WSJ editorial falsely asserted "[n]ot a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11"
SUMMARY: A Wall Street Journal editorial asserted that "[n]ot a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11." In fact, shortly after September 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were mailed through the U.S. Postal Service, which, as the Journal previously reported, "killed five people, sickened 17 others and crippled mail delivery for months."
A January 16 Wall Street Journal editorial falsely asserted that "[n]ot a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11." In fact, shortly after September 11, 2001, letters laced with anthrax were mailed through the U.S. Postal Service. As the Journal previously reported, those letters "killed five people, sickened 17 others and crippled mail delivery for months." Indeed, the January 16 Journal editorial mentioned "the anthrax panic" that occurred "in the weeks after 9/11" but did not note the fatalities caused by those attacks. In an article on its website about the attacks, the FBI noted that "the nation was terrorized in what became the worst biological attacks in U.S. history." A separate article on the FBI website called the anthrax attacks "the worst case of bioterrorism in U.S. history."
From the Journal editorial:
By his own standard, Mr. Bush achieved the one big thing he and all Americans demanded of his Administration. Not a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11. Al Qaeda was flushed from safe havens in Afghanistan, then Iraq, and its terrorist network put under siege around the world. All subsequent terror attacks hit soft targets and used primitive means. No one seriously predicted such an outcome at the time.
The Administration's achievement goes beyond lives saved to American confidence restored. Memories fade fast. Recall the fear about imminent strikes, the anthrax panic and the 98-1 Senate vote for the Patriot Act in the weeks after 9/11. Americans yearned for leadership that this President provided. He calmed the fears and urged tolerance at home, saying on that memorable evening, "We are in a fight for our principles, and our first responsibility is to live by them."
His most controversial and difficult decision, the war in Iraq, was consistent with his post-9/11 doctrine to regard "any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism ... as a hostile regime" and pre-empt threats to America from rogue regimes and proliferators. The failure to discover WMD gave opponents the opening to claim the war was fought on false premises, but Bill Clinton, Democrats on Capitol Hill and every major intelligence service also believed Saddam had WMD.
Although they are technically correct in pointing this out, I have to say MMFA is splitting hairs on this one.
MMFA is in the " I hate Bush" mode again.
Are both of you dipping into Rush's drugs again?
While it may be true that since the anthrax attacks... no one in this country has died from a terrorist attack on US soil... it is not for any great or grand strength by the shrub...
The un-Constitutional and very un-American USAPATRIOT Act, the eviceration of the FISA Act, the Military Comissions Act, and that the telecommunications corporations working in tandem with the Bush regime... all undermining our freedoms and rights as a free people have made it inpossible for potential terrorists from doing damage here...
And so the military being in Iraq... that had no terror network to speak of and now does... gets to take the brunt of the anger of those that would otherwise be at home taking care of their families...
Bush and Cheney and their sychophant thugs have ruined this country in ways that you two dunderheads don't seem to realize!!
The WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch... who also runs FoxNoise... and you want to claim that MMfA is in a 'hate Bush' mode again.....
Give up now.... before you make bigger fools of yourselves!!
MMFA can continue the Hate Bush mode, I don't defend that administration.
I rather look forward and hope Obama does better, as all Americans do.
You want to look back in hate be my guest. See how that helps solve our problems.
Yeah, what are all those D.A.'s and U.S. Attorneys doing, wasting their time by looking backward at crimes that have been committed and trying to make sure the perpetrators are brought to justice?
Bunch of haters.
Casey, you can buy into the O'Reilly meme that anyone who wants the Bush administration held accountable for their actions is some sort of irrational "hater", but trust me, it's rational. They've committed horrific crimes, none of which I think I need to list here, as I'm sure you're aware, and if there is no consequence for their actions, the next administration who decides they are above the law will do even worse. It started with Watergate, Ford pardoned Nixon, and it has gone downhill since. At some point, someone needs to say, "no more".
Casey, you can buy into the O'Reilly meme that anyone who wants the Bush administration held accountable for their actions is some sort of irrational "hater", but trust me, it's rational.
I have been posting on here that the Bush Admin should be prosectuted for any crimes. What the hell are you talking about?
because if you stray from the liberal mindset of hating Bush 100%, and dare to have a thought of your own or a judgement of your own, you are ripped a new one by the tolerant left. that is what they are talking about. look at onionhead's post, he dared take on mmfa and the liberals here and posted a good post.
I know I just commented on that. It is amazing, if you even get out of line the bashing and smearing by some on here. I disagree so right away some accuse me and Onionhead of loving Bush.
i think people get a little confused because you seem to be all over the road. you say: "i rather look forward and hope obama does better, as all americans do. you want to look back in hate, be my guest. see how that helps solve our problems".
and a few posts later: "i have been posting on here that the bush administration should be prosecuted for any crimes". so how do you prosecute without looking back?
and at 359: you quote victor as saying: "there can be little debate' that the bush administration knew of warnings to fly planes into buildings weeks before 9-11". and then you ask: "how does governor {victor} know there is 'little debate'?" but he didn't say anything about whether there is debate or not. he said there "can" be little debate, as in the proof is there. which you readily admitted because loonz then pointed out that: "the bush administration had numerous warnings of planes being used as missiles prior to 9-11". and your reply was: "i know it did".
so clearly, victor said there can be little debate of the bush administration knowing that, and you agree "i know it did", but you somehow manage to turn that into something that victor never said. he never commented on whether there was debate, he said there "can be little debate" because of the documented record. as usual, you are contradicting yourself from one post to the next.
Can you please give an example of "hate" from Media Matters or any of the so-called liberals posting here?
sure, one of yours. you say below that Bush went to Iraq to kill people. are you saying you are fond of Bush, or do you despise him for that?
We went to war to kill people. That's just a fact. I write that as a pure matter of fact. Why do you think we went to war?
i'll ask again since you wanted the example. are you fond of Bush, or do you despise him?
I think Bush is a fool, but I don't hate him. And that the truth. Back to my question, why do you think we went to war?
if I thought someone went to war only to kill people I would think they are more than a fool, I would despise any leader who did that. your standards are less strict than mine.
By I did not write that he went to war only to kill people.
sorry, to kill people then. It still wouldn't change my despising that leader one iota.
So I hate Bush because you say I do.
I think he's a fool and I despise him.
heres your example Victor.
Good job. You got your hate.
since you took issue with it being exhibited here at all i thought you'd appreciate it being pointed out to you. you're wrong.
You made a generalization about liberals which is asinine. I think I'm in the minority here.
since you took issue with it being exhibited here at all i thought you'd appreciate it being pointed out to you. you're wrong.
Wrong about what?
Bush earned my hate. The bastard kept on pressing me.
Why don't you hate evil?
I thought it was for Oil?
Is that a question? Is that what you think?
Both
So you think Bush went to war for oil but you're not sure. Ok. Thanks. Do keep me posted on your thought process down the road. ;)
No, I put the ? so you could respond. Why play games Governor. Do you think he went to war for oil like I do , or killing people? Be specific.
Bush went to war because he thinks God told him to. He is an idiot.
While we likely will never know the real reasons for this illegal occupation, I have 3 reasons of my own"
1) To steal countless billions of dollars. (Cheney's #1 reason)
2) To brand anyone against the war as Un-American in order to gain political advantages in 2004. (Ed Gillespie's #1 reason)
3) For revenge because Saddam tried to kill H.W. Bush. (George W's #1 reason)
While we likely will never know the real reasons for this illegal occupation, I have 3 reasons of my own"
1) To steal countless billions of dollars. (Cheney's #1 reason)- I think Cheney wanted Oil, so I agree
2) To brand anyone against the war as Un-American in order to gain political advantages in 2004. (Ed Gillespie's #1 reason)- I am not 100% sold on that one.
3) For revenge because Saddam tried to kill H.W. Bush. (George W's #1 reason)- I agree that was also a major part of the illegal invasion.
Well perhaps then you can explain what you meant in your first post... that Media Matters was "continu[ing] the Hate Bush mode"?
Exactly what it meant, they are among the vast majority that Hate Bush. What is wrong with saying that?
Can you please give an example of "hate" from Media Matters or any of the so-called liberals posting here? Just one example? I'm unclear on the "hate" that you're referring to.
Then you are dense.
Ok, you can't do it. No prob.
Posted by loonz in reply to Victor Colorado
REPLY »
I think he's a fool and I despise him.
Right, both you and jamesb went on about Media Matters' "hate mode" and all you got is a post by loonz which came after all your hate hating.
So no one here "hates" Bush?
I don't pretend to know what other people think. I think Loonz hates Bush. And I'll take others who say so at their word. But if they don't express the emotion, I won't shove it down their throats based on a hunch I have.
But anytime someone on here wants to debate an issue that may go against what MMFA or Liberal posters on here are saying, you pretend to know what they think. Why the change ?
There you go again, shoving thoughts on to others.
No, you seem to do that
What did he pretend to know?
Posted by Victor Colorado
REPLY »
"There can be little debate" that the Bush administration knew of threats to fly planes into buildings weeks before 9/11.
Posted Friday January 16, 2009 9:36:29 AM EST / Flag this comment
How does Governor know that there is little debate?
I'm not "Governor" and that out of context post is based on documented evidence - not what I think or what I think other people think.
Go look it up. The Bush administration had numerous warnings of planes being used as missiles prior to 9/11.
I know they did. My point is how did governor know there is "Little Debate" ?
What freakin' point do you think you're making?
What point are you and loonz trying to make? That I love Bush ? Because I dared question this thread I am a Bush appeaser and supporter?
Hell no. I don't pretend to know what you think of Bush. My point was to gain an understanding of how you think Media Matters "Hates". That's really it.
my guess is that you say so many different conflicting things that you have a hard time remembering what they are. Caseysprings is trying to keep you straight, you need it.
What conflicting thing have I said?
Because there is "little debate".
Come on, Loonz, I pretend to know something anytime someone on here wants to debate an issue that may go against what MMFA or Liberal posters on here are saying. As long as Caseysprings thinks it, I do it.
That was after the fact.
But if Casey and jamesb posted it now would they be correct?
What am I actually hurt about? If this had substance I would think it was funny. Well it is funny, but I am not sure what I am hurt about.
I have to say MMFA is splitting hairs on this one.
Only a few dead people don't count, it has to be a lot of them. And besides when a conservative says "terrorist" he really means foreign arabs, or muslims.
"And besides when a conservative says "terrorist" he really means foreign arabs, or muslims."
I beg to differ only slightly.... I would submit to you that todays conservative see's anyone anywhere that does not conform to their crazy wacky made up reality are terrorists.... that would include progressives, liberals, atheists, free thinkers, hindu's, open-minded Christians, socialists, the highly educated, freedom loving people in other countries that want American corporations to leave them alone....
Ever watch that crummy corporate show... Worlds Amazing Video.... they have shown video of poor people rioting in Brazil or Argentina or Russia wanting their democracy back... but are defined as terrorists instead of freedom loving people...
So no.... conservatives today are the new Senator McCarthy today... seeing evil in direct sunlight... not just the shadows....
"techically"???
Five people died. That is not a techinicality. These people are no less victims of terror than the 9/11 victims. But you would like to convince their families that their deceased loved ones are mere "technicalities" by comparison, go right ahead. I'd be very interested to see their reaction.
"technically"
I'm so angry I can't type.
I meant MMFA was correct. It was an act of terrorism. But I was pointing out that it happened right after September 11. That's the technicality i was talking about.
So then some people were killed by terrorists after 9/11. Proving that MMfA made precisely the right call in mentioning the WSJ lie.
Fine. They are correct.
But even though it's the WSJ's notorius editoral staff, I can chalk it up to a mistake and not necessarily an instance of conservative misinformation. But then again who knows?
Not acceptable onionhead. Why do you Love Bush, why do you love FOX? You are a CON.
<joking of course>
They were trumpeting Bush, and it turns out they were wrong. Some mistake.
Yeah some mistake, Lacey Peterson was killed by her husband Scott Peterson in 2002. Bush's fault.
"Five people died. That is not a techinicality."
And all the civilians who have died, or will die, in Iraq are just "colateral damage"
Why?! What, do terroriosts have to be islamic? Do they have to hijack airplanes? Or Bombs? What would YOU call putting Antrx in the mail? If Ted Kaczinski was a terrorists (and he WAS) for mailing bombs, why any less so for mailing Antrax? No - it's you con's that was to hijack and change the english language so you can re-write history to fit your own little agendas.
I AM NOT A CON. PLEASE REREAD MY SENTENCE.
Yes, they were terrorist attacks. But it is an honest mistake (even if it is a piece of crap rag like the WSJ) since that happened right after. Fine, they should point things like that out. And not necessarily the advancement of conservative misinformation. I posted my opinion, we can debate. just stop with the kneejerk reactions.
Onionhead, apparently anytime there is even a small amount of disagreement with MMFA or other fellow posters, they label you as a "CON"
Different views not allowed by certain posters on here, or they try to smear you.
Try to smear you by calling you a "con"? That's a smear? Not hardly...
Proof that s/he's not I guess. My mistake.
on here it is a smear.
I'd rather be labeled a "con-artist" then a Neo-Con. They're both criminals but one is smarter than the other.
LOL. Yes they are. :)
Although they are technically correct in pointing this out, I have to say MMFA is splitting hairs on this one.
OK - my apologies on the "con" thing. My mistake. (I can admit it.) BUT - I'll keep the logic (without the invective).
What's splitting hairs here? IT was terrorism, it was after 9/11, people died, on U.S. soil. Seeing as how saying "on U.S. soil" (by the WSJ, and others) is a way to try and "split hairs" in response to the last round of criticism aimed at the whole "no terror attacks" meme... I can't see why MMFA is wrong to point out that the statement, even with all it's qualifiers, is STILL false.
At best, Bush can say "We haven't been attacked in a while." Some legacy.
I may have also kneejerked myself there. I retract my first comment.
I kneejerked myself once. Walked funny for a week.
I have to say MMFA is splitting hairs on this one.
Nope, they're not. The anthrax attacks were terrorist attacks, that still have NOT been solved. So Bush hasn't protected us.
Unless, of course, terrorist attacks only mean those g.d arabs, eh?
Would the five dead people think hair splitting if they were alive? Oh yeah, theyr'e dead!
This growing meme of discounting all the people killed on US soil by terrorists on Bush's watch, in order to assert that no one has died on his watch is completely asinine.
Governor, 5 people killed by a psycho domestic terrorist? The guy was a serial killer. Should we blame the BTK Killers actions on Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr?
You have an interesting profile of "Serial Killer" there. 1) NEVER sees his victims, or has any contact with them except through the mail. 2) Targets political opponents, and people in places of power. (In case you don't get it yet (1) is NOT typical of what we call "serial killers" and (2) pretty much identifies you as a terrorist.) Now... If you want to say that Jon Muhammed (assisted by Lee Boyd Malvo) was a serial killer (as opposed to a terrorist) go right ahead. I won't argue becuase I realize that (1) not all serial killers are white and (2) not all terrorists are muslim.
Son of Sam was a serial killer ? Or was he a terrorist? What about Jeffery Dahmer?
Both were serial killers by every reasonable definition. Neither would be considered a terrorist by hardly nay reasonable definition.
But the Son of Sam had NYC on fear in 1977.
True, for someone who lived in Queens in 1977 it was like a terrorist attack. Fearful everynight when walking around.
I agree Doris. Anyone who lived in New York, lived in terror during those times. That would make Burkowitz a terrorist. Not a political terrorist, but one none the less.
I'm not sure I agree. I know I made almost the same point earlier in the day, but doesn't by definition terrorism have to have a purpose? Now, if the point was to make people terrified, then I guess that would be terrorism, but didn't Son of Sam kill people because his neighbor's dog told him to? That doesn't seem like well thought out motive. Bill Ayers classifies as more of a terrorist than that guy.
since's Bushs watch began on 1/20/01, who is asserting that nobody has died on his watch?
No one is 3000 Americans died on 9/11
But to then say a serial killer who used Anthrax is getting silly. But of course we need to end the week with sillyness.
Since you seem to fashion yourself an expert of sorts on indentifying terrorists, please enlighten me as to the actual definition of what a terrorist is.
I guess an American serial killer is a terrorist. we can call him a domestic terrorist that is fine. I was not aware of that before. I would like someone to answer my other question, the BTK Killer in the same league and is Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan, Bush sr to blame? You seem to have all the answers, tell me.
You made the distinction, not me. Explain the difference or admit you are wrong.
If you choose the latter, please shut up.
I did not make the distinction , I asked the question.
Is a serial killer a terrorist?
Answer of grow up.
"Governor, 5 people killed by a psycho domestic terrorist? The guy was a serial killer."
You typed it, explain yourself.
Your looking for a fight. I have moved to more intellegent people like Mrs. Teufelshunde who is answered it quite well. Keep playing games Junior.
You're not your.
Learn some basic grammar and I'll get back to you.
Typos are a good way to get rid of A Holes like you.
You can find them that way sometimes, too.
True ;-)
I was in DC during the sniper attacks. That was pretty terrifying. That turned out to be Americans too, but claiming that it's not terrorism seems odd, since it certainly felt that way to all the people there.
If nothing else, Bush did what no other President in our nation's history did - presided over thousands of Americans dying in a terrorist attack on our soil. You can talk all day about how no one saw it coming, but no other President allowed it to happen either. Just bad luck for Bush? I thought Republicans took more personal responsibility than that...
You make a good point. I think what the WSJ is saying is that there were no attacks by al-Qeida, maybe they should clairify that. My point is a serial killer a Terrorist? Even the Sniper attacks thouse people are considered serial killers/thugs/Murderers?
What is the distinction?
I believe the distinction has to do with the motive behind the attack. If it's just a crazy person getting off on killing others, that's a serial killer/murderer. If it's about terrifying people into behaving in a certain way (pulling out of Saudi Arabia, bankruptcy, whatever) then it's terrorism. However, it's unpatriotic to actually investigate why we were attacked, so in the post-9/11 world, terrorism is anything that "people who don't like America do".
On another thread, some were talking about the "notes not played". Part of the horror of the DC snipers, and I'm sure the anthrax mailings as well, was that you didn't know when they would occur, so you were in a perpetual state of fear. That's terrorism.
Thanks , you make a great point on the issue of fear.
Usually the definition of "terrorism" that I see is violence or threat of violence in order to achieve a religious or political goal. My impression of this case is that it was about professional interests on the part of Dr. Ivins. I haven't followed it extensively, but if that's not accurate then I'm sure I'll be corrected. If that is the case, then I wouldn't call it "terrorism", exactly. And also, if he was acting alone, then it's difficult to imagine how it could possibly have been prevented no matter how serious we were about protecting the American people.
At one point this might have been considered "terrorism", but since the conclusions about Ivins have been reached, this seems like a stretch to expect the WSJ to take it into account.
Well, no... But none of them declared any victories in the global war on serial killers,a dn tried to frame their legacy by sighting a lack of serial killings as proof that there anti-serial-killer policies worked. If they did, then you can bet you'd see that pairing rather often.
A serial killer? You claim that the guy that supposedly sent the anthrax tainted letters was nothing more than a serial killer?
Are you stupid or something?
Those letters were sent to the top democrats that could have put an end to the passing of the Patriot Act and the usurping of power by the Bush crime family... not to mention the NBC desk and the Enquirer in Fl.
No... this was not a serial killer.... this was a part of a plot by some within the government that saw an oportunity to use even more fear so that they can scare enough of us into giving up our Constitution....
Try again clown!!
A plot within our governmnet? Don't forget the attack on the NY Post. I Guess FOX News was behind the attack?
Do you have any evidence to what you said ? Any?
The 2001 anthrax attacks involved the mailing of several letters proclaiming "Death to America... Death to Israel... Allah is Great",[19] and contaminated with anthrax, to the offices of U.S. Senators Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, as well as to the offices of ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, the New York Post, and the National Enquirer.[20][21]
Prove it was a serial killer....
Prove it was related to al qeida?
I don't understand the question. Regardless, I can prove that in the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed the FBI to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2008/08/02/2008-08-02_fbi_was_told_to_blame_anthrax_scare_on_a.html
Bush used 9/11 and the anthrax attacks to go to Iraq and kill people.
That was not my question. Was the man below a serial killer or was he a member of al -qeida? We know the white house was wrong in 2001 so why are you suggesting because they were wrong it has to now be right? Come on governor.
Bruce Edwards Ivins (April 22, 1946 – July 29, 2008)[1] was a microbiologist and vaccinologist[1] and senior biodefense researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Fort Detrick, Maryland.[2] He committed suicide prior to formal charges being filed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for an alleged connection to the 2001 anthrax attacks,[3][4] which killed five people and made 17 others ill.[5] At a news conference at the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) on August 6, 2008, FBI and DOJ officials formally announced that the Government had concluded that Ivins was likely to have been solely responsible for "the deaths of five persons, and the injury of dozens of others, resulting from the mailings of several anonymous letters to members of Congress and members of the media in September and October, 2001, which letters contained Bacillus anthracis, commonly referred to as anthrax."[6][7]
So, only Al-Queida are terrorists now?
Sheesh, maybe you ought ot offer your services to DHS or the FBI!
Did I say that? Wow you just do not read.
Yes you did.
Learn to frame your position better. That simple crap may work with your Mom over a couple bong-hits or at RedState...
You are an idiot.
Now that's a response that's totally on topic.
From now on, we'll address you in non sequitur mode, too.
be my guest
I am not "Governor".
And I am not saying anything has to be right. I am saying that I agree far more with Captfoster's take on this aprticular terrorist attack than I agree with your take.
That is fine, you can say that without the sarcastic remarks.
What the heck are you talking about?
since's Bushs watch began on 1/20/01, who is asserting that nobody has died on his watch?
150,000+ Iraqis and 4000+ servicemen and women for starters.
since's Bushs watch began on 1/20/01, who is asserting that nobody has died on his watch?
What I mean is that the only way one can assert that "Bush Protected US" is to discount all of the people killed on US soil by terrorists on Bush's watch, which is completely asinine.
Seems like Bush and his apologists are going to keep this up as long as the mouth-breathers in fly-over country cling to their irrational fear of outsiders.
Good luck with that.
...The Administration's achievement goes beyond lives saved to American confidence restored...
You gotta be kidding, Roger Ailes. Confidence restored? How'd those last 2 elections go for ya?
Correction - Rupert Murdoch, not Ailes.
Ailes works for Murdoch.
Was Sept. 11 by any chance a Monday? Did you notice that last night in his Farewell Address President Bush said he had received a national security briefing "every day," but in his FOX interview with Brit Hume, he had said, "every day but Sunday?" So who was briefed on Sundays during the George W. Bush administration, if not the president himself?
Sept 11 ,2001 was a Tuesday. he got the briefing every day. The CIA would brief him in his office everyday but Sundays.
Thanks for that. I am pretty certain Hurricane Katrina hit on a Monday, so I thought maybe I was onto something there, that perhaps for religious reasons Mr. Bush had avoided being personally briefed on Sundays. (So I guess he is not so nutso, after all.) [:)]
Much bigger and better attempts to deceive than the ones outlined in the headline:
Al Qaeda was flushed from safe havens in Afghanistan
For a brief period of time, during which they regrouped in areas of Pakistan before returning to become an even stronger force in Afghanistan.
then Iraq,
An entirely new group of terrorists inspired by AQ formed their own chapter, independent of AQ. This is not progress, it is the exact opposite.
All subsequent terror attacks hit soft targets and used primitive means.
Exactly like the 9/11 attack. And there may have been an attack or two that happened in places not the USA that demonstrated that AQ and other terrorist factions have not exactly been put to rest nor have they been stoppped.
But the article is completely true in that, if you ignore all the ways in which Bush's terror policy has failed, it has been a smashing success. Not to say that there have not been successes, but they are greatly exaggerated in scale and import by those who want to pretend that Bush was a great leader in any way.
Ted Kazinski was a terrorist, so was Timothy McVeigh. But they can also be considered serial killers especially ones that do it at different times, in the case of the unabomber and the Anthrax Killer.
McVeigh was a mass murderer, killing many people with one act. A serial killer is someone who kills three or more people in multiple acts, I believe.
Actually, a serial killer is considered:
Someone who murders more than three victims one at a time in a relatively short interval
True, so Ivins could be considered both?
If Ivins actually did it you mean. The FBI's proof was somewhat, well, lacking.
How is reporting on how the media props up this corrupt administration hating Bush. I call it saving the country.
The majority of Americans don't like this President, lets be honest.
You meant to say, "The VAST majority of Americans don't like this President, let's be honest."
Yeah, what are all those D.A.'s and U.S. Attorneys doing, wasting their time by looking backward at crimes that have been committed and trying to make sure the perpetrators are brought to justice?
Bunch of haters.
That is different, any crime during the Bush Administrations reign that may have been done including torture and war crimes hould be looked into and investigated.
I'm glad you feel that way, but accusing MMFA of "Hating" when they are correcting the record makes you look like an apologist.
The WSJ got it wrong, MMFA pointed that out, and YOU are the one doing the hating.
How am I doing any hating?
Calling people idiots is a pretty good start.
Calling someone an idiot is hate? Wow thin skin.
What??? You think Media Matters "hates" when it points out a false statement regarding Bush.
How do you make a counrty safe from terrorists? How do you define a terrorist,or a terrorpst act?
Eight years plus after 9/11, and these questions have no consensis, or clear and effective anwers. As proof, the last time I checked the pevious thread on the subject was up to 111 posts and this one shows signs of growing as big.
I'd think effective leadership would have answered or intensly studied at least one of the questions and intensly evaluated the sucess of these actions and kept us informed of all of this.
We have in fact studied it and a couple of commisions have issued useful reports on it. The administration then pretty much ignored them and thier recomendations.
This is not solving the very important and lethal problem that terrorism is. this administration's sucess here is in politsizing it. It makes a wonderful political wedge issue.
As others have already said better than I can, this is just more Bush "moving the goal posts". The goal after 9/11 was not just to avoid getting hit by another major attack. The goal was supposedly to get Osama Bin Laden "dead or alive". The goal was to completely disrupt the Al Qaeda network's abilitity to train operatives and carry out an attack. The goal was to secure the Afghan/Pakistan border area where the Al Qaeda network trained. The goal was to bring the full force of US might against Al Qaeda and eliminate them.
That goal has failed at almost every level. Bin Laden is still making tapes mocking us, and lives in freedom. The area of the Afghan/Pakistan border is as lawless as it was when we sent our troops in. The Al Qaeda network is not only actively planning/carrying out attacks, but intelligence estimates say they have GROWN since 9/11. We have not destroyed their funding network. We have not disrupted their ability to communicate their message.
A secondary goal of the "War on Terror" was to completely isolate terrorist groups. The goal was to turn more and more world opinion away from them and towards America and freedom/democracy. That secondary goal, for the most part, has also failed. We are far MORE hated worldwide than before 9/11. The Muslim world hates us more than ever, and their leaders openly oppose us (even our "allies" in places like Pakistan and Iraq).
So faced with this absolute failure, the Bush administration again chooses to spin. They again "moved the goal posts". They now want us to believe success is measured in simply not having another 9/11 attack, and not measured by destroying/weakening/isolating the enemies that attacked us.
Rupert sure is getting his money's worth from the WSJ.
If there is one talking point I am thoroughly sick to death of, it's the constant bleating of "we haven't been attacked since 9/11, and that's no accident/we have Bush to thank for it/this proves Bush's strategy worked" on Washington Journal, Right Wing Radio, etc. etc. etc. It's like a fricking mantra, which along with "The New Deal didn't help end the Depression" is being beaten into our subconscious by idiot drones who desperately want to pretend that Bush's presidency started on September 12, 2001.
Bush was President during the most disasterous failure to defend America's borders since the War of 1812. Now he and his minions want the Bush White House to get credit for - what? Not overseeing ANOTHER disasterous failure? We were attacked by terrorists in February, 1993. Bill Clinton, President for about a month at the time, didn't react by subverting the Constitution or invading a nation which had nothing to do with the attack- he went after the culprits and caught them. Where's the praise of Clinton from Right Wing yakkers?
Bush's apologists sound like parents who proudly proclaim that it's been this many days since their son has snorted crack-- big fricking deal. You aren't supposed to snort crack. Your son doesn't deserve a medal for no longer doing what he shouldn't have done in the first place. And Bush doesn't deserve a medal for not failing spectacularly TWICE.
I tend to agree. This talking point is designed to distract us from the fact that President Numbnuts started an unnecessary war with a country that DID NOT ATTACK US. Have you noticed? That troubling little fact doesn't seem to find its way into the conversation on the Cable Talk shows.
If Iraq is discussed at all, the Numbnuts apologists immediately divert the conversation to the Surge. Never mind that we should never have been there to begin with.... Numbnuts expects a pat on the back because General Petraeus managed to prevent the NeoCon boondoggle from turning into an absolute disaster. It still doesn't mean that occupying Iraq was a good idea.
I know this is slightly off topic, but I think one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. During the Reagan years,he funded and carried out an illegal war against a democratically elected government in Nicaraugua. The force was called the "contras" remember them ,they sabatoged infrastructe, destroyed crops, kidnapped and killed leaders and civilians and were called by Reagan as the modern day equivalent of our "minuteman", were they "terrorist?" We invaded a soveriegn nation against international law and engaged in "shock and awe" killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's,displacing millions and inflicting pain in suffering that will be felt for decades. Did our government engage in terrorism??? We have admitted and even bragged that we now torture: Is torture terrorism?? When doctors and staff at women's clinics are subjected to bombings,killings,and harrassment at home and at work in a myriad of ways is that terrorism? What we saw on Thursday night was a pathetic man(GWB)weakly attempting to rationalize his mistakes, the absense of attacks is not the presence of safety, and Bush's policies I feel have made the world less stable, this crazy policy of shoot first ask questions later, and the ends justify the means has destroyed the foundation established after the two great wars of the last century that resulted in the Geneva Convention and other international laws governing relations between nations. The breakdown of these policies and laws has not made us or the world safer but has brought us to the brink of disaster with just 1 false move anywhere in the world. This trend didn't start with Bush but he jammed his foot on the gas, and cannot leave the political stage fast enough.
It's no wonder. In your mind you create a false moral equiviency between Al Queda terrorists, Saddam Hussein, Nicarauguan Contras, abortion Clinic bombers and the United States Government.
The Geneva Conventions apply to countries, not terrorist groups. If you think so, please show me where bin Laden agreed to abide by them.
Nothing is ever said about the terrorism that the Sandinista's engaged in when overtrhowing the Somoza dictatorship. Nor is anything said about the killings, detention, and dissapearances of political enemies. Nothing is said of the influence Cuba had, nor the extent that the KGB infiltrated the Sandinistas. Nothing is ever said of the exporting of communist revolution that was going on at the time in Central and South America.
Is the United States perfect? No. But in no way is it's actions any where near equivilent to the terrorists and dictators you compared it to.
You are already seeing that Obama has figured out that the anti-Bush campaign rhetoric he used to rev up antagonism against Bush and the policies of the U.S. was only that. He has flip-flopped on a number of his campaign promises regarding national security. You'll see a lot more, (but it won't be characterized that way by the fawning, mainstream press,) as his team assumes office.
I'll enjoy watching and pointing out the double-speak as those who engaged in ritual Bush bashing defend the same policies of Bush when Obama takes over.
In your mind you create a false moral equiviency between Al Queda terrorists, Saddam Hussein...
No, that would be Shrub and the idiots at Fox News.
Terrorism is terrorism, no matter who does it to whom. And when you're the most powerful country on earth, it's a whole lot easier to shield your own brand of terrorism especially when you have lapdogs like yourself believing at face value everything your fearless leader says.
So because a terrorist (who we all agree is a bad person, or a bad group, or is a bad whatever) doesn't agree to "play by the rules", meaning, the Geneva Convention, that means that we shouldn't either? Wrong.
We are better than they are, which is exactly WHY we need to play by the rules, even when others aren't. Why should we give up our freedoms because we had an attack carried out on our soil? We shouldn't. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I would rather die in a horrible terrorist attack than give up one single moment of my Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.
I'm sure that you feel different. You seem to want to feel safe, even if it means your rights being taken away.
Barney, in your third paragraph, you list several things that were never mentioned. Sorry, those were the primary stories in most of the media at the time. Do you just go to a wingnut reference site that provides contra-reality talking points?
What we did not hear very much about was our own countries military and economic experiments that were going on at the time, and have been going on for decades in Latin America, as well as other places around the world.
By singling out that paragraph, I don't mean to imply that the other paragraphs were any less silly, that one just sounded like something you Googled on the spot.
Col., Loonz,Old B.,Snoop,Mag: What AA has done is swallowed the undigested worms of thought fed to him by Faux News and big-bird Charles Krauthammer and like a faithful ditto-bott hatchling is now regurgitating them(ugh!). I was watching a little Faux today and caught a segment with Krauthammer saying this:"The very continuation by Democrats of Bush's policies will be grudging,if silent , acknowledgement of how much he got it right..." This is really weird since they haven't said which policies!?!?? The attorney general designee has said "waterboarding" is torture!! The use of torture at GITMO has complicated the prosecution of bad men there, but the move to give them their day in court proceeds, and the closure of GITMO is imminent. In Iraq military leaders are preparing for withdrawal,and the prosecution of Bush officials in the Justice Department is still on the table as is charges against Bush/Cheney themselves. The cronism that saw Bush's corporate and energy friends gouging themselves at the public troth and sabatoging long standing environmental, worker, and food safety standards will not be tolerated. It's really amusing to listen to these "authoritarians" scrambling to rectify the many contradicting thoughts in their heads----"He's a Muslim that attended a christian church for over 20yrs, he's a socialist but he follows Bush!??!? He's a black radical but he's not black .???Blah,blah,blah!!!! What is not so funny though is how the people who continually and consistently gotten it wrong form Iraq to who would win the election to the economy , I'am speaking of those like Kristol, Will, C. Krauthammer,Limbaugh now feel they have some creditability???But they got a witness...enter AA ta-dah!?!?
Everyone has a status under the Geneva conventions and are subject to humane treatment by the country that has confined them. If not, they can be charged with war crimes.
I would say Bush's actions are comparable.
I can only think of one - telecom immunity. What are the rest?
Nothing is ever said about the terrorism that the Sandinista's engaged in when overtrhowing the Somoza dictatorship. AA
So, they should have just remained under a dictatorship propped up by the US?
I guess you would like this guy Luis Posada Carriles to face a trial for his alleged crimes? Yet the US has given him safe haven. Or what about the Israeli terrorists from the 50's that became politicians when Israel was created? As stated, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
Have you actually read the geneva conventions? Here's the cliff notes version you seem to have skipped over:
Common Article 3
Article 3 has been called a "Convention in miniature." It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[2]
It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory's territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3's protections exist even though no one is classified as a prisoner of war.
Here's some more bush revisionist history for ya. Got this off of raw story...
To arrive at his figure of 10 million lives, Frist points to Bush's request in his 2003 State of the Union Address for $15 billion to fight AIDS in the world's poorest nations. "Those words and the action that followed meant that instead of another 30 million people dying from HIV infections, maybe just another 20 million will," Frist writes.
Get that word "probably"? They don't really know, they're just guessing.
I wonder how the medical diagnosis business via video link is going for ol' Bill.
Ugh. Many bits upthread divert into some strange territory trying to make some sort of definition of "terrorism" that includes any sort of crime, violent act, or mass killing that is meant to cause fear in the populace. What is missing from that thought is the political motivations of the actors. Terrorists wish to achieve a political goal of some sort. The unabomber and Al-Qaeda are terrorists because they have a political goal that they think will be progressed by their acts of terrorism. (Mass rebellion against the machine for Kaczynski, US withdrawal from the Middle East for AQ.) BTK and the highway sniper on the other hand just liked killing people and spreading fear and chaos.
Political assassins are not terrorists because their goal is politcal change through the removal of a key figure, not through a campaign of fear, though they are often aligned with terrorist groups with the same or similar goals.
Serial killers and mass murderers usually act out of egotistic or psychopathic motivations. The terror they inflict is the goal they are striving for, not some larger end purpose.
Criminal organizations may use bombings, ambush killings and terroristic tactics as a means to protect themselves from prosecution but usually not for any particular political goal.
The terrorist wants to spread fear, damage perceived enemies AND move towards a political goal.
Again----
Bush wasn't hired to defend America from attacks for seven years and five months. He was hired to defend America from attacks for eight years. The idea that he deserves praise for failing miserably to protect us from the attacks of September 11, 2001- which took place nine days short of NINE MONTHS into his Presidency- is just beyond bizarre.
Looks like you're in Hate Bush mode JJamelle. Otherwise known as reality.
This basically ignores all domeestic trerroism.
The DC Sniper, Lucas Helder (Smiley face pipe bomber). There have been more. They might even want to count the churches burned, synagogues attacked and many sikhs killed after 911 and other events.
What about the airline workers in LAX?
I'm sorry, they weren't Americans, they were just on American soil. Doesn't count.
There was the act of terrorism that killed one in San Francisco in 2006 by an Afghani.
"[n]ot a single man, woman or child has been killed by terrorists on U.S. soil since the morning of September 11."
And how many were killed by terrorists on U.S. soil in the eight years BEFORE 9/1?
Lets not forget, sadly, other attacks on US facilities after 9-11-2001 - considered US soil"
India - January 2002 - Armed militants on motorcycles fire on the US consulate in Kolkata, killing five Indian security personnel.
Pakistan - June 2002 - A bomb explodes outside American consulate in Karachi, killing 12.
Uzbekistan - July 2004 - A Uzbekistan, a suicide bomber detonates explosives at the US embassy in Tashkent, killing two Uzbek security guards.
Saudi Arabia - December 2004 - Militants storm the US consulate compound in the Red Sea city of Jeddah on December 6, killing five non-American consular staff. Four of the five attackers die in the attack and a fifth is wounded and arrested.
Pakistan - March 2006 - A car bomb outside the US consulate in Karachi kills four people, including an American foreign service officer.
I am waiting for some intelligent being to deflate this strawman argument. "Bush has kept us safe since 9/11". Who was supposed to keep us safe PRIOR to 9/11? Who was given a PDB citing Ben laden Planning to Attack US? This is like the arsonist who has burned down most of your barn taking credit for saving the back half of the building. Is there no intelligence in today's media? Each journalist that has bought this phony story should be required to return to Journalism school and explain to their old professors why they did not respond to this.