Bush 7, Terrorists 0

[mightymouse72]

Morose that there hasn't been another terrorist attack on American soil for seven long years, liberals were ecstatic when Hurricane Gustav was headed toward New Orleans during the Republican National Convention last week. The networks gave the hurricane plenty of breaking-news coverage -- but unfortunately it was Hurricane Katrina from 2005 they were covering.

On Keith Olbermann's Aug. 29 show on MSNBC, Michael Moore said the possibility of a Category 3 hurricane hitting the United States "is proof that there is a God in heaven." Olbermann responded: "A supremely good point."

Actually, Olbermann said that a few minutes later to some other idiotic point Moore had made, but that's how Moore would have edited the interview for one of his "documentaries," so I will, too. I would only add that Michael Moore's morbid obesity is proof that there is a Buddha.

Hurricane Gustav came and went without a hitch. What a difference a Republican governor makes!

As many have pointed out, the reason elected officials tend to neglect infrastructure project issues, like reinforcing levees in New Orleans and bridges in Minneapolis, is that there's no glory when a bridge doesn't collapse. There are no round-the-clock news specials when the levees hold. You can't even name an overpass retrofitting project after yourself -- it just looks too silly. But everyone's taxes go up to pay for the reinforcements.

Preventing another terrorist attack is like that. There is no media coverage when another 9/11 doesn't happen. We can thank God that President George Bush didn't care about doing the safe thing for himself; he cared about keeping Americans safe. And he has, for seven years.

If Bush's only concern were about his approval ratings, like a certain impeached president I could name, he would not have fought for the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq. He would not have resisted the howling ninnies demanding that we withdraw from Iraq, year after year. By liberals' own standard, Bush's war on terrorism has been a smashing, unimaginable success.

A year after the 9/11 attack, The New York Times' Frank Rich was carping about Bush's national security plans, saying we could judge Bush's war on terror by whether there was a major al-Qaida attack in 2003, which -- according to Rich -- would have been on al-Qaida's normal schedule.

Rich wrote: "Since major al-Qaida attacks are planned well in advance and have historically been separated by intervals of 12 to 24 months, we will find out how much we've been distracted soon enough." ("Never Forget What?" New York Times, Sept. 14, 2002.)

There wasn't a major al-Qaida attack in 2003. Nor in 2004, 2005, 2006 or 2007. Manifestly, liberals thought there would be: They announced a standard of success that they expected Bush to fail.

As Bush has said, we have to be right 100 percent of the time, the terrorists only have to be right one time. Bush has been right 100 percent of the time for seven years -- so much so that Americans have completely forgotten about the threat of Islamic terrorism.

For his thanks, President Bush has been the target of almost unimaginable calumnies -- the sort of invective liberals usually reserve for seniors who don't separate their recyclables properly. Compared to liberals' anger at Bush, there has always been something vaguely impersonal about their "anger" toward the terrorists.

By my count, roughly one in four books in print in the world at this very moment have the words "Bush" and "Lie" in their title. Barnes & Noble has been forced to add an "I Hate Bush" section. I don't believe there are as many anti-Hitler books.

Despite the fact that Hitler brought "change," promoted clean, energy-efficient mass transit by making the trains run on time, supported abortion for the non-master races, vastly expanded the power of the national government and was uniformly adored by college students and their professors, I gather that liberals don't like Hitler because they're constantly comparing him to Bush.

The ferocity of the left's attacks on Bush even scared many of his conservative allies into turning on him over the war in Iraq.

George Bush is Gary Cooper in the classic western "High Noon." The sheriff is about to leave office when a marauding gang is coming to town. He could leave, but he waits to face the killers as all his friends and all the townspeople, who supported him during his years of keeping them safe, slowly abandon him. In the end, he walks alone to meet the killers, because someone has to.

That's Bush. Name one other person in Washington who would be willing to stand alone if he had to, because someone had to.

OK, there is one, but she's not in Washington yet. Appropriately, at the end of "High Noon," Cooper is surrounded by the last two highwaymen when, suddenly, his wife (Grace Kelly) appears out of nowhere and blows away one of the killers! The aging sheriff is saved by a beautiful, gun-toting woman.

[Decker]

Yes, Bush is Gary Cooperish.  Well, more ish than Cooper. (that's a MASH joke)

Let's see, Bush and co. ignore all the warnings about an imminent terrorist attack on the US and surprise, the US is attacked.  Bush presides over the most spectacular attack of America in our history.  Bush fails to catch the guy that planned 9/11 attacks.  Bush attacks the wrong country in an illegal war.  Bush mismanages every aspect of the Iraqi occupation.  Bush spends hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring that Tikrit will have Universal Healthcare before the US will.

That has success written all over it.

If only we could continue that track record of glory...wait, we can:  Vote McCain in 2008 b/c Bush's 2004 platform still works today.

[headhuntersix]

Decker, perhaps one of ur more ridiculous posts...with all due respect.  There was no direct warning, they thought, they heard, but they had no hard evidence.Clinton had numerous opportunities to kill Bin Laden but did not. Congress gave Bush the authority based on a UN resolution so get past ur illegal war crap. They screwed up after the war..no argument there. Regardless we're now winning this thing despite the best efforts of our own elected Congress to confuse the issue. The threat is both real and still out there and again....no attack since about noon on sept 11, 2001.

[240 is Back]

bush let 911 happen, dumbass.

[headhuntersix]

240....skip the CT bullshit. U have nothing but pulled together theories that can never be proven. Ur the dumbass for allowing teenage kids dictate ur belief system developed from the internet.

[Decker]

Decker, perhaps one of ur more ridiculous posts...with all due respect.  There was no direct warning, they thought, they heard, but they had no hard evidence.Clinton had numerous opportunities to kill Bin Laden but did not. Congress gave Bush the authority based on a UN resolution so get past ur illegal war crap. They screwed up after the war..no argument there. Regardless we're now winning this thing despite the best efforts of our own elected Congress to confuse the issue. The threat is both real and still out there and again....no attack since about noon on sept 11, 2001.

There wasn't a direct warning of an attack, there were many direct warnings of an attack.  Terrorism was not a priority for the Bush administration during the first nine months of 2001.

Is it incumbent to the republican party that the president be so thick that he cannot deduce that an attack might happen after:

*The outgoing Clinton administration tells the Bush people that terrorism will be the single most pressing and important issue (Bush ignored that and focused on Star Wars defense spending and privatizing Soc. Sec.)

* The New York Times reported that:  “In 1994, two jetliners were hijacked by people who wanted to crash them into buildings, one of them by an Islamic militant group. And the 2000 edition of the FAA’s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation, published this year, said that although Osama bin Laden ‘is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,’ adding, ‘Bin Laden’s anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.’”

*the Chicago Sun-Times reported that: “The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the September 11th attacks, high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists’ method of operation surprised them. Many stick to that story. Actually, elements of the hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.”

*January 11, 2001--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the Joint Chiefs have a meeting to discuss possible military hotspots.  Bush talked about Iraq and Hussein for most of the meeting.  Not terrorist threats to the US...Iraq.

*August 6, 2001--the CIA sends Bush a briefing that contained a two-page section entitled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US," and refers to possible hijacking attempts by Osama bin Laden disciples and the existence of about 70 FBI investigations into alleged al-Qaeda cells operating within the United States. The August 6 PDB, an excerpt from which you'll find below, was presented to Bush while he vacationed at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

The White House was not taking threats from al-Qaeda seriously....much to our detriment.

Can you see why someone might say the Bush Administration failed to lead on the matter of battling terrorism prior to 9/11?

[headhuntersix]

I've read the books decker.......Clinton had 8 years, several attacks...direct attacks against the US and her interests and did nothing. Please give me a break. They  might have taken things more seriously had Clinton actually done something himself. In any event, after 911 Bush did do something and u libs have been whining ever since.

[OzmO]

I've read the books decker.......Clinton had 8 years, several attacks...direct attacks against the US and her interests and did nothing. Please give me a break. They  might have taken things more seriously had Clinton actually done something himself. In any event, after 911 Bush did do something and u libs have been whining ever since.

That's completely untrue. 

[headhuntersix]

What that the libs have been whining, they whine regardless. They hate Bush so much that they'd rather watch us melt then admit he's done anything good.

[OzmO]

What that the libs have been whining, they whine regardless. They hate Bush so much that they'd rather watch us melt then admit he's done anything good.

I think that's more of a developing stereo type based on debate.  I hate Bush.  But he hasn't done "everything" wrong.  He handled the 9/11 aftermath pretty well IMO.  My biggest criticism is for the Iraq war and it's aftermath.

And to think "libs" would rather watch you die than have BUSH be right, is more of that programming that gets you to believe people on the left:

-Hate America

-What America to lose

[headhuntersix]

Thats fine, but the Bush hate blinds them to anything else.

[OzmO]

Thats fine, but the Bush hate blinds them to anything else.

I agree that in some instances that's true.

[headhuntersix]

I'm reading Woodwards book now, very interesting. Pick it up if u have a chance.

[OzmO]

I'm reading Woodwards book now, very interesting. Pick it up if u have a chance.

I will.

[Decker]

I've read the books decker.......Clinton had 8 years, several attacks...direct attacks against the US and her interests and did nothing. Please give me a break. They  might have taken things more seriously had Clinton actually done something himself. In any event, after 911 Bush did do something and u libs have been whining ever since.

Clinton did nothing?

Does this look like nothing? 

Measures taken by the Clinton administration to thwart international terrorism and bin Laden's network were historic, unprecedented and, sadly, not followed up on. Consider the steps offered by Clinton's 1996 omnibus anti-terror legislation, the pricetag for which stood at $1.097 billion. The following is a partial list of the initiatives offered by the Clinton anti-terrorism bill:

Screen Checked Baggage: $91.1 million

Screen Carry-On Baggage: $37.8 million

Passenger Profiling: $10 million

Screener Training: $5.3 million

Screen Passengers (portals) and Document Scanners: $1 million

Deploying Existing Technology to Inspect International Air Cargo: $31.4
million

Provide Additional Air/Counterterrorism Security: $26.6 million

Explosives Detection Training: $1.8 million

Augment FAA Security Research: $20 million

Customs Service: Explosives and Radiation Detection Equipment at Ports: $2.2 million

Anti-Terrorism Assistance to Foreign Governments: $2 million

Capacity to Collect and Assemble Explosives Data: $2.1 million

Improve Domestic Intelligence: $38.9 million

Critical Incident Response Teams for Post-Blast Deployment: $7.2 million

Additional Security for Federal Facilities: $6.7 million

Firefighter/Emergency Services Financial Assistance: $2.7 million

Public Building and Museum Security: $7.3 million

Improve Technology to Prevent Nuclear Smuggling: $8 million

Critical Incident Response Facility: $2 million

Counter-Terrorism Fund: $35 million

Explosives Intelligence and Support Systems: $14.2 million

Office of Emergency Preparedness: $5.8 million
    The Clinton administration poured more than a billion dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community, into the protection of critical infrastructure, into massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack, into a reorganization of the intelligence community itself. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00377.htm


Bush dropped the ball by ignoring terrorism.  He pretty much did nothing even when warned.

[headhuntersix]

Decker..he threw money and a few tomahawks at Bin laden...he did nothing. Sudan was going to turn him over....nothing. We had him several times.....able to kill him and he did nothing.

[youandme]

* The New York Times reported that:  “In 1994, two jetliners were hijacked by people who wanted to crash them into buildings, one of them by an Islamic militant group. And the 2000 edition of the FAA’s annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation, published this year, said that although Osama bin Laden ‘is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,’ adding, ‘Bin Laden’s anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.’”

*the Chicago Sun-Times reported that: “The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the September 11th attacks, high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists’ method of operation surprised them. Many stick to that story. Actually, elements of the hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.”

Excellent anti-American sources

[OzmO]

Decker..he threw money and a few tomahawks at Bin laden...he did nothing. Sudan was going to turn him over....nothing. We had him several times.....able to kill him and he did nothing.

That Sudan thing isn't true.  And Clinton DID do things.  What he didn't do was invade Iraq while he had Obama trapped in a mountain range.

Don't confuse the 2. 

[youandme]

That Sudan thing isn't true.  And Clinton DID do things.  What he didn't do was invade Iraq while he had Obama trapped in a mountain range.

Don't confuse the 2. 

Osama 

[Decker]

Decker..he threw money and a few tomahawks at Bin laden...he did nothing. Sudan was going to turn him over....nothing. We had him several times.....able to kill him and he did nothing.

The Sudan story is a fable.

It was debunked by the 9/11 Commission.  Only that font of misinformation Sean Hannity keeps pushing it.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_5.pdf

The US never had OBL several times and just let him go.  That's preposterous and more rightwing nonsense.

[Decker]

Excellent anti-American sources

Lovely. Are the reported stories wrong?

[OzmO]

Osama 

Surprised you knew the difference    

[240 is Back]

Decker..he threw money and a few tomahawks at Bin laden...he did nothing. Sudan was going to turn him over....nothing. We had him several times.....able to kill him and he did nothing.

bush threw trillions at him.  Also didn't get him.

So essentially... bush was as lousy as clinton... but clinton did it at a much smaller price tag?

[OzmO]

bush threw trillions at him.  Also didn't get him.

So essentially... bush was as lousy as clinton... but clinton did it at a much smaller price tag?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

that's funny

[tu_holmes]

bush threw trillions at him.  Also didn't get him.

So essentially... bush was as lousy as clinton... but clinton did it at a much smaller price tag?

Ding Ding... Hand that man a cookie.