Obama: Let’s Talk About 9/11
Tweet
The last 7 years have been about Republicans pounding their chests about 9/11 and Democrats doing their best to talk about everything else, feeling safe in the cocoon of kitchen table issues. In the vital debate over national security, Democrats simply haven’t been showing up. Barack Obama is doing more than showing up.
The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.
Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership – the people who murdered 3000 Americans – have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
Al Qaeda killed Americans. Al Qaeda still lives and grows. Thanks to the right.
63 Responses to “Obama: Let’s Talk About 9/11”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
But…Bill Clinton!!!
Now all you Bush/McCain supporters can take the rest of the evening off.
The champ is here.
Al Qaeda still lives and grows.
No, they aren’t. And you’ve been given the evidence of this.
Right, and nobody involved in the 9/11 attacks has been caught. I guess Obama, while confirming that we have 50 states forgot about this guy:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed_after_capture.jpg
This is not fair. Only Republicans can challenge the other side of failing in their national security and tough guy responsibilities. That is the way it has always been.
If Democrats begin to speak openly and bluntly about Republican idiocy and incompetence and negligence if not outright cowardice and callousness, then the comfortable system we have enjoyed since His Great Eminence Ronald Reagan first created this nation 30 years ago, right after His tears at the beauty of our spirit carved the Grand Canyon.
I’ve been given GOP talking points, no actual research or facts.
Wrong Jay! Posting drunk tank pictures of Ron Jeremy does not prove anything. Here is a real link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0502/p01s02-wogn.html
… a US global survey that concluded Al Qaeda has been rebuilding its networks from havens in Pakistan, where the number of attacks more than doubled in 2007.
Released Wednesday, the State Department’s annual terrorism report attributed 22,685 fatalities to “incidents of terrorism worldwide” last year, an increase of 8 percent over the previous year, while noting that nearly two-thirds of those lost their lives in Iraq.
Al Qaeda and like-minded militants remain “the greatest terrorist threat to the United States and its partners,” the report said, despite a nearly seven-year war targeting the group.
Al Qaeda “has reconstituted some of its pre-9/11 operational capabilities,” the report said, by exploiting havens in remote tribal areas of Pakistan, replacing key lost operatives, and reestablishing “some central control” under Osama bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
In particular, the report said, the vacuum in Pakistan has provided Al Qaeda’s leadership “greater mobility and ability to conduct training and operational planning, particularly that targeting Western Europe and the United States.”
That result stems from neglecting to pursue Al Qaeda after the fall of the Taliban in late 2001. “It was a big mistake by the United States to divert attention and resources away to Iraq in terms of the War on Terrorism,” says Magnus Ranstorp, of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.
“The best advice for the incoming [US] administration would be to reenergize support for the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan [with] both hard and soft power,” says Mr. Ranstorp. “Otherwise we are going to have more terror attacks against Europe [and] the US.”
Right, and nobody involved in the 9/11 attacks has been caught.
Yep, yet again you’ve whined about something that… umm… no one ever said. You should seriously consider seeing someone about your reading disability.
People,people! Lets not let facts like the number of terrorist NOT caught and punished and a rise of terrorism get in the way of Republican dick swinging and chest thumping. How else are we going to let themselves project.!!!!
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors – the Taliban.
But hey, we caught that one guy, so that means Obama is wrong, wrong, wrong!!
Right, Jay?
midderpidge,
“drunk tank pictures of Ron Jeremy”
HAW HAW HAW!
Yes, let’s talk about 9-11.
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”
“Now watch this drive.”
I wish Obama would mention the Bush/Republican “September 10 mindset” in his counters to these fear cudgels from Camp McCain. Were they focused on terra’ists? Hell no!
I’ll spare you all blatant blogwhoring, but for a post I did today I nabbed these screen-a-magrabs. The first one is a Google News search for bush “missile defense”:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_x4h_Gml5tE8/SFk-az4hO5I/AAAAAAAAADk/0GqNyPCohMA/s1600-h/bmd_gn.png
The second is a GoogNews search for bush “bin laden”:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_x4h_Gml5tE8/SFk-gSa7yiI/AAAAAAAAADs/t3IE77ziBDk/s1600-h/bbl_gn.png
The searches were for the time period from January 21, 2001 – September 10, 2001. The yellow bars on the graphic indicate the number of hits, broken down by month. Note that September 2001 is skewed for the “bin laden” result, obviously because of the post-9/11 news coverage.
As for the raw numbers: bush “missile defense”: 11,200 hits
bush “bin laden”: 782 hits
So let’s talk about this “September 10 mindset,” eh?
“The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice.”
No, that’s not correct. It’s very, very sad that he’s already taken to lying. Just over 2,000 Americans were killed. The rest were citizens of other nations. This is getting to be really frightening. Every day he moves farther and farther to the right, lying, advocating war. Does he really believe that killing 3,000 people is in any way, shape or form, comparable to the cold-blooded murder of 1.2 MILLION people in Iraq. If these guys are evil, then what does that make the Republican and Democrat parties? Global polls show that a lot more people are terrified of the US than of Al Qaeda.
If the US has any proof that Bin Laden or Al Qaeda were involved in 9/11, then it’s time they presented proof of that to the global community. We’ve been waiting a long time, and we have seen nothing conclusive, except an endless series of lies and dishonest investigations. And if that is proven, then there are ways to deal with it without being bellicose and hawkish and advocating more war.
Isn’t it a lot more important at this point, especially for Americans, to bring the people, Democrat and Republican, responsible for the Iraq war to justice? Justice (and it’s clear he doesn’t really care about that, but about contributions from the military-industrial complex) begins at home.
Um… How about the video tape where Osama took credit for 9/11?
D00D! Totally, I’m being dumb. Osama just recorded those tapes confessing to 9/11 as part of the greater conspiracy… WHY DIDN’T I SEE IT BEFORE!?!?!?!!?!?!
Osama bin Laden; our generation’s Lee Harvey Oswald.
“Yep, yet again you’ve whined about something that… umm… no one ever said.”
What else does Jay have but straw men? Nothing. He even threw in the bit about 50 states. Jay is a joke. It’s really pathetic. Obama has these guys scrambling. Their tired cliches and nonsense just aren’t working anymore and they know it.
You guys actually read Jay’s posts? His name is at the top, skip over his bullshit the way I do.
Oliver: “Al Qaeda still lives and grows.
Jay: “No, they aren’t. And you’ve been given the evidence of this.”
You are a liar. And you’ve been given evidence of that.
Al Qaeda has recovered from the initial victories in Afghanistan, which probably wouldn’t have happened if the United States didn’t get stuck in Iraq.
“where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world.”
Ooooo. Those oh so scary audiotapes. I’m quaking in my boots.
Funny how there hasn’t been an attack on the US in the last 7 years. A real failure indeed.
Funny how there hasn’t been an attack on the US in the last 7 years. A real failure indeed.
Except of course the Anthrax. And, you know, the terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq that have occurred nearly every day for the last, oh, 7 years or so.
Quibble, quibble. What’s bracing is that Obama is challenging the Cons on their own failures AND the mythology they’ve been coasting on to mask them:
“I refuse to be lectured on national security by people who are responsible for the most disastrous set of foreign policy decisions in the recent history of the United States.”
Damn. A stiff-backed Democrat! I could learn to like this guy.
“Damn. A stiff-backed Democrat! I could learn to like this guy.”
ROTFLMAO
Good luck with that.
“Ooooo. Those oh so scary audiotapes. I’m quaking in my boots.
Perhaps the (-)27 percenters should spend more time hunting and less time mocking Bin Laden. But please, go on and believe that one of the most powerful terrorists still remaining on the loose is a good thing. Bag of hammers, meet Christie.
“Funny how there hasn’t been an attack on the US in the last 7 years. A real failure indeed.”
Gee, more Americans dying after one of the most catastrophic Terror attacks! But they’re not dying in ‘Merikuh!, Brilliant strategory, Mister Preznit!!
no one ever said.
Really? I guess when I saw the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice, I must have been imagining things.
And, you know, the terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq that have occurred nearly every day for the last, oh, 7 years or so.
Oh so now soldiers fighting in battles are victims of terrorist attacks? Talk about pretzel logic. By using this kind of idiotic reasoning (if that is what one can call it), I can say that Obama supports troops being the victims of terrorist attacks because he wants more troops in Afghanistan.
Oh so now soldiers fighting in battles are victims of terrorist attacks?
You don’t consider bombs buried by the side of the road acts of terrorism?
Interesting.
“Ooooo. Those oh so scary audiotapes. I’m quaking in my boots.
Wasn’t that the point of releasing them right around October 2006? Scare the sheep, so they gather ’round the Big Daddy Republicans.
Didn’t work then, ain’t gonna work now.
You mean Afghanistan where Al Qaeda and the Taliban’s influence and power has been steadily growing since the Iraq invasion?
“Oh so now soldiers fighting in battles are victims of terrorist attacks? Talk about pretzel logic”
Indeed. Just ask any mouthbreather why enemy combatants are imported to Gitmo instead of being detained as a prisoner of war as dictated by the Geneva Conventions. Oh look, pretzel logic.
Jay, KSM has been captured and detained, but it’s only now that he’s actually being put on trial, more than 5 years after his capture. Technically, until there’s a verdict, he hasn’t been “brought to justice”.
And the #1 and #2 guys are still at large, probably somewhere in Waziristan. Al-Zawahiri planned the London attacks, after all.
There was an (unrealistic) expectation among US planners that our forces in Iraq would be in and out within a year, with few residual troops left behind. That didn’t happen, and with the borders not secured, Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia emerged, as well as the Sunni insurgents and Shia militias, and conducted multiple attacks on US troops and Iraqi civilians. IED blows up civilians–terrorism. IED blows up soldiers–not terrorism. Probably not actually as clean a distinction as you imagine it to be.
the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice
Where is that? Show me the quote, asshole.
I guess when I saw the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice, I must have been imagining things.
Imagining? No.
Failed to comprehend? As always.
he’s right.
obama’s buddies in CFR and BILLDERBERG havnt been brought to justice.
Are Republicans stupid enough to think that Al Qa’ida would follow up September Freaking Eleventh with, what, some crummy pipe bombs? A truck bomb in front of a bank?
Hell, even if I were OBL I would have retired right after that. As if any other terrorist could ever top that short of either really getting & using a real fission bomb or getting supervillain powers from cosmic rays or a magic jewel or something.
OMG! Tha war in Irak haz totaly prevnted any trrist frum blowin’ up a bank, cos, liek, some reason or other!
“Funny how there hasn’t been an attack on the US in the last 7 years. A real failure indeed.”
Ah, that old chestnut. There have been only 5 terrorist attacks in the U.S. :
September 16, 1920
January 24, 1975
February 26, 1993
April 19, 1995
September 11, 2001
To make any claims that we’re ‘safer’ because of anything that Bush has done is completely illogical nonsense. By that same logic, we could credit any president between 1920 and 1975 or 1975 to 1993 with that same honor – and moreso, as they’re rein over a terrorist-attack-free America was far, far longer than Bush’s paltry 7 1/2 years.
In other words – know your history before making such idiotic claims.
Yes, let’s talk about 9/11. Let’s point out that if Gore had been president in 2001, 9/11 would probably have been averted. Gore wouldn’t have sat on his ass like Bush did despite all the warnings coming in all that year.
[...] Oliver Willis (Occupation: Toole) noted Obama’s inclusion of September 11th rhetoric in his speeches yesterday. [...]
Jay asked, “Oh so now soldiers fighting in battles are victims of terrorist attacks?”
According to the Bush administration, the majority of attacks on US soldiers in Iraq are to be classified as terrorism. When they want the numbers to be high.
Data of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, points to more than a fourfold increase in worldwide deaths due to terrorism from 1998 to 2006. The sharpest increase came after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Source
Or read this:
Data of the Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism (MIPT), funded by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, points to more than a fourfold increase in worldwide deaths due to terrorism from 1998 to 2006. The sharpest increase came after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Other institutes have reached similar conclusions, including the U.S. National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC).
“The rising terrorist fatality toll revealed by MIPT and NCTC …, coupled with the bleak assessments of Western security analysts and intelligence agencies appear to provide compelling support for the claim that both the incidence and the threat of global terrorism have indeed increased,” the brief says.
The Human Security Brief says MIPT figures show “an extraordinary 79 percent of global fatalities from terrorism were in Iraq” in 2006 alone.
Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/ts_nm/terrorism_report_dc_1
OBL is not wanted by the FBI for 9/11 – they say they have no credible evidence that he had anything to do with it. If Obama wants to bring those responsible to justice, he needs to look at Bush, Cheney, and the PNAC.
There have been only 5 terrorist attacks in the U.S. :
Your figure is somewhat misleading as it counts terrorist attacks within our borders.
Between January 1993 and September of 2000, the United States and its installations were attack 5 times.
1993 – World Trade Center bombing
1996 – Khobar Towers Bombing
1998 – US Embassy bombing Tanzania
1998 – US Embassy bombing Kenya
2000 – Terrorist attack on the USS Cole
Those attacks, our response to them and our total lack of resolve shown in the wake Somalia led to the carrying out and planning of the 9/11 attacks. You can talk all you want, but the fact of the matter is, we have seen nothing like that on any scale since 9/11 (unless of course you believe the stupid assertion that troops are victims of terrorist attacks).
So the question falls to those who agree with Barack Obama that we’re “less safe.”
How?
If we’re less safe than we were prior to 9/11, it means we’re at risk of a similar attack on a similar scale.
How? I’d like to see some evidence of just how “less safe” we are.
Let’s point out that if Gore had been president in 2001, 9/11 would probably have been averted.
And let’s point out that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny all really exist.
“Funny how there hasn’t been an attack on the US in the last 7 years. A real failure indeed.”
So the terrorist attacks against Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan don’t count as attacks on the US. Interesting.
You also ignored the Anthrax attacks, but that’s not surprising.
“Between January 1993 and September of 2000, the United States and its installations were attack 5 times.”
Then terrorist attacks against American soldiers should count as well. You can’t change the definition of a word partway through your argument.
And let’s point out that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny all really exist.
So does “the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.”
Your last comment was cut off because I didn’t see it there. Can you go ahead and re-type it if it’s not too much trouble?
the United States and its installations were attack 5 times.
LOL
the United States and its installations have been attacked multiple times per day, every day, for the last 5 years.
our total lack of resolve shown in the wake Somalia
Whoa, Who’s lack of resolve? As I remember it, it was the Republicans in Congress who wanted us out of Somalia so bad.
And you still don’t think bombs buried by the side of the road count as terrorist acts? You really are a heartless bastard.
If we’re less safe than we were prior to 9/11, it means we’re at risk of a similar attack on a similar scale.
Why would it have to be a similar attack on a similar scale to make the US less safe? You’re gonna pull a muscle moving them goal posts.
Yet there have been some very large attacks against US allies. THere have been attacks against our installations overseas, and our postal system has come under attack.
Also, we have come under attack by insurgents or partisans or whatever you want to call it, who oppose our continuing occupation in Iraq. This isn’t exactly open battle as Jay wants you to believe, as a matter of fact, many of his ilk call them terrorists to justify torture and breaking the Geneva conventions as US policy. It’s terrorism or guerrilla warfare targeting an occupying power. Northern Ireland comes to mind.
“… we have seen nothing like that on any scale since 9/11 …”
Given that we had seen nothing on the scale of 9/11 before 9/11 it hardly makes sense to suggest that we’re safer because there hasn’t been such a massive attack since.
At the same time, as midderpidge pointed out in another thread, US installations and interests have been the targets of terrorist attacks since 9-11 and our invasion of Iraq:
US Consulate, Karachi 2002
Gaza Strip US diplomat convoy bombed 2003
US Embassy bombing, Tashkent Uzbekistan 2004
US consulate attack, Jeddah Saudi Arabia 2004
US Embassy Attack, Damscus Syria 2006
Bagram Airbase Bombing, Pakistan 2007
It also seems odd to me that you would include the USS Cole bombing on your list of pre-9-11 attacks but then dismiss the countless terrorist attacks against US military installations and personnel since our invasion of Iraq. If the sole difference is that we weren’t “at war” when the USS Cole was bombed that’s flimsy at best. Any where US military personnel are stationed they are potential targets of terrorist attacks, whether they’re living on Khobar Towers or the Green Zone in Baghdad.
Driving a truck bomb up to the Green Zone in Baghdad, as happened in April 2007, is no different than driving a truck bomb up to the Khobar Towers, even though we weren’t “at war” in Saudia Arabia or not. If declaring war is all it takes to turn a terrorist attacks into something else unclassifiable, then you’re just talking semantics. A truck bomb is a truck bomb is a truck bomb.
“So the question falls to those who agree with Barack Obama that we’re ‘less safe.’”
Not entirely. If the only “evidence” you have that were more safe is that we haven’t been attacked on US soil since 9-11 then you have proved nothing as well. Where is your evidence that our invasion of Iraq has made us safer? There is none. Zero. It’s just rhetoric.
Jay, since you believe it’s a “stupid assertion that troops are victims of terrorist attacks” I wonder how you classify the marine barracks bombing in 1983.
This is what I believe.
Al Qaeda or, by whatever name the United States government/media tagged this nebulous enemy, did not perpetrate the 911 attack. Usama bin Laden laid claim strictly for press and propaganda purposes.
911 was conducted by Saudi Arabian Wahhabist clerics/money men using military trained converts. Who really is Mohamed Atta?
Saudi Arabians are the lead foreign fighters in Iraq. The Iraq War is fueled by Saudi madrasses from across the only open border to Iraq.
The United States is benefactor/protector to it’s chief enemy and adversary Saudi Arabia who declared war on September 11, 2001.
ON 9/11. Once again, the real questions are not being asked. When one speaks of 9/11, the only credible position is to acknowledge that a credible investigation was never carried out. We now can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the following: 1)there was no plane found at the pentagon after the “attack” 2) the 3rd Tower (tower7) fell in 10 seconds later that evening. 3) There were a number of secondary explosions beneath the Twin Towers AFTER the planes hit. 4) The planes that hit the Twin Towers were not commercial airliners. All of these facts were totally ignored by the 911 commission.
We all should begin flying the American Flag upside down to signal crisis of massive proportion in this country.
PEACE
9/11 Truthers go away, you’re even dumber than cons and Republicans – which is quite a feat.
“9/11 Truthers go away, you’re even dumber than cons and Republicans – which is quite a feat.”
9/11 Truthers are like the people getting laid at the Special Olympics. They are all fucking retards.
If the only “evidence” you have that were more safe is that we haven’t been attacked on US soil since 9-11 then you have proved nothing as well. Where is your evidence that our invasion of Iraq has made us safer? There is none. Zero. It’s just rhetoric.
The claim has been initiated by Obama and other Democrats. The claim is, “We’re less safe.” I disagree. Now, present the case for why we are less safe. I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right.
In addition, I’m not going to explain the difference to you between soldiers actively engaged in combat operations being killed while in action as opposed to Marine barracks being bombed and a docked warship refueling being bombed. If you cannot understand the difference, that’s your problem.
“The claim has been initiated by Obama and other Democrats. The claim is, ‘We’re less safe.’”
Actually, the American intelligence community said America was less safe. There was a recent NIE report to that effect, but you knew that because we’ve debated this in the past.
“In addition, I’m not going to explain the difference to you between soldiers actively engaged in combat operations being killed while in action as opposed to Marine barracks being bombed and a docked warship refueling being bombed. If you cannot understand the difference, that’s your problem.”
Translations: I can’t respond to your post, so I’m going to insult you instead.
What about the American embassy? The Green zone has been attacked. So have American civilians working in Iraq. Kidnappings. Beheadings. Etc. Are these terrorist attacks? Or is your definition of a terrorist attack even more fluid than that?
The claim has been initiated by Obama and other Democrats.
Yeah, so you said the claim was “that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.”
Still waiting for that quote. Three comments in this since you said that. Where’s the quote, Jay?
Do I need a counter like the RNC website?
The claim has been initiated by Obama and other Democrats. The claim is, “We’re less safe.” I disagree. Now, present the case for why we are less safe. I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right.
The claim has been initiated by Jay. The claim is “I saw the quote from Obama that none of the people responsible for 9/11 have been brought to justice.” I disagree. Now, present the case for why this quote exists. I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right.
But you can’t, because you’re a liar, the quote doesn’t exist, and you’re too much of a pathetic little coward to admit it.
“But you can’t, because you’re a liar, the quote doesn’t exist, and you’re too much of a pathetic little coward to admit it.”
Watch it, he’s going to compare you to me if you keep calling him a liar.
Internet argument!
I thought Khalid Sheikh Mohammed didn’t count anyway, since he was captured with the law enforcement approach.
“Oh so now soldiers fighting in battles are victims of terrorist attacks? Talk about pretzel logic.”
Hey, wait, Jay: I thought you guys went to Iraq to fight the terrorists, right? I mean, they’re OBVIOUSLY terrorists, that’s why Bush says the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply. If they’re terrorists, and people are killed in their attacks, then aren’t they victims of terrorist attacks?
So according to jay here when the USS Cole was attacked that was terrorism even though soldiers died but when soldiers die in Iraq that is NOT terrorism?
Even more pathetic is jay’s inability to concede that Gore would have taken Richard Clark’s warnings much more seriously which would have, at the very least, increased the chances of 9/11 being unsuccessful.
At the very least he might have had at least ONE meeting on terrorism during his first term prior to 9/11.
I’m not going to explain the difference to you between soldiers actively engaged in combat operations being killed while in action as opposed to Marine barracks being bombed and a docked warship refueling being bombed.
How about humvees full of soldiers driving back to the Green Zone (i.e., not actively engaged in combat operations, but returning to barracks AFTER combat operations) being blown up by bombs buried by the side of the road? Explain to me how that is not an act of terrorism.
The claim has been initiated by Obama and other Democrats. The claim is, ‘We’re less safe.’”
Well, let’s be real here Jay. That claim is a response to the Bush and Republican claim that invading Iraq has made us safer. I don’t believe it has made us safer, in part because there is no evidence that it has. Bush and Clinton’s record on domestic terrorism is virtually same, the sole significant difference being that the worst attack in American history occurred on Bush’s watch. Bush has achieved this record at an infinitely greater cost, in lives and money, to this country than Clinton. Now if you want to add terrorist attacks against US interests around the world, it’s patently obvious that Bush has a worse record than Clinton. There have been more consulates and embassies bombed or attack on Bush’s watch than Clinton’s. It’s really pretty simple if you look at the facts.
I understand why you don’t want to explain yourself about how you categorize terrorist attacks against US military installations and personnel. There is no distinction to be made between the marine barracks bombing in 1983 and the truck bombing of the Green Zone in 2007, except in numbers of casualties. In both instances US forces were on active duty in hostile environments. Same with the USS Cole attacks. I find it interesting that you could write this about the “less safe” statement: “I don’t have to prove you wrong. You have to prove that you’re right” while refusing whatsoever to argue in favor of your position that it’s a “stupid assertion that troops are victims of terrorist attacks.”
Your hypocrisy aside, I believe we are less safe because Bush’s policies in achieving his remarkably pathetic record on terrorism, at home and abroad, have increased resentment and hatred toward America among the very populations we need to win to our side. This in addition to the fact that terrorist attacks around the world have risen every year since 9-11. Indeed, the two are connected. One of the key elements in combating terrorism is reducing sympathy for the terrorist cause among the general populations of the countries they operate. Antipathy and suspicion towards the US has increased since we invaded Iraq. Poll after poll has shown that Bush squandered the sympathies of the world after 9-11.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/27/news/pew.php
Where terrorists have lost support among local populations, that has been the result of the terrorist’s actions themselves: People don’t like it when people kill or maim innocent people. They don’t like it when terrorists do it and they don’t like it when they perceive the American military doing it. In other words, al-qaeada’s strategy in Iraq backfired on it. Iraqis where turning against al-qaeada long before the surge kicked in. But however much al-qaeda might be currently contained in iraq, it is not contained globally and if we want to build on and sustain military successes we have to start focusing on winning the ideological front. We can’t do that with more of the same policies of Bush under McCain. All McCain wants to do is continue applying the same blunt force strategies with will only eventually tip the ideological and rhetorical scales back into al-qaeada’s favor. There can be, in other words, no long term military solution to terrorism. I think history has proven that.
Now would like to make the case for how the invasion of Iraq has made us and our interests around the world more safe? Would care to explain why the barracks bombing in Lebanon was a terrorist attack but a truck bombing of the green zone isn’t?
Once again, well said fafaroo. However, this
requires a pretty big leap of faith where Jay is concerned.
Cheney and Bush are responsible for 911, not Bin Ladin, Santa Clause or the tooth fairy for that matter. Pull your heads out of your asses americans and stop looking so bloody stupid by believing that crock you’ve been sold.
America’s Conspiracy Theory #34,989 began 9 minutes and 11 seconds after Dems. realized patriotism was going too far, post Sept. 11- potentially building strong/er support toward Repubs. It holds incredibly comparable credence to Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, AND Mr. Sand Man functioning fruitfully in a world where massacre and mayhem are permissible;(but don’t get caught.) Rue the day for Satan, when his terrorists out-number the hills in which to crawl into and hide.