Quick Fact: On CNN, Matalin falsely claims "Bush inherited" 9-11 attacks and recession
On the December 27 edition of CNN's State of the Union, Mary Matalin falsely claimed that President George W. Bush "inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." In fact the 9-11 attacks occurred eight months into Bush's presidency and more than a month after he had received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and the recession began in March 2001.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
From the December 27 edition of CNN's State of the Union:
MATALIN: I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton, and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history.
Matalin's comments were documented by Think Progress.
Fact: 9-11 attacks occurred 8 months into Bush presidency, after Bush had received memo warning of Al Qaeda's intent to attack
Attacks came eight months after Bush inauguration and more than a month after he had received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." President George W. Bush was inaugurated on January 20, 2001, eight months before the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks killed 2,973 victims in New York City; Arlington, Virginia; and Shanksville, Pennsylvania. The 9-11 Commission stated that on August 6, 2001, Bush received a Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.," and that Bush "did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether [then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza] Rice had done so." The Commission also "found no indication" that Bush's aides further discussed with him "the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States" prior to 9-11 -- this despite the fact that "[m]ost of the intelligence community recognized in the summer of 2001 that the number and severity of threat reports were unprecedented."
Perino previously stated that "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term." Matalin's claim about the 9-11 attacks follows former Bush White House Press Secretary Dana Perino's false assertion on the November 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity that "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."
Fact:
According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, recession began in March 2001 during Bush presidency
NBER determined that recession started exactly 10 years after expansion that began in March 1991, "the longest in the NBER's chronology." In March 2001, the U.S. economy went into recession for the first time in 10 years, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). NBER -- the private, nonpartisan organization whose business cycle announcements have long been considered the definitive word on the topic -- announced its determination on November 26, 2001:
The NBER's Business Cycle Dating Committee has determined that a peak in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in March 2001. A peak marks the end of an expansion and the beginning of a recession. The determination of a peak date in March is thus a determination that the expansion that began in March 1991 ended in March 2001 and a recession began. The expansion lasted exactly 10 years, the longest in the NBER's chronology.
A guy was lying, and was trying to distract from the fact that he was about to be nailed for his crimes, and so he made a personal attack on another person, saying that they couldn't handle hearing the truth - anything to distract from his sins.
Figure out what the setting was, and then get back to us.
The liar had been lying. Once the truth was about to be uncovered, and the liar was about to be held accountable for the behavior he had been lying about, he acted like many trolls here act, and made a personal attack on the questioner, and claimed that they were incapable of accepting the truth, which was ludricrous. His "justification" of his actions didn't hold water. He was the one who couldn't handle the truth. His accusation against his interrogator was bogus and a shield against accepting responsibility for his crime and his conspiracy!
You're a dunce who failed to remember the circumstances under which that statement was made, and no amount of arguing now will erase the posts you've already made - the written history is undeniable.
You mean like you've been doing to me this entire time? Yeah, I know what the setting was. And, apparently, it still fits.
What a tool you are...
That's the problem with anyone who is so into their ideology to the exclusion of everything else, facts become irrelevant.
Please.
Please don't feed this troll anymore.
How much are they paying you to post your nonsense here? Is it by the word? Or is it just a flat fee?
Look, I've been practicing;
"With the Liberal Media distorting everything, we can be sure that Bush really did inherit all the bad stuff that happened..."
Do you think your employers would pay me to write stuff like this, just like they are paying you???
and this differs from Neocons how?
Obama adds $1 trillion to the deficit and unemployment rises nearly 50 percent in his first nine months but he inherited it all from Bush and those terrible "last eight years"
But the "Clinton" recession starts in March 2001 -- 5 weeks into Bush's term and it's all Bush's fault.
Of course the dot-com bust began in Spring of 2000 and the Bush-Gore campaign had plenty of talk of slowing economic growth and higher unemployment.
And we've been hearing about Bush all this month from a whiney Obama and yet a terrorist attack less than 8 months into Bush's term is all his fault too.
Democrat = HYPOCRITE
By the way, not once did the Bush Adm. ever try to blame Clinton for 9/11.
I'm sure if that jet blew up on Christmas, Obama would have been blaming Bush by now.
Unemployment was at 4.9% in January 2008, and at 7.2% in December.
I'm sure Cheney just forgot to mention it.
And what changed that? What could have POSSIBLY changed that? Couldn't have ANYTHING to do with a Democrat congress writing the budgets, could it?
Bill Clinton's economy didn't have ANYTHING to do with the fact that Newt Gingrich wrote the budget he signed, did it?
Naaaaaaaw. Crazy talk.
Make up your mind. Are you going to blame previous administrations, or are you going to score it from Day One in office. You don't get it both ways.
Either way, you lose.
And when the wave of Yemeni terrorism hits us, what will be your excuse then? Your guy has been in office over a year. Your guy has been told the attacks are coming. What's your excuse going to be then? When everything Dick Cheney said comes to pass, what's your excuse going to be?
Obama's been in office a whole YEAR and hasn't captured Bin Laden? What's with that? What are you going to say when it's been FOUR years and he hasn't captured bin Laden, you flaming hypocrites?
Are you working on your weaseling yet? Because it's all boomeranging back on you. It's a cut and paste medium kids. It's aaaaaaall boomeranging right back on you.
Now it's 10%. It got up as high as 10.2%.
That's not anywhere close to a 50% increase. It's about half of that, or a 25% increase. It would have been 1.5-2% higher had they not had the financial stimulus package.
Your other sockpuppet screen name said "nearly 50%", but it's nothing close to that.
And there's no indication that it's going that high either.
Boy, there is a Sue-ism that takes us all back. It's good you are finally outing yourself, like that honesty Sue.
And one poster answering the question posed to another one, knowing that he meant that the original poster meant that unemployment had gone up by "nearly 50%" since December? How is that possible if it's not a sockpuppet?
And I saw where Mary called you out for not only being Tommy but also using James D as a sockpuppet name too. It's illegitimate to post under multiple names, rating up one's friends posts, echoing one's own points - or doesn't even the pretense of being honest appeal to you, RightON?
The President who actually saw a more than 50% increase in unemployment in 1 year? That'd be Bush, not Obama. But because you don't want us talking about that fact, you make an unfounded personal attack against me!
Bush January 2008, 4.9%. Bush January 2009, 7.6%. More than a 50% increase. Obama 10 month January, 2009 7.6%, November, 2009 10.2%. Less than a 50% increase.
1/3-1/4=8.33%.
1/2-1/3=16.66%
You're off by about fifty percent. If someone wants to argue that it's a third and not a quarter, fine, but the "around 50%" line is pure nonsense.
Simple math is 7.6% + 3.8%(1/2 of 7.6%) = 11.4%
Actual numbers for a 10 month 'year' = less than a 50% increase, much less.
And guess what the difference is between 8.1% and 10.2% is? Yeah, that's right, it's very close to 25%.
you do the math---which is better? .4% in 20 days or .5% in 10 days?
but, since you're going to use the month after obama took over, then we can safely use the month before, the rate in december was 7.2% (half of 7.2 is 3.6), (half of 3.6 is 1.8) add 1.8% to 7.2% you get 9%. which equates to "nearly" getting a 50% increase in the unemployment rate. which was what cheney2012 said in the first place.
do you have any comment on the $1 trillion aspect of his comment on the economy? no? ... didn't think so, you just want to parse numbers to distract from the fact that obama is running this nation into the ground. and, people like you, seem to prefer that over anything else. that's why democrats will only have a 2 year rule over our nations governing.
actually, we probably should use november, since that is when he was elected and ALL business's knew he was taking over and what his ideas were. the unemployment rate in november was 6.8% (just 2 months later obama has it at 8.1%--as pointed out by dd) that's a 1.3% increase in unemployment just while KNOWING obama will be in control. he increased it that much again after just 3 months of actually being in control.
the unemployment rate for bush's first year went up 1.5% (not higher than 5.7%)(only 17 times of 96 months was the unemployement rate higher than at the end of bush's first year)(only twice higher than 6.3%--both months people knew obama would be president), obama's first year it went up 3.0%, and, if you look closely, the current unemployment rate is "nearly" double any given month's rate under bush (58 of the 96 months bush was in control). while under obama EVERY month has been over 7% and MOST over 9%. however NO month was over 7% under bush. and you're whining that bushies say they inherited a recession from clinton? I think you should be whining about how obama is ruining this country financially/socially/militarily.
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LNS14000000
*crickets*
Can you at least try without calling the poster stupid or crazy, or is that just part of all y'all libs' DNA?
By the way, don't you think it is long past time to end the talk about the failures of the Bush (43) administration, and concentrate on what this administration and Congress are doing - and how certain talk radio and television hosts or guests (or both) are distoring it?
Bush was a 'victim' of timing WRT the recession.
Bush has plenty of responsibility WRT 9/11. Clinton tried to tell Bush that terrorism had to be his #1 priority, yet Bush didn't make it a priority at all!!! And that's all on Bush's head.
The problem is NOT that MMFA says that Bush is 100% responsible for these things happening. That's a strawman argument intended to derail the thread.
The problem is that Mary Matalin said that Clinton, the previous President, was responsible for them by saying that Bush "inherited" the problems!
And yes, lots of Republicans have tried to blame Clinton for 9/11. For not treating terrorism like a global war, for not going after the USS Cole bombers, and for not grabbing Bin Laden 'when Clinton had the chance'. Of course, none of those accusations hold water, but they were still made multiple times by proxies for the Bush Administration. For you to claim that the Bush Admin never tried to blame Clinton is beyond ridiculous, and Mary Matalin did EXACTLY that on Sunday morning!
But you can't argue with facts, and you can't twist and turn the facts I provided into opinions by simply calling them opinions. And almost everything I posted above is a fact, and not an opinion.
"Neither problem was the result of anything that Clinton did wrong" - WRONG; opinion, not fact.
"yet Bush didn't make it a priority at all!!!" - WRONG; opinion, not fact.
See, you won't be able to do that. Because I specifically SAID that almost everything I said was a fact.
But it IS a fact that Bush didn't make terrorism a priority. He was given info from Clinton - a blueprint on upgraded and newly evolved plans to fight terrorism, and Bush threw them away. Bush demoted the main person in his administration who was involved with terrorism - Richard Clarke. Bush ignored and pooh-poohed dire warnings during the summer. Bush's principals didn't schedule a meeting of the principals for the first 9 months he was in office dealing with terrorism. There is a ton of factual information that backs up my assertion that Bush didn't make fighting terrorism a priority!
And economists across the board will tell you that our economy has natural cycles of growth and contraction and recession, and since we had had an unprecedented period of growth before Bush got into office, there was bound to be a recession sooner rather than later. But that doesn't mean that Clinton did anything WRONG that caused the recession to come after an unprecendent length of time for growth. In fact, the natural argument would be that Clinton did things RIGHT, and that's what led to the lengthy period of growth.
But in any case, I didn't claim, as you stupidly allege, that everything I said was a fact. What a dunce you are that you can't read a simple comment that I made and understand it, and continue displaying your personal animus towards me! And it's clear that you are consumed by that personal animus - so consumed that you can't even read my comment that never said that everything was a fact!!!
What is the matter with the neocons around here? Why can't they present a single intelligible point of their own? The four of them together have provided no actual points against anything DellDolly said, much less in defense of Mary Matalin (remember the actual topic?). The only logical result one can glean is that they are utterly incapable of doing so.
I already know that the very best affirmation I can get on this sight is silence because many of you are blinded by partisanship
If you don't know this, then you're too uneducated to discuss this topic. It was only 9 years ago. And like someone else posted here recently, you rightwingers seem incredibly challenged when it comes to using "the Google".
Here's one news story from 2004.
Senior Clinton administration officials called to testify next week before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks say they are prepared to detail how they repeatedly warned their Bush administration counterparts in late 2000 that Al Qaeda posed the worst security threat facing the nation - and how the new administration was slow to act.
They said the warnings were delivered in urgent post-election intelligence briefings in December 2000 and January 2001 for Condoleezza Rice, who became Mr. Bush's national security adviser; Stephen Hadley, now Ms. Rice's deputy; and Philip D. Zelikow, a member of the Bush transition team, among others.
One official scheduled to testify, Richard A. Clarke, who was President Bill Clinton's counterterrorism coordinator, said in an interview that the warning about the Qaeda threat could not have been made more bluntly to the incoming Bush officials in intelligence briefings that he led.
At the time of the briefings, there was extensive evidence tying Al Qaeda to the bombing in Yemen two months earlier of an American warship, the Cole, in which 17 sailors were killed.
"It was very explicit," Mr. Clarke said of the warning given to the Bush administration officials. "Rice was briefed, and Hadley was briefed, and Zelikow sat in." Mr. Clarke served as Mr. Bush's counterterrorism chief in the early months of the administration, but after Sept. 11 was given a more limited portfolio as the president's cyberterrorism adviser.
Well, because they aren't actually interested in having a fair debate on the subject, that's why!
fact is you are arguing post hoc ergo procter hoc that since the attack happened and congress did a book that you know the mind of a president...and that you know what should have been done
Maybe an attempt to get the different security services to coordinate information.
Maybe warning the public to be wary of unusual situations (although that might have been labeled "fearmongering" that never stop the Bush Administration when it served their purposes).
Even a little of this, although it might not have stoppped the September 2001 attacks, could have lessened the damage and at the same time provided the impetus to rethink our counterterrorism strategy.
Instead the Bush Administration did nothing and then felt compelled to go overboard in the aftermath. Invasions, civil rights abuses, alientation of allies, etc.
But I wasn't talking about whether or not he could have stopped it. Ever.
Clueless person that you are, you didn't understand that very simple point I was making here and elsewhere!
What I said here and elsewhere in comments under this MMFA article is that Bush didn't make terrorism the priority it should have been. That's a fact, not an opinion.
I don't agree with that. Unless you consider the housing market collapse resulting from the banking industry collapse to be non-factors in the recession. Clinton economic plans and rules directly caused both of those events to happen. So, yes Bush inherited the economic half considering the laws Clinton created regarding housing/banking were naturally flawed and bound to fail. He knew it wouldn't fail during his own adm because of the time it would take to fully blossom into the financial failure it was.
dd- For you to claim that the Bush Admin never tried to blame Clinton is beyond ridiculous, and Mary Matalin did EXACTLY that on Sunday morning!
Do you have evidence of the Bush adm blaming Clinton for Bin Laden continued attacks on the US (even after Clinton had several chances to kill/capture him)?? Is Mary Matalin part of the Bush adm, now?
There's no justification for blaming Clinton. The factors that led to the housing/banking collapse were deregulatory in nature and favored by conservatives. If there had been a real problem from Clinton that conservatives wanted to fix, they had the total control of the federal government necessary to make their fixes for most of the decade before the collapse and significant influence in Congress and the courts for years before that. The fact is that they didn't fix anything because they and their supporters in banking and real estate liked things the way they were.
I keep hearing that we need LESS regulation and that will solve the whole recession.
You aren't trying to tell me they really don't know what they are talking about, are you?
Mary Matalin will always be a 'Bushie'!!
Mary still worships at 'The Dick Cheeeney Altar' . .
Mary Matalin formerly served as assistant to President George W. Bush and counselor to Vice President Dick Cheney, and was the first White House official to hold that double title.
I'd say that she was a member of the Bush Adminstration, without any doubt.
Even Orrin Hatch said the other day, "It was standard practice not to pay for things". He was referring to the Republican controlled Congress
Here is a good primer on the subject: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90327686
To enforce the statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or acquisitions." This was from wikipedia's description of the CRA.
"The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation.
I have not yet seen a good argument that the CRA had much to do with the meltdown. It is pretty much just another GOP baseless talking point.
MMfA has a pretty good rebuttal here, but there are many others around.
Calling the collapse a policy blunder across a half-century and "both parties" looks like a really clumsy deflection from the facts.
And do not forget to throw in Barney Frank for good measure. Keeps the homophobic bigots riled up.
Uh... Presidents don't create laws. Congress makes laws and the president can only sign them into law or veto them. The laws are "created" by the Houses of Congress. (Health Care?....Hello!!!)
And Clinton had a Repug Congress.... so blame them.
Really, learn how your government works!
I suppose Clinton coulda vetoed everything that wasn't perfect and to his liking, but being a Dem (and hounded and persecuted ad nauseum) he tried to get along and knows that when everyone participates, you get "better government". Like Obama has tried to do. But of course Repugs then and today do not want to participate. They only want to dominate. The GOP is not interested in good government or the welfare of this country.
And they obviously will just simply lie (and call it a "different opinion") to cover their utter failures and blame others. Petty obstructionists.
Of course there were bad housing policies adopted in the late-90s that have come back to haunt us but most of the bad housing loans were not made to the poor or minorities. Most of the loans went to the middle and upper middle class who were permitted to lie loan applications. This lying was the direct result of the loosening of the credit markets by the Republican Congress in the late 90s (and sponsered by Phil Gramm - R-Texas) - see Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act. When will the Republicans and right wingers stop blaming this on the poor?
More responsibility lies with airlines and aircraft manufacturers for not providing solid separation between pilot and cabin.
What? No, they wouldn't! The airlines had no obligation to let the men on the plane for one thing. If you read the 9/11 Commission report, you see that all (or almost all?) of the hijackers were either on a watchlist or exhibited fishy behavior. If Bush had bothered to warn the airlines that there was an extremely high probability of some terrorist activity (which they absolutely knew), I bet at least some of the hijackers would not have been allowed to board.
You seem determined to find that there was nothing we could have done given the state of the law pre-9/11. I think that's ridiculous too. You say you've read the report - then you know how much we were able to know without any of these fancy new Patriotic Act provisions, like warrantless wiretapping.
Even if im wrong about legality, reasonable doubt is raised by saying it is a research project, even up to the moment they crossed security. Was a box cutter considered a weapon in 2001?
You are completely wrong. Conspiracy is a separate and distinct criminal offense, even if the crime takes place. Intent is required. No illegal act is required. In fact, in most places, there is not even the requirement for an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Any chance that the actual facts might change your mind about our ability to have stopped 9/11 or are you going to cling to your opinion even when based on provably incorrect assumptions?
I would have said math challenged, but it's not math, it's simple arithmetic.
"By the way, not once did the Bush Adm. ever try to blame Clinton for 9/11.
Huh? You right wing blowhards would say things like, 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Clinton had gone after the USS Cole bombers, would have done something more after the first WTC bombing in 1993, etc.
Before you start saying something like, "Well he didn't do anything about the USS Cole bombers". Remember it wasn't determined until Bush was in office who actually did it. As to the WTC bombing, the perpetrators were all tried and all convicted and are sitting in jail.
Saying the right wing didn't try and blame Clinton, has to be one of the dumber things a right wing blowhard has said here for quite awhile.
Saying the "rightwing blowhards" are part of the Bush adm is pretty dumb too. It doesn't take a rocket scientist's mind to figure out that; thinking half the general population belongs to a presidential administration is being a bit tweeked. Mmfa claims the Bush administration blamed Clinton. Do you have any comments or evidence of THAT happening?
Also if you don't think the "right wing blowhards" weren't using talking points out of the administration you're living on a different planet than I am.
Of course, he seems to be in the crowd that believes all of the "right wing blowhards" on tv and radio are just independent thinkers, and not the propaganda arm of the GOP.I don't think it 's necessary to cite somebody actually in the administration, but you have to handicap the nutters sometimes.
Now I have to admit I didn't google Bush blames Clinton. I went for the number one nut case in the Bush administration. I googled Cheney blames Clinton.
That is, when they're not posting links that say the exact opposite of the point they're trying to make.
I have consistently observed that the same item, when Fox News or WSJ ends up with the title, has a misleading title.
As an example, while I am typing this post,
there are 296 posts on detainees returning to Yemen.
FoxNews got on top of the links and one gets to see only it's item title. It says 'Obama Under Pressure to Prevent Yemeni Detainees From Returning Home". When I go to see all 296 articles, their titles range from 'US widens war on terror to Yemen', 'Yemeni Groups Increased Aviation Threats', 'News Wrap: Yemen Vows to Step Up Hunt for al-Qaida' etc.
Bottomline, if you repeat something (even a lie) enough times, it gains traction.
Thanks for the link, rwmcdonald. We need reminding how full of nonsense Cheney was on occasion. Here's a snippet from your link.
He blamed the Clinton and Reagan administrations for teaching terrorists that "they could strike us with relative impunity" and that "if they hit us hard enough, they could change our policy." Mr. Cheney cited the attack on United States Marines barracks in Beirut in 1983, in the first Reagan term, along with the 1993 killings of American soldiers in Somalia, a 1996 truck bombing at a housing complex in Saudi Arabia where many Americans lived, the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa and the attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000.
Who changed the policy of America? The Bush Administration, that's who. They made us more afraid than we should have been in order to instill fear for politically-expedient purposes. Who changed the rules so that the USA became a country that held suspects illegally and tortured suspected terrorists? They did.
And if the Bush Administration had issues with Clinton not addressing the USS Cole bombing and the US Embassy bombings, why didn't they themselves do anything about the perpetrators of those attacks during the months between their inauguration and 9/11? His argument falls apart when you give it more than a cursory glance. Too bad his supporters didn't do that.
dd, how is saying terrorists learn from their actions the same as "inheriting 9/11"? What's wrong with changing policy? Apparantly it wasn't working under Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton. The last I read no more buildings have collapsed. The only terrorist attacks in America have been called 'individual actions' by liberals of America. So, I'm not sure they would count as terrorist acts by your own descriptions. Thank you Bush for keeping America safe!
Typical troll double speak!!! If I'm not mistaken, no building collapsed prior to Bush either. Your argument is assinine at best!
Seriously! That was just ridiculous - like buildings constantly collapsed under previous presidents?? Some people just can't seem to accept that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.
Chaney 2012. Learn business cycles before you run off your mouth and place blame. Let's place the real blame where it needs to go. The Republicans took control of Congress in 1994. Once they took control they began to dismantle the financial sector under Clinton. They DEREGULATED the banking industry. Once Bush came in office he created a bubble with help from a Republican controlled Congress, and brought a recession for Obama to fix. Once Obama is out of office we will see how the economy will go, but for right now he is not to blame for the recession.
Did de-regulation under Clinton help the eventual economic collapse that began during Bush's 2nd term? Yes. Did Bush help that deregulation along rather than putting a stop to it? Of course he did. Why? Because his big money pals said it would help them get even wealthier. So what if a few million people lost retirement money they had worked for and saved their whole lives. Billionaires did really well out of the whole 'collapse'. They should've. They were bailed out by the very taxpayers they had spent the last decade robbing. Nice work if you can get it.
Bush did not inherit the 9-11 attacks. He allowed them to happen.
Bush did not inherit a recession. He allowed it to happen.
Bush did not inherit a deficit. He inherited a surplus, and spent us deeper into debt than any president in history, including Obama. He did that by starting two unnecessary wars and cutting taxes, hoping the Chinese would pay for it. He was and is a hapless fool, and he had no business in the Oval Office unless he was working for a carpet cleaning company.
If you want hypocrites, the best examples all come from the 'family values' Republican party, Cheney2012. The ones who bash homosexuality and pay male prostitutes, or take wide stances in public restrooms, who claim family values and skip out on father's day to fly down to bang their mistress, the ones who chase underage pages, the ones who volunteer others to fight wars while they themselves were too chicken to enlist.
By the way, I know a descendent of Daniel Boone, and she is an ardent Democrat and progressive.
Are you aware that Pat (tent the White House) Boone is also a direct descendant of Daniel Boone?
Susan would not appreciate being kinfolk to Pat, but such is life.
Your post was still a strawman and an oversimplification, of course. I notice you didn't bother trying to defend it.
Time to step off your high horse and realize Bush isn't the cause of everything wrong with this country.
Was Reid on the 'no fly' list? Was Reid's passport revoked? Did Reid's father warn Bush about his son? Hmmm, some differences. Bush changed the procedures to force all of us to take off our shoes after Reid's attempt. Is Obama going to force us to take off our underwear? Is that why you're attempting to distract from what actually happened by comparing this incident to the other one?
Also, a typical liberal tactic is to blame someone else. Is that why you're blaming the hold-up of appointments for this? Face the facts, Obama is AS responsible for this incident as Bush was for the other one. As much as you want to blame someone else, it won't work....not in reality. But, some just don't live in reality... do you?
I like your counter-factual arguments;
"...Obama would have been blaming Bush by now."
If I write something like this;
"When will Obama start blaming Bush for the Death Panels that have been created in the new Health Care Bill? Since Obama is likely to blame Bush for these things it clearly shows that Bush inherited 9/11 from Clinton"
Will they pay me like they are paying you? I know I am just a beginner and I am striving to reach your level of paid propaganda, but I plan to work hard.
P.S. can your write off your computer as a business expense since your job is to post nonsense on this site???
Oh, I love it so when those on the right attempt to make points by arguing with hypotheticals.
But, I'll play. Cheney, riddle me this, if such a tragic thing had happened would it be fair to point a finger of blame at Jim DeMint given that he's put a hold on the nomination for a new chief at the Transportation Securities Administration?
Regarding 9/11. It is a fact that Bush received a briefing titled "Bin Laden determined to strike at America" in August of 2001. Condoleezza Rice stated that the briefing was of 'historical nature only'. I guess the day before Bush had received a briefing titled 'Spanish Armada determined to strike at England'.
Oh, look, that was the bush administration blaming Clinton for 9/11! Once again Cheney fails to rewrite history...
Oh my, is that another post about someone in the Bush administration trying to blame Clinton for 9/11? Why, I believe it was!
Read this. This. This. This. This. This. And this.
The Bush administration not only "blamed Clinton," they did it REFLEXIVELY.
Monica Lewinsky was brought back into the mix, used as an example of how Clinton failed to keep his mind on national security issues. The fact that Clinton's efforts to hunt down Bin Laden were repeatedly denounced as "Wag the Dog" window-dressing by the GOP was conveniently forgotten.
The first World Trade Center bombing took place WEEKS into Clinton's presidency. NO ONE blamed George Bush for the attack, and certainly not the White House, which was too busy going to work tracking down, capturing, trying and jailing the masterminds of the attack. The 9/11 attacks took place NINE MONTHS into GW Bush's presidency- and the White House and entire media went straight into Operation Blame Clinton and Start the War in Iraq mode.
Bin Laden? "I don't know where he is....I really don't spend much time on him..."
Right-wingers are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
Really?
Hmmm. Let's see, what do you think I find after one quick Google? Lookee here!
"They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy… After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities."
George W. Bush
Aug 30th, 2005
Here's a link.
In other words, Clinton did not act courageously and encouraged the 9/11 attacks. Straight from the president's mouth. Want to bet I can find more?
Please, we live in the computer age. We can find stuff pretty quick. You should really check these things out before you write and publish them.
If you think i'm kidding ask your children about a Certain Ferry that pays for their Tooth.
History is Written by those who Rule.
Fox News & The Bush Administration really took America to School.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Lying to a Federal Agent is a Crime or was Cheney doing the Vulcan Mind Meld?
Dick Cheney, or should i say Mr. Deferment?
When Uncle Sam needed him he Transformed into a "Richard Head" and asked for an Adjournment.
Speak truth to power.
Mr. News
Are you in favor of bringing Obama/co. up on charges at the Hague, too? No? Perhaps cheney2012 is correct:
Democrat = HYPOCRITE
Now lets see I would bring the Obama administration up on charges if he got the country into an illegal war like Bush did in 2003.
Afghanistan is a military engagement that should have been over in 2002, but Bush deverted his attention to Iraq. Chaney admitted in 1994 that attacking Iraq is a problem, but they did anyway. Illegally. So he should face charges for that, torture, and funding Blackwater or Xe.
As for legality, Yes china may attack any time for any reason, they learned from japan. That is why we meed military. Were the UN so sovereign no army would be needed.
Their 'permission' DEMANDED that he do everything short of invasion first, and that he HAD TO determine that there was no other solution short of an invasion before actually invading.
And there was a very viable option short of invading, since he had learned that they didn't have WMD's, and that was our ONLY justification for the preemptive war!
You couldn't be more wrong on this topic.
I am confident bush felt he did everything short of war just as im sure libs will always say gove peace a chance
The Inspectors were on the ground. Facts vs opinions.
It doesn't matter that some of the intelligence said that there were WMD's and some said that there was not after the boots on the ground said that there were no WMD's.
There was "permission" granted ONLY after Bush had done both things - that he had done everything that he could short of invasion and determined that there was no other solution.
Since there were n WMD's, and that was the reason to launch a preemptive war, there clearly were other solutions, and so Bush didn't have permission.
This is not rocket science. I don't care what fantasies you want to be confident in. The facts support that Bush didn't have "permission" to invade Iraq. You said he did. It has nothing to do with the conflicting intelligence, and has everything to do with the findings of the inspectors and the facts on the ground from the scientists and politicians in Iraq who finally admitted that they hadn't had any WMD's in a decade.
I have seen in a couple of tour documentary films that the current management of Gitmo seems to have a pretty sincere commitment to not continuing the older dark policy.
We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions. Those countries who've signed, hold themselves to higher standards than their enemies.
There have been Americans who've committed war crimes in every war. Torture (waterboarding) is a war crime. War crimes have never been sanctioned by our leaders, until 2003.
Who we do it to doesn't matter. It's our behavior that's being discussed.
I like that. I am adding that to my dictionary of online comments.
P.S. I have not heard back from your about how to get a paid gig like you have to post nonsense on this site.
Ahh I finally get it - sorry for being so dumb - recession is always the fault of the nearest Democratic President, either forwards or backwards in time, in an ad-hoc fashion.
p.s. please show me where I might find any leftists in this admin?
But the attack was not inherited. Nor was it caused solely by Bush and his administration.
Matalin implied that the recession AND the attack were attributable to Clinton and his administration. That was intellectual dishonesty.
Secondly, the only reason Newsbusters "credits" Lauer is because he supposedly challenged the Obama administration's Napolitano and her, quote, "ignorance" (that's Newsbusters' word).
Thirdly, as an example of MMFA conceding points to conservatives, I'd suggest you read MMFA's recent stories about gender bias shown towards Sarah Palin.
Set the bar low much?
The first inauguration of Bill Clinton as the 42nd President of the United States took place on January 20, 1993.
Did the wingnuts blame Clinton for the first attack anyway? Why yes, yes they did.
Because wingnuts don't have a shred of integrity. And here on MM, we have regular proof from the likes of Cheney2012, jms, and retiredinsf.
Meanwhile, President Bush was warned about the 9/11 attacks, he ignored the warnings ("You've covered your @ss, now"), and then he lied about being warned. Heckuva job, wingnuts!
~
Best case scenario, discounting the "Truthers", is that 9/11 happened due to incompetence and/or malfeasance throughout the system. The rot started at the top, with a president who was, to put it kindly, not up to the job.
It was a baseless, derailing challenge by a poster that WE must show how the Bush Administration blamed Clinton for 9/11, and NOW he's claiming that MMFA hasn't brought actual proof that they did it? What?
The article is talking about how Mary Matalin blamed Clinton for the recession and 9/11 by saying that Bush inherited those two things.
There's clear evidence that a former member of the Bush Administration is CURRENTLY blaming the Clinton Administration, and that's what matters.
This poster is trying to derail the thread away from that point. He's the temp guy, filling in for the regular, full-time thread derailers.
It's inconsistent to blame Clinton for not being able to stop the WTC attack 37 days into his first term, and then say Bush is blameless for not stopping an attack he 'only' had 8 months to prepare for. This is consistent with saying Clinton should have been able to do more in one month than what Bush can do in eight, as a matter of fairness, which is a form of Affirmative-Action for those inferior Republican Presidents (who are less-blamable due to general incompetence i guess).
Blaming the current administration for any attack on it's own time would at least be *consistent* logic. So by this criteria Clinton would be blamed for the first WTC attack and Bush blamed for the Second.
Signed,
Fellow moonbat.
Hey Colonel you forgot you guys are also Commie Pinkos & we're Fascists Nazis ;-)
Seems to me no President starts with a blank slate. Every one of them inherits at least some of the good & bad from the prior administration.
But after a certain amount of time in office, they own the good or bad. The Bush administration owned 9/11. The Obama administration owns the near disaster on Christmas day.
Well I am inclined to agree, but there is only so much the US can do. If we had any part in the guy's name not being on the watchlist, then that would be on us. The Dutch carry the lion's share of the blame for being the last line of defense. They were the ones who ultimately let the guy on the plane.
I don't remember anybody blaming President Bush for what Richard Reid did - or tried to do. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but any blame on President Bush would seem to be misplaced. Although to the French's credit, they were spooked enough about Reid to detain him, they just failed to catch the bomb in his shoe (the first time anyone was known to try it) and let him on the plane later lacking a justification beyond mere suspicion.
Of course we're still finding out what exactly happened, but I believe what we do know thus far is that this wannabe bomber's father did alert the US Embassy in Nigeria of his son's radical leanings & trip to Yemen. Also his Visa was rejected by Great Britain & that info would have gone into a data base & the State Department would have received this info. From what I've read he was put on the Terror Watch List rather than the No Fly List. There were red flags. The young man's Visa should have been canceled on our end. Yes the Dutch should take some responsibility. Anyone on such a list, buying a one way ticket, paying in cash should stand out like a neon sign. But we failed on our end too. I'm not going to say this current administration has been lax towards terrorist threats, but I do feel certain situations that require attention have relaxed under Obama's watch.
I absolutely agree 100% about Napolitano. Listening to her try & walk back her ridiculous earlier statement that the security system had worked when in fact it had not, was a joke.
I've been around occasionally & I've posted several times over at MMtv section. Funny, I was wondering where you were cause I never see you there. I'm glad to see you're still here too :-) I rarely venture over here to the Research section, but yesterday this section had the only new thread.
Yeah seems most threads lately deal with Limbaugh, Beck or Fox. Same ole same ole. Been there, done that ;-)
And if MMFA weren't on vacation this week, they'd have multiple stories debunking that smear of Napolitano.
She should be fired. Obama do your job.
She said and meant "after". The only way to misinterpret her comment is to take it out fo context, which is what rightwing pundits did in this case and what you do on a regular basis here.
Here's her comment on the CNN show State of the Union.
NAPOLITANO: Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing, and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.
What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel. And one thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.
So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.
And here's her comment on the ABC show This Week.
Number two, I think the important thing to recognize here is that once this incident occurred, everything happened that should have. The passengers reacted correctly, the crew reacted correctly, within an hour to 90 minutes, all 128 flights in the air had been notified. And those flights already had taken mitigation measures on the off-chance that there was somebody else also flying with some sort of destructive intent.
So the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days.
The system did not work moron. If it weren't for an incompetent terrorist and the courage of other passengers the plane would have been blown up. What exactly worked? He wasn't on the watch list, he got through, and he nearly blew up the plane. The system failed, even Obama said so and if he held his people accountable, unlike Bush, he would fire her. He should. You are just a gullible hack who believe anything you are told by those you support.
Wake up!
I don't know why you think that no one will notice that you again took the statement out of context!
And Napolitano has not only said that the system worked AFTER his attempt to blow up the plane, and the system DIDN'T work BEFORE that.
It's been your side's distortion that has claimed that she was saying that the system worked BEFORE he actually attempted to activate the explosives, and she never said that.
Yeah we always agree about that ;-)
The problem is that by saying that Bush inherited those problems, it is saying that Clinton was to blame or was at fault for them happening, and he wasn't. Some things just happen. Top that off with the negligence that Bush showed WRT terrorism, and laying that at the feet of Clinton is total hogwash.
I respect a great many Libs here [they know who they are] & they show me respect as well, even if we don't always agree.
You, I don't respect. You are an obnoxious, bossy, nasty, spiteful person & because of that, even if you wrote something of worth, I'd ignore it.
And dear DellDolly aka Sue, I'll be friendly with anyone I choose. Why not try minding your own business?
Oh & maybe you should get a hobby, it might help calm your nerves....
As far as what I wrote about "blank slates"...I was doing what others here often do, just posting an opinion. There was no "strawman". Whether it meets with your approval or not doesn't matter one whit to me.
You ain't in charge of this place, even though you clearly think you are. Ha!
That's the definition of a strawman argument.
And when I need advice from anyone about my nerves or my behavior here, you won't be the poster I go to.
And whenever I want to, I'll express my opinion about how inappropriate it is for you or anyone else to wax poetic about their cyber sex buddies in this forum.
Didn't you say that this place is for posting opinions? But claiming that 'high ground' doesn't make one immune from others knocking that opinion as baloney or unable to be supported by the evidence. That's why when you make a baseless strawman argument, I knocked it down. Too bad, so sad.
No I said it was MY opinion, I said nothing about it being anyone elses...can't you read?. I wrote..."seems to me"...so you're wrong. Again.
when I need advice from anyone about my nerves or my behavior here, you won't be the poster I go to.
Back at ya Susie-Q. But you just can't seem to stop giving us all your opinions on our behavior even if it ain't wanted. [does this dame ever shut up?]
And whenever I want to, I'll express my opinion about how inappropriate it is for you or anyone else to wax poetic about their cyber sex buddies in this forum.
Nobody is waxing poetic about any sort of buddies here. How about you mind your own business about who I, or anyone else, can interact with or agree with? And if you continue to mouth off, I'll express my opinion about what an annoying obnoxious busybody you are.
Dell/Sue, you knocked down nada. But thanks for yet another overbearing off topic lecture. You're good at that. The best in fact ::eye roll::
The ONLY reason to state that "opinion" is either to create a strawman argument if no one has actually ever made that argument, or to refute that argument if someone has actually MADE that argument.
Claiming that you were solely expressing your opinion makes no sense at all! None.
And I SAID that it was YOUR opinion, you dunce.
And no, I won't "mind my own business" when you're polluting this site with your cybersex nonsense, just like I'll continue to feel free to express my opinion about anything else I feel like!
Wow, you are stupid. Jeters said: Seems to me no President starts with a blank slate. Every one of them inherits at least some of the good & bad from the prior administration.
In other words, dunce, Jeters said that Bush, like all presidents, inherited some of the "bad" decisions and policies of the previous administration. Whether you agree or not, his OPINION is directly relevant to the topic of this thread and was in no way a strawman. Do you know what a "strawman" is, ditz?
That your brain, "for lack of a more appropriate term", is incapable of understanding Jeter's opinion is nobody's fault but your own.
And btw no one here needs your permission to post whatever they think might add to the discussion. You can call it a strawman or a snowman for all I care... or maybe just STFU about it. You do not own this site.
And your selective outrage about what is written here leaves you with no credibility to p#ss & moan about what others write. Funny how you never scold Libs when they wax poetic about anything you would otherwise consider "off color" if a Con wrote something similar.
We could all do with less of your polluting this site with your off topic lectures & belligerent rants.
So stick that in your sockpuppet missy.
And I don't really care what your opinion of my contributions are here.
What this site could really use less of is the nonsense that comes from your side. The lies, the distortions, the crazy talk, the rejection of factual information, the repetition of the debunked stories time after time. Until and unless that happens, I don't intend to stop doing what I am doing. REAL conservatives treasure this site, because they're fed up with what the fake ones have done to their brand.
Jeter's opinion was directly relevant to Matalin's assertion. Matalin thinks the bad policies that carried over from the Clinton administration led to the terror attacks and economic downturn. Jeters elaborated on this theory, essentially explaining that this argument can be made by any administration. You're too dumb to connect the dots here, and not surprisingly, incorreclty insist that Jeter's opinion a "strawman argument." Get a freakin clue, twit.
You're not too bright, are you, Congero? Your post is entirely irrelevant to anything that I or Jeters said.
And both you and Matalin are political hacks, only you're too dumb to get paid for it.
And Bush didn't.
We're not "running around trying to deflect blame and responsibility in an irresponsible, illegitimate or illogical way! That's your side. That's Mary Matalin!
So, it's not the issue. But you already knew that.
It's NOT happening from both sides. For the last 20 years or more, it's been an invalid argument to say that both sides are the same, are equivalent in lies and distortions told, that both sides are both scum.
And you know that. You're the one who's so partisan you can't admit simple facts and continue on your path of making troll posts to derail threads as a paid poster.
It should also be pointed out that republicans refuse to seat Obama's TSA appointment and have voted against TSA funding. I don't believe Bush had similar problems facing him prior to 9/11. In short efforts by political operatives to derail a president's agenda dictate how much culpability a president must endure, and in Obama's case I find him less culpable than I find Bush on the subject of security.
Besides, do conservatives really want the government controlling airport security? I want to be in line behind the cute blonde chick when they make her drop her drawers to inspect her panties for explosives! I hope she shaves real close that day. ;)
Basically this incident happened on Obama's watch. So yeah in that sense he owns it.
And what could have been done is canceling the underwear bombers Visa. All the red flags were there to justify such an action. He was on a watch list. His own father had reported his activities to the US Embassy. The British refused him a Visa, which is data available to the State Department.
IMO, the Obama administration should have had such a system set up [by now] for revoking/refusing a Visa to anyone even slightly suspicious. But the attitude of this White House seems to be erring on the side of not p#ssing anyone off rather than our safety & security.
This includes closing down Gitmo.
And yeah I'll agree the finger pointing probably gets us nowhere. National Security should not be a Democratic-Republican political issue. Both sides need to work together & let the Homeland Security experts have the money they need & the flexibility & freedom they need to connect the dots.
Airport security does need to be beefed up, inconvenient as that is to everyone. And I don't care who controls it, as long as they do a first class job.
Now about that cute blonde chick, I wanna be right there with ya....;-)
But since I ain't blond, I'm relieved that you nor Jeter can get a look see in my drawers. ;-) And no patting me down either.
I see that Obama owns it about as much as the mayor of Romulus MI (where the plane landed) owns it, i.e., not at all. The ones who own it are the ones who could have prevented it, and I don't see that Obama can have had anything to do with that.
If we're going to go down that road, then we might as well admit that Reagan owned the space shuttle Challenger disaster, and that Taft owned the Titanic, and that Titus owned Vesuvius. The whole knee-jerk assigning of blame is counterproductive. Bush, on the other hand, was not merely a bystander; he not only could have prevented 9/11, but could have responded to it much more directly and intelligently than he did. In that sense, he absolutely owns it.
I know liberals don't like that whole responsibility thing, it's not in you. And partisans like yourself can't wrap your mind around it, so you react with knee-jerk "it's not my fault" meme that you are trained to do. It just looks foolish at times, and this is one of them.
Happy New Year.
And then, show us that the Obama Admin should have known that this guy was a problem, but that there's no way that the Bush Administration 11 months ago shouldn't have known the same info - otherwise, it's the Bush Admin's fault for NOT implementing a system that would have caught this kind of terrorist in waiting!
I know this because of the line of work I'm in...BUT it is hardly a state secret...do your homework!!!
But even more importantly Abdulmutallab’s father went to the US Embassy in Nigeria in November 2009 & spoke with the CIA about his son. The CIA forwarded this info to the NCTC [National Counterterrorism Council]
Note all this took place in 2009.
Bush was not President.
Obama was.
That's the challenge. You don't have enough credibility here to simply assert it as true, Jeter. Everything I have read says that the USA is NOT notified when the British do things like that - that it's NOT one of the pieces of information that they would share.
Some of the things I have read include
UK officials indicated that he had passed across MI5’s radar but was not deemed sufficiently threatening to warrant surveillance.
Last month he was put on the US Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, a watchlist of 550,000 names. He was never regarded as dangerous enough to reach the 4,000-strong “no-fly” list. British authorities have a record of him, believed to be based on the Americans sharing their own list.
So it says that we shared with them, but not that they shared with us.
He was refused the Visa renewal in May, 2009, but he didn't get put on any list in the USA until November, when the Dad spoke to the US Embassy.
"Once NCTC receives such a report, an intelligence analyst checks to see if the person has any other associations in the database. If it's the first time the person’s name is coming up, NCTC creates a record under the person's name, as was done with Abdulmutallab, and that name is added to the TIDE [Terrorism Identities Datamart Environment] list. Agencies across the federal government have access to TIDE.
"Once a person is added to TIDE, as Abdulmutallab was, an intelligence analyst determines if there is 'reasonable suspicion' that he is engaged or intends to engage in a terrorist attack. If the person is found to have "reasonable suspicion," then an unclassified list with that person's name on it is sent to the Terrorist Screening Center. That did not happen with Abdulmutallab because the intelligence analyst at NCTC did not find 'reasonable suspicion' based on the State Department report, which the source said consisted only of what the Nigerian man's father said — that he was concerned about his son.
"If a report warrants further review, that will occur. The report on Abdulmutallab only offered a single, thin bit of information: a father reporting that he's concerned about his son. Asked if NCTC analysts typically do other checks on names coming in, such as a Google search or background check, the source indicated that that is not the case, that an analyst determines whether there is "reasonable suspicion" based on running the name internally and the contents of the report."
So, despite your assertion to the contrary, I find no evidence that the British rejection of the Visa renewal was communicated to the USA. This above says that they checked the database in November, and didn't find his name anyplace else from any other source.
Until a thorough investigation is completed you can leave links from here to eternity & they are basically meaningless. Who did what or didn't do what is still mostly speculation for the moment.
But this near disaster belongs to Obama, not Bush.
That's not to say Obama is responsible, only that it happened on his watch.
Does that mean we're being lied to by Fox?
Oh no!
But after a certain amount of time in office, they own the good or bad. The Bush administration owned 9/11. The Obama administration owns the near disaster on Christmas day." - jeter
I do not agree. I do not blame 9/11 on G-Dub. I blame his response to it on him. But, blaming the attack itself on him is just a political ploy. He is not responsible for the attacks. A free society will never be completely safe from suicide attacks. It just will not. The sooner we grow up as a society and recognize this, the sooner we can move onto handling this as a law enforcement issue and not an issue for bombs and soldiers to handle.
I think the track record of terrorism is pretty clear. It is impossible to be completely safe of in a free society and it never works in the long run. There is no reason to believe your plane will be blown up by a terrorist. We are safer from terrorism than many, many other daily dangers we face in this society. We should do our best to handle and avoid and arrest and prosecute any terrorist we can find. However, when we begin to change our way of life, begin to alter our freedoms because of the terror these attacks (or attempted attacks) make us feel, we are showing why they use terrorism in the first place. To scare us into changing our way of life.
But to the rest of us it's not about blame, but responsibility. Whoever is in charge, whoever sits in the oval office, is responsible and it is their job.
G-Dub is not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. He is reponsible for playing to our lowest common denominator in response. He is repsonsible for allowing us to continue to pretend that there is an answer that will ensure safety from suicide attacks. All of our leaders are. There is no definite safety from suicide attacks. It is time we grow up as a society and recognize this. And make a stand about which principles we are unwilling to sacrifice because the terrorists scare us.
Terrorists will never defeat us. They may attack us. They may want to destroy us. But, have you seen them as a military in action? They can barely make it across the monkey bars. I think we can hold Charleston. Let's treat them like the law enforcement problem that they are. Investigate them, gather intelligence, get undercover intelligence ideally. Arrest them, prosecute them, sentence them to life. But, do not live in fear or change our way of life because of them. That is the only success that terrorism has ever had. We are stronger than that.
For us to "grow up" and realize this is about knowing who our enemies are and taking all measures within our right and our power to defeat them before they kill more Americans.
Maybe we should examine the variables. If it's just because some people are crazy, that's always been true. If it's because of our "freedoms", then that's been the case for quite some time as well. Did we have Muslims trying to blow up American sites with dynamite in the 1920's? Why not?
Your 1920's analogy is too ridiculous to even comment on.
Since the hatred for the USA has been established, I'm not sure there's anything we can do to eliminate terrorism. A foreign policy which seeks cooperation with sovereign governments while also to marginalize extremist elements in those countries would help to reduce it, though. If we're dealing with a country that won't act reasonably, then it does no good to adjust our policies towards them anyway. On the other hand, we shouldn't ignore what other countries want just because we don't care. It doesn't mean bowing down to unreasonable demands out of the hope of avoiding terrorist attacks or anything.
When will the left wake up and realize that there are people out there that want us destroyed, period. It has to do with our moral standing and everything we stand for. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy. Until the left accepts they will always be stuck in the can't we just all get along mindset.
If that isn't right-wing namby-pamby nonsense at its best. You said a whole lot of nothing there, RightOn. There is nothing emotional about choosing law enforcement. This is basing your decisions on results. Law enforcement has gotten results, has foiled attacks - we know this. So far, using soldiers and torture has just put another generation of Americans at risk overseas with no definition of "victory" in sight.
Your "don't ruffle feathers" and "don't pi$$ them off" is just more emotional tripe from the right. No one advocated any such thing. Only if we are not seeing bombs going off and mass casualties then you believe we are doing nothing. Typical emotional response from the right-wing which has become so scared of its own shadow over the last generation it cannot even find its own priniciples anymore.
So don't tell me Brabantio didn't as much as say if we leave them alone, they would leave us alone. You can be an apologist for it if you'd like, but don't deny it's not the prevailing thought among the left, because it is. The far left that is.
If they hate us, they hate us. If you think they would give us a pass in Afghanistan but not Iraq or something, or that that wouldn't irritate them as much so our chances are better, or something. I am not sure what your position is, frankly. Perhaps we agree more than disagree.
It's not the prevailing thought among the left. Based upon all that Brabantio has written, and not simply cropping his statements and culling them for the most inflammatory and disingenuous interpretations possible, he clearly doesn't support that.
"We tell the American people that since you support the leaders who kill our women and children ... we have come to slaughter you [and] will strike you with no previous [warning], our vengeance is near," a statement released by the group said.
Unbelievable. Please, keep your opinions and your trust of terrorist thugs and their mouthpieces as far away from anybody with any authority in our government as you can. Stick around here and post your fringe nonsense and you are harmless. A fool, but harmless nonetheless.
Al Jazeera is the best source typically for translations of what Arabic groups say.
Someone else questioned whether or not the Al Qaeda on the Arabain Peninsula was claiming that this recent attempted terrorist attack on the plane was a result of the 2 recent attacks on terrorists in Yemen, or if it was in fact due to multiple attacks in the past on terrorists in Yemen.
See that string above?
So, I was using the best source available to document that the Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula was referencing only the two most recent attacks and not previous attacks as justification for the attempting bombing of the plane on Christmas Day.
I believe that you used to have some credibility here. Whoever pays you needs to fire you, because you have none left.
Grow up Sue, educate yourself a little. Pathetic.
This was not asking anyone to take Al Jazeera's OPINION on anything. This was going to them as the best translation site, because they're the best translation site! Facts don't scare me. Clearly they scare you, and so your response is to make yet another display of your personal animus towards me! The facts are that the Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula didn't associate this attempted bombing with previous attacks by a USA/Yemeni coalition. They only associated the two most recent attacks on Al Qaeda positions in Yemen with this attempting bombing.
The only pathetic thing on display here is YOUR behavior. That is pervasive and quite disgusting to virtually everyone who posts here - well, all except people like you buddies, who are also routinely ridiculed for their ridiculousness.
Physician, heal thyself!
I can not wait dor 2010!
Fortunately, the Latin-American peoples themselves have had the good sense to vote the plantation-owners out of power, now that elections are widespread.
goood nazi's!
And this immediately following a crack about "brain transplants"; the irony is too much!
What an absolutely, totally idiotic thing to say. Period.
But it reeks of hypocrisy to blame Clinton for the '93 bombings and to absolve Bush for the 2001 attacks.
One area in which Clinton can not be blamed is in the transition to the Bush presidency. He and his staff repeatedly warned of threats coming form al-Qaeda and bin Laden. They were ignored by the new administration.
Let's not forget that on September 10, 2001, AG John Ashcroft
wanted to deny the DOJ request for additional funding for counter-terroism.
Concerning your link, what benefit would it have done to approve additional funding the day before 9/11? You seem to bring that issue up as if there could have been some miraculous prevention of 9/11 events. Is that your intention?
From the way he worded his comment there would not have been a 9/11 if Clinton had just left Osama alone. (he spent 8 years poking at the hornets nest)
So, by his logic, it was Clinton's fault.
It's a wonder that they're able to twist reality around on itself itself like that.
Hope you had a great holiday Colonel.
Had a very nice Yuletide, hope your Festivus was the bestivus.
Wrong Floyd. No one knew who OBL was until the mid 90s. He was not even indicted until 1998. So there was no legal justification for capturing him until then.
Mayor nagy was at least as negligent as bush as was the governor
I notice rratso isn't nearly as astringent in his criticism of the damage wrough on Mississippi--wonder if that's because the governor of MS is a Republican?...
The mayor and state should have been mobilizing for disaster and evacuation days before impact. Fema too. yet only fema receive responsibility. As for mississippi, it seems that there was minimal loss of life if any so yes they did something right.
It becomes the responsibilty of the President in power. He or she, needs to take the responsibility for whatever happens, and then deal with it. The political pundits, and the current and former administrations blaming each other is childish.
Absolutely correct. Obama blames Bush. Bush blames Clinton. Clinton blames previous Bush ... on and on. I suppose Adams blamed Washington for all his problems too. Enough already!
•Bush inherited 9/11 from Clinton (Mary Matalin)
•Since the taking office, Pres. Obama has refused to work with Republicans (Newt Gingrich)
•Republicans have been right to oppose Pres. Obama, but they have been bipartisan anyway (William Kristol), though every single one of them opposes health care (Mitch McConnell)
•Politically, health care reform is going to be the best thing the GOP could have dreamed of (Matthew Dowd)
•Republicans need to have a positive alternative vision (Newt Gingrich) and should run on repealing health care reform (Newt Gingrich)
•The health care reform bill is a monstrosity that we Republicans tried to kill (McConnell) but I won't say whether we'll run on repealing it (McConnell)
•Health care reform is unconstitutional (DeMint) but I won't commit to filing a lawsuit against it if it passes (DeMint)
Please don't feed the troll.
And a troll post is trying to derail the thread in order to avoid talking about the subject. Clearly, by the posts I have made above, I am not trying to do that. I have talked repeatedly about the subject of this article that MMFA posted.
You, however, haven't made a single post above that's on the topic being covered, and only made this personal attack on me here. That's one of the definitions of a troll post.
Thanks for continuing your pattern of trying to lose credibility as quckly as you can possibly do it!
You are a troll, period. End of story.
Oh, and a delusional troll.
leave me and everyone else out of your "we". you don't speak for anyone but yourself. claiming to speak for 'us' is BS. *YOU* didn't want to read those particular points obviously. so be honest.
I thought you righties were against group-think. Oh i get it - 'group-think' is OK as long as a rightie claims to speak for the group.
Oh - and the unprovoked ad-hominmem attacks (calling another poster 'ridiculous' 'delusional' for providing factual information, the sexist/condescending 'sweetheart') are a touch of pure class.
And since I had posted on the subject of the thread multiple times, and since the post above does reference the Matalin lie, it wasn't a troll post.
But since YOUR post was strictly a personal attack without any factual basis for your charge, YOURS was a troll post.
And I know it pains you to have that pointed out. Too bad so sad. You are a paid troll whose exposed aim is to derail threads as often as possible, period, end of story. When that aim is exposed, it hurts your ability to derail threads, and that irritates you to no end. Again, too bad, so sad.
Face it Suzy, it was a pure off topic distraction meant to derail from the specific topic of the thread - something trolls do.
A Happy New Year to all!
Ah, let's face it, these two have a jones for "Sue". They really love her and want to marry her. Hey guys, come to Texas (I hear they have those polygamist sects here in my state) and I'll arrange it after I get my official certificate off the internets!
Let me know if they take you up on the offer, jj...
Admit it....you love it!!! ;-)
Ah, let's face it, these two have a jones for "Sue". They really love her and want to marry her. Hey guys, come to Texas (I hear they have those polygamist sects here in my state) and I'll arrange it after I get my official certificate off the internets!
I give you Miz Julia: Jack [or is that Jill] of all trades. Therapist. Future minister or justice of the peace. And definitely a comedian!!!
Love Sue?...yuck...I need a barf bag!!!!
But I suppose MMFA is just keeping up with the times and us old timers are obsolete. But darlin', we never get tired of the old "Sue" saw from you and the dude that claims he ain't TJ. ;-0)
It is entertaining.
Speaking of an off topic subject, KKKarl Rove, mr. family values, divorced his 2nd wife this week?
And happy new year :)
My argument above clearly and undeniably demonstrates that I was not trying to derail the thread. Someone who posts numerous posts about the topic of the thread BEFORE making another related post isn't trying to avoid talking about the thread or distract others from talking about the thread.
My argument that YOU failed to post ANY posts about the topic covered by MMFA's article before you made your personal attack against me clearly and undeniably demonstrates that you WERE trying to derail the thread, and you are still doing it.
And everyone else can see it too. It's sad that one of the rightwingers who supposedly has some credibility around here, Jeter, is in your back pocket and is bleeding credibility with every congratulatory post he makes.
In order for Right OFF to lose credibility, he would have had to have started off with even a slight amount of credibility. And he has none.
The only pointless things I've seen in this thread so far are Cheney2010, Floyd, and YOU.
Since Obama is in office I am not paying $4.00 a gallon, and for you guys complaining about the trillions Obama has spent. Take a good look, when a company is in bankruptcy it takes money to bail it out. The Country of the United States was in shambles and we need money to get us out. It takes money to make money.
I am not trying to say anything bad about Bush it’s just that I lived in his era, and watched people suffer under his rule.
In 2006 the people have spoken and voted Democratic. In 2008 the people have spoken and voted Democratic again. Besides complain and point the finger I ask myself what we can do as a citizen to assist our country into success. I hope everybody had a great Christmas and a wonderful New Years.
This Carville/Matalin act truly makes me sick. The routine goes like this: when GOP Mary talks, Democrat James makes funny faces; when Democrat James talks, GOP Mary rolls her eyes and shakes her head. They used to do the same performance on Meet The Press when Tim Russert had them on the show almost every week(!).
Why can't the public have true insightful analysis instead of these two shills who make no bones about their allegiance to the two bought-and-paid-for-by-corporate-contributions politcial parties?
These people are all lying scum!
Shrub compounded the recession by pushing tax cuts for billionaires. This was his great contribution early on; made MUCH worse by his warmongering invasions, tax payer funds paying corporate cronies for military contracts, and on and on.
What incentive is there for me to become a billionaire if i'm going to have to pay more in taxes?
The way I figure it, I'm only about $999,900,000 from my goal.
*disclaimer: not actually on welfare, or a queen
But you'll have to pay your own damned taxes on the money!
http://mediamatters.org/research/200811120011
Why not, jc? You Republicans have actually been claiming--seriously--that Obama wrecked the economy two months before he was sworn in...
Uh- so were we.
In summary, everything is Clinton and Obama's fault.
They should hire a parrot to learn that line and save themselves the trouble of endlessly repeating it.
Randy
The point is it becomes the person who is in the White House's responsibility. Everything that happened after Bush took the oath is his, and when Obama took it the responsibility became his.
That is the way these things should be measured. Those invested in making sure their guy gets off the hook add nothing except more distracting partisan nonsense.
So 9/11 was Clinton's fault and not Clinton's fault because Bush was president, so it's his responsibility, but it really doesn't matter who is president because, as you said, issues take a long time to sort out. Through this wishy-washy heap I detect a lot of blame spreading, an averaging out of things where Clinton and Obama somehow get a prorated shared of what happened under Bush, even though neither man had a say in how Bush handled things.
Randy
Further, the 9-11 attacks occurred 3 years before Tommy's residency and his residential daily briefings began.
James B. later declared "mission accomplished" and right on continues it to this day.
Maybe you're that poster Sue you're always going on about?
If Tommy could be everyone except you, I may have been arguing with myself for years and never knew it.
“Look down at me and you see a fool;
look up at me and you see a god;
look straight at me and you see yourself”
But it all makes so much sense....
I'm Spartacus!
I'm glad it means more to you than to me.
Peeved? nah. Entertained? You betcha...
Your're dishonest,and a ideologue that lets facts get in the way of reason,and not afraid to make yourself look foolish doing it. You go dude!
Presidents inherit history, but are judge for how they govern in light of that history. Bush is an F - across the board.
Randy
So better watch out, or they'll start calling you my sockpuppet!
An excerpt from Ralph Peter's NYP editorial where he nails it. Both parties are weak when it comes to terrorism for fear of not being politically correct.
Your faulty premise is that the terrorists only have Muslim-looking men to carry out these missions. They have proven time and time again that is not the case. If you want the illusion of safety, then go ahead and profile away. You only think you are making things safer. In reality, you haven't thought it through sufficiently.
Of course, that is Muriel Degauque(, a suicide bomber mentioned above).
Randy
A suicide bomber is a suicide bomber. Conservatives want to profile only "Muslims" or "Arab-Muslims". They would totally miss the woman posted above as she did not match any profile they have proposed.
I think it is interesting that some folks think an old woman is somehow incapable of blowing up an aircraft or carrying supplies so someone else can do it. Playing the likelihoods is pretty idiotic when it comes to airline security.
No... instead we let them carry guns to a protest rally near the President of the United States!!!
The Israelis know this, and their security is always watching for nervous facial expressions and body language.
"KNOW THE ENEMY- creating a knowledge base on modern terrorism, its origin, its ideology, its tactics and its weapons.
STUDY YOUR ENVIRONMENT- carrying out a systematic active analysis of the protected area. Identifying high-risk targets and the possible modes of attack (PMA) against them. Studying the routine in order to be able to identify irregular events or behavior.
PLAN YOUR POSITION AND MOVEMENT- in relevance to your PMA analysis.
SEARCH FOR RELEVANT BEHAVIOR PATTERNS:
- PHYSIOLOGICAL- stress indicators
- TACTICAL- pattern of behavior that reflects an identified PMA.
- WEAPONS RELATED- patterns of appearance and behavior that can be related to concealed weapons or explosive charges.
- ANY OTHER IRREGULAR BEHAVIOR.
SURVEILLANCE & ELLICITATION- collecting of additional
information through unnoticed attention to the subject by initiation of maneuvers that may trigger more indicative behavior patterns.
APPROACH – Based on the information gathered. Considering the possibility of triggering aggressive reaction and at the same time friendly enough to recruit cooperation of the subject.
TARGETED CONVERSATION- a very carefully structured conversation that provides the officer with as much information as he or she needs in order to decide on a course of action. This area is based on the Israeli aviation security interview technique."
Link
You might want to read up on this instead of just spouting an opinion.
My point is that profiling is counter-productive AND leads to missing behavior cues. You didn't debunk anything.
However, I do think that your responsibility for the recession has been overblown by the media.
Mary Matalin uses a similar technique to yours.
Perhaps I'll just wish you a Happy New Year and get off this train.
Just how are you going to detect whether someone is a "Muslim" or not? Do you want them to wear crescents on their sleeves? Richard "the Shoebomber" Reid was a Jamaican. Do we expect terrorists to just honestly claim to be Muslim so that they would be more likely to be searched?
Beyond that, there have been several documented cases of female suicide bombers. Your suggestion would be to just let the female suicide bombers walk right on the plane without being checked in favor of checking just the "Muslim" men 19-45! That's just lunacy.
You are merely focusing on 3 anecdotes to make your case, while ignoring the rest of the data that we know.
It does not change my point. Dave's suggested profiling would not detect Reid whether he was British or Jamaican.
I have said it before, winning a "War on Terror" is impossible. The more we tighten our grip, the more they slip through our fingers. The only way to beat terrorism is to not fear terrorism. They don't want to beat us, they can never beat us. But they can make us take away our own freedoms, spy on our own people, and drastically alter our everyday lives in the name of 'security'. And when we do that, they win. No matter how many terrorists you kill, if you still give up your freedoms for security, they win.
Case in point:
Your proposal is swiss cheese. It will only catch the dumbest criminals out there - if that. Meanwhile it will lower the possibility to randomly check the very kinds of people that we know have tried this before.
As for 9/11, of course Bush DID inherit that. There were attacks ranging from the WTC in '93, the embassy bombings, and the USS Cole, all under Clinton's watch. Bin Laden could have been nabbed in 1998 and 1999.
I find it kinda ironic that no one blames Clinton for the steps leading up to 9/11, but the economy and our national security snafus this year are all Bush and Cheney's fault. You guys can't have it both ways.
I happen to disagree with Samurai Cowboy; I think that most of the MMFA "dissenters" are perfectly willing to expose their imbecility for free.
And thanks for providing further evidence of the latter.
Typing error do not reflect intelligence nor do anonymous ad hominem attacks.
In any case I dont think you can find ten correct facts about me.
Typing errors are evidence of disorganized thinking, which is why there's so much more of it on your side. But hey, if you want to keep looking like an uneducated buffoon, by all means keep it up.
nor do anonymous ad hominem attacks.
Feel free to make that point when it actually happens. Not all attacks are ad hominem, which are irrelevant attacks on a person in lieu of addressing an issue. Furthermore, what's this nonsense about being "anonymous"? I'm as forthright with my identity as you are, as anyone can see.
In any case I dont [sic] think you can find ten correct facts about me.
In other words, you're the one who's remaining shrouded in obscurity. Congratulations. It's also utterly meaningless, since no one ever said they could find out such "correct facts."
Goodness, even if you were to fix the typos, your errors in logic and presentation are legion. Please work on those.
I consider myself slightly right of center in the political spectrum. I guess that makes me one of your "brainwashed, under educated [sic] and lack intelligence to hold real jobs because because [sic] they may be exposed to different opinions and may actually have to thing [sic] for themselves," conservatives. Which is interesting since the last book I read was Screwed by Thom Hartman. I found the book to be very interesting and I actually agreed with some of it especially the part about the importance of maintaining the middle class. For radio entertainment, I listen to Fox News in the morning and America Left on the way home. Well crap, I don’t fit your stereotype at all since in the next paragraph I am going to post anti-MMFA comments. I will give you that you did quantify your first statement with "most".
What I think is wrong with MMfA is their almost exclusive obsession with Beck and Limbaugh. Most thinking conservatives believe Beck and Limbaugh spun off the road and into the mud years ago and don’t listen to them. MMfA should change its name to WGBSM (What Glenn Beck Says Matters) or WRLSM for Limbaugh. I find it interesting that I do not see MMfA fact checking Mike Malloy even though he is obviously on the opposite end of the nut job spectrum. But that is not in their mission statement is it? So they are content with only trying to debunk conservative misinformation. Hey, good for them, free speech is very important and we do need to hear both sides. But they should at least show all of the facts when debunking a conservative talking point. For instance, in their quote from NBER above they left out other information from NBER's report. You can find the whole report here: http://www.nber.com/cycles/november2001/. Read it for yourself. The FAQ at the end mentions the effect of 9/11 on the recession. From the charts you can see that production and sales peaked around 10/2000 and unemployment peaked in 3/2001. Since unemployment is a lagging indicator and usually a result of falling production and sales then you could also make a case that the economy started slumping in 10/2000 during Clinton’s administration and higher unemployment was inevitable. It really depends on the point of view. Plus, the report does not specifically blame the recession on Bush it simply says the recession started in 3/2001. NBER chose that date because all indicators were starting to slump at once. So, MMfA headline "Fact: According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, recession began in March 2001 during Bush presidency" while chronologically accurate is also designed to imply that the Bush administration caused the recession since it was used as a rebuttal to what Matalin said. Pretty good spin I would say and nothing more then the conservatives do on a regular basis.
Matalin is, sadly, demonstrating that same problem in journalism.
Thank you MediaMatters, for trying to keep these critters honest.
That would, of course, give her a free pass to keep appearing on Faux News shows, because they hardly qualify as news.
Also, Kenya (?) offered Clinton Bin Laden sometime around the Somalia fiasco, and Clinton et al turned the offer down.
But gee, it had to be Bush's fault.
Republicans have had to remedy the foreign policy idiocy of Democrats for the last 50 years - from LBJ through Carter through Clinton, the Dems have repeatedly proven they are incompetent in matters of foreign policy.
Obama is more of the same only worse.
Absolutely, mike! What edrossindeliriumtremens wants to do is take the next step--Osama was in Kenya, just like Obama was born in Kenya! See the connection! I feel a Glenn Beck blackboard chart coming on...
Darn it - it's time the Democrats in congress stepped up the campaign against these media liars and enablers.
To hear these disingenuous freaks blather on about the incognizant one, you'd think he was the greatest "leader" the world ever saw!
And they're going to try the same thing with shrub, with the assistance of our corperate(rightwing) media.