Major Hasan and The Legacy of George W Bush
Gandalf Grey
Major Hasan and The Legacy of George W Bush
by Thom Hartmann
If Bill Clinton - or, presumably, Al Gore (or even Ralph Nader) - had been
President in 2001, the Ft. Hood massacre almost certainly wouldn't have
happened. Because George W. Bush was president, it did. Here's why it's
Bush's fault:
One of the first lessons aspiring novelists and screenwriters learn is that
the goodness of a hero is defined by a single quality - the evil of his
opponent. From Superman's Lex Luthor to Batman's Joker to Indiana Jones'
Nazis to Luke Skywalker's Darth Vader, for a hero to be perceived as larger
than life, he must have a larger than life enemy.
If Frodo in "Lord of the Rings," for example, hadn't been forced to do
battle with the supernatural powers of the Ring and its minions, his story
would have merely been a boring travelogue. But with an army of
supernaturally brilliant, evil, and powerful opponents, Frodo had the
opportunity to display his extraordinary inner courage and resourcefulness,
qualities he didn't even realize he had until they were called forth by the
peril of an awesome evil.
This is a lesson that was not lost on Karl Rove and George W. Bush. If they
could recast George as the opponent of a power as great as the Ring, then
the rather ordinary Dubya could become the extraordinary SuperGeorge, rising
from his facileness to prevail over supernatural powers of evil.
Bill Clinton had a similar chance, but passed on it for the good of America
and the world.
When bin Laden attacked us in the 1990s - several times - in an attempt to
raise his own stature in the Islamic world, Bill Clinton dealt with Osama
like the criminal he was. He enlisted Interpol and the police and
investigative agencies of various nations, brought in our best intelligence
agents, and missed bin Laden in a missile-launched assassination attempt by
a scant twenty minutes (bringing derisive howls from Republicans that he was
trying to "wag the dog" and deflect attention from the Monica
investigations).
As Clinton left office, he and the CIA were tightening the noose on bin
Laden, and his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, told me that when he
briefed his successor, Condoleezza Rice, he told her to put bin Laden and
al-Qaeda at the top of her priority list and thus finish the job the Clinton
administration had nearly completed.
As we know, when Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al finally came up with
the priorities for their new administration in January of 2001, al-Qaeda had
been replaced by tax cuts for Bush's rich donors on the "A" list, and didn't
even appear on the "B" list.
Thus came 9/11, despite over fifty explicit warnings given to the President,
including the infamous August 6, 2001 CIA briefing in Crawford, Texas that
in the immediate future al-Qaeda intended to hijack commercial planes and
use them to attack east coast targets. (Bush apparently took the warnings
seriously - Ashcroft immediately stopped flying on commercial aircraft, and
Bush moved to Texas for the longest vacation in the history of the American
presidency...and even when that was over, he preferred Florida to
target-listed Washington, D.C.)
In the days after the 9/11 attacks - much as in the days after Tim McVeigh
blew up the Murrah Building - America had the sympathy of the world, and the
police and intelligence agencies of even normally hostile nations offered to
help us track down and bring to justice its perpetrators.
Muslims all over the world were horrified at the actions of one of their
own, a fundamentalist turned criminal and murderer.
Mullah Omar of Afghanistan's Taliban first offered to arrest bin Laden and
turn him over to us (Washington Post, Page 1, October 29, 2001, "Diplomats
Met With Taliban On Bin Laden" by Ottaway and Stephens) and then made an
explicit offer to arrest Bin Laden and try him for the crime of 9/11 (CNN,
October 7, 2001, "US Rejects Taliban Offer To Try Bin Laden"; The Guardian,
October 14, 2001, "Bush Rejects Taliban Offer To Hand Bin Laden Over").
It would have been so easy for Bush to accept Omar's offer, which had
resulted, according to the Post, in over 20 diplomatic meetings and
negotiations. The Justice Department could have arrested Bin Laden like they
did McVeigh, helped the Taliban dismantle Bin Laden's training camps and
track down their attendees and sponsors, and launch an international effort
to disassemble and render impotent al-Qaeda.
It probably could have been done in a year or less, given the intensity of
the worldwide empathy for citizens of America and the many other nations
whose people died in the World Trade Center. Over 5000 American soldiers
would still be alive, and tens of thousands would not have lost arms, legs,
and eyes. Hundreds of thousands - possibly over a million - innocent Afghans
and Iraqis would still be alive.
But Karl Rove knew that George W. Bush had a problem, and saw in bin Laden
the solution. And didn't much give a damn what it would mean to American
Muslims.
Bush had not defeated Al Gore fair and square, and was seen by most
Americans as a spoiler, an illegitimate leader. As soon as the details of
his proposed "supply side" voodoo economics hit the press in the first
months of his presidency, the markets went into a nosedive.
And already there were stories circulating in the media of his cozy
relationship with corrupt oil barons like Ken Lay and the secret energy
meetings in the Spring of 2001 - before 9/11 - in which Cheney, Lay, and
others in the oil industry were apparently carving up the oil fields of
Iraq.
Bush, in short, was seen as a buffoonish pretender, an ineffectual manager,
and a sellout to big oil and other scandal-ridden industries. He was the
butt of late-night jokes, a former college cheerleader, a "dry drunk"
(except when tempted by beer and pretzels), an inside trader, a small man on
the national and international stage.
George W. desperately needed his own Lex Luthor if he was to reinvent
himself as Superman.
Rove and Bush realized that if they simply branded Bin Laden as the criminal
thug that he was - the leader of an obscure Islamic mafia with fewer than
20,000 serious members - they wouldn't have the super-villain they needed
for George W. Bush to be seen as a super-hero. If Bush only authorized a
police action, or cut a deal with Omar, he'd miss a golden opportunity to
position himself as the Battle Commander of The War Against Evil Incarnate.
And so began the building of the mythos. Osama as evil genius. Osama as
worldwide mastermind. Even Osama as the antichrist (as General Boykin
reminded us so candidly).
If the remnants of al-Qaeda tried to pull our strings by increasing
"chatter" about particular flights, for example, the Bush White House
hyper-reacted with many press conferences and televised appearances by Tom
Ridge. Every action was trumpeted. Bush put "Terror Alerts" on the screens
of TVs nationwide as often as possible. The constant drumbeat was that
George The Good was battling the One True Dragon. And that Dragon was
Islamic.
For George to remain SuperGeorge, Bin Laden had to be as big as Hitler in
the minds of Americans. Thus, Richard Perle wrote in his breathless and
hyperbolic book An End To Evil: "There is no middle way for Americans: It is
victory or holocaust."
But Afghanistan and Iraq weren't Germany, and Bin Laden wasn't even a pale
imitation of Hitler. It wasn't a nation that attacked us - it was a tiny,
local, but well-funded Islamic mafia. And that band of thugs run by Bin
Laden no more represented the interests or opinions of the majority of the
world's Muslims than Tim McVeigh represented the majority of America's
Christians.
This archetypal transformation of George W. Bush from spoiled, rich-boy
pretender-to-the-presidency into the caped (well, flight-suited)
SuperGeorge, Defender Of All Things Good And Right had a powerful impact on
the American people - and particularly on their perception of Muslims.
The shadow of the "good" SuperGeorge was, necessarily, the "evil" of
Muslims. They were vilified - talk show hosts called for their outright
murder ("Kill them all" said Michael Savage) - and a steady drumbeat of
suspicion was cast toward American Muslims.
Fox News and right-wing talk jumped in with both feet, feeding anti-Muslim
hysteria that continues to this day with teary-eyed TV shows, a "secret
Muslim" president, and Nazi-image Tea Parties.
"Be afraid," they tell Americans every day. "Be very afraid."
In retrospect, it's surprising that Major Hasan was the first to snap in all
these years.
Bill Clinton knew what to do with a terrorist, be he Bin Laden or Tim
McVeigh: brand them as criminals.
The countries of Europe who endured years of terrorism - from the crimes of
the IRA against the citizens of Britain, to the crimes of the November 17th
terrorist group against Greece, to the crimes of the Red Brigades against
Italy - they were fought by investigators, intelligence operatives, and the
highly effective web of police agencies that stretch across the world.
Although less filled with shock and awe, these able people could have
brought Bin Laden and his associates to justice without turning him into a
super-villain or demonizing Muslims.
But that would have deflated the heroic SuperGeorge action figure in the
minds of average Americans, and possibly Cheny's company Halliburton - which
was on shaky ground financially before 9/11 - would have even gone under
because of Cheney's ill-thought-out purchase by that company of a bankrupt
asbestos supplier. (On December 10, 2001, before the bombing of Afghanistan
began, Halliburton stock lost 43% of its value in a single day because
Cheney's business decision was pushing them toward bankruptcy.)
So George and Dick made out just fine. But Major Hasan went nuts. And
probably never would have, had somebody other than Bush/Rove/Cheney been in
the White House back in 2001.
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike,
that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans--born in
this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud
of our ancient heritage--and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing
of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to
which we are committed today at home and around the world.
"
-John F. Kennedy, 1961
Werner
> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>
> Major Hasan and The Legacy of George W Bush
>
> by Thom Hartmann
>
>
> Bill Clinton knew what to do with a terrorist, be he Bin Laden or Tim
> McVeigh: brand them as criminals.
>
Is that the Clinton who bombed the Serbs into submission?
UN: Serbia not responsible for genocide
Ruling denies Bosnia reparations for '95 massacre
By Jeffrey Fleishman and Zoran Cirjakovic, Los Angeles Times |
February 27, 2007
BERLIN -- The United Nations' highest court ruled yesterday that
Serbia failed to prevent the massacre of Muslims during the Bosnian
war but was not directly responsible for the atrocities, ending a
landmark case in which an entire nation was tried for committing
genocide.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/europe/articles/2007/02/27/un_serbia_not_responsible_for_genocide/
----
Clown John Burke
> probably never would have, had somebody other than Bush/Rove/Cheney been in
> the White House back in 2001.
Horseshit.
Straightarrow
>
> read more »
I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
dropping the ball on his watch.
Mitchell Holman
news:860e5939-f33b-496e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 8:21�pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>>
>> read more �
>
> I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
> progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
> dropping the ball on his watch.
>
And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
leona...@gmail.com
> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>
> Major Hasan and The Legacy of George W Bush
>
> by Thom Hartmann
>
> If Bill Clinton - or, presumably, Al Gore (or even Ralph Nader) - had been
> President in 2001, the Ft. Hood massacre almost certainly wouldn't have
> happened. Because George W. Bush was president, it did. Here's why it's
> Bush's fault:
> One of the first lessons aspiring novelists and screenwriters learn is that
> the goodness of a hero is defined by a single quality - the evil of his
> opponent. From Superman's Lex Luthor to Batman's Joker to Indiana Jones'
> Nazis to Luke Skywalker's Darth Vader, for a hero to be perceived as larger
> than life, he must have a larger than life enemy.
>
> If Frodo in "Lord of the Rings," for example, hadn't been forced to do
> battle with the supernatural powers of the Ring and its minions, his story
> would have merely been a boring travelogue. But with an army of
> supernaturally brilliant, evil, and powerful opponents, Frodo had the
> opportunity to display his extraordinary inner courage and resourcefulness,
> qualities he didn't even realize he had until they were called forth by the
> peril of an awesome evil.
>
> This is a lesson that was not lost on Karl Rove and George W. Bush. If they
> could recast George as the opponent of a power as great as the Ring, then
> the rather ordinary Dubya could become the extraordinary SuperGeorge, rising
> from his facileness to prevail over supernatural powers of evil.
•• Absolute fascist bullshit!!!
—— ——
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.
1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the
logic of what you say. You have to tell them
what is right in very simple terms. If they do
not agree, you will never be able to change
their mind.
2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes
against their religious belief, they will cling to
that belief even if it means their death.
3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a
million years. There is no way to convince
the anthropogenic global warming alarmists,
the terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and
predators to change their evil ways, They
knew what they were doing was wrong, but
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil deeds.
Straightarrow
Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
Mitchell Holman
news:fde81635-c1ed-4b0e...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 11, 9:47�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9
> e89-cf53...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 8:21�pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>>
>> >> read more �
>>
>> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
>> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
>> > dropping the ball on his watch.
>>
>> � � And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>
> Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
>
Modern Conservative: Someone who holds Clinton
accountable for the 1993 WTC attack (in his 3rd
week in office) but holds Bush blameless for the
2001 WTC attack (in his EIGHTH MONTH in office).
Straightarrow
> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:fde81635-c1ed-4b0e...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 11, 9:47 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9
>
> >> > On Nov 11, 8:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>
> >> >> read more »
>
> >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
> >> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
> >> > dropping the ball on his watch.
>
> >> And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>
> > Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
>
> Modern Conservative: Someone who holds Clinton
> accountable for the 1993 WTC attack (in his 3rd
> week in office) but holds Bush blameless for the
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your Messiah has been in office for 11 months and he gets a pass on
EVERYTHING !!!! Do you see a pattern here? Prolly not.
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
> On Nov 11, 9:47 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9e89-
cf53f2...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 8:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>>
>> >> read more »
>>
>> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
>> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
>> > dropping the ball on his watch.
>>
>> And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>
> Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
Glad you mentioned that. Clinton's adminisration hunted down the people
responsible, gave them a fair trial, and jailed them.
How did George do?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
This is kind of the point that many people are likely asking
themselves regarding this current situation. When 9/11 happened,
Holman, Gandoof, Zepp (Mr Dead) et al. said that it was not
Clinton's fault because it was Bush who was president. Now we have
an incident that clearly Obama doesn't want to take responsibility
for and his supporters bring up 9/11 claiming that 9/11 (and
therefore Bush) are at fault.. But Obama has been president longer
now than Bush was before 9/11. If 9/11 is Bush's fault, clearly
this is Obama's fault.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there were many warning
signs that Hasan was either batshit crazy or al Qaeda, and most
likely both. All of this was ignored by Obama. Why was it ignored?
I'm sure that you'll have many excuses not the least of which is
that he was never told about Hasan. It should be noted that Bush
was never told about 9/11 either. But feel free to go through and
explain why Bush gets blame for events on his watch but Obama
doesn't. Afterwards, explain why the unemployment situation, the
broader economy, the budget deficit, the value of the dollar among
other things are the fault of Bush and not Obama's responsibility.
Do that right here ------>
--
What I hate about flip flops is the flip and the flop.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
What month in office was the Hasan attack?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Holman is going full retard again?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
It's a little difficult for me to follow this argument. Clinton
hunted down the people who committed the various terrorist attacks
and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
Regarding how Bush did, he managed to capture or kill many
terrorists. The Bush administration didn't drop the Clinton era
policy of using the policing apparatus to hunt down terrorists, he
just augmented it by also using the military (and other means).
The fact that Obama, a "progressive" and a Liberal, has largely
retained the Bush era policies in this regard shows that any
president in the current climate would likely too, even Clinton. It
does seem that hypersensitivity towards "discriminating" was part
of the problem with stopping Hasan before he acted. That's not
really coming from Bush, rather it's one of those "features of the
progress and Liberal when he takes power.
Straightarrow
wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:09:03 -0800, Straightarrow wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 9:47 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9e89-
>
>
>
>
> >> > On Nov 11, 8:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>
> >> >> read more »
>
> >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
> >> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
> >> > dropping the ball on his watch.
>
> >> And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>
> > Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
>
> Glad you mentioned that. Clinton's adminisration hunted down the people
> responsible, gave them a fair trial, and jailed them.
>
> How did George do?
Clinton didn't "hunt" a damned thing but pussy. The fucking europeans
caught the perps and the ONLY way Clinton got them brought here for
trial was to PROMISE they wouldn't be given the death penalty. So now
we get to spend $50,000 a year per perp to make sure they don't have
their civil rights stepped on till the day they die a natural death.
Milt
recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09" wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:09:03 -0800, Straightarrow wrote:
>
> > >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9e89-
>
> > >> > On Nov 11, 8:21Â pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>
>
> > >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
> > >> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
> > >> > dropping the ball on his watch.
>
>
> > > Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
>
> > Glad you mentioned that. Clinton's adminisration hunted down the people
> > responsible, gave them a fair trial, and jailed them.
>
> > How did George do?
>
> It's a little difficult for me to follow this argument. Clinton
> hunted down the people who committed the various terrorist attacks
> and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
> It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
That's a stupid argument. You can't stop al Qaeda from existing; it's
not an actual, sanctioned organization with a charter and all of that.
It's a bunch of idiots with a warped sense of "duty." Al Qaeda is an
idea, not a specific group. So all you can do is stop what they do.
Look at the 9-11 attacks. They weren't exactly high-tech. If security
had been heightened slightly, and they had taken the box cutters, or
even advised the public that men with box cutters might try to take
over a plane and fly it into buildings, they probably wouldn't have
gotten away with it. It's not like it took a huge, overwhelming
security regimen to have stopped it.
>
> Regarding how Bush did, he managed to capture or kill many
> terrorists.
Of course, he created more than he killed.
> The Bush administration didn't drop the Clinton era
> policy of using the policing apparatus to hunt down terrorists, he
> just augmented it by also using the military (and other means).
Um... before 9-11, he pretty much abandoned everything that had worked
for Clinton. And those two wars, and the fucking up of both of them,
effectively created a lot of terrorists, and gave them a way to kill
Americans without even having to come over here.
>
> The fact that Obama, a "progressive" and a Liberal, has largely
> retained the Bush era policies in this regard shows that any
> president in the current climate would likely too, even Clinton. It
> does seem that hypersensitivity towards "discriminating" was part
> of the problem with stopping Hasan before he acted. That's not
> really coming from Bush, rather it's one of those "features of the
> progress and Liberal when he takes power.
>
He has changed the Bush-era "policies" drastically already. Where the
hell have you been, Bill? Haven't you been paying attention? He's
reached out to the North Koreans and the Iranians, he's let the Saudis
know that business-as-usual is about over, and he's even engaged
Syria. The Afghan engagement has changed character completely;
soldiers have a standing order to not shoot anyone except in self-
defense, and to reach out to the The way you stop terrorism is to make
people not want to be terrorists, get it? The problem with your side
is, you want to personalize everything, and make it about specific
people, when it's not about people; it's about ideology. These people
think they're "freedom fighters," and they see us as "terrorists."
Bush actually managed to validate their warped view while he was in
office, and created a hell of a lot of terrorists.
And if he was such a terrorist-killer, why are we still in
Afghanistan?
5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09
Actually, about half of them were right here in the US. That's lie
number one. There was one instance where the French insisted that
America honor the treaty about capital punishment, but I note than none
of the defendants got the death penalty. I realize you are a typical
right winger who would like to draw and quarter girl scouts for
jaywalking, but the fact is the death penalty usually costs more than a
life sentence, and would be a pretty stupid thing to do with someone from
a movement that thrives on creating martyrs.
Mitchell Holman
news:fe15b3b2-0019-42bf...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 6:55�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:fde81635-c1ed-4b0e-b
> 8aa-8f71...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 9:47�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> >> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9
>> > e89-cf53f219c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > On Nov 11, 8:21�pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>>
>> >> >> read more �
>>
>> >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist
>> >> > bedwetting progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush
>> >> > for OmaMao dropping the ball on his watch.
>>
>> >> � � And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>>
>> > Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
>>
>> �Modern Conservative: Someone who holds Clinton
>> accountable for the 1993 WTC attack (in his 3rd
>> week in office) but holds Bush blameless for the
>> 2001 WTC attack (in his EIGHTH MONTH in office).- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Your Messiah has been in office for 11 months and he gets a pass on
> EVERYTHING !!!!
Nope. Obama is to blame for continuing the policies
that he has control over.
What is Bush to blame for, in your book?
Mitchell Holman
Who is blaming Obama for the Hasan attack?
Deaf Power
He let his terrorist friend Osama bin Laden go yet these neoclown
terrorists cheered him on. No wonder, Muslim terrorists are neoclown
terrorists' best friends who hate America.
Mitchell Holman
@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> Straightarrow <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> news:860e5939-f33b-496e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On Nov 11, 8:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>> >>
>> >> read more �
>> >
>> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
>> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
>> > dropping the ball on his watch.
>> >
>>
>> And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>>
> This is kind of the point that many people are likely asking
> themselves regarding this current situation. When 9/11 happened,
> Holman, Gandoof, Zepp (Mr Dead) et al. said that it was not
> Clinton's fault because it was Bush who was president. Now we have
> an incident that clearly Obama doesn't want to take responsibility
> for and his supporters bring up 9/11 claiming that 9/11 (and
> therefore Bush) are at fault.. But Obama has been president longer
> now than Bush was before 9/11. If 9/11 is Bush's fault, clearly
> this is Obama's fault.
Bonde is sort of "conflicted" about what is Obama's fault.
"I'm not blaming Obama for the recession."
Bill Bonde, March 23, 2009
vs.....
"This is the Obama Recession"
Bill Bonde, March 21, 2009
>
> It is becoming increasingly clear that there were many warning
> signs that Hasan was either batshit crazy or al Qaeda, and most
> likely both. All of this was ignored by Obama.
Was Obama briefed on Hasan and did nothing the
Bush administration was briefed about the 9/11 threat
and did nothing?
Other unheeded warnings before 9/11?
The Bush administration may hesitate to give Arab allies
public credit, but Washington investigators should consider
warnings that at least two friendly Arab intelligence services
sent to Washington just weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Jordan, beyond a doubt, and Morocco, with some certainty,
advised US and allied intelligence that Osama bin Laden's Al
Qaeda terrorists were preparing airborne terrorist operations
in the continental United States.
Mitchell Holman
Is Bonde drinking while posting again?
"If they give the Libearl cannabil universal coverage,
will the person with Medicare lose his finger coverage?"
Bill Bonde, Sept 2, 2009
Mitchell Holman
news:chine.bleu-9AD96...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <4AFC4F68...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
>> It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>
> That's because Clnton spent the first nine months of 2001 slacking off
> and not doing his presidential duties at all.
>
Jan 20, 2009: The day when everything went from
being Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.
Phlip
> number one. There was one instance where the French insisted that
> America honor the treaty about capital punishment, but I note than none
> of the defendants got the death penalty. I realize you are a typical
> right winger who would like to draw and quarter girl scouts for
> jaywalking, but the fact is the death penalty usually costs more than a
> life sentence, and would be a pretty stupid thing to do with someone from
> a movement that thrives on creating martyrs.
<crickets.wav...>
Straightarrow
> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:fe15b3b2-0019-42bf...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 6:55 am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> innews:fde81635-c1ed-4b0e-b
>
> >> > On Nov 11, 9:47 pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >> >> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9
> >> > e89-cf53f219c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > On Nov 11, 8:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
>
> >> >> >> read more »
>
> >> >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist
> >> >> > bedwetting progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush
> >> >> > for OmaMao dropping the ball on his watch.
>
> >> >> And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
>
> >> > Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
>
> >> Modern Conservative: Someone who holds Clinton
> >> accountable for the 1993 WTC attack (in his 3rd
> >> week in office) but holds Bush blameless for the
> >> 2001 WTC attack (in his EIGHTH MONTH in office).- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Your Messiah has been in office for 11 months and he gets a pass on
> > EVERYTHING !!!!
>
> Nope. Obama is to blame for continuing the policies
> that he has control over.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
In YOUR book, EVERYTHING !!
Straightarrow
wrote:
> In article <4AFC4F68.84E63...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>
> > and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
> > It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>
> doing his presidential duties at all.
>
HUH ??? Why just the first 9 months?? HUH??!!
> --
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. I'm whoever you want me to be.
> Silver silverware - Where is the love? At least I can stay in character.
> Oval swimming pool - Where is the love? Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
> Damn the living - It's a lovely life. We support you, Sarah.
Straightarrow
> All the Tea in China Blue <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:chine.bleu-9AD96...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article <4AFC4F68.84E63...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>
> >> and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
> >> It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>
> > That's because Clnton spent the first nine months of 2001 slacking off
> > and not doing his presidential duties at all.
>
> Jan 20, 2009: The day when everything went from
> being Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.
Well, we'll never know for sure how much was ACTUALLY the Clinton Co-
Presidency's fault. Sandy Bergler stole and shredded any evidence that
would tie the Clinton's to mistakes in the lead-up to the 9/11 attack.
Phlip
>>> Modern Conservative: Someone who holds Clinton
>>> accountable for the 1993 WTC attack (in his 3rd
>>> week in office) but holds Bush blameless for the
>>> 2001 WTC attack (in his EIGHTH MONTH in office).
>>>
>> What month in office was the Hasan attack?
>
> Who is blaming Obama for the Hasan attack?
More to the point, Obama learned Hasan's name on the same day we did.
Not so OBL, huh?
Phlip
> In article <e660e35d-7869-4a35...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> Straightarrow <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
>>>> It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>>> That's because Clnton spent the first nine months of 2001 slacking off and
>>> not
>>> doing his presidential duties at all.
>>>
>> HUH ??? Why just the first 9 months?? HUH??!!
>
> You can't fake your brand of stupid.
Indeed. Let's try again, without the sarcasm:
During the Clinton administration, each time he thwarted a big terror attack
(possibly including ones that were wisely kept a secret)...
...the neocons went, "Ah, darn, we lost another chance for the Pearl Harbor we
have been praying for, so we can take over the world".
Then they got their boy in office, and he downsized the FBI and CIA teams that
were hunting OBL.
Then he went on vacation... to wait.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Mitchell Holman wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:4AFC4DDC.B246C450
> @yahoo.co.uk:
>
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >> Straightarrow <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> news:860e5939-f33b-496e...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >>
> >> > On Nov 11, 8:21 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
> >> >>
> >> >> read more �
> >> >
> >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
> >> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
> >> > dropping the ball on his watch.
> >> >
> >>
> >> And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
> >>
> > This is kind of the point that many people are likely asking
> > themselves regarding this current situation. When 9/11 happened,
> > Holman, Gandoof, Zepp (Mr Dead) et al. said that it was not
> > Clinton's fault because it was Bush who was president. Now we have
> > an incident that clearly Obama doesn't want to take responsibility
> > for and his supporters bring up 9/11 claiming that 9/11 (and
> > therefore Bush) are at fault.. But Obama has been president longer
> > now than Bush was before 9/11. If 9/11 is Bush's fault, clearly
> > this is Obama's fault.
>
> Bonde is sort of "conflicted" about what is Obama's fault.
>
Holman is lying Yet Again. You know that YOU get to defend the idea
that everything is Obama's fault, which it is when discussing it
with you, since you insisted that everything was Bush's fault no
matter if he actually had the power to change it. But my views,
though, as I've stated repeatedly, are that a president should only
be responsible for what he could've done or what what he did, not
what is impossible or beyond his power.
> "I'm not blaming Obama for the recession."
> Bill Bonde, March 23, 2009
>
> vs.....
>
> "This is the Obama Recession"
> Bill Bonde, March 21, 2009
>
> >
> > It is becoming increasingly clear that there were many warning
> > signs that Hasan was either batshit crazy or al Qaeda, and most
> > likely both. All of this was ignored by Obama.
>
> Was Obama briefed on Hasan and did nothing the
> Bush administration was briefed about the 9/11 threat
> and did nothing?
>
Obama certainly knew about the possibility of extremism in the US.
Bush was never told about the specifics of the 9/11 attack. In
fact, it is clear that had the FBI and CIA been talking, they
could've done more, probably stopped the attack. But what does Bush
do? There isn't any evidence that he could've waved a magic
whatever and fixed everything.
> Other unheeded warnings before 9/11?
>
> The Bush administration may hesitate to give Arab allies
> public credit, but Washington investigators should consider
> warnings that at least two friendly Arab intelligence services
> sent to Washington just weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.
>
> Jordan, beyond a doubt, and Morocco, with some certainty,
> advised US and allied intelligence that Osama bin Laden's Al
> Qaeda terrorists were preparing airborne terrorist operations
> in the continental United States.
>
What should Bush do? Certainly CIA and FBI were given this
information. What else could Bush do? He couldn't shut down all air
flights in the US for months.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
That's the point, you idiot. You blame Bush for 9/11 but not Obama
for Hasan. Obama's been in office *longer* than Bush was. QEF.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
If bin Laden used his name to attack on 9/11, I can see your point.
He used suicide terrorists training in the US since before Clinton
left office. So you should try again.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Milt wrote:
>
> On Nov 12, 1:09 pm, "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of
> recirculation' )" <tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > "5272 Dead, 405 since 1/20/09" wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:09:03 -0800, Straightarrow wrote:
> >
> > > > On Nov 11, 9:47� pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >> innews:860e5939-f33b-496e-9e89-
> > > cf53f219c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >
> > > >> > On Nov 11, 8:21� pm, "Gandalf Grey" <valino...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> >> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
> >
> > > >> >> read more »
> >
> > > >> > I knew before the week was over you dickbiting leftist bedwetting
> > > >> > progressive crybabies would find a way to blame Bush for OmaMao
> > > >> > dropping the ball on his watch.
> >
> > > >> � � And whose "watch" did 9/11 happen on, pray tell?
> >
> > > > Whose watch did the FIRST attack on the WTC happen??
> >
> > > Glad you mentioned that. Clinton's adminisration hunted down the people
> > > responsible, gave them a fair trial, and jailed them.
> >
> > > How did George do?
> >
> > It's a little difficult for me to follow this argument. Clinton
> > hunted down the people who committed the various terrorist attacks
> > and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
> > It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>
> That's a stupid argument. You can't stop al Qaeda from existing; it's
> not an actual, sanctioned organization with a charter and all of that.
> It's a bunch of idiots with a warped sense of "duty." Al Qaeda is an
> idea, not a specific group. So all you can do is stop what they do.
>
They certainly had been more taking direction from the top before
9/11. It should be noted that the fracturization of al Qaeda
occurred mostly after Bush responded to them with military force.
> Look at the 9-11 attacks. They weren't exactly high-tech. If security
> had been heightened slightly, and they had taken the box cutters, or
> even advised the public that men with box cutters might try to take
> over a plane and fly it into buildings, they probably wouldn't have
> gotten away with it. It's not like it took a huge, overwhelming
> security regimen to have stopped it.
>
They still can't stop people from taking box cutters on planes. So
even now they can't stop that part of 9/11, if you even think it
was the box cutters that let them take the planes. I suspect that
other weapons could be made without much difficulty. It's the
knowledge of what happened on 9/11 that would today make people
very unwilling to give up the plane. But before you think things
are fine, not that there have been several hijackings post 9/11. I
think that one went to Cuba. The point is, even today the cockpit
isn't protected properly on all flights that could reach the United
States.
> > Regarding how Bush did, he managed to capture or kill many
> > terrorists.
>
> Of course, he created more than he killed.
>
How would you respond to terrorists (or Nazis, say)? If you let
them grow, they grow. If you kill them, they Hydra head you? I
suspect that Obama is Hercules.
> > The Bush administration didn't drop the Clinton era
> > policy of using the policing apparatus to hunt down terrorists, he
> > just augmented it by also using the military (and other means).
>
> Um... before 9-11, he pretty much abandoned everything that had worked
> for Clinton.
>
What worked for Clinton?
> And those two wars, and the fucking up of both of them,
> effectively created a lot of terrorists, and gave them a way to kill
> Americans without even having to come over here.
>
You are silly. The war in Iraq has given the people of Iraq their
chance at democracy. If they can make that work, that potentially
means a sea change in the Middle East. Regarding Afghanistan, there
will be no solution there until Afghans step up, and Paks as well.
> > The fact that Obama, a "progressive" and a Liberal, has largely
> > retained the Bush era policies in this regard shows that any
> > president in the current climate would likely too, even Clinton. It
> > does seem that hypersensitivity towards "discriminating" was part
> > of the problem with stopping Hasan before he acted. That's not
> > really coming from Bush, rather it's one of those "features of the
> > progress and Liberal when he takes power.
> >
> He has changed the Bush-era "policies" drastically already. Where the
> hell have you been, Bill? Haven't you been paying attention?
>
Of course I've been paying attention.
> He's
> reached out to the North Koreans and the Iranians,
>
Bush called NK on its building of bombs. That's a good thing. But
he also tried to make a deal. He also attempted that with Iran. A
deal that the other country doesn't follow isn't a good deal.
> he's let the Saudis
> know that business-as-usual is about over,
>
What are you talking about?
> and he's even engaged
> Syria. The Afghan engagement has changed character completely;
> soldiers have a standing order to not shoot anyone except in self-
> defense,
>
What are you talking about? Obama is using drones to attack al
Qaeda in Pakistan. This is being allowed because Pakistan is
finally seeing that they are at risk themselves if they don't deal
with the lawless territories.
> and to reach out to the The way you stop terrorism is to make
> people not want to be terrorists, get it?
>
That's nice, but some people want to be terrorists.
> The problem with your side
> is, you want to personalize everything, and make it about specific
> people, when it's not about people; it's about ideology. These people
> think they're "freedom fighters," and they see us as "terrorists."
> Bush actually managed to validate their warped view while he was in
> office, and created a hell of a lot of terrorists.
>
You are kooky, Milt.
> And if he was such a terrorist-killer, why are we still in
> Afghanistan?
>
The process there will likely take decades.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
All the Tea in China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4AFC4F68...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
> > It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>
> That's because Clnton spent the first nine months of 2001 slacking off and not
> doing his presidential duties at all.
>
Why didn't Clinton stop al Qaeda in the years before it had the
capability to mount 9/11?
Phlip
> Obama certainly knew about the possibility of extremism in the US.
That's why Obama started treating the Klan as terrorists, while Bush simply
treated them as his base.
> Bush was never told about the specifics of the 9/11 attack.
Incredible. You will bend over backwards to say Obama should have stopped the
attack, without any specifics, where Bush was warned "terrorists will fly
airplanes into the WTC", on several occasions, then those warnings were only
specific enough to move the CIA office out of the WTC; not specific enough to
keep fighter jets on alert in the area!
Phlip
> If bin Laden used his name to attack on 9/11, I can see your point.
> He used suicide terrorists training in the US since before Clinton
> left office. So you should try again.
Oookay. Those terrorists were kept at a CIA safe house in San Diego, with ties
to Duke Cunningham, and they trained at an "innocent victim" flight school with
ties to Diebold...
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Philp, have you snapped?
Phlip
>> Oookay. Those terrorists were kept at a CIA safe house in San Diego, with ties
>> to Duke Cunningham, and they trained at an "innocent victim" flight school with
>> ties to Diebold...
>>
> Philp, have you snapped?
The same flight school used to deliver bricks of heroin, stamped OBL, to the CIA.
Dude, if I lead you out of Plato's cave, so you see the sun for the first time,
I understand you would blame the daylight (!) on me, and run back into the cave.
It's okay - it's an understandable reaction.
Go ahead and recite some Fox - "they are all terrorists, all organized against
us". You will feel better...
Straightarrow
In other words your CIC is as clueless as the private citizens??
Perhaps if he were to spend more than 10 minutes a week in the Oval
Office he'd be more informed about what the threats are to the
security of the United States and it's ciizens.
Straightarrow
So you think Bush shouldv'e kept fighters circling NYC indefinitely
then shoot down the first commercial airliner that drifted
suspiciously off course? I can just hear the wailing and crying from
you BDS sufferers if Bush had ordered the killing of a few hundred
airline passengers on a tip in a "memo". Geeeze you fucking armchair
Generals never cease to amaze me.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Kook Alert.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Phlip wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>
> > Obama certainly knew about the possibility of extremism in the US.
>
> That's why Obama started treating the Klan as terrorists, while Bush simply
> treated them as his base.
>
Kook Alert.
> > Bush was never told about the specifics of the 9/11 attack.
>
> Incredible. You will bend over backwards to say Obama should have stopped the
> attack, without any specifics, where Bush was warned "terrorists will fly
> airplanes into the WTC", on several occasions,
>
Liar.
> then those warnings were only
> specific enough to move the CIA office out of the WTC; not specific enough to
> keep fighter jets on alert in the area!
>
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Why can't Holman stop sniffing glue while posting?
> "If they give the Libearl cannabil universal coverage,
> will the person with Medicare lose his finger coverage?"
> Bill Bonde, Sept 2, 2009
>
Did you ever answer this question?
Mitchell Holman
news:9e04e62e-314f-4204...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 12, 7:53�pm, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Straightarrow <hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:fe15b3b2-0019-42bf-8
> 0e6-4bf0...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com:
> In YOUR book, EVERYTHING !!
Evasion noted.
Mitchell Holman
news:8fece1fc-808f-4eca...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 13, 7:50�am, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> All the Tea in China Blue <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> innews:chine.bleu-
> 9AD96C.014...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <4AFC4F68.84E63...@yahoo.co.uk>,
>> > �"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> > �<tribuyltinfp...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >> and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
>> >> It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>>
>> > That's because Clnton spent the first nine months of 2001 slacking
>> > off and not doing his presidential duties at all.
>>
>> � � Jan 20, 2009: The day when everything went from
>> being Clinton's fault to being Obama's fault.
>
> Well, we'll never know for sure how much was ACTUALLY the Clinton Co-
> Presidency's fault. Sandy Bergler stole and shredded any evidence that
> would tie the Clinton's to mistakes in the lead-up to the 9/11 attack.
>
Another day, another rightard myth destroyed.
"All five documents Mr. Berger removed were versions of
an after-action report about the foiled "millennium plot"
to bomb the Los Angeles International Airport and other
sites."
http://news.aol.com/elections-blog/2006/12/21/sandy-berger-and-the-stolen-
documents/
Mitchell Holman
91a0-32d...@j9g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
He is not trying to match Bush's record for the
most vacations taken by any president in US history.
And during "wartime", too.
Is that what is upsetting you?
George W. Bush's vacation time (grand total)
Total: 1020 days, more than 1/3rd of his presidency.
Bush set the record for most vacation time taken by
president.
Carter took 79 days in 4 years.
Clinton took 152 days in 8 years.
Reagan took 335 days in 8 years.
Bush Sr. took 543 days in 4 years!
So much for the mythological Republican hard worth ethic.
Mitchell Holman
news:d055681e-1ad3-4fbd...@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:
No, in your view Bush did just the right thing - ignore
the warnings, take no action, resume the longest vacation in
presidential history after just 7 months on the job.
"Saturday evening � the day before Easter � the White House
conveniently released the Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily
Briefing (PDB) titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in U.S."
But the clever timing of this release can not hide the Bush
administration's failure to act decisively in attempting to
thwart al Qaeda activities in the United States prior to 9/11.
The administration was explicitly warned in this memo that
something big was coming. How did President Bush react at
the time? He stayed � uninterrupted � on one of the longest
presidential vacations in history.
Mitchell Holman
news:4AFD979D...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
> All the Tea in China Blue wrote:
>>
>> In article <4AFC4F68...@yahoo.co.uk>,
>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> <tribuyl...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > and put them in prison after a fair trial. And then 9/11 happens.
>> > It seems like the Clinton policy didn't really stop al Qaeda.
>>
>> That's because Clnton spent the first nine months of 2001 slacking
>> off and not doing his presidential duties at all.
>>
> Why didn't Clinton stop al Qaeda in the years before it had the
> capability to mount 9/11?
President Clinton:
-- sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY.
(Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated
by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
-- sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF
TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate
because of opposition from banking interests.
-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives,
to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS.
It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from
the NRA.
When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President
Clinton:
-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and
appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S.
jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli
Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and
Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George
Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy
in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through
preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing
and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade
Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had
left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and
successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of
terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat
terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and
doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20
countries
-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including
40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's
efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only
major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly
with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration
had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any
measure available, Clinton left office having given greater
priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was
the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-
terrorist effort."
Here, in stark contrast, is part of the Bush anti-
terrorism record before September 11, 2001:
-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney.
Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department
of Defense.
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice
Department.
-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George
Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of
terrorist threats.
-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president
saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.
-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in
America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the
US - took a four week vacation.
-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data,
missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had
stopped the millennium plots."
Mitchell Holman
Compare and contrast to you blaming Saddam for 9/11.
"Why do you keep saying this? Isn't it because you can't deal
with the fact that Iraq *is* about the threat from the people
who knocked down the WTC on 9/11?"
Bill Bonde, June 19, 2007
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
The alleged comment infra in no way is going that, you fruitbat.
> "Why do you keep saying this? Isn't it because you can't deal
> with the fact that Iraq *is* about the threat from the people
> who knocked down the WTC on 9/11?"
> Bill Bonde, June 19, 2007
--
Not Sure
> Published on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 by CommonDreams.org
Looks like the left is in full-on panic mode now that their hysterical
attempts to shift the blame from Islam have utterly failed. Continue
sucking Mullah cock, dipshit.
>
> Major Hasan and The Legacy of George W Bush
>
> by Thom Hartmann
>
> If Bill Clinton - or, presumably, Al Gore (or even Ralph Nader) - had been
> President in 2001, the Ft. Hood massacre almost certainly wouldn't have
> happened. Because George W. Bush was president, it did. Here's why it's
> Bush's fault:
> One of the first lessons aspiring novelists and screenwriters learn is that
> the goodness of a hero is defined by a single quality - the evil of his
> opponent. From Superman's Lex Luthor to Batman's Joker to Indiana Jones'
> Nazis to Luke Skywalker's Darth Vader, for a hero to be perceived as larger
> than life, he must have a larger than life enemy.
>
> If Frodo in "Lord of the Rings," for example, hadn't been forced to do
> battle with the supernatural powers of the Ring and its minions, his story
> would have merely been a boring travelogue. But with an army of
> supernaturally brilliant, evil, and powerful opponents, Frodo had the
> opportunity to display his extraordinary inner courage and resourcefulness,
> qualities he didn't even realize he had until they were called forth by the
> peril of an awesome evil.
>
> This is a lesson that was not lost on Karl Rove and George W. Bush. If they
> could recast George as the opponent of a power as great as the Ring, then
> the rather ordinary Dubya could become the extraordinary SuperGeorge, rising
> from his facileness to prevail over supernatural powers of evil.
>
> Bill Clinton had a similar chance, but passed on it for the good of America
> and the world.
>
> When bin Laden attacked us in the 1990s - several times - in an attempt to
> raise his own stature in the Islamic world, Bill Clinton dealt with Osama
> like the criminal he was. He enlisted Interpol and the police and
> investigative agencies of various nations, brought in our best intelligence
> agents, and missed bin Laden in a missile-launched assassination attempt by
> a scant twenty minutes (bringing derisive howls from Republicans that he was
> trying to "wag the dog" and deflect attention from the Monica
> investigations).
>
> As Clinton left office, he and the CIA were tightening the noose on bin
> Laden, and his National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, told me that when he
> briefed his successor, Condoleezza Rice, he told her to put bin Laden and
> al-Qaeda at the top of her priority list and thus finish the job the Clinton
> administration had nearly completed.
>
> As we know, when Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al finally came up with
> the priorities for their new administration in January of 2001, al-Qaeda had
> been replaced by tax cuts for Bush's rich donors on the "A" list, and didn't
> even appear on the "B" list.
>
> Thus came 9/11, despite over fifty explicit warnings given to the President,
> including the infamous August 6, 2001 CIA briefing in Crawford, Texas that
> in the immediate future al-Qaeda intended to hijack commercial planes and
> use them to attack east coast targets. (Bush apparently took the warnings
> seriously - Ashcroft immediately stopped flying on commercial aircraft, and
> Bush moved to Texas for the longest vacation in the history of the American
> presidency...and even when that was over, he preferred Florida to
> target-listed Washington, D.C.)
>
> In the days after the 9/11 attacks - much as in the days after Tim McVeigh
> blew up the Murrah Building - America had the sympathy of the world, and the
> police and intelligence agencies of even normally hostile nations offered to
> help us track down and bring to justice its perpetrators.
>
> Muslims all over the world were horrified at the actions of one of their
> own, a fundamentalist turned criminal and murderer.
>
> Mullah Omar of Afghanistan's Taliban first offered to arrest bin Laden and
> turn him over to us (Washington Post, Page 1, October 29, 2001, "Diplomats
> Met With Taliban On Bin Laden" by Ottaway and Stephens) and then made an
> explicit offer to arrest Bin Laden and try him for the crime of 9/11 (CNN,
> October 7, 2001, "US Rejects Taliban Offer To Try Bin Laden"; The Guardian,
> October 14, 2001, "Bush Rejects Taliban Offer To Hand Bin Laden Over").
>
> It would have been so easy for Bush to accept Omar's offer, which had
> resulted, according to the Post, in over 20 diplomatic meetings and
> negotiations. The Justice Department could have arrested Bin Laden like they
> did McVeigh, helped the Taliban dismantle Bin Laden's training camps and
> track down their attendees and sponsors, and launch an international effort
> to disassemble and render impotent al-Qaeda.
>
> It probably could have been done in a year or less, given the intensity of
> the worldwide empathy for citizens of America and the many other nations
> whose people died in the World Trade Center. Over 5000 American soldiers
> would still be alive, and tens of thousands would not have lost arms, legs,
> and eyes. Hundreds of thousands - possibly over a million - innocent Afghans
> and Iraqis would still be alive.
>
> But Karl Rove knew that George W. Bush had a problem, and saw in bin Laden
> the solution. And didn't much give a damn what it would mean to American
> Muslims.
>
> Bush had not defeated Al Gore fair and square, and was seen by most
> Americans as a spoiler, an illegitimate leader. As soon as the details of
> his proposed "supply side" voodoo economics hit the press in the first
> months of his presidency, the markets went into a nosedive.
>
> And already there were stories circulating in the media of his cozy
> relationship with corrupt oil barons like Ken Lay and the secret energy
> meetings in the Spring of 2001 - before 9/11 - in which Cheney, Lay, and
> others in the oil industry were apparently carving up the oil fields of
> Iraq.
>
> Bush, in short, was seen as a buffoonish pretender, an ineffectual manager,
> and a sellout to big oil and other scandal-ridden industries. He was the
> butt of late-night jokes, a former college cheerleader, a "dry drunk"
> (except when tempted by beer and pretzels), an inside trader, a small man on
> the national and international stage.
>
> George W. desperately needed his own Lex Luthor if he was to reinvent
> himself as Superman.
>
> Rove and Bush realized that if they simply branded Bin Laden as the criminal
> thug that he was - the leader of an obscure Islamic mafia with fewer than
> 20,000 serious members - they wouldn't have the super-villain they needed
> for George W. Bush to be seen as a super-hero. If Bush only authorized a
> police action, or cut a deal with Omar, he'd miss a golden opportunity to
> position himself as the Battle Commander of The War Against Evil Incarnate.
>
> And so began the building of the mythos. Osama as evil genius. Osama as
> worldwide mastermind. Even Osama as the antichrist (as General Boykin
> reminded us so candidly).
>
> If the remnants of al-Qaeda tried to pull our strings by increasing
> "chatter" about particular flights, for example, the Bush White House
> hyper-reacted with many press conferences and televised appearances by Tom
> Ridge. Every action was trumpeted. Bush put "Terror Alerts" on the screens
> of TVs nationwide as often as possible. The constant drumbeat was that
> George The Good was battling the One True Dragon. And that Dragon was
> Islamic.
>
> For George to remain SuperGeorge, Bin Laden had to be as big as Hitler in
> the minds of Americans. Thus, Richard Perle wrote in his breathless and
> hyperbolic book An End To Evil: "There is no middle way for Americans: It is
> victory or holocaust."
>
> But Afghanistan and Iraq weren't Germany, and Bin Laden wasn't even a pale
> imitation of Hitler. It wasn't a nation that attacked us - it was a tiny,
> local, but well-funded Islamic mafia. And that band of thugs run by Bin
> Laden no more represented the interests or opinions of the majority of the
> world's Muslims than Tim McVeigh represented the majority of America's
> Christians.
>
> This archetypal transformation of George W. Bush from spoiled, rich-boy
> pretender-to-the-presidency into the caped (well, flight-suited)
> SuperGeorge, Defender Of All Things Good And Right had a powerful impact on
> the American people - and particularly on their perception of Muslims.
>
> The shadow of the "good" SuperGeorge was, necessarily, the "evil" of
> Muslims. They were vilified - talk show hosts called for their outright
> murder ("Kill them all" said Michael Savage) - and a steady drumbeat of
> suspicion was cast toward American Muslims.
>
> Fox News and right-wing talk jumped in with both feet, feeding anti-Muslim
> hysteria that continues to this day with teary-eyed TV shows, a "secret
> Muslim" president, and Nazi-image Tea Parties.
>
> "Be afraid," they tell Americans every day. "Be very afraid."
>
> In retrospect, it's surprising that Major Hasan was the first to snap in all
> these years.
>
> Bill Clinton knew what to do with a terrorist, be he Bin Laden or Tim
> McVeigh: brand them as criminals.
>
> The countries of Europe who endured years of terrorism - from the crimes of
> the IRA against the citizens of Britain, to the crimes of the November 17th
> terrorist group against Greece, to the crimes of the Red Brigades against
> Italy - they were fought by investigators, intelligence operatives, and the
> highly effective web of police agencies that stretch across the world.
> Although less filled with shock and awe, these able people could have
> brought Bin Laden and his associates to justice without turning him into a
> super-villain or demonizing Muslims.
>
> But that would have deflated the heroic SuperGeorge action figure in the
> minds of average Americans, and possibly Cheny's company Halliburton - which
> was on shaky ground financially before 9/11 - would have even gone under
> because of Cheney's ill-thought-out purchase by that company of a bankrupt
> asbestos supplier. (On December 10, 2001, before the bombing of Afghanistan
> began, Halliburton stock lost 43% of its value in a single day because
> Cheney's business decision was pushing them toward bankruptcy.)
>
> So George and Dick made out just fine. But Major Hasan went nuts. And
> probably never would have, had somebody other than Bush/Rove/Cheney been in
> the White House back in 2001.
>
> --
> NOTICE: This post ...
>
> read more »