Worst Soon To Be Ex-President Ever, Says America
Tweet
America delivers the final kick in the butt to George W. Bush.
When asked about Mr. Bush’s performance over the last eight years, 22 percent of respondents said they approved. That matched Mr. Bush’s job-approval rating for much of last fall, the lowest of his presidency. In the current poll, 73 percent disapproved of his performance over the course of his two terms.
Disapproval cut across party lines, with Democrats, independents and even 34 percent of Republicans critical of Mr. Bush’s performance.
In contrast, Mr. Bush’s most recent predecessors left office with approval ratings ranging from 68 percent, for both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, to 44 percent, for Jimmy Carter. Mr. Bush’s father left with 54 percent.
When asked to assess Mr. Bush’s presidency more precisely, just 17 percent of those surveyed rated it very good or good, while 83 percent said it had been average or poor. Fifty-nine percent of Americans regarded Mr. Clinton’s presidency as very good or good when he left office, and 40 percent viewed the presidency of the elder Mr. Bush the same way.
First winger to bring back the election season argument that the poll couldn’t possibly be right because the pollster is in a blue state gets a No-Prize.
Archie Bunker was wrong. We did see a man like Herbert Hoover again.
UPDATE: That was quick. Pravda Fox News is now reporting that Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks. A month from now we’ll learn that Katrina and the economic collapse were also handed from Clinton to Bush.
135 Responses to “Worst Soon To Be Ex-President Ever, Says America”
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
What Time Is Super Bowl 2012 (Super Bowl XLVI)?
Republican Senate Candidate To Run Racist Ad During Super Bowl
Latest Entries
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
C.K.: November 22, 1999 – January 7, 2012
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
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#28699663
8 years in 8 minutes.
I forgot about some of these.
We’ll see how O! performs, in comparison to George Bush.
Remember, GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland. Will BHO be able to say that, in 4 years?
Will Baracky close Guantanamo and bring those poor prisoners home to America? Will they stand trial here, serve their time here, and be released, here?
George Bush didn’t bring us socialism. Barack Obama may bring us smiley-face facism. George Bush, that favorite whipping boy of the mindless left, has built a strong platform for homeland security. Will Barry tear that down, or will he continue to use it?
There will be comparisons, and I for one welcome them. There’s 7.5 years of hatred for Bush. That sort of hatred can build for Obama just as easily; especially since he’s allowed himself to reach a point of near-deification. What goes up, &c.
Thus spake the Cons: Way to live and die by the polls, OW. Gaaa-aaw-d.
Unless the polls agree with what WE believe. Then they’re the most important thing EVER.
GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland
The problem is, Presidents have EIGHT year terms.
CORRECTION: President Bush has had EIGHT years in office (two four-year terms). But you knew what I meant.
Remember, GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland. Will BHO be able to say that, in 4 years?
Not if he can do simple arithmetic.
Did something happen seven years ago that Bush DIDN’T keep us safe from? Was it preceded by a PDB entitled, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States?” When the attack he had been warned against took place, did Bush immediately execute the plan he had in place to deal with it, or did he continue reading with a bunch of second graders while looking scared and confused?
What should Bill Clinton have done after leaving office to keep America safe while Bush was president?
“Remember, GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland.”
O-dub beat me to it, but yeah, if you want credit for seven years of no domestic attacks (*cough* Anthrax mailings), you’ve got to take responsibility for the obvious: George W. Bush was asleep at the wheel on 9/11. He had warnings, and he ignored them.
I mean, you wingers are all into personal responsibility, right? 9/11 was a Republican failure.
The great Jon Swift:
“After Hurricane Katrina President Bush kept our cities safe.
After the October 2008 stock market correction there have been no Great Depressions.
After Iraq and Afghanistan took a turn for the worse, President Bush kept us from losing any wars.
After the District Attorney firing scandal, the outing of Valerie Plame and other scandals, President Bush restored integrity to government.
After divisive elections President Bush united our country.
After Abu Ghraib, President Bush reaffirmed America’s adherence to the Geneva Conventions and against torture.
After 9/11 President Bush kept America safe from terrorist attacks on American soil.”
22%, serr8d. 22%. Lowest approval EVAR!!!11
Welcome to irrelevancy. Enjoy your stay.
Remember, GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland.
Jesus, you’re stupid.
Re: Oliver’s update.
Fox News is now reporting that Bush inherited the 9/11 attacks.
Because Al Qaeda suddenly decided on January 20, 2001 to go after the US. Their previous declarations of war and acts of war — first WTC bombing, African embassy bombings, USS Cole bombings, the would-be Millennium bombings — don’t count, because they happened under He Whose Administration Must Never Be Criticized, But Only Spoken In Glowing Terms. (Soon to be The First Whose Administration etc. etc.)
And that memo was real useful. “This guy doesn’t like us, and will try like hell to hit us again, like these four previous occasions when they used bombs.” More useful would have been something like “on or around September 11, Mohammed Atta and 18 other Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 39 will board four separate airliners, armed with legally-permissible tools that can be used as weapons, hijack the planes, and turn them into giant kamikazes. But don’t racially profile passengers, don’t let the CIA and the FBI compare notes, and don’t warn the general public about vague ‘terrorist threats’ because you’ll be accused of scare-mongering for political purposes.”
In hindsight, there were warning signs about 9/11. But it takes hindsight to pick these out from the thousands or millions of worthless data points. Kind of like how some of the things in the Iraq Resolution have been proven to be questionable or incorrect — but so many people in good conscience believed they were accurate at the time.
I think I see why your side is so good at hindsight. With your heads up your asses on most issues, it’s the most common perspective you have.
J.
“Final kick in the butt”?!? Like anyone really believes that OW and the Left’s hatred for everything Bush will be put to rest in 3 days? Obama wants us to move forward, but surprise, surprise, his lunatic wing just won’t listen….not the first time and it certainly won’t be the last.
Irrelevancy is down the hall on the right, Mr. Ghost. Enjoy your stay.
serr8d: Remember, GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland.
A record that is beaten by every single previous president with the exception of FDR.
STFU
Jay Tea: And that memo was real useful. “This guy doesn’t like us, and will try like hell to hit us again, like these four previous occasions when they used bombs.” More useful would have been something like “on or around September 11, Mohammed Atta and 18 other Muslim men between the ages of 18 and 39 will board four separate airliners, armed with legally-permissible tools that can be used as weapons, hijack the planes, and turn them into giant kamikazes. But don’t racially profile passengers, don’t let the CIA and the FBI compare notes, and don’t warn the general public about vague ‘terrorist threats’ because you’ll be accused of scare-mongering for political purposes.”
You mean we don’t even get intelligence that let’s us know everything we need to know of all the details of an attack?
But, but, what about that “ticking bomb” scenario that’s used as justification for torture? You’re saying it just doesn’t happen?
MrGreyGhost: Obama wants us to move forward, but surprise, surprise, his lunatic wing just won’t listen
Good to know we’ll never be hearing about Clinton’s blow job from the right ever again.
IIRC, part of that Aug. 6 PDB included bits about using airplanes as missiles.
Pity nobody took it seriously. “OK, you’ve covered your ass.”
Remember, GWB has given us with 7 years with zero attacks on our homeland.
That has always had kind of a “bring ‘em on” sound to it. Par for the course for Bush and Bush-lovers to give an enemy additional incentive.
George Bush didn’t bring us socialism.
No, just corporate welfare. And a clusterfuck everywhere else.
Sean,
The right will NEVER forget Bill Clinton’s penis, They will NEVER let go of Bill Clinton’s penis. They will bring Bill Clinton’s penis up whenever it pleases them. And Bill Cinton’s penis gives them much pleasure.
Which explains a lot about the right and their sex scandals, doesn’t it?
Jay Tea inadvertently undermines his “argument” when he mentions the “would-be Millenium bombings.”
See, those would be the spectacular attacks that Al Qaeda had planned for the Y2K event, attacks that the Clinton Administration thwarted. Because, you see, those guys weren’t asleep at the switch.
So every time you hear that the previous administration was responsible for 9/11, just remind them about the Millenium Plot. The one that failed. Failed because a competent team was in charge.
And then tell them to go fuck themselves.
Don’t sprain your arm there, Bruce. The Millennium Plot was NOT busted by the Clinton “competent team,” but a combination of Canadian officials and an alert US border guard who noticed that Ressam was very nervous. Clinton, the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, INS — all had nothing to do with busting that guy.
I believe that you have some yourself-fucking to do…
J.
History will be far kinder to Bush than Clinton. Obama’s role is of course yet to be determined. It appears that there will be a big disconnect from the ambiguous pre election rhetoric of Obama and what he does now.
The worst president in my lifetime would have to be Jimmy Carter. I don’t think Obama will be as weak as Carter but he may. There is a wing of the Democrat party that is hell bent on diminishing American sovereignty. Obama’s inflation and future health care rationing will probably be his real legacy.
Jay Tea: The Millennium Plot was NOT busted by the Clinton “competent team,” but a combination of Canadian officials and an alert US border guard who noticed that Ressam was very nervous. Clinton, the CIA, the FBI, the Justice Department, INS — all had nothing to do with busting that guy.
You mean a terrorist plot was stopped due to police work and didn’t require at all the secret surveillance of private, law-abiding citizens?
Whoda thunk it?
With your heads up your asses on most issues, it’s the most common perspective you have.
Jay Tea. Stop. Please. You are a complete moron. You do not understand a single thing about the English language. You do not understand anything about time and space.
To wit, you cannot “inherit” an event that occurs on a specific day at a specific time, such as, an attack.
You only say someone “inherited” something, if that thing exists over time, like wealth or a recession.
Please. If you want to make some point about 9-11 really being Clinton’s fault, you do not have to destroy the language to do so.
Since you seem to believe that 9-11 was Clintons’ fault, let me ask you something: On what day will Barack Obama become responsible for the safety of the nation? Is it Jan 20, 2009 or Sept 12, 2010?
9/11 happened on George Bush’s watch. No many how words of anger you cons type, this fact isn’t up for debate.
The worst president in my lifetime would have to be Jimmy Carter.
And W is leaving office with only half of Carter’s approval rating. Gruesome, ain’t it?
Remember, GWB has given us with [8] years with [only four devastating] attacks on our homeland.
Fixed, although some may say the fourth plane didn’t count because it never attacked a building.
Wasn’t that border guard an official of the INS? You know, the INS that had nothing to do with thwarting the Millenium Plot?
Who do you think makes up the INS, JT? Robots?
And when that border guard made his suspicions known to his superiors, did they act immediately? Or did they tell him, “All right, you’ve covered your ass now.”?
And was the attack thwarted, or did a spectacular terrorist attack take place on Clinton’s watch? Did thousands die on Clinton’s watch, or on Bush’s?
Oliver is correct, 9-11 did happen on Bushes watch. And we can be damn thankful it was his watch and not Al Gores. .
Glad to see Oliver is taking ownership for all the things that will happen on Obama’s watch. But we still need to come up with some disrespectful nicknames for Obama like the liberals did with Bush. And do everything in our power to weaken his position when we are in a war like the liberals did with Bush. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, remember?
Quaker, Gruesome is a good term for it. I can only imagine what Carter would have done in a 9-11 scenario. He certainly was effective in the hostage crisis. But you must have approved of his efforts. He sure was willing to take the time to try a peaceful solution.
You need eyes in the back of your head if a Quaker’s got your back!
Buma, interesting way of counting. By that way, Bill Clinton let the same people who pulled those “four” attacks pull four attacks as well, separated by seven years, and handled it so thoroughly that they pulled the “four” attacks eight months after he left office.
Oliver, who’s debating who was president on 9/11? It’s just funny how you omit the eight years prior to that, from the first time they attacked the US, through two more major attacks (I’m sorry, three more — we’re using Buma’s stupid counting method) and did most of the groundwork for 9/11. And don’t forget that Clinton was OFFERED Bin Laden, and turned him down.
Sean, to give the Clinton administration credit for “stopping” the Millennium Bombing is ludicrous. It wasn’t anything they did. It was barely good police work. It was a single alert lowly border patrol agent, doing their job superbly, that busted Ressam.
By your reckoning, why not give the Clinton administration credit for catching Timothy McVeigh?
J.
Oliver, who’s debating who was president on 9/11?
Right, Jay Tea. We’re not debating who was president on 9-11.
We’re debating who was responsible for protecting the American people on 9-11.
We say Bush.
You say Clinton.
According to your logic, Obama doesn’t really become responsible for anything that happens on his watch until Sept 12, 2009.
Amused 0: But we still need to come up with some disrespectful nicknames for Obama like the liberals did with Bush. And do everything in our power to weaken his position when we are in a war like the liberals did with Bush. Dissent is the highest form of patriotism, remember?
See, this goes to show just how AO sees things. We don’t have to come up with disrespectful nicknames for Obama because he’s done something to deserve our scorn. No, we have to do it as payback. “Folks have been picking on our guy so we’re gonna pick on theirs.”
AO, clearly, has never gotten out of the kindergarten playground. PIty him.
Jay Tea: Sean, to give the Clinton administration credit for “stopping” the Millennium Bombing is ludicrous. It wasn’t anything they did. It was barely good police work. It was a single alert lowly border patrol agent, doing their job superbly, that busted Ressam.
And where did I make any mention of Clinton and/or his administration. My point, which you (again) have chosen to miss, was that the plot was stopped by law-enforcement (as you noted) doing their job, without illegal wiretapping powers.
Obama will use the GWB blame-stick for as long as his Boss can finagle it for him..you know his boss, don’t you?
George Soros, Owner, Democrat Party; moneybags; original BDSinner. As long as Osoros can play the Bush-fault card, he will. Give him 6 months, then Obonga owns it all.
Bush owns the 9/11 attacks, sure. He was President, and should’ve know Clinton was a slacker on defense; all Democrats are known to be weak on defense, that’s a given. But Bush has set Obonga up with enough tools to prevent another attack, tools Clinton was much too pussified to know he needed. Wanna bet Obonga keeps those tools sharp? You’ve seen him support FISA already. I’ll bet he keeps Guantanamo open for awhile, too.
Your Obonga, backed by Soros of course, is slick and crafty. Play that blame game for as long as possible. But even Soros will run out of excuses soon enough.
Remember your BDS. You’ve got that coming back to you, in spades.
“Bin Laden Determined To Strike Within US”
You’d think somebody with the title of “National Security Advisor” would be fired instead of promoted after the horrible security lapses that led to 9/11.
LOL Sean,
Now you find petty name calling childish behavior. That’s pretty funny. You didn’t have a problem with it for the last 8 years. Let me guess, you’ll find weakening our new president at every turn while fighting a war to be less than acceptable behavior. If you had any shame you’d feel slightly ridiculous.
“Obonga”
Stupid _and_ racist. Stay classy, Republicans! Have fun being absolutely irrelevant for the next eight years!
Oh, but I can’t let this pass:
“Bush owns the 9/11 attacks, sure. He was President, and should’ve know Clinton was a slacker on defense”
Huh? Bush owns 9/11 (America agrees with you), but actually Clinton owns it? Look, I’ll try and use as many one syllable words as possible: If you claim Bush II “kept us safe” _after_ 9/11, you have to claim responsibility to some degree for 9/11 itself, dipshit. And you actually begin by saying that Obama keeps blaming Bush? Then you blame Clinton for 9/11?
Yeesh. You guys are sad.
Oh, and this: “all Democrats are known to be weak on defense”
GEORGE W. BUSH STARTED TWO DIFFERENT WARS AND HASN’T WON EITHER OF THEM, MORON!
FDR and Truman? Democratic presidents who presided over the largest and most succesful military operations the United States have ever engaged in.
It was a single alert lowly border patrol agent, doing their job superbly, that busted Ressam.
And it was a single, alert flight instructor that told the FBI about suspicious guys who wanted to learn how to fly big jets but not learn how to land them.
And then what happened?
Remember your BDS. You’ve got that coming back to you, in spades.
Oh great, another WATB sore loser in the house.
I’m curious, if we enter a world-wide depression, complete with double digit inflation, massive unemployment, and all the unpleasant things which accompany it, will it be on “Obama’s Watch”, or will the blame be laid on Bush since the conditions which preceded this hypothetical Great Depression II happened during his term?
Seems to me that, if 9-11 is entirely Bush’s fault, then anything, good or bad, which happens in the economy after 20090817 is Obama’s. Maybe Obama’s legacy will get lucky and the economy as we known it will go to hell-in-a-handbasket in May.
Oliver, who’s debating who was president on 9/11?
The right and Fox News. Bin Laden was a threat, who acted, and has so far been uncaptured. This happened largely under Bush’s watch. Is Bush solely to blame? No. We should have caught him before. But let’s not pretend 9/11 happened under somebody else’s presidency.
And don’t forget that Clinton was OFFERED Bin Laden, and turned him down.
Even Sean fucking Hannity has given up on pushing this absolute fiction.
If Obama doesn’t act in an intelligent and responsible manner, of course his legacy re: the economy will be tarnished.
My f’ing God, have Republicans really become so deluded as to need to be _reminded_ that this is how political leadership works?
When you fail, you are known forever as a failure (Bush, Cheney, Rice, Republican Party ca. 2001-2006).
Honestly, you guys have a hard time understanding that?
Let me guess why — In the 90′s, we had a US president who, despite his personal failings, presided over the great period of economic expansion in American history (in particular with regards to job growth and personal income gains). We were mostly at peace despite events in Yugoslavia and Somalia (not our best moments as a country, but drops in the bucket compared to the clusterfucks known as Irag and Afghanistan). Americans in general felt very positive about ourselves, and the rest of the civilized world tended to love us.
But Republicans went crazy and decided that no, the most important thing is whether or not the president got a blowjob, despite the fact that the American people liked Clinton more than the Republican party.
And so it goes. You guys are truly pathetic.
No. Hoover was good at some things.
This dude “serr8ed” who says brilliant shit like “Obonga” and SFC B sound like ex-military types to me. So I have a question.
Let’s say you are a general who takes command of the 82nd Airborne. Seven and a half months later, your division loses a battle. Who is blamed, you, or the general who you replaced?
Who was commander-in-chief again?
Now, liberals didn’t blame Bush for 9/11. It was the very definition of “surprise attack.” But we’re not going to sit by while Clinton is blamed, either. It was only when maniacs like Rush, etc., in an attempt to make YET ANOTHER excuse for Bush, started their “Clinton did nothing” horseshit that liberals threw it back on them.
If you want to know who “emboldened terrorists” look no further than St Ronald, who responded to the Beirut barracks bombing by bravely invading…Grenada! Then you get Bush41. When the Libyans took down PanAm 103, he sent a 20,000 man SWAT team to arrest the dictator….of Panama!
“Now, liberals didn’t blame Bush for 9/11.”
Um, Bruce, if you scroll up you’ll see Jaim, Fafaroo, and Repack Rider all doing that.
Hindsight being 20-20 it’s pretty clear that Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, and Carter all took the threat of state-sponsored terrorism too lightly. Heck, I wish that Grenada was invaded as a response to Beirut; at least it would have been some sort of response. An ineffective one, but a response nonetheless. Reagan did nothing in response to the death of 241 American servicemen.
It’s pretty apparent that the meme here is that Bush II is the president who is solely responsible for preventing 9-11. That his predecessors bear no responsibility for what happened, or didn’t happen, during their administrations in regards to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. All I’m asking for is a little bit of consistency.
“FDR and Truman? Democratic presidents who presided over the largest and most succesful military operations the United States have ever engaged in.”
FDR was the president responsible for the largest loss of American life on American-held soil prior to 9-11. He was also responsible for involving America in a conflict which killed over 5,500 Americans and her allies in a single day, and almost 300,000 Americans over the course of five years. Truman was responsible for the unnecessary death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese civilians, and he made America the first, and only, country to ever use a nuclear weapon against another nation. And he did it twice. Since that wasn’t enough to satiate his bloodlust, he then got America involved in another war against a nation full of non-white people which we are still in a state of war with. JFK increased the number of US troops involved in the Vietnamese civil war from 900 to 113,000 during the course of his tragically shortened administration. LBJ continued JFK’s senseless involvement in the Vietnamese civil war by increasing the number of troops from 113,000 to over half a million. 36,000 American troops died during LBJ’s administration.
I could continue with taking the same POV of Carter and Clinton’s administration, but, honestly, it’s just not fun to use the same hindsight criticism, arm-chair quarterbacking, and partisan disgust for the POTUS as the sterotypical liberal.
We are told that the Clinton transition team made it clear to the incoming Bush administration that Bin Laden was the principal threat, and we are also told that this was taken so seriously that a meeting was schedule for September 12 to discuss this “imminent” threat, a mere eight months later.
I still want to know what more Bill Clinton could have done after leaving office to prevent 9/11.
SFC B: “Seems to me that, if 9-11 is entirely Bush’s fault…”
Memo: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside United States”
Bush: “Good. Now you’ve covered your ass.”
When presented with a clear warning, Bush did nothing. Therefore, it is his fault.
Yet you are such a fucking retard, you think it is just a matter of timing.
Amused 0: LOL Sean,
Now you find petty name calling childish behavior. That’s pretty funny. You didn’t have a problem with it for the last 8 years.
There you go again, deliberately missing the point made so you can object to something that wasn’t ever said.
Bush is criticized for what he has done and failed to do. Reasons are given for the criticisms made of Bush. Every single time? No. But there are substantial, documented, supportable, legitimate reasons to criticize Bush and they are often enumerated. He has earned the names he’s been called.
The main reason you give for calling Obama names (and it’s telling that name calling is what you resort to) is “they did it to my guy”.
OW: This happened largely under Bush’s watch. Is Bush solely to blame? No. We should have caught him before.
Jaim: In the 90’s, we had a US president who, despite his personal failings, … Yugoslavia and Somalia (not our best moments as a country…
Are folks on the left always correct? No. Are they ever irrationally partisan? Of course.
But I see acknowledgements like Oliver’s and Jaim’s, that things aren’t always a black/white, we’re right/you’re wrong situation, that Democratis leaders have failings and have screwed up, far far more often from those on the left than from those on the right who seem near incapable of ever allowing the possibility that they aren’t completely correct.
But, then, it is the folks on the left who tend to be more reality based.
Quaker, Gruesome is a good term for it. I can only imagine what Carter would have done in a 9-11 scenario.
Truest statement you’ve written to date, AO. However, I have no idea why you think we should have any interest at all in the products of your lackluster imagination.
And don’t forget that Clinton was OFFERED Bin Laden, and turned him down.
Hey! What’s the matter with you guys? Isn’t anyone going to call Mr. Tea out on this groaner?
Once again, Mr. Tea, you’re repeating batshit crazy right-wing trope with no grounding in reality.
All I’m asking for is a little bit of consistency.
Consistency would be nice, SFC. Conservatives like to argue that Bush’s anti-terror policies are a success because there hasn’t been a foreign terrorist attack on US soil since 9-11. But they are unwilling to apply that same standard to Clinton. There was only one foreign terrorist attack on US soil on his watch too, the WTC in 1993, and he accomplished this record without failing to win two wars, accumulating a massive debt burden, resorting to torture, undermining civil liberties, destroying our national reputation and otherwise violating a host of democratic principles.
Conservatives try to duck this point by pinning 9-11 on Clinton. I’m all for spreading the blame around. from Carter to Bush II, for the problem of Islamic terrorism and al Qeada. (Only noting that since 1976, Dems have been in charge of the executive for 12 years, while Cons have been in charge for 20) But I also believe that real leaders take responsibility for what occurs under their watch. They don’t try to pin the blame on the people who came before. If Bush gave one shit about terrorism in 2001 before September and had an idea for how to deal with it, he may not have been able to stop 9-11 but on the other hand, he might have. And Clinton’s policies would have had nothing to do with it. Bush could have reversed them on a dime. Of course, there is ample evidence, as referenced by others above, that Bush didn’t care one whit about terrorism and ignored warnings that he should care more.
Also, please let’s have a little consistency in our use of the english language. One can say that “Bush inherited a broken intelligence service” or “Bush inherited the problem of global terror.” But one cannot say “Bush inherited 9-11.” It doesn’t make any sense logically and it’s also wildly deceptive.
So consistency would be good. I expect that we’ll be seeing a lot more of it from the Obama administration.
Isn’t anyone going to call Mr. Tea out on this groaner?
Oh, nevermind. I’ll do it myself.
Ahem. Mr. Tea? From the report of the 9-11 Commission:
Facts: 11,297, Mr. Tea: 0
Wow. An American vet arguing that World War II was a failure on the part of Democratic presidential leadership. Slept through history class, didn’t you?
But you’d argue that Iraq and have Afghanistan has been successes?
And indeed, if another terrorist attack kills 3,000 Americans on our soil under Obama’s watch, he should be held fully accountable.
Unlike Republicans, I think personal responsibility (and failure of politcal leadership like we’ve had constantly for the past eight years) is an important think.
And btw, Bush also fucking owns the failure to respond in a timely manner to Katrina. And he always will.
“And btw, Bush also fucking owns the failure to respond in a timely manner to Katrina. And he always will.”
LOL,
That was primarily a local failure. With decent local leadership that ought nought ever been a federal disaster. Louisisana screwed that up from the Governor to the mayor to the corrupt police who abandoned their posts and started looting the city to the dumb asses too stupid to help themselves and get out of harms way. It’s not like that hurricane wasn’r expected.
You can’t blame Bush for a city and state too stupid to help themselves.
J. G. Thayer: “And don’t forget that Clinton was OFFERED Bin Laden, and turned him down.”
Quaker in a Basement: “Hey! What’s the matter with you guys? Isn’t anyone going to call Mr. Tea out on this groaner?”
The man lies so often, that you can’t blame us for failing to correct him every single time.
Fafaroo, too bad you’re wrong. Al Qaeda attacked the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 and injuring 4,000. They also attacked the USS Cole while it was docked in Yemen killing 17 sailors and wounding 39. Clinton’s response, to the act of war which is to attack an embassy, was to launch a missile attack at suspected Al Qaeda camps. He didn’t even bother to do that when the Cole was attacked. He simply issued a stern warning. After this how Bin Laden and Al Qaeda could ever think that the US wouldn’t retaliate in force to an attack is beyond me.
“When presented with a clear warning, Bush did nothing. Therefore, it is his fault.”
CSS, please, show me where in the 17AUG01 PDB you’re referring to it says that there is a plot by Bin Laden agents to hijack domestic US flights, using mostly Saudi citizens in mid September, and then use those planes in a suicide attack on commercial US buildings? I’ve read the released portions of this memo and, sorry fucktard, but there isn’t a whole lot of actionable intelligence in there. It’s all well-and-good that, since we know what happened, we can work our way back and see what was missed, but that’s not very useful when the PDB is saying that Al Qaeda will be using sympathetic US citizens for their attack. Heck, if Bush ordered the US law enforcement and intelligence agencies to follow the leads present in the PDB, they’d have been looking for the wrong people, and chasing the wrong motive.
Jaim, the fact you say “…I think personal responsibility…is an important thin(g),” and follow it with “And btw, Bush also fucking owns the failure to respond in a timely manner to Katrina,” is hilarious. They fact that the entire state, parish, and city governments in NOLA failed miserably had far, far, far more to do with what happened in the immediate aftermath of Kartina than anything Bush and FEMA did or didn’t. Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco abdicated every bit of responsibility and accountability they had to the people of New Orleans and Louisiana, and they were allowed to get away with it through the cover offered by folks like you Jaim. Pathetic.
Oh, and I guess you must have slept through history class as well. If you hadn’t you’d probably have been aware that the US under FDR had failures of intelligence and communications prior to Pearl Harbor make the failures prior to 9-11 look like a game of children’s telephone. The warnings the US had of an attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor were clear. DC even warned Pacific Command units to be aware of a possible attack by Japan. However they didn’t bother to warn the commanders of Pearl Harbor. It’s not like this was an impossible scenario either since US war games had shown that the very attack Japan used would likely be successful on the ships docked in Pearl Harbor. If FDR’s administration had been a little more attentive then they’d have been able to save US lives in Hawaii.
Also Jaim, I never said that WWII was a failure of leadership on the part of any President. Japan was determined to have a war with the US over control of the Pacific. There was no doubt about that. Short of total capitulation to the desires of the Empire of Japan, there was no way FDR could have avoided war with them. There was also no way that FDR and the US could have allowed Britain to fall to Nazi Germany and, even if Germany hadn’t declared war on the US along with Japan, that fight was going to be engaged. However, that doesn’t change the fact that he was President when 2,400 Americans, and most of the Pacific Fleet were sunk. It also doesn’t change the fact that he was President during the most bloody war America has fought since the Civil War.
If you don’t like the tone I used in describing the actions of Democratic Party US Presidents, then too fucking bad cupcake because that’s the exact same tone used by people on this site when describing the USA’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq today under Bush.
I’m fully aware that it’s very likely my fellow Soldiers and I will be send into harm’s away again under the orders of President Obama. I only hope that Jaim et al will support Obama more than they supported Bush when that time comes.
“You can’t blame Bush for a city and state too stupid to help themselves.”
Sure we can, and do. Leaders lead. Bush never did. Guy was a complete incompetent. When a major American city is underwater, it’s not longer just a “local” issue.
But thanks for playing.
It’s not like that hurricane wasn’t expected.
The hurricane was expected, and was expected to glance NO and not be so bad. Thus the local response. What WASN’T expected that the levees would breech or fail, and the federal response to that was inexcusable.
Lets’ see you try to live on a highway overpass in 90 degree heat and 90% humidity for 4 days with no food or fresh water, you’re such a tough guy.
SFC B: I only hope that Jaim et al will support Obama more than they supported Bush when that time comes.
Like, maybe by making sure their properly equipped so they don’t have to rely on their parents to buy them body armor off eBay, you mean?
theirthey’reJaim,
Of course you blame Bush for a complete failure in Louisisana. You’re a liberal, personal responsibility isn’t your thing. You’re into a cradle to grave welfare state.
Who on earth could have imagined that Louisiana was so clueless. New Orleans was basically a posterchild for a Darwin Award. LOL, Even Sean Penn was helpless.
Sean, try rereading what I wrote. I never said anything about support for the troops Obama will be putting into harm’s way. I said that I hope they support Obama and his decisions regarding national defense more than they supported Bush’s. Us troops will be taken care of regardless. Having the American people support the commander-in-chief and the mission would be a nice change though. It would sure suck if we were to win another front in the war against terrorism and not receive recognition for it again.
SFC B, why should the American people be expected to blindly follow bad decisions? Fuck no I’m not going to support a bad idea just because the President is the one that came up with it.
Sorry for the double post.
Shorter AO:
Those
negrosliberals DESERVED to die for not voting the way I told them to.Taking joy in other people’s suffering, you disgust me.
You’re a liberal, personal responsibility isn’t your thing. You’re into a cradle to grave welfare state.
Ah yes, this old one. Tell me, if “hard work” will get you more money, why aren’t you a multi-trillionaire? Lazy bum.
Let me ask you something, AO. How do you sleep at night knowing that hundreds of thousands of people were killed in sectarian violence in Iraq, a major American city drowned, Bin Laden is still free to do as he pleases, random people are being tortured by U.S. troops for shits and giggles, people are losing their homes, gays are being denied equal protection under the law by a bunch of crazed Bible-thumpers looking to hurt someone, and you helped all this happen? I hope you get cancer. After all, you helped spread it.
SFC B,
Good luck with that support thing from posters like Jaim, Duroz, Sean, Quaker etc. Any conflict lasting over a week or involving any real sacrifice and they will be undermining the battle from home.
There won’t be quite the obvious effort to undermine the President like the Democrats did for partisan points against Bush but these people are unwilling to pay anything for freedom. They are the parasites that make difficult jobs harder.
Japan was determined to have a war with the US over control of the Pacific. There was no doubt about that. Short of total capitulation to the desires of the Empire of Japan, there was no way FDR could have avoided war with them.
In fact, no. This is a common misconception. Japan’s interest was in enforcing the open door trade policy in China, something for which they felt the United States would be cheerfully on board; they were quite surprised when we weren’t. They were of course committing some fairly sick atrocities in China, but as is often the case with foreign affairs this was not our reasoning behind our displeasure at their involvement there. The Japanese leadership wasn’t interested in war with the United States, and wanted to keep our pacific fleet from interfering with China specifically, their ‘Greater East-Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere’ more generally.
I only hope that Jaim et al will support Obama more than they supported Bush when that time comes.
As with any president, no matter his party or ideology – his plans will be supported when they make sense, in and of themselves. When they don’t make sense, they won’t be. This has nothing to do with the troops who must do as he says, regardless of their own opinions – of course they have always had the liberal mainstream’s utmost support.
What Parthenon said. America elected Obama because he seems smart, or at least smart enough to hire good, intelligent people. More importantly, he’s going to try and do what’s best for America, not what’s best for the future of the Republican party and the Neoconservative agenda.
I didn’t support Bush’s policies because I hate George Bush, I didn’t support his policies BECAUSE THEY WERE FUCKING STUPID.
Take out Iran’s two biggest enemies in the region (Saddam and the Taliban), spend trillions of taxpayer dollars to set up a government in a majority-Shia country that will inevitably be pro-Iranian, and THIS is supposed to bring peace to the region, while making Israel safer? And all through it, making the Federal government bigger, more expensive, and more wasteful than ever?
No wonder so many Republicans voted for Obama. Even they can’t hide their shame any longer. Can’t blame ‘em.
Any conflict lasting over a week or involving any real sacrifice and they will be undermining the battle from home.
Kiss my E-5 Army veteran ass. Liberals are not cowards, but we know when the war is trumped up and not in the best interests of the country. Maybe you have noticed that the loudest proponents for the war have nothing to do with the dirty end of it.
It was supposed to be quick and cheap and there were supposed to be WMD. We were supposed to observe the Geneva Convention and there was going to be democracy, and Sunnis and Shiites would be singing Kumbaya together on their way to vote for a wonderful new government that would be a beacon of freedom in the Middle East. How’s that working out?
We could have built a school and a hospital in every county in the country for what we have spent in Iraq; have we helped our country by that amount with the money we have spent and the people we have killed?
This war is about enriching corrupt people and killing dirty brown mooslims because some consider them less than human. How many times does a conservative have to be fooled before it’s impossible to fool him again with the same trick?
>But, then, it is the folks on the left who tend to be more reality based.
You give yourself a bit much credit, I’m afraid. (Not that the right would be any better, mind you.)
>But, then, it is the folks on the left who tend to be more reality based.
You give yourself a bit much credit, I’m afraid. (Not that the right would be any better, mind you.)
Fafaroo, too bad you’re wrong.
Uh, no I’m not. Reread what I wrote and think a little bit before you start in with the talking points.
I will add, that the string of AQ attacks not on US soil that you list suggest a rather sharp rise in terrorist activity that one would think might have pricked up the ears of an incoming administration. But while this sharp rise in terrorist attacks condemns Clinton, it also seems to absolve Bush. Why? I really don’t know.
But then that brings us back to consistency.
You want to blame Clinton for not responding to a rising level of AQ attacks but if this rise in terror activity is so obvious and self-evident as to condemn Clinton, how could it also be so vague and amorphous enough to let Bush off the hook?
So let’s talk about consistency. Maybe you might want to look the word up first because it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Fafaroo, there is a fundamental difference between the rising number of Al Qaeda attacks under Clinton, and the rising number of Al Qaeda attacks under Bush.
Under Clinton, they were directly against the US, on our sovereign territory.
Under Bush, they were not.
The duty of the President is to protect our nation. If Al Qaeda, who had been so gung-ho at hitting us directly, chooses to attack other nations instead, that’s fairly good evidence that they couldn’t attack us directly any more.
A US president has very limited ability, responsibility, and authority to prevent incidents like the London, Madrid, and Bali bombings.
J.
Yes, but weren’t they supposed to be “on the defensive” and therefore unable to perpetrate spectacular new attacks? Wasn’t that the point of the “War on Terror”?
Bruce, terrorists don’t do “defense” very well — witness Hamas and Hezbollah for prime examples. They prefer to take the offense in new areas, where they can more plausibly claim victory. The primary responsibility for the attacks I mentioned is, of course, Al Qaeda, but Britain, Spain, and Indonesia had the duty to protect their citizens — not the United States.
Terrorists are, at the core, irrational people. It should come as no great surprise when they act irrationally. The particular expression of their irrationality is usually a surprise, but that it happens at all should not.
J.
AO said, “…the dumb asses too stupid to help themselves and get out of harm’s way.”
Yes, let’s not have any compassion for those dumbasses. They were too stupid to walk their minimum-wage earning asses out of the path of a 400 mile wide category 5 hurricane. Too stupid to take their sorry asses to those thousands of free hotel rooms waiting for them in Podunk, Texas, and Armpit, Arkansas. They should have just got their cash savings out of the bank, or used their credit cards to live on until it was safe to return to their homes and jobs. They had so many choices! None of which were “sit tight and hope for the best,” which had worked for them about 20 times in the past. Dumbasses. Fuck them.
“terrorists don’t do “defense” very well”
And yet, Bush failed to capture or kill OBL.
Yet another BS statement from Jay.
So, by Tea’s logic, the entire “Global War on Terror” is a giant fucking game of Whack-a-Mole.
What’s the sense of “going on the offensive against terrorists” if they’re just going to pop up somewhere else? Wouldn’t it be better to take reasonable defensive measures and work to change the conditions that spawn terrorism?
I, personally, think Bin Laden’s been worm food for years now. And it never was a war against just Bin Laden, or even just Al Qaeda. It was the bigger picture.
And yeah, it is kinda like whack-a-mole. But with a few differences. For one, the particular moles tend not to survive getting whacked.
As far as “work to change the conditions that spawn terrorism,” that might be worth examining. According to the terrorists, it’s pretty much our existence that is the offending thing, so maybe we could do something about that. Or, perhaps, help them develop a conventional military capability so we can face them in a more familiar manner.
Generally speaking, “the conditions that spawn terrorism” consist of “sociopaths who want power lacking power, and have no moral compunctions about doing whatever they think will get them power.” And the best way I have seen to “change” those conditions consists of “keeping those sociopaths from getting power, sometimes by killing them.”
It’s not perfect, but it seems to be working better than most other things tried.
J.
You’re right, Tea. It’s “our existence” these people find offensive.
It’s not our unquestioning support of every action, no matter how brutal or unfair, that Israel has taken the last 60 years that pissed these people off.
It couldn’t be the memory of our overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran, and replacing it with the Shah, 55 years ago that gets under their skin.
It isn’t that we represent the colonial heritage of 19th century imperialism that upsets these folks.
It has nothing to do with the fact that we support oppressive regimes like the Saudi monarchy and the Mubarak regime in Egypt, in order to exploit the natural resources belonging to the people, that gets their goat.
Why should Muslims be resentful of the US telling Iran that its nuclear ambitions are “unacceptable”, while ignoring Israel’s nuclear arsenal, and maintaining thousands of nukes of our own? Nukes that could be used against them if we choose? After all, it’s not like we’ve ever used nukes before, right?
No there is nothing the US has done historically to anger the Muslim world and engender terrorism. And there is absolutely nothing we can do in the future to alleviate any conditions that lead to it. So let’s just kill ‘em all.
Under Clinton, [al Qaeda attacks] were directly against the US, on our sovereign territory.
Under Bush, they were not.
So… What DID happen on September 11?
JT, your ignorance of recent history is astonishing.
Please tell us what Bill Clinton could have done after leaving office to help Bush prevent 9/11.
“The Japanese leadership wasn’t interested in war with the United States, and wanted to keep our pacific fleet from interfering with China…”
The second half of that sentence seems to be at odds with the first half of it Parthenon.
“America elected Obama because he seems smart, or at least smart enough to hire good, intelligent people.”
Jaim, despite the meme that Bush is an idiot, it’s a demonstratable fact that he is not. You might not agree with his politics or policies, but that just means you don’t agree with him. Not that he’s dumb or evil. Also, while you might not agree with the politics and policies of the people Bush has appointed during his administration, but you’d be hard pressed to show that they were anything other than “good, intelligent people” with the best interests of the country at heart. The fact they were able to make it through bi-partisan confirmation hearings would seem to bear that out. Do yourself a favor and stop mistaking disagreements on politics with morality views. I know you’ve spent the past few years making that mistake, but I assure you, the sooner you can break that bad habit, the better off you’ll be.
“I will add, that the string of AQ attacks not on US soil that you list suggest a rather sharp rise in terrorist activity that one would think might have pricked up the ears of an incoming administration.”
My bad. Embassies are merely extra-territorial, exempt from host nations laws, and have been treated as territory of the nation in the embassy since about the 1600s. I suppose you’re right that we shouldn’t consider the bombing of a US embassy on foreign soil to be the same as a bombing of something actually on US soil. No harm, no foul.
If the Al Qaeda attacks were supposed to prick up the ears of the incoming administration, they should have pinned the ears of the current administration back as they went rushing to an adequate defense of the nation they swore to protect. Clinton didn’t do that. He didn’t respond the the bombing of the Khobar Towers. He didn’t respond to the bombing of two US embassies. He didn’t respond to the near-sinking of a US ship. Maybe you could argue that he didn’t do that because he was too busy defending his personal life, but he still failed to act in a manner which would have prevented, or at least deterred, future attacks.
“You want to blame Clinton for not responding to a rising level of AQ attacks but if this rise in terror activity is so obvious and self-evident as to condemn Clinton, how could it also be so vague and amorphous enough to let Bush off the hook?”
How the hell do you NOT want to hold Clinton accountable for his failure to respond to a rising level of AQ attacks? Sweet Jeebus on a lowercase t. Clinton’s entire administration was littered with bodies of US citizens killed by terrorist attacks. WTC in 1993, Khobar Towers in 1996, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. In response to all this he sent one blind cleric to jail and launched a dozen missiles. After that robust response I can’t imagine how Bin Laden could ever get the idea that the US wouldn’t respond to terror attacks.
I have never said Bush has no culpability in 9-11. Everyone from Bush down to the ticket agents and security guards who allowed the hijackers on the plane have some degree of responsibility on that day. However, prior to 9-11, there were four US presidents spanning nearly two and a half decades of ignoring exactly what terrorists were saying, doing, and what their goals were. Carter, Reagan, and the first Bush can at least point out they were having to deal with a world where the USSR remained a superpower.
Clinton’s entire administration was littered with bodies of US citizens killed by terrorist attacks. WTC in 1993, Khobar Towers in 1996, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. In response to all this he sent one blind cleric to jail and launched a dozen missiles.
Would you like another crack at this one before it gets taken apart?
theirthey’reRight the first time.
It’s not perfect, but it seems to be working better than most other things tried.
J.
I dunno, Jay. It worked pretty well for Bush and Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the PNAC sociopaths.
“When presented with a clear warning, Bush did nothing. Therefore, it is his fault.”
SFC B: “CSS, please, show me where in the 17AUG01 PDB you’re referring to it says that there is a plot by Bin Laden…”
Moving the goalposts?
Maybe that information would have been in there had Bush done anything, ANYTHING to stop Al Quada. Remember, this was the organization that was responsible for the WTC attack in 1993 and the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000. However, despite repeated attempts by Clarke and others to get Bush and the Republicans to act, they did nothing.
All the information needed to stop the attacks was known before hand, but due to a total lack of leadership at the top, nothing was done.
Nothing.
Even you can’t believe otherwise.
SFC B: “How the hell do you NOT want to hold Clinton accountable for his failure to respond to a rising level of AQ attacks? Sweet Jeebus on a lowercase t. Clinton’s entire administration was littered with bodies of US citizens killed by terrorist attacks. WTC in 1993, Khobar Towers in 1996, Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the USS Cole in 2000. In response to all this he sent one blind cleric to jail and launched a dozen missiles.”
A little history lesson for you. Clinton tried to do more, but his efforts were blocked by the Republicans in congress. They wouldn’t authorize the war in Afghanistan. A war that could have stopped the attacks of 9/11.
Fellas, am I wrong, or weren’t there several people arrested and imprisoned for the 1993 WTC attack, not just “one blind cleric”? And didn’t the Saudis arrest, torture, and imprison the men it claimed were responsible for Khobar? And weren’t many of the perpetrators of the embassy bombings caught and punished, or am I wrong? and didn’t the Cole bombing take place a few weels before Clinton left office? Which would make the Bush administration responsible for catching them? Am I wrong?
Weeks, not weels.
“Would you like another crack at this one before it gets taken apart?”
Have at Quaker. I can’t wait to hear about how Clinton wasn’t president in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2000. The standard set above is when the new President takes office, they are 100% accountable for attacks against Americans during their administration. Please, explain to me how those attacks aren’t Clinton’s responsibility using the standards now applied to Bush.
“Moving the goalposts?”
Absolutely not CSS. Look over the 17AUG memo which is your Rosetta Stone for the 9-11 attack and explain what policies could have been implemented which would have stopped 9-11. Let’s assume that Bush has total power to get any of these policies past the judiciary and the legislature. What could he have done?
“A little history lesson for you. Clinton tried to do more, but his efforts were blocked by the Republicans in congress. They wouldn’t authorize the war in Afghanistan.”
Please point me in the direction to where I can see the time Bill Clinton, as POTUS, went to the Republican controlled congress and tried to get authorization for use of military force against Afghanistan, but was blocked. I can’t wait to see that. I’m serious. I’ve used my limited Google-Fu and can only find references to Clinton, in 2004, saying he had a plan to attack Afghanistan after the Cole, but wasn’t able to execute it because the investigation took too long. I’d love a source for Clinton’s brilliant invasion of Afghanistan plan which wasn’t President Clinton four years after-the-fact.
Amused 0: but these people are unwilling to pay anything for freedom.
Actually I’m willing to sacrifice a great deal of my personal security for freedom. Unfortunately, that’s something you and the ex-administration don’t want to allow me to do.
After the 1993 WTC attack (which took place WEEKS after Clinton assumed office, not months later), 4 followers of the “blind sheikh” were tried, convicted, and sentenced to 240 years in prison, where they remain. Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind, was apprehended in 1995, and in 1997 was convicted and sentenced, also to 240 years. He is in prison today.
In 1995, a military training center in Saudi Arabia was bombed and Americans were killed. The Saudis cobvicted 4 men of the crime, but beheaded them before Americans could ascertain if they were the true perpetrators. The Saudis refused any further cooperation in the case.
The investigation into the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing was also hampered by a lack of cooperation from our Saudi “friends.” In 2001, just before the statute of limitations ran out, 13 men were indicted in US court, but throughout the Bush administration the Saudis have refused to hand them over.
Four terrorists were caught, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison in the 1998 Embassy bombings. 14 others are still at large. 3 others are fighting extradition.
The 2000 Cole bombing was too close to the end of the Clinton administration for any serious investigation to take place. What was attempted was hampered by Yemeni resistance. The Bush administration has made no further progress in apprehending the perps.
In 1998 it was widely assumed that the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan were a “Wag the Dog” attempt to divert attention away from the Lewinsky scandal. GOP Senator Arlen Spector, among others, said as much, even using the phrase “wag the dog.” There was NO outcry, from Republicans or anyone else, to wage a “War on Terror.”
SDM: But, then, it is the folks on the left who tend to be more reality based.
Haplo9: You give yourself a bit much credit, I’m afraid.
Yeah, you’re right. The left came up with:
- Intelligent Design.
- Climate change is a myth.
- EPA repeatedly ignores the advice of its own scientists.
- Iraq will pay for itself.
- Pi = 3
and believe that:
- “there’s strong evidence” that mercury-based preservative in vaccines causes autism in stark contrast with the view of the medical establishment (McCain).
- “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.” (Reagan)
CSS: “Moving the goalposts?”
SFC B: “Absolutely not CSS. Look over the 17AUG memo which is your Rosetta Stone for the 9-11 attack and explain what policies could have been implemented which would have stopped 9-11. Let’s assume that Bush has total power to get any of these policies past the judiciary and the legislature. What could he have done?”
You just don’t get it, do you? It’s not just that memo, it’s the whole collection of events that lead up to that memo.
For eight months, the Bush Administration did ZERO to combat terrorism. When told Bin Ladden was determined to attack within the United States, Bush dismissed it as someone trying to cover their ass.
At the time, it was known Bin Ladden was determined to attack. It was known that Al Quada had operatives in the United States (they were under surveillance at times). It was known that some were training to fly commercial jets, but were uninterested in learning how to take off or land. There was even training plans involving a plot to use commercial airliners as missiles. (When they say no one could have imagined this would happen, they are lying.) Everything needed to stop the plot was known by August, but instead of taking the warning seriously, Bush dismissed it.
There was no leadership from the top, therefore there was no co-ordination on this problem. Without co-ordination, terrorism is nearly impossible to stop.
But fucking hell, just increasing security at the major airports would have had a chance at stopping the attack. BUT NOTHING WAS DONE.
“Please point me in the direction to where I can see the time Bill Clinton, as POTUS, went to the Republican controlled congress and tried to get authorization for use of military force against Afghanistan, but was blocked. I can’t wait to see that. I’m serious. I’ve used my limited Google-Fu…”
Very limited, evidently. Look up the cruise missile attacks against training camps in Afghanistan and the Republican reaction. Clinton never went to congress, because he knew he couldn’t get their support.
With regards to 9-11, conservatives have always been consistent about one thing:
They’ve always responded to 9-11 as if it were attack on the Republican brand, and not an attack on America.
I can’t wait to hear about how Clinton wasn’t president in 1993, 1996, 1998, and 2000. The standard set above is when the new President takes office, they are 100% accountable for attacks against Americans during their administration. Please, explain to me how those attacks aren’t Clinton’s responsibility using the standards now applied to Bush.
No, that’s not how I’m going to take apart your previous statement. I’ll even give you a mulligan on your first attempt. Of course, Mr. Clinton was president. Where you went awry was here:
Bruce Henry has given you a very good head start on getting this one right. One more try?
“For eight months, the Bush Administration did ZERO to combat terrorism.”
Clinton had eight years. Eight years of the same reports. Eight years of the same enemy. Eight years of attack, after attack, after attack. And yet, through it all, he did nothing substantive to stop it. Airport security didn’t increase. More flight marshalls weren’t hired. Cockpit doors weren’t reinforced. Yet, somehow, using the same threat matrix available to Clinton, Bush’s administration was supposed to figure it all out when his predecessor couldn’t? Hell, but was even using Clinton’s CIA director. Was Tenet supposed to gain some sort of sense of perception he didn’t have for the 5 years he was the deputy director, or director, of the CIA under Clinton once Bush took his oath of office?
CSS, if you’re going to argue that the US didn’t put it all together due to a lack of leadership during Bush’s term, then you should probably concede that Clinton suffered the exact same blind spot.
“Clinton never went to congress, because he knew he couldn’t get their support.”
Maybe if he hadn’t gotten America involved in a war against a nation who was no threat to the US he would have been able to muster the congressional support needed to take the fight to the real threat. Hell, maybe if his administration had done a better job of hiring gay Arabic, Farsi, Dari, and Pashto speakers they’d have had the intelligence resources to be able to make a case for military intervention in Afghanistan despite his problems with risking American lives in senseless wars of aggression against Muslims.
Honestly CSS, why do you hate Arabs so much? Why do you want the United States government to profile Arabs in airports? Why do you want the United States government to investigate every Arab who wants to learn how to fly? Why do you want Americans to be suspicious of every US citizen who happens to be of Arab descent or who happens to be a Muslim? Why do you think it is okay to condemn the millions of law-abiding Arabs and Muslims in America to a cloud of suspicion simply because 19 of them conducted an act of terrorism? Cause that’s what you obviously expected the Bush administration to do 8 months into its term.
“No, that’s not how I’m going to take apart your previous statement.”
Quaker, I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how CLinton’s administration wasn’t littered with the bodies of Americans killed in terrorist attacks. Bruce Henry pointing out that I was dismissive of the prison sentences handed out really doesn’t detract from what I’d originally said. I mean, if you can’t do it, it’s okay to admit it. No one is perfect. Just this morning I forgot how my wife likes her eggs.
The second half of that sentence seems to be at odds with the first half of it Parthenon.
I see you’re debating about five people on this thread on some more current topics, so I don’t expect a reply, but it really isn’t at odds. Of course the Japanese leadership was not monolithic, but the loudest voices would have avoided war with the United States had it been possible. American diplomats made clear that the United States wouldn’t tolerate Japanese involvement in China – which the American leadership saw as its own personal playground, not Japan’s. Weighing the likelihood of war with the U.S. – especially considering American attention appeared to be focused so much more heavily on Europe – vs. the perceived need to keep the west out of China, they made the choice to hit Pearl Harbor. In fact, some Japanese diplomats didn’t expect Pearl Harbor to result in war, particularly given the European situation.
Although, you may have read a different interpretation. That’s what history is, after all.
Quaker, I’m still waiting for you to explain to me how CLinton’s administration wasn’t littered with the bodies of Americans killed in terrorist attacks.
Now you’re just pretending you don’t get it. Very well.
In response to all this he sent one blind cleric to jail and launched a dozen missiles.
World Trade Center Bombing, 1993:
Ramzi Yousef – Kuwaiti – captured and convicted
Mahmud Abouhalima – Egyptian – captured and convicted
Mohammad Salameh – Palestinian – captured and convicted
Nidal Ayyad – U.S. citizen born in Kuwait – captured and convicted
Ahmad Ajaj – Palestinian – captured and convicted
Eyad Ismoil – Jordanian – captured and convicted
Abdul Rahman Yasin – U.S. citizen of Iraqi descent – captured and released
Khobar Towers
Ahmed Ibrahim Al-Mughassil – Saudi – indicted, at large
Abdelkarim Hussein Mohamed Al-Nasser – Saudi – indicted, at large
Ali Saed Bin Ali El-Hoorie – Saudi – indicted, at large
Ibrahim Salih Mohammed Al-Yacoub – Saudi – indicted, at large
Embassy Bombings
Muhammad Atef – Egyptian – killed in Afghanistan in 2001
Muhsin Musa Matwalli Atwah – Egyptian – killed in Pakistan in 2006
Wadih el Hage – Lebanese – captured and convicted
Mohamed Sadeek Odeh – Jordanian – captured and convicted
Mohamed Rashed Daoud al-’Owhali – Saudi – captured and convicted
Khalfan Khamis Mohamed – Tanzanian – serving life without parole since 2001
Khalid al Fawwaz – Saudi – held in the UK since 1998
Ibrahim Eidarous – Egyptian – held in the UK since 1999
Adel Abdel Bary – Egyptian – held in the UK since 1999
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim – Iraqi – arrested in 1998, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp
Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani – Tanzanian – arrested in 2004, held in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp
USS Cole
Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice told the Commission that when the administration took office on 20 January 2001, “We knew that there was speculation that the 2000 Cole attack was al Qaeda… We received, I think, on 25 January the same assessment [of al-Qaeda responsibility]. It was preliminary. It was not clear.”
Newsweek reported that on the following day, “six days after Bush took office,” the FBI “believed they had clear evidence tying the bombers to Al Qaeda.”[23] The Washington Post reported that, on 9 February, Vice President Dick Cheney was briefed on bin Laden’s responsibility “without hedge.”
Yet, somehow, using the same threat matrix available to Clinton, Bush’s administration was supposed to figure it all out when his predecessor couldn’t?
They left him a set of instructions!
Maybe if he hadn’t gotten America involved in a war against a nation who was no threat to the US he would have been able to muster the congressional support needed to take the fight to the real threat.
Wow, do you even hear yourself sometimes?
Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I didn’t blame Bush then, and I don’t now, for not “stopping” the 9/11 attacks. As I said, it was the very definition of surprise attack. It was so out of the box that it’s not surprising that it was so successful ( from AQs viewpoint).
But I just as vehemently reject the notion that the fact that there were AQ attacks on US interests in the 1990s means that 9/11 can be “blamed” on Clinton. And the “Clinton did nothing” horseshit is just that — horseshit. I wouldn’t say shit about who was responsible if conservative retards hadn’t started up with that song and dance.
But I give SFC B credit for acknowledging that the history of terrorism didn’t start in 1993.
I’m going to agree with Bruce a smidgen, but I do hold Clinton a little responsible for 9/11 — in the sense that he didn’t treat prior terrorist attacks as the acts of war they were, but pushed the law enforcement model of fighting terrorism.
I do not blame the first President Bush for not removing Saddam — the fragile coalition he put together would not have stood for it — but I do blame him for not taking the moment of victory and using it to then lean HARD on those fickle allies to clean up their own terrorist connections.
I also blame Ronald Reagan for letting our Marines first get blown up in Beirut, then making them flee.
I also blame Jimmy Carter for allowing the Iranian hostage crisis to drag on as long as it did.
Bush was the first to treat terrorism as a full-blown military matter, and that is one of the reasons I voted for him in 2004 — after holding my nose when I voted against Gore in 2000.
J.
I do hold Clinton a little responsible for 9/11 — in the sense that he didn’t treat prior terrorist attacks as the acts of war they were, but pushed the law enforcement model of fighting terrorism.
Maybe because at the time, these were not considered act of war inasmuch as some flag or another is kind of required for that (See Izzard, Eddie) as much as they were considered criminal acts of violence.
Bush was the first to treat terrorism as a full-blown military matter
Except that law enforcement seems, on balance, to do a far better job – whether that’s arresting the shoe bomber, Timothy McVeigh, etc. Military action seems most useful when used versus states, while police action seems to do a far more comprehensive job of capturing terrorists.
“Clinton had eight years. Eight years of the same reports. Eight years of the same enemy.”
And eight years of no 9/11.
Sorry Republicans, Clinton hasn’t been president for a long time and you need to stop trying to pin your failures on him.
Republicans = the party that ruins the American economy, that doesn’t keep our domestic territory safe, and that turns our country into a joke.
SFC B: “CSS, if you’re going to argue that the US didn’t put it all together due to a lack of leadership during Bush’s term, then you should probably concede that Clinton suffered the exact same blind spot.”
NO. FUCK NO!
Clinton’s administration had terrorism as a priority. Maybe not as high of a priority as some would have liked, but it was a priority. Bush, on the other hand, though Ashcroft thought the number one priority of the Justice Department was porn. Not child porn, but porn.
Google Richard Clarke to see the difference between Clinton and Bush on this issue.
“Maybe if he hadn’t gotten America involved in a war against a nation who was no threat to the US…”
He was trying to stop genocide. That’s a good reason to start a war.
“Honestly CSS, why do you hate Arabs so much? Why do you want the United States government to profile Arabs in airports?”
Clearly you are a fucking idiot who is no longer willing to argue in an intellectually honest way.
So I will take this as a clear admission of defeat on your part.
SFC B: “Maybe if he hadn’t gotten America involved in a war against a nation who was no threat to the US he would have been able to muster the congressional support needed to take the fight to the real threat.”
Duros62: “Wow, do you even hear yourself sometimes?”
Clearly he no longer cares about anything except arguing against us. Facts, logical consistency, etc. is all meaningless compared to continuing the argument.
In 1993, Al Qaeda tried to blow up the WTC.
The Clinton administration threw lawyers and cops at them.
In 1998, Al Qaeda tried to blow up two US embassies in Africa.
The Clinton administration threw lawyers and cops at them.
In 2000, Al Qaeda used suicide bombers to nearly sink the USS Cole.
The Clinton administration threw lawyers and cops at them.
In 2001, Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11.
The Bush administration unleashed the US military.
Al Qaeda chose to redirect their attacks at other nations — Great Britain, Spain, Indonesia.
J.
“Although, you may have read a different interpretation. That’s what history is, after all.”
That’s why I like history. It is so much easier to look back at what happened and see what should have been obvious when you know what the outcome is. It should have been apparent to anyone in Japan that the US would not allow Pearl Harbor to go unchallenged. And, honestly, if the Japanese had succeeded in taking out the Pacific Fleet aircraft carriers, WWII in the Pacific unfolds a lot differently. Just on the military side, there’s several battle which, if they go slightly differently, alter history. If the cruisers from Taffy 2 aren’t able to fight Japanese battleships three times their size to a standstill Leyte Gulf goes differently. Hitler listens to his generals and sends his divisions at Pas de Calais to Normandy and the D-Day invasion is repelled.
Quaker one blind cleric and 11 other guys in prison, and a dozen missiles in response to five terror attacks which killed hundreds of Americans and wounded thousands. Yeah. Clinton was sure tough on them. Yes indeed. Again, with a response like that I have no idea why Al Qaeda would expect the USA to simply roll over and play dead if they attacked again. Yes siree… Clinton was sure tough on them Al Qaeda types.
Maybe I am pretending to “not get it”, but its pretty damned clear that you’re not even in the same time zone as “it”.
“They left him a set of instructions!”
Well jeez Duros, if Clinton’s administration had the instructions, why the hell didn’t they follow them? I mean shoot, up until the day of the election it was an even bet that Clinton’s own vice-president was going to be the new president. At no point did it cross his mind that, maybe, Gore would like to start his presidency with a big win by eliminating the people who had been killing US citizens at home and abroad for the better part of the previous decade? Instead they develop an uber-super-this-will-work set of instructions for attacking and defeating Al Qaeda, then sit on it and pass the buck to the next administration? That’s dynamic and brilliant leadership there.
“Wow, do you even hear yourself sometimes?”
I learned it from you Duros! I learned it by watching you!
“Well, I don’t know about you guys, but I didn’t blame Bush then, and I don’t now, for not “stopping” the 9/11 attacks.”
Honestly, as I said up thread, there is no lack of blame to go around for 9-11. It was a stunningly successful operation which required a whole lot of little things to go right. If the hijackers don’t catch all the breaks they did, if one ticket or gate agent, one security screener, or any one of hundreds of people throughout government and law enforcement do things differently the operation possibly collapses. Or at least collapses on that day.
“And the ‘Clinton did nothing’ horseshit is just that — horseshit. I wouldn’t say shit about who was responsible if conservative retards hadn’t started up with that song and dance.”
I freely admit it’s hyperbole when I say “Clinton did nothing”. Obviously he didn’t do “nothing” (ouch, double negative), but he also didn’t do enough. But it’s not his fault he didn’t do enough. He treated the attacks the same way they’d been treated for years. Heck, at least he didn’t pull out troops like Reagan did after Beirut. And, even if he’d wanted to go after Bin Laden and his organization directly, he’d have had a beast of a time with a hostile legislature likely opposing him as much as possible.
What I object to, and what I respond to, is this lie that Clinton gave Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to Bush on a silver platter, and that Bush simply didn’t act on it. Even if it were true, how does it alleviate from Clinton the fact he didn’t act on it if and when he had the chance? It’s obvious that Clinton did not consider Al Qaeda to be the number on threat to America. I don’t see why, back in JAN2001, Bush should have behaved any differently towards them. Claiming that “Bush should have done more” as some have in this thread, while at the same time claiming that Clinton “did enough” are two mutually exclusive concepts.
Richard Reid was arrested after his flight from France was diverted to LOgan Airport after he failed to ignite the fuse to the explosives in his shoe. He was stopped from carrying out his plot by law enforcement but by the fact he couldn’t get a Zipp-o on board. Policing and law enforcement are real good at arresting people after they’ve committed acts of terrorism (providing they don’t turn themselves into a fine red mist in the process) or intervening in the planning of an attack in places where law enforcement is available and competent enough to o their jobs (the arrest of the men in Miami who were plotting an attack similar to 9-11 involving the Sears Tower or the arrest and conviction of the men plotting the attack on Ft. Dix). However, how is law enforcement going to do anything about attacks being planned and prepared in hostile countries where the local government is, at best, ambivalent towards these groups, or at worst outright supporting them? You can argue about the shape of military operations in those cases, but not that it’s a better option.
CSS, you realize that you’re admitting Clinton didn’t treat terrorism as they threat it deserved, and then in the very next sentence you’re condemning Bush for not making it his Number One priority? Consistency? And Richard Clarke spent eight years working for Clinton, and was unable to convince him of the importance of fighting Al Qaeda, yet Bush is supposed to treat his words as if they’re coming from up-on-high? Dude, you can’t even be consistent within your own paragraphs using the facts you choose.
“He was trying to stop genocide. That’s a good reason to start a war.”
Are you sure you want to say that. Really, really sure? Cause I’m pretty certain that part of the justification for the invasion of Iraq was Saddam’s human rights violations. Oh yeah, it’s Number Three on the Iraq War Resolution “brutal repression of its civilian population.” And Number Four referred to the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war. I guess you now think that Iraq was justified since it stopped any plans Saddam might have had of continuing his campaigns against his Kurdish and Shi’a populations.
CSS, maybe you want to qualify that statement a bit? Clinton sat on his hands as anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsis in Rwanda were massacred. Obviously, what you meant to say, is that “Genocide is a good reason to start a war when the people being killed aren’t black.”
Of course, maybe it’s not intellectually honest of me to apply your stated standards to similar situations.
“Al Qaeda chose to redirect their attacks at other nations — Great Britain, Spain, Indonesia.”
AQ isn’t killing Americans in Iraq? Funny how Jay is so challenged by reality. Although the majority of insurgents aren’t AQ, but simply Iraqis pissed off by the American occupation.
J.G. Thayer: “In 2001, Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11.
The Bush administration unleashed the US military.
Al Qaeda chose to redirect their attacks at other nations — Great Britain, Spain, Indonesia.”
You are a fucking whore for the Republican party.
Al Quada’s plan was to attack the United States, get it stuck in a war in couldn’t win, and couldn’t pay for, and let it bleed to death. There’s no way Al Quada could do more damage to the United State by attacking the United State as the United States is doing to themselves in Iraq.
And Jaim points out, they are attacking the United States in Iraq.
SFC B: “CSS, you realize that you’re admitting Clinton didn’t treat terrorism as they threat it deserved, and then in the very next sentence you’re condemning Bush for not making it his Number One priority? Consistency?”
Shut the fuck up, you lying sack of shit.
It’s not that Bush didn’t have terrorism number one, it’s that it was not a priority at all. ZERO.
Got it?
“And Number Four referred to the fact that Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq war.”
Sure you want to go there? Of course you do, because you are fucking Republican ‘tard who doesn’t know any better.
Saddam was gassing the Kurds while he was Regan’s strongman in the region. That was more than a decade before Bush invaded.
Milosevic was committing genocide WHILE CLINTON WAS TRYING TO GET SUPPORT TO INVADE.
Can you see the difference?
If not, shut the fuck up. You are too dumb to talk.
“CSS, maybe you want to qualify that statement a bit? Clinton sat on his hands as anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Tutsis in Rwanda were massacred. Obviously, what you meant to say, is that ‘Genocide is a good reason to start a war when the people being killed aren’t black.’”
Fuck you. You are a lying, fucking asshole.
Did I say it we shouldn’t have used military force in Rwanda? No I did not. So you are a fucking liar.
“Of course, maybe it’s not intellectually honest of me to apply your stated standards to similar situations.”
You know nothing about honesty, and you are damn determined to prove that.
In 2001, Al Qaeda pulled off 9/11.
The Bush administration unleashed the US military.
In the wrong country.
Quaker one blind cleric and 11 other guys in prison,
Much better. Were you lying or just misinformed before?
“Al Quada’s plan was to attack the United States, get it stuck in a war in couldn’t win, and couldn’t pay for, and let it bleed to death.”
That is every bit the ex post facto justification that “We went into Iraq for more than WMD” is. And you know it. Al Qaeda has seen itself go from being able to strike world-wide at prime targets to not being able to strike at targets in their own backyard without fear of being turned in by their neighbors. OBL has gone from being the most visible face on Al Jazeera to being a Weekend at Bernie’s gag. The Who’s Who of the Al Qaeda member’s directory in 1999 is now a list of KIA, Captured, or So Deeply Hidden as to Basically be Dead. Even Obama is saying that Bin Laden is no longer a threat to America worth making the top priority.
“Even Obama is saying that Bin Laden is no longer a threat to America worth making the top priority.”
Source? Because I’m pretty sure that’s bullshit.
3,000 Americans died on 9/11. Over 4,000 more have been killed in a useless war in Iraq since then. AQ remains strong, as do other terrorist organizations. Iraq is now a pro-Iranian, Shia dominated puppet state. Al-Maliki is _personal friends_ with Ahdemenijad (I know that’s spelled wrong). Osama bin Laden has not been captured. Afghanistan is another failed country. Pakistan is in danger of being taken over by Muslim hard-liners who will have nukes. The Israel/Palestine issue is more violent and dangerous than ever.
The world is a much more dangerous place now thanks to George W. Bush and the Republican party. Thankfully, adults are now back in charge.
C.S.Strowbridge: “Al Quada’s plan was to attack the United States, get it stuck in a war in couldn’t win, and couldn’t pay for, and let it bleed to death.”
SFC B: “That is every bit the ex post facto justification that ‘We went into Iraq for more than WMD’ is. And you know it.”
You are a lying sack of shit, and you know it.
This strategy was voiced by Bin Laden, and it was the strategy used by him to defeat Russia.
“Al Qaeda has seen itself go from being able to strike world-wide at prime targets to…”
Fully regained strength. So says America’s intelligence committee.
Or this that part of some devious plot to confuse us as well?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5520116.ece
“But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s (bin laden) in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”
It was on CBS as well. Not that hard to find man.
AQ remains dangerous, but only the most hopeful anti-Bush partisan would think they are anywhere near as strong or as relevant as they were on 10SEP2001.
Aside from your assertation, is there any actual proof that Iraq is Iran’s puppet state? Or is even trending towards it? A sizable portion of Iraq’s government are factions which are not friendly towards the Iranian gov’t. Iraqis themselves tend to identify more as Iraqis first, Arabs second, whatever their sect is third. Of course the exceptions to this are the folks who get all the press, so I suppose it can be forgiven if you’re ignorant of that. Afghanistan is a fight which it will be up to Obama to win. Whether he has the backbone to follow through on it to the best plausible outcome is up to him. Pakistan will be far more likely to fall into the hands of a government hostile to the US if Obama follows through on his campaign rhetoric of invading Pakistan unilaterally. So, again, what Pakistan does is Obama’s responsibility now.
The world has always been a dangerous place, and it likely always will be. Just because you were too ignorant to realize it before doesn’t change the fact it was.
“It’s not that Bush didn’t have terrorism number one, it’s that it was not a priority at all. ZERO. Got it?”
So, when Bush took office the CIA, NSA, and DIA all went and said “Okay, we’ll cease operations in the Middle East and focus on something else.” I must have missed that memo. CSS, seriously, you, yourself, said that Clinton didn’t make fighting terrorism his top priority, and were fine with that because it wasn’t obvious at the time what the threat it represented was. Bush does the exact same thing and it is a prima facie evidence he made it a “ZOMG!!11!! ZERO!111!!” priority. Drama queen much CSS?
“Sure you want to go there? Of course you do, because you are fucking Republican ‘tard who doesn’t know any better.”
Way to ignore the sentence before that were I pointed out Number Three was his oppression of his own people. And, I guess it’s alright that he killed 2,500-5,000 of his own people with a chemical attack because it happened a long time before. I guess the Iraqi people didn’t agree with you since Saddam was hung for one of the massacres of his people he committed.
“Milosevic was committing genocide WHILE CLINTON WAS TRYING TO GET SUPPORT TO INVADE.”
Saddam was killing his own people by diverting money meant to aid them during the embargo to enrich himself and his supporters. I don’t see a huge difference between Milosevic killing his opposition directly and Saddam starving them indirectly. But then again I don’t like seeing any government kill it’s own people as a blanket policy.
“Did I say it we shouldn’t have used military force in Rwanda?”
No, you didn’t. You said that if a people are being exterminated then that’s justification for a military intervention. The Hutus in Rwanda were making the Serbs look like pikers. Instead of going in w/ the 82nd Airborne, Clinton issued stern speeches. Hell, did he even do that? It’s not like the former Yugoslavia had any strategic interest to the US. It didn’t attack anyone who we’d need to defend as a member of NATO. We went in there on our own. Clinton could have, and probably should have, done the same thing for Rwanda. But, I suppose that suffering Africans just weren’t as important to St. Bill.
“This strategy was voiced by Bin Laden, and it was the strategy used by him to defeat Russia.”
Uh, you’re very ignorant of history. Bin Laden was a nobody in the USSR-Afghan fight. He was just another Abdul on the street. He had about as much say in the strategy of the mujadaheen as I do in the War on Terror. The fact he’s progressed to where he was, doesn’t change the fact he was just another face in the crowd in the 80s.
“Fully regained strength. So says America’s intelligence committee.”
That would have been the NIE from back in the beginning of 2007. There have been a couple of changes to facts-on-the-ground since then.
“So, when Bush took office the CIA, NSA, and DIA all went and said “Okay, we’ll cease operations in the Middle East and focus on something else.” I must have missed that memo.”
You miss a lot when you have your head up your ass.
Richard Clarke’s position as the head of counter terrorism was reduced. When the people at the top show no leadership, the work done by the people at the bottom doesn’t matter.
“CSS, seriously, you, yourself, said that Clinton didn’t make fighting terrorism his top priority, and were fine with that because it wasn’t obvious at the time what the threat it represented was. Bush does the exact same thing…
So you get paid per lie you tell here?
Richard Clarke’s position as the head of counter terrorism was reduced, so obivously Bush didn’t do the exact same thing.
And on that note, fuck you, you lying sack of shit.
I don’t give a fuck what you have to say on this matter, because you have no credibility.
“is there any actual proof that Iraq is Iran’s puppet state?”
That’s not what I wrote. I said Iraq is an American puppet state, and one that is pro-Iranian. It’s population is majority Shia, al-Maliki has been warmly welcomed in Tehran and hugged Ahmadenihjad a few times (sorry, again, for my spelling), and during the 2006 Israeli bombing of Lebanon, massive pro-Hezbollah marches took place in Baghdad.
I agree with you that AQ remains dangerous. But they’re only one part of the puzzle. The Taliban have reformed in Afghanistan. Iran is in a very strong position right now with a new friendly neighbor in the form of a US funded, Shia-led Iraq (although falling gasoline prices are hurting them). Israel is obviously in no better a position than it was in 2000 (no closer to a real peace deal, more hated by the world than ever before).
Oh, and did I mention North Korea? They now claim to have weaponized plutonium.
Heck of a job, Bushie.
And again, the “9/11 only happened once” argument is lame, because why whould terrorists go through the trouble of coming all the way to America when they can fight and kill American soldiers much closer to home?
And I’m sorry, but this is complete ignorance:
“Iraqis themselves tend to identify more as Iraqis first, Arabs second, whatever their sect is third.”
Right — Shia and Sunni Iraqis get along just fine. They throw rose petals at one another and dance hand in hand!
Please do yourself and read a few books about the region before you continue to spout such idiotic statements.
*do yourself a favor, that is
sfb 2
“Even Obama is saying that Bin Laden is no longer a threat to America worth making the top priority.”
Reality
“Obama said that al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden remain the “number one threat” to U.S. security, after the elusive militant leader warned of new fronts in his war on the West.”
“Bin Laden and al-Qaeda are our number one threat when it comes to American security,” Obama told reporters after the emergence of the 22-minute audio recording entitled “A call for jihad to stop aggression against Gaza.”
http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2009/01/15/64255.html
BTW, do you even read the articles you link to?
Man, it must be nice to be some sort of un-thinking automaton who relies entirely on inspiration from your appointed leaders CSS. Abdicating all responsibility for your own actions because “My leaders were uninspired!”. At no point in here have I said that Bush was blameless for failing to prevent 9-11. However you continue to have this insane belief that, since it happened on Bush’s watch, he is the only person culpulble. And you try to defend that by making up some fantasy world where the previous administration handed Bush a play-by-play instruction manual on how to go about defeating Al Qaeda. It never seems to cross your mind that, if that were true, why didn’t the Clinton administration do it themselves? They had the people to do it. You’ve pointed that out. They had the time. They just didn’t…. because…?
My bad, I misunderstood what you were saying. But, you’re saying that Iraq’s government is pro-Iranian is that the leaders of Iraq and Iran don’t hate each other and that they’ve visited each other’s nation? They’re neighboring countries. While I’m sure some folks would prefer that they were belligerent towards each other, threatening horrible death and all that, honestly, given the history of the region, if they spend a few years making nice towards each it might turn out better for everyone.
Massive pro-Hezzbollah marches and demonstrations have taken place across Europe and here in the US as well. Do you prefer that the police go in and crush such demonstrations under their thuggish jackboots?
Israel is going to be “hated by the world” no matter what they do. They’ve accepted that fact, I don’t see why you can’t.
Well then, thank our lucky stars that President Obama will be able to step in and solve that nasty problem north of the 38th Parallel. Now that America has been returned to the hands of right thinking people and we’re now going to be admired and respected around the world, I’m sure the UN will be stepping up as will China to exert pressure on North Korea to stop producing weaponized plutonium.
Speaking as an American Soldier who has non-Soldier Americans for family, that’s a feature, not a bug. Because, quite honestly, we’re a lot better at killing them then they are at killing us. A lot better.
Who’s “them”? The very Iraqis we supposedly liberated? And please spare me the argument that most of the insurgents in Iraq are AQ, because they’re not. They’re Iraqis, mostly Shia, who are highly sympathetic in many cases to Iran.
one blind cleric and 11 other guys
Also known as “perpetrators.”
SFC B: “Man, it must be nice to be some sort of un-thinking automaton who relies entirely on inspiration from your appointed leaders CSS. Abdicating all responsibility for your own actions because ‘My leaders were uninspired!’.”
How have you not killed yourself yet? You are obviously fucking stupid, and in your stupidity you should have done the world a favor and accidentally killed yourself.
CIA agents who ignore orders of the people above them and go off on their own are called Rogue Agents, and that’s a bad thing.
“At no point in here have I said that Bush was blameless for failing to prevent 9-11. However you continue to have this insane belief that, since it happened on Bush’s watch, he is the only person culpulble.”
You are a fucking liar. You seem incapable as saying the truth.
George W. Bush actively dismantled the counter terrorism leadership stripping Richard Clarke of his cabinet level position. Got it? I’m not saying Bush was responsible because he was president when it happened. I’ve shown that his actions led to the attack being successful. That is why he is to blame. HIS FUCKING ACTIONS.
“And you try to defend that by making up some fantasy world where the previous administration handed Bush a play-by-play instruction manual on how to go about defeating Al Qaeda. It never seems to cross your mind that, if that were true, why didn’t the Clinton administration do it themselves?”
They are called elections. Or do you think Bill Clinton should have told Bush, ‘Sorry, you can’t become president yet, we are still busy.’
“My bad, I misunderstood what you were saying.”
No, you are a fucking liar. You’ve lied about what I’ve said numerous times, and I see you are doing the same with Jaim.
So fuck off.
Are you seeing anyone about your anger issues CSS?
So you’re now saying that the Bush Administration ordered its intelligence agencies to ignore Al Qaeda? You’d think that would have come out during that whole 9-11 investigation by Congress. Seems like a pretty big deal. And they all kept quiet regarding this huge breakdown in American intelligence gathering? We’ve had “whistleblowers” celebrated for outting intelligence programs which were legal, yet no one wrote to their congressman to point out that the Bush Administration had told them to cease operations tracking the terrorists who had tried to sink the Cole?
Are you Richard Clarke? Clarke had spent his entire career in the CIA being unable to get them to agree with him. If his own agency didn’t take his claims as being serious enough to warrant action, why should the White House. And I come back to, as I have again and again, if Clarke was so very, very awesome and uber, why the hell didn’t Clinton’s Administration listen to him either?
You’ve shown that he damaged the ego one one guy. You’re saying that by stripping Clarke of a seat at the big boy table, that made the FBI not follow-up on reports from their agents in Arizona? That made INS (ICE) approve a visa for Atta? That made the screeners @ Logan Airport allow the hijackers on the planes w/ their makeshift weapons? Wow. Bush really was the most powerful man in the world wasn’t he?
You tell me where Jaim said he meant Iraq was an American puppet state. He tells me that’s what he meant. I took him at his word and apologized for misunderstanding. As far as me lying about what you’re saying. Dude, I’m quoting you directly. If you don’t like the fact that what you say is dumb and that I’m calling you on it, stop saying dumb things.
Yeah. Did you? Are you saying that The Times (London) and CBS are misrepresenting Obama when he said “But if we have so tightened the noose that he’s in a cave somewhere and can’t even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America.”? It’s great that he says that capturing or killing Bin Laden is the top priority, but he’s giving a rather huge qualification with that statement.
SFC B: “Are you seeing anyone about your anger issues CSS?”
I wouldn’t be angry if you weren’t such a fucking liar and a fucking moron.
So perhaps you can do us both a favor and act smarter and more honest.
“So you’re now saying that the Bush Administration ordered its intelligence agencies to ignore Al Qaeda?”
God, it’s compulsive with you. You are such a fucking liar.
“And I come back to, as I have again and again, if Clarke was so very, very awesome and uber, why the hell didn’t Clinton’s Administration listen to him either?”
They did. Clinton is the one who made his post a cabinet level position, you fucking idiot.
“You’ve shown that he damaged the ego one one guy.”
More stupidity of the master.
They stopped listening to the head of counter-terrorism.
If you don’t think that has an effect on their entire system, then you need to shoot yourself. You are far too stupid to live.
In fact, shoot your parents first, they need to suffer for raising someone like you.
Whole lot of good it did didn’t it?. Do we really need to rehash all of the Al Qaeda attacks against Americans at home and abroad during the Clinton Administration as he was supposed to be listening to the sage advice of Cabinet-Level-Position-Counter-Terrorism-Guru Richard Clarke? CSS, you have implied, again, and again that the Clinton Administration was obviously doing the right thing in fighting Al Qaeda with Richard Clarke as the go-to guy. Yet time and time again Al Qaeda was able to attack with catastrophic results and faced no concequences which it was not willing to accept and accept gladly (the destruction of closed training camps and the apprehension of a handful of their grunts).
Um, Clarke, Tenet, and the head of the Bin Laden section at the CIA met w/ Rice in May of 2001 to discuss what more could be done to take the fight to Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. They presented a plan to her, developed in DEC2000 after the Cole, which was going to take five years to fund and implement. In the short term though, Clarke wanted to resume the use of Predators in Afghanistan, however the CIA didn’t want to have the Predators flying in Afghanistan if they weren’t armed, and there were issues to work out regarding who would be responsible for using a Hellfire equipped Predator. There were also issues with the fact the Predator needed to be altered to carry the Hellfire, and the Hellfire itself needed to be changed because it was an anti-armor missile and wasn’t effective against light vehicles and people. This new Predator was supposed to be available at the beginning of September 2001. Unfortunatly the changes to the Hellfire were too extensive to be made and AF tests showed it to be unreliable in its new configuration and would require further development. Spring of 2002 would be when an armed Predator would be available.
Yup. Sounds an awful lot like they were ignoring the threat from Al Qaeda. What with trying to arm a drone. Sure would have been nice if the Clinton Administration had taken terrorism seriously and approved the development of an armed drone for use in surveillance and interdiction. Yes indeed.
You stay classy CSS.
I was looking back over the thread and I just couldn’t cease being amazed at the quality of the discussion here. Seriously, some good, fun stuff. But something just jumped out at me. C.S. Strowbridge, you sir are a class act. Some of your highlights.
But wait! Not only are you a frustrated, angry little man who probably goes into a spittle-flying rage when the high school junior at McDonald’s forgets you ordered your #2 with no tomatoes, you also have the lovely inability to remember things you wrote earlier! The best example of this trait is this…
I was living in Texas when the embassies were bombed and I was stationed in Boston when the Cole was attacked and I didn’t remember anything about Clinton seeking authorization for military intervention in Afghanistan. I forget things though (as evidenced by my total failure to remember Phil Hartman was Bill Clinton on SNL) so I went looking to see if I’d just not been paying attention. Couldn’t find anything about it. When I asked for the cite CSS was referring to… here’s the brilliantly self-unaware response…
Now, I admit that I’m probably splitting hairs, but when you say “his efforts were blocked by Republicans in congress…” I take that to mean that he actually had a proposal drafted up, took it to Congress, and they simply wouldn’t authorize the use of the DoD funds for such an action. Not “he knew he wouldn’t get their support.”
Seriously CSS, it’s okay to admit when you make a mistake. Upthread I misunderstood something Jaim had written. He corrected me and I admitted I was wrong in what I’d written in response. The world didn’t end. Puppies weren’t torn asunder by hellbeasts. I didn’t awake in a world where Nazis traveled back in time to give the Confederacy MP44s. This is a heated discussion. Obviously we don’t agree on a lot of things. I freely admit that you’re fun to tweak by picking apart what you’re saying and applying it to things you didn’t think they’d be applied to. But really man, you might want to calm down. It is possible for someone to have an opinion on subjects, even important subjects like the election of a president or whether Jason Campbell will ever develop into a top-flight QB (he won’t, doesn’t make him a bad QB though), which is different from yours, and have that person not be a “fucking whore” or a “lying sack of shit”.
Learn to enjoy the sauce.
Welcome to the world of debating with CSS, SFC B.