The Bush administration proclaimed significant progress in the war on terror Tuesday but said the enemy has adjusted to U.S. defenses and that “America is safer but we are not yet safe.”
Releasing an updated counterterrorism strategy in advance of a speech that
President Bush was set to give later in the day, the White House said: “The United States and our partners continue to pursue a significantly degraded but still dangerous al-Qaida network.”
Five years ago this week, the Taliban’s al-Qa’ida allies made final preparations to launch devastating attacks on America that would precipitate the “war on terror,” the US led invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.
Far from ending terrorism, George Bush’s tactics of using overwhelming military might to fight extremism appear to have rebounded, spawning an epidemic of global terrorism that has claimed an estimated 72,265 lives since 2001, most of them Iraqi civilians.
More Americans have died via terrorism during the presidency of George Bush than for any president in American history. Terrorism has increased every year of his presidency.
Otherwise, he’s doing a heck of a job.
White House: U.S. safer but not yet safe
The Bush administration proclaimed significant progress in the war on terror Tuesday but said the en
Hmmm. Looking at the MIPT site, they show 36 US soil terrorism incidents in 2001 (23 of which were performed by progressive groups, one was against an abortion target). In 2002, there were 15 incidents (12 by progressives). In 2003, 18 incidents, 16 by progressives. In 2004, 7 incidents (6 by progressives) and 2005 9 (8 by progressives).
The data clearly indicates this country under George W Bush is safer since 9/11. And if we factor out the terrorism performed by progressive hate groups like ELF etc, the trend is miniscule 13 in 2001, 3 in 2002, 2 in 2003, 1 in 2004, 1 in 2005. And still a downward trend.
Ever catch that Anthrax guy?
Oliver said “Terrorism has increased”, not attacks on American soil. It counts when foreigners die as well, you know.
That leaves out hundreds of church burnings Dugger.
I would also like to object to your use of the word “terrorism” because that would assume you can mindread motives, something you seem to strenuously object to.
Pretty sure it requires mind reading to call something a “hate” group. Better play it safe, Dugger.
So, we acknowledge Bush has made this country safer since 9-11. And progressives are not happy about that and want to change that policy that has made us safer? Is that the master plan?
And oh, yes, please have your candidate run on a platform that declares “we may make the US a more dangerous place to live but at least we will be trying hard to -uhh- do something about terrorism in foreign lands, whre we have no legal power or sovreignty -uhh- except Iraq where we are just going to surrender. Vote for me!”
The American people will eat that up. Go get some focus group stuff on it.
BTW, it appears the greatest terrorism problem in this country are progressive groups. Why don’t you guys fix that? Becasue it makes Bush look bad? If your ideological counterparts would stop their acts of terrorism, this country would be virtually free of terrorism incidents - that is according to OW’s source.
So Bush has made us the Willy Loman (”Death of a Salesman”) of the world: liked, but not well-liked. Great.
rdale
Dugger | Sep 5, 2006 12:04:58 PM
“So, we acknowledge Bush has made this country safer since 9-11.” WTF?!
I wanna live in Dugger’s world coz everything is pretty and rosy!!!
Oliver,
Did you just call the President a terrorist?
Why am I not surprised.
“Why am I not surprised.”
Why are you not surprised? Because you made it up in your own head, moron,
Ian | Sep 5, 2006 12:15:10 PM
“Did you just call the President a terrorist?”
Ian, you mean The Decider, right?
Right, that clinches it: Dugger (and Ian) are holding the other side of the argument entirely in their own head. Anything we say is irrelevant, they’re not listening to us, they’re making shit up and attributing it to us.
It’s been interesting to watch the “evolution” (or, perhaps “devolution”) of Dugger’s thought.
He started out on this blog as a self-proclaimed moderate, trying to convince the rest of us that he not only wasn’t a conservative, but that he was a free and independent thinker.
Now, it appears that not only is he holding massive quantities of water for Bush, he’s also prepared to think for us “progressives,” as well. (As he calls us.)
Frankly, I’d like to know what the real Dugger thinks–that is, if he can form a coherent sentence that doesn’t involve either a.) GOP talking points b.) non-sensical rants about what the rest of think, and how the rest of us “feel.”
Otherwise, shut up, Dugger.
JK
To save Dugger time … cue up standard response:
Not one documented The Decider lie. Not. One. Lie.
Nevertheless, my unrefuted statistics showing the country is safer since 9/11 came directly from the site referenced in OWs lead. You can p*ss in the wind all you want and that doesn’t change.
Wait. Maybe I’m being unfair. After all, those reports unfavorable to progressives are BY DEFINITION lies aren’t they? As are any that are favorable to Bush.
If you guys woulk get AlGore to reign in his ELF buddies, there would be almost no terrorist incidents in this country.
Nevertheless, my unrefuted statistics showing the country is safer since 9/11 came directly from the site referenced in OWs lead.
Once you’ve finished quantifying them to suit your desired results.
The country’s so much safer we’ve had another 9/11 in Iraq (2,600 and counting).
Oliver, on a completely unrelated note, was wondering if you know where on earth Frank_D is? Perhaps swamped busy with his marital therapy business?
Or beating people up on street corners..
Let’s see no significant Terrorist attacks by international terrorist organizations in the US from Feb 26, 1993 until Sept 11, 2001.
Clinton was sure doing a damn fine job against those muslim terrorists. He kept the country safe.
What actions has Bush undertaken that have made us safer Dugger. Please list.
Dugger, your statistics don’t show that the country is safer, it just shows that the US hasn’t been attacked by foreign terrorists on its own soil since 9/11. They could attack again tomorrow. What would your statistics prove then?
“I don’t see any tigers around here, do you?”
Terrorism on the scale of 9/11, the WTC bombing in the mid-90’s, Oklahoma City… or even the USS Cole, are
relatively rare occurences.
I would not even dare pretend to put “odds” on this sort of thing.
Dugger seems confident in making the correlation between Bush’s Presidency and the fact that no “major” events have not occurred on his watch since that awful day.
ALL of the major terrorism experts say with certainty that it’s not “if” we get hit again, it’s “when.” They do not argue that it’s more likely to happen under political scenario A, or B. They simply say it will happen at some point.
I guess one does have to give credit for something, to the worst President in U.S. History. Particularly when you consider the Bush administration’s inept response to one of the worst natural disasters in history (Katrina).
By the way, if any of you have not seen Spike Lee’s documentary on Katrina, I urge you to do so. Very, very powerful stuff.
JK
In order to show such great improvement — “13 attacks in 2001 down to 1 in 2005!!!!”–
Dugs is adding up each individual anthrax attack and each one of the hijacked 9-11 planes in 2001 separately. On the anthrax side of things there’s no way of knowing if the attacks were terrorist related or the work of some lone serial killer. And why is that? Because we haven’t actually solved those crimes yet. Not sure that makes us any safer Dugs.
There were over 500 anthrax hoaxes aimed at abortion clinics .
My data are actual incidents per MIPT - OWs source for the article. If they are wrong, perhaps they are wrong in OWs article also. Though I think not. And it included the Anthrax incidents. And by far the greatest number of terrorist incidents on our soil since 9/11 were perpetrated by progressive groups - ELF and ALF.
You desperately wish it weren’t true because it is evidence that Bush is doing a good job and that progressive groups pose a very significant terrorist threat.
Get AlGore (rapidly revising his global warming talking points due to the decrease in hurricanes) to talk to those people. He speaks their language.
It’s not evidence to that or any effect and I’ve already pointed out why, God damn it.
duger, how many Americans died from those progressive “terrorist” attacks?
Dugger’s the perfect example of how Republicans are more interested in scoring political points than actually doing something about terrorism. How very, very sad.
…”they show 36 US soil terrorism incidents in 2001 (23 of which were performed by progressive groups, one was against an abortion target)”
I’ve looked at the website and can’t find a reference to “progressive” groups. Would you please provide a page link to your source?
Thanks.
Mouse
“Get AlGore (rapidly revising his global warming talking points due to the decrease in hurricanes) to talk to those people. He speaks their language.”
And so, apparently, do most climate scientists.
Do I understand you correctly, Dugger? Anyone concerned about greenhouse gas emissions is a natural ally of radical environmentalists and must accept responsibility for their actions?
If that’s so, I’ve got a few bulky millstones with your name on them.
And since you bring up that craaaazy Al, Dugger, here’s an interesting item from today’s headlines:
“Ice cores reveal the Earth’s natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range,” explained Dr Wolff.
The “scary thing”, he added, was the rate of change now occurring in CO2 concentrations. In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.
“The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don’t have an analogue in our records,” he said.
Yessiree. That Al Gore is waaaay off base.
“…by far the greatest number of terrorist incidents on our soil since 9/11 were perpetrated by progressive groups - ELF and ALF.”
Couple things Dugs. I wasn’t dipsuting the number simply pointing out that it doesn’t makea lot of sense to use the anthrax letters in your “analysis” since we haven’t actually caught the people responsible yet. Not sure how invading Iraq will keep someone from putting poison in the mail in the us but, hey, I’m willing to let you keep your fuzzy warm balnket.
As to the “progressive commit more acts of terror” blah, blah, ELF and ALF are little more than vandals and arsonists. In a combined total of 67 attacks between 1968 and the present these two groups have killed zero people and caused zero injuries. I’m not defending them and their tactics but let’s not lump them in the same group as al Qaeda.
It seems strange that when thousands under US protection die by terrorist attack every month, Dugger wants to argue how few terrorist attacks effect America.
>>Get AlGore (rapidly revising his global warming talking points due to the decrease in hurricanes) to talk to those people. He speaks their language.
Hey,numbnuts…uh…lol…it’s not the number of hurricanes that climatologist are primarily worried about, but the intensity.
I’m curious…as a life strategy, how is being stupid working out for you?
JK
JK
Using Dugger’s standard then Bill Clinton did a stellar job fighting terrorism.
Since the WTC truck bomb, for which the perps were caught and prosecuted without dismantling any countries I might add, there were no other attacks by Muslims on American soil.
There will be a right wing hit piece airing on ABC soon telling us how 9/11 was Clinton’s fault, and of course how the Democrats fail to protect Americans just in time for the mid-term elections. That this coincides nicely with the Republican strategy just proves once again that neo-conservative media has put to the scrap heap the “liberal media” cannard.
This begs a single question - if the Clinton administration was so weak on terrorism, then why did the terrorists wait for the “adults” to show up to pull off an attack?
Just one of those things that makes you say hmmmm???
Because the DHS knows there is no such thing as right wing terrorists.
Wow, so the ALF busts open a few monkey cages and they are the same level of threat as a Timothy McVeigh or Osama bin Laden.
Hey, do soldiers killed in Iraq count? What about civilians killed by soldiers in Iraq, or how about civilians killed by terrorists fighting soldiers in Iraq? Tricky thing to define, that terrorism.
The MIPS website.
Check out some of the reports to see how badly Clinton whips Bush’s ass as far as terrorist incidents and prevention go (0…that’s Z-E-R-O incidents in 1994). I guess no one at MIPS has seen the new ABC 9-11 film yet. Take special note of the MASSIVE spike in casualties under Bush.
Well, I guess the rubber’s gonna hit the road. ABC just announced that the Pakistani government has in essence offered bin Laden a safe haven.
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/?p=483
This is in substance equivalent to the deal the Taliban offered him and his cohorts in 2001, the main reason we invaded Afghanistan. It will be interesting to see how the Bush Doctrine deals with this. Perhaps they can even regain some credibility.
z adura, you are too optimistic.
Maybe the Bush administration should have taken the Taliban up on their TWO offers to give up OBL on a silver platter in 2001.
Not to mention letting him get away in the fall of 2001. Unlike the wingnuts claims about Clinton, these are documented fact (9/11 commission)
In hindsight, z adura, this deal has been in place since 2002. That explains why Bush said the famous “I don’t think much about him” quote. Unfortunately, it rings his speeches about how he will fight places that give terrorists safe harbor a little hollow.
This should have been a CIA op from the beginning. Maybe with some help from the Massad, who are good at infiltrating Muslim societies. But Bush had to have his war.
Factcheck, I am just hoping that Bush can deal with Pakistan better than he’s been able thus far. If he fails this policy test, the terrorists WILL have effectively won. Pakistan is a state with a hard right Islamic community, proven terrorists and nukes. That is a potent mix.
Mouse
No
Tom,
Sorry I made you sad. BTW, there’s no Easter Bunny.
Quaker,
No.
Sketch, frank moved to Australia.
Wow
Well, that’s certainly more than I ever wanted to know.
It does explain a lot, huh frame. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I should have put a warning not to click that link for 2 hours after eating.
He’s definitely a lot more confused than I thought. Or maybe he’s less confused now that he’s, um, let it all hang out. Whatever floats your boat. (3-2-1 Cue attack on liberal permissiveness … go figure)
I hope he’s more happy now, but it just proves my theory, scratch a con (eww) and you’ll find something a little shall we say, counterculture.
You know George and Laura get freaky deaky.
“Hello. I’m Overweight Zombie James Doohan. This is Transvestite Masterpiece Theatre and Home Improvement Hour! Brought to you by Kotex.”