It’s as if the President is working towards more Americans dying
Saying that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network “remains our top concern,” Negroponte testified that despite successes in targeting its leadership, “the organization’s core elements still plot and make preparations for terrorist strikes against the homeland and other targets from bases in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border area.” In addition, al Qaeda has “gained added reach” through its merger with the Iraq-based group of Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi, “which has broadened al Qaeda’s appeal within the jihadist community and potentially put new resources at its disposal,” he said.
More Americans have died as a result of terrorism under Bush than any president in U.S. history, but increasingly it seems by neglecting the fight he’s trying to break his own sorry record.
The sanguine Negroponte s history somehow slipped through the memory
holes of our liberally-biased media as Ambassador to Honduras during
the critical years of El Salvador and the death-squads of the right-wing
despots whom Reagan supported wholeheartedly because they were
anit-communist.
Anyone remember Iran/Contra? It is a small world isn t it. It s even
smaller for the close cadre of friends who have been enmeshed in those
infamous times as well as these. WTF does it take for folks to wake up?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Negroponte
Don’t actually dispute the facts, Jay, because you know it to be sadly true.
I think that what Jay C is driving at is that, if it was true yesterday, it will be true tomorrow, etc., etc., etc.
I might add that more Americans died from terrorism under Bush than all the Presidents combined until 1950.
More Americans have died as a result of terrorism under Bush than any president in U.S. history
Jeebus. Want a cracker Polly?
Don t actually dispute the facts, Jay, because you know it to be sadly true.
The problem is, your little factoid means nothing and yet you keep repeating it like it has some kind of relevance. I could say, “The United States suffered more terrorist attacks under President Clinton than any time in our history.” That’s a fact, right?
The reason why your little fact means squat is that it happened 7 months into Bush’s adminstration and no matter how much blame his adminstration deserves (and it does), the fault goes back another 20 years with the bulk of it falling in the lap of the Clinton administration that did abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to clamp down on Al Qaeda.
The United States (and that includes US property outside the United States. No matter how many times you morons dispute it, a US embassy IS the United States) has not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11. That’s over four years.
Now we’ll cue you and the rest of the simps claiming a soldier who dies fighting in a war is the victim of a terrorist attack.
JayC, stick;
Holy Moly. Do you guys always fulminate like blind men trying to identify
an elephant by limiting their exploration to the tail section of the beast?
Try taking a helicopter ride and enjoying the big picture from above.
That is, if you can stand the height.
Again, if Bush has done such a horrible job fighting terrorism, then why is it the United States has not suffered an attack since 9/11?
Right on! And if my red Nike sweatshirt has done such a horrible job keeping the moon from crashing into the Earth, then why is it the moon hasn’t crashed into the Earth since I bought that sweatshirt at Target four years ago?
Oliver, you gotta stop pulling that More Americans have died& . nonsense out of your ass as a way of deflecting from the fact that my red Nike sweatshirt has been successful in doing the most important thing a sweatshirt is supposed to do: protecting the Hard Rock Cafe t-shirt I wear underneath that keeps the giant locusts from attacking our major cities and devouring mankind.
Well enlighten us Quaker. What did they do? Other than throw a few people in jail?
Again, if Bush has done such a horrible job fighting terrorism, then why is it the United States has not suffered an attack since 9/11? Again, over FOUR years has gone by. Oliver pulls that “More Americans have died….” nonsense out of his ass as a way of deflecting from the fact that President Bush has been successful in doing the most important thing a President is supposed to do: defend the United States.
Yes, Jay. If only we’d invaded Iraq sooner.
“More Americans have died as a result of terrorism under Bush than any president in U.S. history”
Jay C is right when he says that “your little factoid means nothing”, at least nothing more than the statement “more innocent civilians were killed by US forces, and more US soldiers lost their lives under FDR than any president before or since”
When you control the context of facts, Oliver, you control their meaning. On the other hand if your writing to propagandize rather than inform, that’s your business. What is MM’s mission statement, anyhow?
We ve killed and/or captured more Al Qaeda leaders than I can count.
That’s not saying much when your math abilities are limited to the number of your fingers and toes.
Jeez, Jay. You’re just serving them right over the middle of the plate tonight, aren’t you?
He used them to whip up this country into a state of constant fear
Must be you.
win himself a second term in office
It’s not Bush’s fault Democrats nominated such a shitty candidate. I wish Howard Dean had been able to run so the margin of victory would have been larger.
enrich his defense contractor friends
Which friends are those?
and systematically strip away our Constitutional rights and freedoms.
And those would be? Specifics please.
No, Jay, you enlighten us, please. You’re the one who wants to play, “But what about Clinton.” What has Bush done about al Qaeda that Clinton didn’t?
I mean besides invade Iraq?
What has Bush done about al Qaeda that Clinton didn t?
He used them to whip up this country into a state of constant fear, win himself a second term in office, enrich his defense contractor friends and systematically strip away our Constitutional rights and freedoms. That’s what.
Boy, Clinton sure was a piker compared to Bush when it comes to handling al Qaeda, wasn’t he?
Matty, that was just…brilliant. Truly. Did you come up with that one yourself or did your team of monkeys help out?
It’s typical for you people to ignore the question. “Gee, let’s hit them with some lame attempt at sarcasm! That’ll show em!”
Quaker, maybe if I space out the words you’ll get it through that mass called your head:
4 years. 5 months. No terrorist attacks in country. No terrorist attacks against embassies overseas. bin Laden offering a desperate truce and Al Qaeda’s increase in the use of propaganda. We’ve killed and/or captured more Al Qaeda leaders than I can count.
“Besides invade Iraq”
Stuck on stupid, Quaker is.
I’d say this governmnet has probably done a lot to prevent terrorist attacks on our soil. They’ve engaged in law enforcement, they’ve gathered foreign intelligence, they’ve striven cooperation with foreign governments in both those areas, they’ve executed effective military action against al qaeda and its supporters
I say all those efforts are worth supporting, and I would have even supported their covert wiretap program, if they hadn’t botched it by carrying it out in a way that was bound to raise questions about its legality and constitutionality.
What I can’t support, and what makes all those good things turn to ashes in the mouth, is the precipitous, arrogant, clueless, abominably ill-planned, unconscionably expensive, globally destabilizing Iraq invasion, which has hampered and complicated all the administration’s anti-terror efforts and has cost the world tens of thousands of innocent human lives.
“…….devouring mankind.”
delicious satire
I guess to Jay C the five victims of the Anthrax Killer don’t count nor does our diplomat Lawrence Foley who was assassinated outside his residence in Amman, Jordan. All were victims of terrorism after 9/11.
But those folks are inconvenient to Jay C’s argument so he spits on their graves forgetting them.
Even worse is Bush’s failure in bringing the terrorists who killed these Americans to justice.
Do you get some kind of thrill out of these little insults? I hope you do.
Non-responsive.
The question was, “What has the Bush administration done that Clinton didn’t?”
Still waiting.
Let me break it down real slow and easy for Jay.
George Washington to William Jefferson Clinton (including beloved by me like Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush): No major attacks on U.S. soil by terrorists, what few attacks there were were not mass casualty events.
George W. Bush: 3,000 Americans blown up in New York City. Thousands of soldiers die for the unncessary invasion of Iraq.
Somehow Jay, I’m pretty sure you were one of the Republicans caterwauling about “wagging the dog” whenever President Clinton did act militarily.
We ve killed and/or captured more Al Qaeda leaders than I can count.
Yet somehow there are more Al Qaeda than when we started, and Bin Laden, Zarquawi, Mullah Omar, etc. are still alive. This is the new math, isn’t it?
No terrorist attacks against embassies overseas.
Yeah, they just blew up a fricking train in London and Madrid while blowing up our soldiers in Baghdad – but you don’t care, it won’t hurt the Republican vote. No harm no foul, send the widow some flowers, wot.
New Secret British Memo: Iraq War Built On Lies
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html
My tolerance for religious psychopathic behavior is at an end. Whether Zionists, Evangelicals or Muslim fundamentalists, the one thing they have in common is an overreaction to ever little real or imagined slight or insult.
They all feel they have a right to murder the rest of us because their god gives them that right.
Why dont we solve the whole. How much chutzpah has the president got…enough to vaporize the whole middle east…that is probably the only solution now that BUsh and Rumsfeld’s foreign has only made things worse.
Imagine…two more years of these guys and every 7th century thinker in the middle east will justify blowing up the world to save it for their god. Screw em.
Jay C. I think Clinton had about the same shootin’ average when it came to Osama as GW…and that would be zero. The Clintoids tried to get him in Sudan and twice in Afghanistan, that’s the ones we know about. Cruise missles and smart bombs are kinda like trying to kill flies with a steamroller, you might get lucky…but not often. In Khartoum the ‘bomb factory’ turned out to be a lab producing medicine that was owned by a German company I believe. Now please apologize for questioning the manliness of our most virile president since JFK.
P.S. 7 US citizens died in the Bali bombing but they weren’t in an embassy so they don’t count I guess.
“They ve engaged in law enforcement, they ve gathered foreign intelligence, they ve striven cooperation with foreign governments in both those areas, they ve executed effective military action against al qaeda and its supporters.”
Wilbur says this to describe Bush’s response to terrorism but I’d like Jay C to explain how this description doesn’t fit Clinton’s response to terrorism as well.
It’s funny how Jay went from “the Clinton administration that did abso-fucking-lutely NOTHING to clamp down on Al Qaeda” to “What did they do? Other than throw a few people in jail?”
Other than throw people in jail? Wow what an ineffective wasteful response to criminal behavior.
And BTW Jay, if no US military forces have been killed in Iraq by terrorism could someone please tell the president to stop saying that we’re fighting terrorists there?
What it all boils down to gentlemen and ladies on both sides of the argument, is Iraq was the weakest country in the middle east, and Bush and his advisors thought that Iraq would be an easy target to go in there and get rid of Saddam and set up bases there and they thought the rest of those leaders would roll over and we would control the whole region. It was a calculated risk that Bush thought would be worth a couple of hundred dead troops. Clinton did not invade Iraq maybe because he and his advisors were smarter than Bush. Also, since Bush and Cheney are profiting greatly from the price of oil going up, and Halliburton getting all the contracts to rebuild Iraq, their stock has gone up from $6 a share in Jun 02 to over $80 a share now. And all the oil stocks have gone up 300-1200 percent. Bush is not doing this for his health or to bring democracy to the middle east. Maybe the oil companies should donate 10 million dollars to each family who has lost a son or daughter in this war. Not to mention the 30,000 who have been severely injured.
Gee, I go away fro a week and you guys let major horse hockey like this from OW slip through.
“George Washington to William Jefferson Clinton (including beloved by me like Dick Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush): No major attacks on U.S. soil by terrorists, what few attacks there were were not mass casualty events.”
Two word for you OW: OKLAHOMA CITY
Dugger, Can’t get Away with Crap When the Sheriff is Back in Town
Wolf’s got a point. Back in the 90s, Cliinton’s moves were claimed as being inspired by “Wag the Dog”.
I would say that even if you can say Clinton did nothing (and thats a big IF) at least he didn’t actively support people like Osama and Hussein. As for the basis for that claim, we did arm Osama when the big bad commies came a callin’ in Afghanistan and we did arm Saddam to take care of Iran. And look how well THAT turned out…
Jay, it is true Bali, London and Madrid are not in the US. They are however staunch allies. So its ok to get your friends killed as long as they don’t hit your family?
Yeah, they just blew up a fricking train in London and Madrid
Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize London and Madrid were part of the United States now. When did this happen?
while blowing up our soldiers in Baghdad
Right. The same soldiers you claim should be fighting the same terrorists in Saudi Arabia. Care to explain that logic?
P.S. 7 US citizens died in the Bali bombing but they weren t in an embassy so they don t count I guess.
Who said they didn’t count? However, (and you seemed to have taken the same geography lessons as Oliver) Bali is not part of the United States. That’s in Indonesia. How much do I get for my tutoring lesson?
Other than throw people in jail? Wow what an ineffective wasteful response to criminal behavior.
Worked wonders didn’t it? Jailing suspects from the 1993 WTC bombing sure put a damper on Al Qaeda, right? That put fear into them!
And BTW Jay, if no US military forces have been killed in Iraq by terrorism could someone please tell the president to stop saying that we re fighting terrorists there?
You know, I’m not sure it’s possible to say something dumber than this. This is your pretzel logic: Our soldiers are engaged in a war with insurgents, foreign terrorists, etc. Yet, you’re saying that because the President calls them ‘terrorists’ that any time a soldier is injured or killed, he then becomes a victim of terrorism. How much more lame could you possibly be? We didn’t call German and Italian soldiers ‘terrorists’ in WWII because if they weren’t fighting a war, they’d be at home living their lives relatively normally like our guys. The people we’re fighting in Iraq, if not engaged in fighting with our troops, would be off actively seeking ways to kill innocent Amerians. That’s the difference dummy.
And there was that first WTC attack…
And Pearl Harbor…
Sorry OW, but it was a little over the top to claim NO attacks.
Yeah, I get real sick of all the wingnuts who come out with “what did clinton do” when every time Clinton even threatened military action (quoth the chickenhawks YOU HAVE TO KEEP MILITARY OPTIONS ON THE TABLE!) the wingnuts started screaming that he was just trying to distract the country from the CLENIS.
It would be so much easier to get to this “bi-partisanship” that Bush keeps talking about if you lot would just stop with the double-standards.
Jay, it is true Bali, London and Madrid are not in the US. They are however staunch allies. So its ok to get your friends killed as long as they don t hit your family?
It’s amazing how you extrapolate “It’s ok for our friends to get killed” from, “London, Madrid and Bali are not in the United States.”
Don’t try to write me off as some kind of ‘Screw em’ Kos type. My point is, the President has a sworn oath and duty to protect the our country. That comes before anything else.
As for Clinton, much of the blame falls on his administration AND the GOP Congress for failing to take much more serious action when needed. t’s true: The GOP spent more time trying to find the smoking gun against Clinton, that they soft-pedaled over the threat. The economy was so good that everybody was concerned more with spending all that cash on bullshit things for the people back home than in securing our country against a major attack. And I’m sorry, but those who think history began on January 21, 2001 and want to stick President Bush alone with the fault of 9/11 are hopeless. Our lack of any serious action prior to that fateful day, is what allowed such an attack like that to be planned.
Think about it. It must have taken a long time and a lot of airplane flights to find ones that weren’t crowded. Flight 93 had a total of 40 passengers and crew members. When was the last time you were on a 757 that had only 33 passengers? This took years to plan. It happened because we didn’t do enough to cut off the money, get the leaders and their connections, nor show them that if they attack us, we’re going to kill a lot of them.
What bothers you guys more than anything else is the thought of having to give credit to the President for anything. You couldn’t dare bring yourselves to do that. For instance, unemployment is at 4.7%, the lowest it has been since 2001. I can just imagine the phalanx of reasons why, in your minds, it had nothing to do with the President.
Ya’ll forgettin’……..Harpers Ferry?
Good one, Dug. Good thing we invaded Iraq to get the bastards who did that.
Wow, Jay. That’s quite a climb down from this:
Tell me please, who is the “we” who “didn’t do enough to cut off the money”? The Clinton administration? Or the Republican Congress?
And “show them that if they attack us we’re going to kill a lot of them”? We’ve come full circle. Which country do you think Clinton should have invaded to “kill a lot of them”? Iraq? Afghanistan? Sudan? France?
While you’re coming up with your next whip-smart insult, I’ll go ahead and give you a preview of my response to it:
You’re not answering the question, Jay.
Jay, its almost like you have Stockholm syndrome. As silly as your allegiance to Bush is, I can’t believe youre really dumb enough to believe that our dumb luck at not having an attack on our soil while our closest allies have had attacks is any sort of proof that Bush is doing dick. Is there any difference strategically between a bombing on the London Tube and one on the DC Metro? No.
Yes, Oklahoma happened during the Clinton presidency, and as the right wing radio rangers were cheering on those militia bastards, we caught Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols.
What JayC glosses over is that Clinton was able to successfully adapt to the changing tactics of the terrorists. The embassy bombings prompted newer harsher security restrictions around our embassies, these were undertaken by the Clinton admin, and thus the success of such programs can be attributed to Clinton’s policies and continued by Bush. Ditto OKC bombing prompted more increased security around US federal buildings in country. The USS Cole incident could have been prevented if long-standing procedures had been followed, and which are now, even more strongly enforced. Thank you, Bill Clinton. 9-11 might have been prevented with a president who actually cared about, understood, and prioritized the threat of terrorism. Now we have increased airport security, terrorists will look for another way to strike, and now we have a national drive to anticipate attacks and increase security, that is a natural response to 9-11. Clinton worked against terrorism. Bush threw out many of Clinton’s initiatives, procedures, and studies. Bush’s national security initiatives were more in line with refighting the cold war than dealing with modern terrorism when he came to office, hence the kindergarten-level PDBs trying to make him aware of Al Qaeda and the danger they posed.
Now we have the Iraq debacle. JayC doesn’t want that counted as attacks against America or Americans, even as he calls it the frontline in the Global War against Terror. Even in the heart of Diplomat land, the green zone, terrorism-style attacks don’t count.
Domestic terrorism doesn’t count for JayC either, church bombings and burnings, lab fires, abortion clinic fires and assassinations, anthrax attacks. Oh, incidently, there was a US Consulate bombing in Karachi in 2002, does that count?
You want things twenty different ways JayC but only if it supports your Bush worship. Using that narrow view, no terror attack before or since 9-11 can count based on scale and coordination of several elements. 9-11, under Bush’s watch. Good job.
You’re not answering the question, Jay.
You re not answering the question, Jay.
I did answer the question. The fact that we haven’t had any attacks since 9/11 is proof of that. I’m not going to debate semantics with with Quaker.
Semantics? No semantics here.
Jay, your initial entry into this thread (well, after the hilarious parrot joke) asserted:
I’ve been asking–and asking again–for an explanation of your curious defense of Mr. Bush. You first spoke of actions:
I asked about actions:
The absence of attacks on U.S. soil is an outcome, not an action. So let me cut and paste the questions from above:
Oliver, it’s almost like you have a case of cognitive dissonance.
Oh wait…
Dugger,
Oooppps … if the parsing is based on American soil (strictly meaning within the 50 states as apparently you do), you seem to have conveniently forgotten the Anthrax Killer and sniper.
Blaming 9 11 on Clinton is like blaming the OKC bombing on Bush Sr. The OKC bombing was perpetrated by ultra right-wing homegrown terrorists who may have been encouraged by the hate of the Clinton administration put out over the airwaves by none other than Rush Limbaugh.
“Yes, Oklahoma happened during the Clinton presidency, and as the right wing radio rangers were cheering on those militia bastards, we caught Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols. ”
So what? The 9-11 perpetrators went to an immediate virgin-less hell. Why did it take Clinton so long?
Lets see, Bubba then actually had two terrorist attacks on US soil during his tenure – WTC and OKC, right? Versus Bush’s one.
Dugger
Jay C said the “The United States has not suffered a terrorist attack since 9/11.”
That’s, of course, a bald-faced lie. So when called on it, Jay C engages in bizarre parsing by which he excludes from his equation:
1. The American victims of the Anthrax Killer;
2. The American Victims of Sniper;
3. The Assassination of U.S. Diplomat Lawrence Foley in front of his residence in Amman, Jordan;
4. The Americans who were killed in the Bali bombing;
5. The attacks on the American Consulates in Karachi, Pakistan (June 2002) killing 12 and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Dec 2004) killing 5;
6.The bombings at three American hotels in Amman, Jordan that killed 57 people (two of the hotels Clinton prevented from being bombed during his watch);
7. The kidnapping and execution of American Paul Johnson in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; and
8. The thousands of American soldiers, contractors and other citizens killed in Iraq.
Jay C, just please stop with the silly talking point already.
What the…? Uh, because Tim McVeigh didn’t have the nuts to stay inside the Murrah building when it came down?
You make it sound as if the “immediate hell” was achieved through the agency of someone other than the hijackers themselves.
As long as we’re on the subject:
How many of the perpetrators were captured? How does that compare to our record on the 9-11 perpetrators?
Macswain,
Being a much more reasonable person than most, I will acknowledge the technical accuracy of what you say. But it is a meaningless accuracy in that per your rationale, serial killers, who have always been with us, are evidently terrorists. As are the Tylenol poisoners etc etc. I think it more reasonable to limit the definition of terrorism to major attacks on people and/or facilities with a ideological/religious/political purpose in mind.
Dugger
Quaker,
Why capture a matchbox full of cinders? Unless by perpetrators you mean people other than the immediate planners and executors of the act itself.
Dugger
Mr. bin Laden is now “other”?
“The people we re fighting in Iraq, if not engaged in fighting with our troops, would be off actively seeking ways to kill innocent Amerians. That s the difference dummy.”
Damn, Jay, you’ve really swallowed the shit haven’t you? You’re a true believer. It’s miraculous you can still breathe under your own power.
And if President Gore decided to invade Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden the Cons along with most of the left, would have already impeached him. But, I would like to think Gore would be too smart to do something that stupid.
“Bubba then actually had two terrorist attacks on US soil during his tenure – WTC and OKC, right? Versus Bush s one.”
And how many people died in that one, Dugger? What was the title of the PDB that Bush ignored? How many minutes did Bush sit on his stunned ass looking blankly into space after an aide whispered into his ear: “We’re under attack?”
If Gore were in the White House when 9-11 happened and had done exactly what Bush did, the GOP would have moved heaven and earth to have Gore impeached. “Now we really have something,” Rove would say and the airwaves would be filled to this day with split-screen images of Gore doing nothing alongside a shot of the towers falling. Gimme a break.
If Gore were in the White House when 9-11 happened and had done exactly what Bush did … [and / or] … President Gore decided to invade Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden …
The Left wouldn’t have done a goddammed thing
And Frank once again returns with the “I know you are but what am I” defense. Idiot.
I can’t believe my republicans compadres have let Cracker in the Cellar get away with his constant mewling of “what did bush do”….
Afghanistan…..He invaded and subdued afghanistan….This was the nidus for all active Al Qaeda operations at the time. He didn’t lob a couple of cruise missiles, he didn’t ask the UN to shake a fist at them, he INVADED and subdued that country.
And the whole time liberals were screeching about fighting “land wars in Asia” and the “graveyard of the soviets” etc, etc.
And what has the worlds response been? Well, Khaddaffi gave up terrorist aspirations, Eqypt had elections and eventually so did Iraq….OH, and no attacks on US soil by foreign terrorists in over 4 years.
And that ridiculous elephant rock parable….puhllleeeese!
It is more like the “Sig-Sauer” parable. Amazingly enough, I was able to prevent a car-jacking with my magical sig sauer. When the guy open my door, he suddenly had the barrel of a 9mm automatic pasted to his forhead, and suddenly he decided he was late for another appointment…..! Amazing thing that little lump of metal…..But the lefties would have you believe it was just, lets see, to quote Ollie…”just dumb luck” that I wasn’t hijacked……
What a bunch of maroons…..
The entire question, my peer-reviewed friend, was “What did Bush do about al Qaeda that Clinton didn’t?”
Am I to understand that you think Mr. Clinton should have ordered an invasion of Afghanistan? Or is it an invasion of Iraq that you think would have prevented 9-11?
You asked what bush did, he invaded Afghanistan. don’t start with asking more questions now, my answer was pretty clear.
When ever a leftist is backed into a corner, you can count on them to ask more questions…..
Instead of asking another dumb question drpedo, I will just assume that you and your neocon friends would be heartily supporting President Gore or Clinton if they had invaded Iraq and over 2000 troops killed while changing their reason for going in there. You and your neocon friends would not be upset that over 20,000 troops have been severely injured because President Gore or Clinton were too bullheaded to admit that they made a mistake by sending the troops into Iraq and then they tell the American people that we must stay the course until the Iraqi Army can defend themselves against their own people.
Not to mention spending 2-3 billion dollars a week over there for 3 years. Not to mention using the National Guard to go over there instead of keeping them here to protect us and our borders.
Please allow me to correct you once again. You shortened my question. You can see my original question (which you’ve had four whole days to read and figure out) right here.
If you wish to pursue this any further, please be so good as to represent my position as it is, not as you wish it to be.