on the aspirin factory also...no spin there. Nice deflection on Israel though. Terrorists ARE hiding among the innocents. It has been proven time and again that they use civilians as cover.
CNN and the left has to resort to lying and doctoring photos and video to help the cause though:
CNN doctors video exposed
Hamas staged photos
I can go on with pages of this stuff, but hopefully you get the point...I doubt it though...
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp
This link shows that the aspirin factory story was spun by the right.
You don't have a clue about what I was talking about regarding the Israelis, do you?
OMG...you rely on snopes for your info? HA! Really, you should try some research on your own. The Google is your friend!
I notice your link didn't answer your original post about the "millenium plot" or the misslie strike on the aspirn factory for that matter. For good reason I guess. It was proved clinton lied with help from Sandy Burglar. Here are ten articles to get you up to speed:
S Aspirin factory bombing
Salon article on Khartoum
I'm sorry mary but your Israeli comparison doesn't hold water either. Israeli's are protecting their homeland and way of life against terrorists. Our philanderer in chief was "wagging the dog" and launched missles to protect his sorry hide from an impeachment hearing.
Less snopes...more history books...
So you discard snopes now?!!! Not to your liking for some reason, perhaps 'cause they debunk so much right wing bunk.
I'll see your 10 and raise you two jacks.
The same could be said of Clinton, post WTC'93 - and he 'kept us safe' for a longer period of time. Our 'safety' is not just a function of whether or not we've been attacked. Al-Q is stranger now than it was in 2002. We had them on the run and in our sights and we let them off the hook. OBL & AaZ are still at large. Our military is bogged down, readiness is compromised - if we move any troops from one area to address a threat somewhere else, we'll have new problems in the area we left. Our allies are alienated, our economy is in shambles, Iraq is now dominated by Shia's (that IRAN'S faction for those that don't know the difference) where they were once Sunni/Secular, (that's Sunni, as in the faction of most of our allies in the region). Hez controls Lebenon, Hamas controls Gaza, Iran has no counter-balance in the region now that W. got rid of BOTH the Tal's and Saddam) and made more nuclear progress under Bush than under Clinton... and the best you can say is that we are safer because WE haven't been attacked. (Putting aside that Americans die as a result of terrorism all over the globe, not just in America; and that we are supposed to be leading the GLOBAL war on terror - are we winning that one? Not really. I'd say we're LOSING GROUND.) And would you you blmae Bush if we were attacke 1 year into the Obama admin the way you blamed Clinton after we were attacked 18 mo into the Bush admin? (Prob not - con's don't have principles after all.) RESULTS are irrelevant if they are coming despite a lousy system and lousy policies because they are unsustainable. Lousy policies don't become good ones just because disaster hasn't happened yet. W. has been risking all of our lived ever since his wet dream about Saddam and WMD's. If you think Bush has 'kept us safe' it's because you haven't really THOUGHT about it at all!
Thanks for fleshing that out. Unfortunately, I think we're way over Sig's head here.
Wow. Move outa the way Einstein. Eddie and the nerz are in town!
Sorry that we misoverestimated your ability to connect the dots.
Don't be sorry, nerz. Be proud you can cover a mistake with convoluted diatribes.
There was no mistake.
One mistake in that diatribe. Did he mean "stronger" or "stranger"? If he meant "stronger" then Bush has done a comendable job keeping a "stronger al-queda" from attacking the US. While they have attacked several other countries. If he meant "stranger" then his diatribe just doesn't make sense.
No... that's what conservatives do.
PHILIB, and I think you are living in the twilight zone. you must also think the guy standing on the corner snapping his fingers were really keeping the pink elephants away, since there were none
In Bush's defense "there can be little debate" just means that he won't allow it.
Or that the press is too lazy or corrupt to look into it. David Gregory has been one of my greatest disappointments on this and the Iraq War.
I think there is plenty of blame to go around for 9/11, but the unwillingness of the Press to even discuss the lies that got us into Iraq is appalling. Gregory is in a perfect position to do this as the new moderator of Meet the Press, but he has made it clear that the subject is off the table as far as he's concerned.
Let's look at this logically. What policies, in particular, "kept us safe"? The U.S. is a target rich environment with a porous southern border and guns available everywhere. If Al Qaeda or any other terrorist group really wanted to hit us again here, they could. Maybe not by flying jetliners into buildings, but there are many things they could do.
They could...oh, I don't know...mail anthrax? Snipe commuters? Or they could sit back and simply watch as the president did things they could never do, such as create record national debt, characterize the country as that of torturers, kill 4500 more Americans, redact habeus corpus...
In music, there's a concept where the notes you DON'T play are as important as the notes you do play. Terrorism works the same way. And Bin Laden set Bush up to be the guitarist in Bin Laden's arrangement of Strauss' interpretation of Also Sprach Zarathustra.
(The pretentiousness of the preceding was purely intentional as an illustration of the pretentiousness of those who claim to know that Bush kept us safe since 9-11, but can't explain how)
Or they could sit back and simply watch as the president did things they could never do...
So correct - Bush in so many ways has terrorized this county in ways Al Queda could only dream of.
That's what the wingnuts have trouble with. Notice in Philibs hook-line & sinker swallowing of this feeble logic above, he specifies that there have been no further major attacks on our soil.
That's true. Of course, these attacks are rarely executed within a short time of one another, the defenses are high immediately after one, and there's planning and the added terrorism of "the notes not played", as Neondesert said.
Additionaly, Bush was suckered into sending our military over there. Why would anybody go to the time, expense and risk of sending people over here to attack our institutions, when we've been kind enough to send our institutions over there?
So, Bush's legacy is that after presiding over the biggest defense, intelligence and national security screw-up in the nation's history, he didn't let it happen again on American soil. He outsourced his next blunder, importing it to Iraq.
It's been nearly 8 years. How long do we need to wait? We only waited a couple years before Clinton had another terrorist attack. I guess he didn't care as much about national security as Bush. But, in your liberal mind national security is a bad thing.
Bush came closer to truly destroying America - meaning everything of any value, everything that we stand for and our collective national soul - than Al-Queada, the Soviets or the Nazi's could ever have dreamed. Only the Confederacy did more in our history to destroy the great institutions of freedom and liberty that made our counrty great - the very REASONS our country IS great - than Bush has! (So... big surprise that [the confederacy's] decendants supported [W.] in landslide proporrtions.)
Wosrt. President. Ever.
"Let's look at this logically. What policies, in particular, "kept us safe"? " - Nerzog
Oh! Can I take that one? Can I, Can I? That's too easy!
Bush's invasion made Iraq such a fertile recruiting ground for Al Qaeda that they had no need to stage another U.S. internal attack. Why upset a very fruitful apple cart? (Don't forget, there were captured Al Qaeda letters stating they hoped the U.S. would stay in Iraq a long time. ...And a sidelight: recall that a password protected site, when cracked, revealed the news that McCain was Al Qaeda's candidate of choice. Wonder why?)
And it wasn't just a fertile recruiting ground *within* Iraq...after all, all the world is connected.
"There can be little debate" that the Bush administration knew of threats to fly planes into buildings weeks before 9/11.
Exactly. The Bush administration was warned by Richard Clarke, and Condi dismissed him. Bush took the month of August off to clear brush from his ranch.
I don't believe the threats were that specific.
No actions were taken with regard to any threats. The only thing W protected was his Crawford pig farm, and he only protected that from encroaching brush.
Bush was told on Aug. 6 2001 that bin Laden wanted to hijack planes.
there was a level of complacency and incompetence prior to 9/11 by Bush and his administration, you're right about that. But it is inarguable that we have not been attacked on our soil since. Maybe it was a big wakeup call to Bush and this whole country, maybe some of his policies and actions have deterred and foiled some terrorist's plans, none of us are in the loop as to what has actually been prevented, so Bush deserves credit for that much. But the Bush haters would never admit that, so it's a waste of time to argue with them.
none of us are in the loop as to what has actually been prevented, so Bush deserves credit for that much.
So Bush deserves credit for preventing attacks that no one outside of "the loop" knows anything about. Wingnut logic at its best.
That's like me saying I had relations with 6 supermodels last night. You weren't there, so you are out of "the loop" and therefore you must believe me and give me credit for my conquests.
youre the one with the logic deficiency. We have had no attacks since 9/11, period. and we are not privvy to inside intelligence so we go by what we know, and we know we haven't been attacked. simple logic you and your insults can't deny.
>>and we are not privvy to inside intelligence
Again, if we don't know, then you are not in the position to credit Bush.
my credit goes to results, no attacks. i dont withhold credit, or give it, based on my personal feelings about Bush.
>>my credit goes to results, no attacks.
That is a meaningless statment. We need to evaluate if Bush has kept us safer. As MMFA points out, he has not. Basing our argument on ignorance (since we don't know if Bush might have stopped some attacks, we must give him credit) does not tell us anything at all. You are merely stating a hypothetical.
And it does seem you are basing your argument on feelings, namely pro-Bush feelings.
mmfa has an agenda, so what they point out is partisan. and it's not a meaningless statement, it's a factual statement. we have had no attacks, that is not some hypothetical. credit or discredit who you want.
Having a point of view does not make what one says automatically wrong.
How do you feel about World Net Daily?
I'm sure you really expect Brabs to hunt down your post at this point.
WND, all sizzle no steak, or how to properly support a bias, your doing it wrong.
>>mmfa has an agenda, so what they point out is partisan statement,
First, you commite a generic fallacy. Second, MMFA quoted factual sources. And if I can credit who I want, can I take credit? Do you have any argument here at all?
my credit goes to results, no attacks.
What about the anthrax attacks on US Senators?
Nice try but that was an airborn attack, therefore it was technically not on our soil.
(kidding)
Good point.
those were within weeks of 9/11, that is your best case. so go with the end of 2001 then instead of 9/11, big deal.
This "big deal" is that you, Bush, and his fellow apologists are still IGNORING 9/11 in order to bolster his claim of being a protector of the American people. 3000 people were murdered on our soil while he was in charge. The fact that he wants to slither out of office like some kind of "mission accomplished" tough guy is an insult to those who lost their lives on 9/11.
Who is Bruce Ivins? What terrorist ties did he have? How can you equate his personal agenda to terrorist activities by al-queda?
Move them goal posts. Thats what their there for after all.
Umm, we have had attacks since 9/11, but you guys forget about them. Not to mention terrorist attacks against our allies, BECAUSE in part of, our actions around the rest of the world.
You mean like when we went to the Balkans to protect poor muslims and thten were repaid in full with four hijacked airliners used as guided cruise missles?
They didn't just start hating us in '00.
A Balkins connection, thats new. Please fill in the details.
I give the Bush administration credit for making the US a bigger target.
>>maybe some of his policies and actions have deterred and foiled some terrorist's plans, none of us are in the loop as to what has actually been prevented, so Bush deserves credit for that much.
Your sentence contradicts itself. If none of us are in the loop to know if terrorists' plots have been foiled, then why does Bush get credit? Using that logic, every single president should get credit, because maybe his policies foiled terrorists that we don't know about.
if you don't understand how intelligence works, then read up on it. it's not put out there everyday for all of us to read. I would give any president credit for keeping us safe under their watch if that happens, that is their priority as president.
I do understand how intelligence works. I read what the intelligence says, which states that Bush's poliicies have not resulted in keeping us safer, as MMFA points out.
"...so it's a waste of time to argue with them."
Yet you argue, day after day after day.
Posted by Victor Colorado in reply to foghornleghorn
Not to muddy the waters, but....
Two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, an analysis prepared for U.S. intelligence warned that Osama bin Laden's terrorists could hijack an airliner and fly it into government buildings like the Pentagon.
"Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House," the September 1999 report said.
The Bush administration has asserted that no one in government had envisioned a suicide hijacking before it happened.
Posted Friday January 16, 2009 11:26:19 AM EST
Don't forget to read the very article you provide before blaiming Bush 100% that 9/11 occured.
And don't forget to pick up an argument when its days old and folks have moved on. Its safer that way.
In a way, these policies did keep us safe -- after all, bin Ladin got the reaction he wanted: Bush's policies shamed the US and kept recruits flowing into militant organizations worldwide. Why should any of them attack again when the real goal had been accomplished?
Siggy is exhibiting classic troll behavior. They like to show up and throw a Straw Man into the mix, misquoting posts and tossing out non sequiturs. If anyone engages them to defend what is obvious, the thread gets hijacked and hits 200 posts before you know it, most of which are the "I said - no you didn't" variety.
Tedious.
Yep. The trolls seem to be getting thicker lately, it's not even fun when they can't follow a simple line of discussion.
They're also getting more humorless too. I can remember times when there weren't as many cement heads just parroting the church and or party talking points. They could take a position and a joke and had pretty funny replies.
As Busk slithers back to his ranch, they're fresh out of heroes. Must have something to do with that.
Bush being a "hero" is the biggest joke of all.
Well, how bout that? Mary (who never talks on topic) is the only one of the you four who complain about people not talking on-topic to actually say something related to the topic of Bush succeeding in protecting America from further terrorist attacks. That would make nerzog, sanders and worrier trolls (according to their own standards).
Well, I never. Phil, your logic is so impeccable, I'm hanging up my spurs and taking up knitting. Going to design some worrier troll dolls. That will keep America safe.
W has kept us without a terrorist attack since 01. His policies may hava something to do woith it. I think he has a grasp of what's at stake here. There has not been an attack on US soil since 01. WITH?
Dave, one answer among many posted above yours:
Salamandastron
REPLY »
In a way, these policies did keep us safe -- after all, bin Ladin got the reaction he wanted: Bush's policies shamed the US and kept recruits flowing into militant organizations worldwide. Why should any of them attack again when the real goal had been accomplished?
it's what scares me about liberals. now that they are in charge of everything, the way they hate Bush, the influence they may have over OBama, they will not recognize anything positive that Bush did, undo it all, and who knows what might happen.
Mary, the link takes me back to MMFA. I don't entirely trust them. Bush has had a terror free environment since 01. If you want to go into Osama's head, more power to you. But argue facts...no terrorist attacks on US soil since 01. Bush behind the wheel of the bus. Argue his record on terrorism.
James, if you ever find a herd of liberals, you'll find an argument. That label doesn't work for me as a perjorative, and who the heck you think you're talking about doesn't likely exist, except in your mind.
Anthrax.
That was post 9/11.
There have been lots of murders to occur since 9/11. Are you saying each murder is a terrorist action? Look up Bruce Ivins.
Like most of your posts today full of misrepresentations and false premises. Those straw men are falling like flies.
theres a herd of them around here all the time, and many scare me.
The only thing you have to fear is fear itself.
"And of course the Boogyman." Pat Paulson
Which ones scare you?
Yeah. Who scares you? What else are you afraid of? Clowns, the dark, roller coasters?
My God, you're acting like a stereotypical right-wing bedwetter.
People killed from anthrax. That was a terrorist attack.
In Chapel Hill, NC a guy ran over a bunch of people at UNC to avenge the deaths of his Muslim brothers.
A guy opened fire at LAX killing people saying he was out to avenge Muslim deaths.
4000+ US troops killed in Iraq.
You are a racist to claim every action of violence taken by a muslim is a terrorist act. And, again, read about Bruce Ivins.
And try joining a conversation when its current.
"His policies may hava something to do woith it. I think he has a grasp of what's at stake here."
The opinion and uncertainty in your post highlights the very reason for the article. There is obviously a counter-argument to the assertion that Bush has clearly kept us safe, and the media should report that because they are comprised of journalists, not stenographers.
"W has kept us without a terrorist attack since 01....There has not been an attack on US soil since 01."
Also note the difference between those two sentences. The latter is true, but it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion of the former, that it's to Bush's credit. That's another way of highlighting the reason the other side of the argument should be given recognition.
"There can be little debate" tha Bush will be remembered as a failure by all Americans except the NEOCON NUTS.
There sure is a lot of debating going on for for something about whcih "there can be little debate." It's really difficult to tell if Bush's policies have anything to do with us not being attacked on US soil again. I'm not even sure what policies he means. Warrentless wiretapping? They're never going to tell us what they learned from this so it's hard to judge. Since there was already so much leeway in the FISA regs anyway I'm not sure this made a difference. Extraordinary rendition? Again we'll never know what they learned. Suspension of habeas corpus for those classified as 'enemy combatants'? Allowed them to keep some bad guys locked up who may or may not have tried something. Sadly some innocent folks were and are locked up right along side them. And of course it's unconstitutional. Enhanced interrogation techniques? Again we'll never know what they learned. To be honest I think this sort of things has always gone on. Fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here? Hard to say if this was a victory for the US or the terrorists. There have been no attacks on US soil but there sure have been a lot of Americans killed and it's stretched our military very thin pulling National Guard troop over to the Middle East and leaving us arguably more vulnerable here. The terrorist plots that have been foiled since 9/11 were accomplished with good old fashioned police work so I think it could be argued that treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue (for which Clinton was widely criticized immediately following 9/11) is actually the more successful approach. It's possible that some of Bush's other policies contributed to those successes though. Securing our borders? Bush actually didn't do this so I guess it's not one of the policies he's talking about. Somehow this all got twisted into a debate about illegal workers coming in from Mexico. I guess it worked as a distraction away form Bush's failures in this regard.
Shaggles,
I agree there have been many failures of the Bush Administration, one of them being not doing enough to secure the borders.
It remains for history to decide whether Bush's policies kept us safe from terrorists since 9/11. Unfortunately the battle is not yet over.
As an aside, I have been amazed at all those people in Gaza who feel they are martyrs if they die fighting Israelis. I think that mindset says the ideals of personal freedom and democracy will be fighting Muslim extremist ideas for quite some time.
Given your mind set in charge, your quite correct. In ten years time chances are you'd put up a statement that is word for word what you just posted. Maybe a little extra to trumpet aleged hard work by the Israel to avoid conflict.
I find fault with both sides thank you, now go find a strawman to assault.
My personal and admittedly biased opinion about the current situation in Gaza is that Israel has over reacted. I have no comment on what either side is fight against or for.
As an aside, I have been amazed at all those people in Gaza who feel they are martyrs if they die fighting Israelis. I think that mindset says the ideals of personal freedom and democracy will be fighting Muslim extremist ideas for quite some time. -AA
You are bizzare. Gazans are willing to die in order to be free from Israeli tyranny and you say this is a challenge to the ideals of personal freedom and democracy? Wow. Is it the "martyr" part that bothers you? If so, does it bother you when Bush or any other con claims that a war they start is Gods will? The differences between xtian extremists and muslim ones is getting harder and harder to tell.
And as for democracy, they elected Hamas and then the cons don't like democracy too much.
oldben, has hamas been sending hundreds of rockets into Israel since they were elected? Why? Didn't Israel give more land in Gaza to help them be more productive? What was the response of hamas?
Try again, fail again.
Probably what they should have said was that there can be little debate about whether there had been further loss of American lives, on US soil, from foriegn terrorists, since 9/11. That is a much more justified statement. Can there be some debate on that, sure. A lot, probably not so much.
Now, can there be more than "little debate" as to whether the previous facts, once agreed upon, were caused by, highly influenced by, not caused by, etc. the "policies" of the Bush administration. Well, obviously, yes. End of story.
Anytime anyone claims that "there can be little debate', you can bet your ass there will be.
Lots!
Exactly. It's a silly assertion, but that doesn't mean we won't be hearing it for a while. This idea that the actions that the bush administration took kept us safe following 9/11 is something the soon to be former really wants to hang his hat on. Its up to those who care about truth and integrity to keep a very close eye on whether that hook exists or not.
I watched the speech. Bush is still every bit the cheerleader idiot he started out as. He thinks his audience is just as illogical as he is. To say that he kept the nation safe from terrorist attack is like saying that because the sun comes up after a long night, the long night caused the rising of the sun. Not only were there a great many factors that played a role in there not being another attack of the magnitude of 9/11, to even assume that we were not so terrorized again because of anything his administration did is to engage in the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc. You have to remember, this is a man who believes "God" created the earth 6,000 years ago and that man walked the land with dinosaurs. Such people label anything "miraculous" that they come by when extrapolating results from false causes.
All I want to know now is, will he get his just deserts for lying to the American people to get us into an immoral war, killing four thousand troops and possibly a hundred times that number of Iraqis, and ordering the torture of "enemy combatants," which is clearly prohibited by both our Constitution and international law?
jmmartin posted:
ordering the torture of "enemy combatants," which is clearly prohibited by both our Constitution
Actually it's not prohibited. The fifth, eighth and fourteenth get close, but doesn't prohibit it. A little hint, it's limited to criminial prosecutions.
As for Bush getting his "just deserts", well we'll see if Barry O has the huevos to go through with it. My bet he stiff arms the rabid left and you'll never get the joy of seeing Bush and company walk the plank.
Its rabid to expect due process? Criminalty on a massive scale with no penalty a small thing?
Our president elect has shown he's intelligent. His supposed heavy liberalism an artifact of the media. I have no doubt he will make decisions that I won't like. I do hope that the sumation of his actions will work to the nations good.
You've already decided before he has been empowered with his office. Most of us will see what occurs pior to rendering an opinion.
Keep smiling chuckles.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=1&em
Paul Krugman puts more elequently and consisly than I.
Well...it's no use...Good luck with all that...you're going to need it.
I give you a lefty hero...Dershowitz explains it more elequently than I:
Dershowitz on torture
He agrees with the experienced professionals in the intelligence field?
How rabidly liberal!!?!
philib
You need to read your history books
In the days after the 1993 WTC bombing , investigators surveyed the damage and looked for clues. While combing through the rubble in the underground parking area, a bomb technician located some internal component fragments from the vehicle that delivered the bomb. A vehicle identification number (VIN), found on a piece from an axle, gave investigators crucial information that led them to a Ryder truck rental outlet in Jersey City. Investigators determined that the vehicle had been rented by Mohammad Salameh, one of Yousef's co-conspirators.[20] Salameh had reported the van stolen, and when he returned on March 4, 1993, to get his deposit back, authorities arrested him.[21]
Salameh's arrest led police to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin in Jersey City, New Jersey, which Yasin was sharing with his mother, in the same building as Ramzi Yousef's apartment. Yasin was taken to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, and was then released. The next day, he flew back to Iraq, via Amman, Jordan. Yasin was later indicted for the attack, and in 2001 he was placed on the initial list of the FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, on which he remains today. He disappeared before the U.S. coalition invasion, Operation Iraqi Freedom, in 2003. In March 1994, Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj were each convicted in the World Trade Center bombing. In May 1994, they were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Washinton Post
It is a fact that no more attacks have occurred on US soil but it is also a fact that overall terrorist attacks have increased around the world.This has occurred despite the greater awareness,additional security and US led "war on terror".If you are giving Bush credit for preventing attacks in the US then he has at least some accountability for increasing the recruitmet of new terrorist globally and the attacks by them that resulted.The lack of concern for how he is seen in the world and how the USA is seen (stated often by Bush ,Cheney,Rice,Bolton,etc.) was short-sighted at best.Isn't keeping the USA safe also part of making the world safer if you are leader of the free world?