We Had No Domestic Attacks Under Bush; We've Had One Under Obama.

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Guess who:

Giuliani, who was the mayor of New York during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and later ran a presidential campaign centered around his widely praised response to the crisis, made the statement while criticizing President Barack Obama during an interview on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31272.html

Even if he meant after 9/11, Mr. Never Forget seems to have forgotten about the Anthrax and Richard Reid.

 

[DaveSimmons]

This is why it's hard to take the anti-Obama crowd seriously, they've collectively cried Wolf so many times it's hard to pick the one valid criticism out of the haystack of drivel.

 

[fskimospy]

Not to mention the DC sniper.

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

I find Obama amusing, bumbling, intellectually incorrect, vain and destined to bring down the whole of Liberal theology.

I'm looking forward to the utter defeat of Liberal thought.

 

[theevilsharpie]

I find Obama amusing, bumbling, intellectually incorrect, vain and destined to bring down the whole of Liberal theology.

I'm looking forward to the utter defeat of Liberal thought.

And this is related to this thread... how?

 

[DaveSimmons]

And this is related to this thread... how?

As evidence for my post?

 

[marincounty]

I find Obama amusing, bumbling, intellectually incorrect, vain and destined to bring down the whole of Liberal theology.

I'm looking forward to the utter defeat of Liberal thought.

It is possible, after all, Bush did destroy the Republican party.

 

[SamurAchzar]

This sort of statistics is so random and meaningless I'm simply astonished at how stupid the person who brings it up is (and there are many that do that, all across the political map). The security mechanisms are so diverse, varying and out of direct control of anyone - presidents included - it's ridiculous to even imply the president has any sort of control over it.

I mean, was Bush directly responsible for flight safety procedures? Or immigration checks?

 

[Arkaign]

I find Obama amusing, bumbling, intellectually incorrect, vain and destined to bring down the whole of Liberal theology.

I'm looking forward to the utter defeat of Liberal thought.

This is humorous, but brings up some interesting thoughts (which I doubt this guy will answer, but oh well)

Obama is for the most part a continuation of Bush policy. Same SECDEF, same basic economic team that's been running things, similar ME strategy (even an expansion of Afghan T.O.O.), etc. That being understood, what makes him really different than Bush?

On that same token, if Bush (who wasn't a classical conservative) pretty much destroyed the modern conservative movement during his terms, I wonder if Obama will do the same for the modern liberal movement (though he hasn't been a classical liberal at all, notice the lack of real financial regulatory reform, the continuation of foreign wars (with a GOP appointed SECDEF), etc.

The real powers that be seem to be transparent regardless of GOP or DEM control of WH, Congress, and Senate.

I do think the GOP leadership from '00-'06 was more egregious in setting bad precedents, but for the most part we're dealing with two sides of the same coin.

 

[Red Dawn]

This sort of statistics is so random and meaningless I'm simply astonished at how stupid the person who brings it up is (and there are many that do that, all across the political map). The security mechanisms are so diverse, varying and out of direct control of anyone - presidents included - it's ridiculous to even imply the president has any sort of control over it.

I mean, was Bush directly responsible for flight safety procedures? Or immigration checks?

Or Foreign and Domestic Policy?

 

[theevilsharpie]

Obama is for the most part a continuation of Bush policy. Same SECDEF, same basic economic team that's been running things, similar ME strategy (even an expansion of Afghan T.O.O.), etc. That being understood, what makes him really different than Bush?

The White House, like any bureaucracy, is not going to turn on a dime. I'm pretty sure W's policy during hist first year (up until 9/11) was largely a continuation of Clinton's policies.

 

[Lemon law]

First of all, Gonad is thinking with something other than his brain. And the entire thread assumption is absurd because GWB suffered multiple attempts on our homeland after the wildly successful 911 attack.

We can name Richard Reed and Jose Pedilla as only two of those that came as close as the fellow ole Gonad is citing under Obama. And now we have only slightly tightened up our defenses by banning carry on liquid beverage containers, another security breech that occurred while GWB was President.

And I have to agree with SmaurAchzar, to pretend our President is the only thing that stands between us and the terrorists is absurd.

But in terms of making me feel less safe, I have to blame jerks like Dick Cheney and his ilk who started all this so called war on terrorism. And after all the blood and treasure we have spent, we now have more terrorists than we had before. Not hard to understand when we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and directly and indirectly killing more innocent civilians than Saddam Hussein and the Talibam ever did.

 

[Arkaign]

But in terms of making me feel less safe, I have to blame jerks like Dick Cheney and his ilk who started all this so called war on terrorism. And after all the blood and treasure we have spent, we now have more terrorists than we had before. Not hard to understand when we are in Iraq and Afghanistan and directly and indirectly killing more innocent civilians than Saddam Hussein and the Talibam ever did.

Heh, particularly frustrating is when the same idiots who cheered Darth Cheney come crowing about how Obama is making us less safe by at least trying not to go down the same roads (torture, indefinite detention, rendition, pre-emptive war, etc).

 

[woolfe9999]

Indeed:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ni-says-there-were-no-domestic-attacks-durin/

- wolf

 

[Fern]

We Had No Domestic Attacks Under Bush; We've Had One Under Obama.

Is Guiliani senile?

We've had two under Obama: Fort Hood and underwear bomber.

(No need to comment on the stupidy regarding "no domestic attacks under Bush")

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Seems Dana Perino needs a history lesson too:
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/11/25/perino-terror-attack-bush/

Is this like the "Al Gore claimed he invented the internet" thing where if enough people say it enough times it becomes fact?

 

[Patranus]

Is Guiliani senile?

We've had two under Obama: Fort Hood and underwear bomber.

(No need to comment on the stupidy regarding "no domestic attacks under Bush")

Fern

Don't forget the army recruiter shooting.

 

[fskimospy]

Don't forget the army recruiter shooting.

And Dr. Tiller's assassination.

 

[Lemon law]

Can I point out something to forum idiots, Europe, largely for the sins of their colonial past
has been under significant terrorists attacks since 1970 and even before that.

The USA only lost our virginity on 911. And in the grand scheme of things, it was more because the world trade center and their policies had been a hated terrorists target for decades before. And to that extent, the 911 attack was directed at the world trade center which only happened to be located in NYC, and not because it was a per say attack on the USA.

But we can credit some of it to the psyche of Ossama Bin Laden, who was deeply offended to the root of his Wanabist beliefs when GHB decided to base US troops in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War one. Maybe a good strategic move at the time, but a unforgivable insult to Ossama. And once the first two of five planes hit the world trade center targets, the other three were useful in only fueling the revenge of only Ossama Bin Laden.

At least GWB was smart enough to not allow Ossama to succeed in driving a wedge between us and Saudi Arabia, but we were dumb enough to allow Dick Cheney and his ilk to start a so called war on terrorism that has alienated too many while having the net effect of increasing international terrorism.

 

[Arkaign]

Can I point out something to forum idiots, Europe, largely for the sins of their colonial past
has been under significant terrorists attacks since 1970 and even before that.

The USA only lost our virginity on 911. And in the grand scheme of things, it was more because the world trade center and their policies had been a hated terrorists target for decades before. And to that extent, the 911 attack was directed at the world trade center which only happened to be located in NYC, and not because it was a per say attack on the USA.

But we can credit some of it to the psyche of Ossama Bin Laden, who was deeply offended to the root of his Wanabist beliefs when GHB decided to base US troops in Saudi Arabia during Gulf War one. Maybe a good strategic move at the time, but a unforgivable insult to Ossama. And once the first two of five planes hit the world trade center targets, the other three were useful in only fueling the revenge of only Ossama Bin Laden.

At least GWB was smart enough to not allow Ossama to succeed in driving a wedge between us and Saudi Arabia, but we were dumb enough to allow Dick Cheney and his ilk to start a so called war on terrorism that has alienated too many while having the net effect of increasing international terrorism.

Well, at least the shitbox-dumb idea of invading countries unrelated to international terrorism and short-changing areas of real terrorist influence (NW beloved patriot, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc) had the effect of making a certain cadre of people and corporations incredibly rich, eh?

So at least for a relative few, it really paid off in blood money.

 

[Zebo]

North Carolina Jihad?
San Francisco Jewish center Jihad?
DC Sniper Jihad?

 

[Avvocato Effetti]

Well, at least the shitbox-dumb idea of invading countries unrelated to international terrorism and short-changing areas of real terrorist influence (NW beloved patriot, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, etc) had the effect of making a certain cadre of people and corporations incredibly rich, eh?

So at least for a relative few, it really paid off in blood money.

The mistake was in not using nuclear weapons to annihilate the population of the countries we invaded.

Boots on the ground was expensive, politically, financially and in lives lost.

 

[Arkaign]

The mistake was in not using nuclear weapons to annihilate the population of the countries we invaded.

Boots on the ground was expensive, politically, financially and in lives lost.

8-|

 

[Craig234]

The mistake was in not using nuclear weapons to annihilate the population of the countries we invaded.

Boots on the ground was expensive, politically, financially and in lives lost.

I suspect the number of people I'll get notes from disagreeing with my naming you AT's craziest poster is 0.

 

[Jaskalas]

Despicable