September 10, 2009 - This Whole Mess Will Belong To Obama... Lock, Stock & Barrel
Clay
had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
OK... that was then, this is now.
IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of September...
then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
With today's unemployment report... I certainly wish him all the luck
in the world.
-C-
Lamont Cranston
> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of
> course, GWBush
> had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>
> OK... that was then, this is now.
>
> IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of
> September...
> then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
Nope. He inherited an economy that was on the brink of
becoming a full-blown depression. Things have improved
remarkably since then. But, until this recession is over,
it will always belong to Bush.
>
> With today's unemployment report... I certainly wish him
> all the luck
> in the world.
Today's unemployment report was quite encouraging. Other
reports are equally encouraging. It's obvious that
economics isn't your strong suit.
>
> -C-
It is going to take a while to repair the damage done during
eight years of fiscal irresponsibility, incompetence, and
mismanagement. The recovery is occurring a bit ahead of
schedule, so Obama doesn't need luck -- he has intelligence
and competence.
Clay
kick on a frequent basis <LOL>:
...
> Clay wrote:
> > Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of
> > course, GWBush
> > had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>
> > OK... that was then, this is now.
>
> > IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of
> > September...
> > then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
>
> Nope. He inherited an economy that was on the brink of
> becoming a full-blown depression. Things have improved
> remarkably since then. But, until this recession is over,
> it will always belong to Bush.
What you just typed, idiot... takes no brains. You're basically
saying that all things that are bad belongs to GWBush and if/when
things turn good, it'll be Obama's doing.
You're a lickspittle moron... but that's nothing new.
> > With today's unemployment report... I certainly wish him
> > all the luck
> > in the world.
>
> Today's unemployment report was quite encouraging.
Only a brainless lemming would write such nonsense:
==========================================
U.S. job losses spike in June, dampen recovery hopes
By David Lawder
Reuters
Thursday, July 2, 2009; 12:07 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers cut far more jobs than expected
last month and the unemployment rate hit a nearly 26-year high of 9.5
percent, underscoring the likelihood of a long and slow recovery from
recession.
The loss of 467,000 jobs reported by the Labor Department on Thursday
was 100,000 more than Wall Street economists had expected and was
spread widely across economic sectors.
==========================================
> Other reports are equally encouraging.
> It's obvious that economics isn't
> your strong suit.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... it's quite obvious that thinking isn't your strong
suit.
Dumbass.
God... I do love kicking your ass, ya big dummy.
Too fucking funny.
-C-
Lou Stuhle
He's just a classic example of an Obamatron useful idiot that will
carry Obama's nutts around and protect them like they're the family
jewels.
Anthony Allende
"Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45cb6ab0-c76f-40b6...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Difference is Bush could have stopped Sept 11. Obama could not have stopped
the financial meltdown.
Clay
...
> "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
> > Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course, GWBush
> > had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>
> > OK... that was then, this is now.
>
> > IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of September...
> > then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
>
> > With today's unemployment report... I certainly wish him all the luck
> > in the world.
>
> > -C-
>
> Difference is Bush could have stopped Sept 11. Obama could not have stopped
> the financial meltdown.
Since 9/11 was planned during BJClinton's stint, what could "Bush"
have done to stop it?
OBTW... your statement suggests that "Bush" knew that 9/11 was gonna
happen and did nothing. Is that what you're saying?
OBTW... BTW... did the Jews know that it was gonna happen too... and
didn't go to work that day?
*sigh*
-C-
Anthony Allende
On Jul 2, 1:49 pm, this poster wrote:
...
> "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote
>
>
> > Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course, GWBush
> > had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>
> > OK... that was then, this is now.
>
> > IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of September...
> > then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
>
> > With today's unemployment report... I certainly wish him all the luck
> > in the world.
>
> > -C-
>
> Difference is Bush could have stopped Sept 11. Obama could not have
> stopped
> the financial meltdown.
>Since 9/11 was planned during BJClinton's stint, what could "Bush"
>have done to stop it?
Why Didn't We Stop 9/11?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: Saturday, April 17, 2004
It wouldn't have been easy, and it's likely that a Gore administration would
not have prevented the attacks either. But President Bush's assertion this
week that ''nobody in our government at least -- and I don't think the prior
government -- could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a
massive scale'' was disingenuous. So was his refusal to accept
responsibility for lapses before 9/11. Just suppose that after the Aug. 6,
2001, presidential briefing about Osama bin Laden's plans, the conversation
had gone like this:
Bush -- So the Evil One wants to attack inside the U.S.? Any idea where?
C.I.A. briefer -- Sir, it could be almost anywhere, anytime. But pattern
analysis suggests a target both huge and symbolic, perhaps another explosion
to topple the World Trade Center, or the Sears Tower or the Capitol. And bin
Laden has always looked for targets in aviation.
Bush -- Gosh. Hijacking planes?
Briefer -- Yes, Mr. President, there are reports of a hijacking plot to
ransom the blind sheik. Or bin Laden could seek to shoot a bunch of planes
down -- in 1998, we put out a classified report called ''Bin Laden
Threatening to Attack U.S. Aircraft.'' Or he could blow up planes and
airports.
Bush -- Whoa. How would he do that?
Briefer -- Project Bojinka was a terror plot in 1995 to blow up as many as
12 United, Delta and Northwest jumbo jets over the Pacific Ocean at the same
time, killing 4,000 people. The Philippine police apprehended a key figure,
Abdul Hakim Murad, along with the detonators. We let the Filipinos
''interrogate'' Murad. After he'd been beaten with a chair, burned with
cigarettes and half-drowned, he disclosed a plan for a suicide airplane
attack on the C.I.A.'s headquarters.
Bush -- You mean using a plane as a missile?
Briefer -- Exactly, Mr. President. We judged this credible partly because
Murad was a licensed pilot who had trained at four U.S. flight schools. For
that matter, Al Qaeda has shown an intriguing desire to train operatives as
pilots. A defector named L'Houssaine Kherchtou was scheduled to go to flight
school in Nairobi. A third, Essam al-Ridi, learned flying in Texas. A
fourth, Ihab Ali Nawawi, studied flying in Oklahoma.
Bush -- What about the Tom Clancy novel where the pilot crashes a plane into
the Capitol during a joint session of Congress? Could Big Beard be planning
something like that?
Briefer -- Sir, that wasn't just Clancy. In 1974, a man named Sam Byck
hijacked a plane in hopes of crashing it into the White House and killing
President Nixon. And in 1994, Algerians hijacked a plane so they could crash
it into the Eiffel Tower. In 1996, Iranian terrorists reportedly planned to
hijack a Japanese plane and crash it into Tel Aviv. The use of planes as
weapons has been a growing concern, and that's why we took measures to
protect the Atlanta Olympics from aerial attack.
Bush -- O.K., tell Tenet to get himself down here in the next few days. I
want to make sure that we're doing everything possible to prevent whatever
the Evil One is planning. I want people at our borders looking out for bad
guys. And if Big Beard is into aviation, let's watch flight schools and
airports. We're America. Nobody pushes us around.
Briefer -- Mr. President, the bureau already has 70 investigations open on
bin Laden. They're on top of it.
Bush -- I want to make sure. Word's got to get out that stopping an attack
is top priority. If there's chatter about a major attack soon -- Oklahoma
City or worse -- I don't want us sitting on our duffs. I want to light a
fire under the bureaucracy. Let's kick butt.
Such an imagined conversation is a bit unfair because it has the clarity of
hindsight. But we need to learn from our mistakes, and three conclusions
flow from the missed opportunities of the Bush and Clinton administrations.
First, it's time to replace George Tenet. I've resisted that until now
because he's been great for morale at the C.I.A. But after two major
intelligence failures, 9/11 and the missing Iraqi W.M.D., it's time for a
new director of central intelligence.
Second, we need to restructure the intelligence community so one person
really is in charge of all the pieces and budgets, as the Scowcroft
commission recommended.
Third, an apology or a hint of remorse would show leadership and salve our
hurt. Mr. Bush should recognize that acceptance of accountability is not a
sign of weakness.
E-mail: nich...@nytimes.com
"
Clay
thinking involved:
...
> "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote
Jeez... look at that sentence. This dope wants it all ways... watch.
"But President Bush's assertion this week that ''nobody in our
government at least -- and I don't think the prior government -- could
envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a
massive scale'' was disingenuous."
This is fiction from a moron. It has nothing, not a thing, to do with
reality.
OBTW... you fell for it, huh?
*snicker*
OBTW... BTW... you didn't answer my second question. Let's try that
one again, shall we...
Did the Jews know that it was gonna happen too... and didn't go to
work that day?
Can't wait.
*snicker*
-C-
Bachman the Cunt (R.)
"Lou Stuhle" <hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b277ec1f-de41-49d1...@t11g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
========
Like a B ushatron, a nixonatron , a Reaganatron ?
Bachman the Cunt (R.)
These are Bush's republican messes. There's no way out of it. You are
forever stuck with the retard Alfred E. Retard, regardless of who canonizes
the crappy little cowgirl.
-Too fucking funny, forever.
tv
As far as I'm concerned Obama is responsible for the massive
indebtedness of our government.
Clay
...
> Just what planet are you from? Did you somehow sleep for the last eight
> years? Miss out on Bush spending a MILLION DOLLARS A MINUTE on a USELESS
> war???? Miss out on BILLIONS disappearing in the pockets of a few in
> Iraq????? Miss out on Bush turning a blind eye to the housing crisis
> that was predicted more than two years before it happened?????
>
> It's sad that some can be so blinded by ideology, they become stupid.
>
> Germany had that problem once.
Sooo... my date is 9/10/09... and then it becomes Obama's mess.
What date did you have in mind?
-C-
snakehawk
>
> Sooo... my date is 9/10/09... and then it becomes Obama's mess.
>
If the economy keeps turning around at the same rate, the only mess
Obama will have to clean up by September will be the stain left by the
fast evaporating piss puddle presently called the Republican Party.
Clay
...
> Clay <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "But President Bush's assertion this week that ''nobody in our
> > government at least -- and I don't think the prior government -- could
> > envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a
> > massive scale'' was disingenuous."
>
> > This is fiction from a moron. It has nothing, not a thing, to do with
> > reality.
>
> Why did Bush sleep on a aircraft carrier at Genova?
KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO, KOO-KOO
Clay
...
HUH !!!?
"... keeps turning around at the same rate..."
==========================================
U.S. job losses spike in June, dampen recovery hopes
By David Lawder
Reuters
Thursday, July 2, 2009; 12:07 PM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. employers cut far more jobs than expected
last month and the unemployment rate hit a nearly 26-year high of 9.5
percent, underscoring the likelihood of a long and slow recovery from
recession.
The loss of 467,000 jobs reported by the Labor Department on Thursday
was 100,000 more than Wall Street economists had expected and was
spread widely across economic sectors.
==========================================
At this rate, he might get impeached.
-C-
squirltop
Clay wrote:
> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course, GWBush
> had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
Just 7 months, duhh, first things he did as president was to dismantle
clinton's anti-terrorism binladen tracking programs. Then he spent
most of the time vacationing, duhhh fucking drooling idiots.
Republicans in congress fought hard against DEMOCRATS 'sane' measures
for fighting terrorism,
duhhh fucking drooling idiots.
> OK... that was then, this is now.
>
> IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of September...
> then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
I guarantee the REPUBLICANS will not (cooperate) Democrats by then
sooo????? What the fuck do you rightards expect will be the outcome?
Slow progress at best?
Killing, Inc.
> Clay wrote:
> > Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course, GWBush
> > had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>
> Just 7 months, duhh, first things he did as president was to dismantle
> clinton's anti-terrorism binladen tracking programs. Then he spent
> most of the time vacationing, duhhh fucking drooling idiots.
>
> Republicans in congress fought hard against DEMOCRATS 'sane' measures
> for fighting terrorism,
>
> duhhh fucking drooling idiots.
Yeah, those sane Democrat measures only allowed the the last seven out
of eight terrorist attacks, and the eighth was planned under those
Democrat measures.
Sheesh, what were Republicans thinking, keeping us safe all that time?
Democrats and other leftwingers are easily the dumbest animals on the
planet.
Have a nice day.
Jeffrey Turner
You're a moron. The debt skyrocketed under Reagan/Bush I, and then
again under Bush II. And you blame Obama? This is why wingnuts
shouldn't be allowed to vote. You're fucking morons.
--Jeff
--
The comfort of the wealthy has always
depended upon an abundant supply of
the poor. --Voltaire
Steven
"Clay" <clays...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:45cb6ab0-c76f-40b6...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Actually the whole mess belonged to Obama on or about the 3rd week of
January 2009.
The degree to which the American people hold him responsible for not having
fixed the problems he inherited is much more ambiguous. The political
calculation for usual run of the mill problem is 6 months - fair or not -
before the new guy gets ownership.
Indeed even when of different parties it is often the advice of the
outgoing leader to his replacement, to whit: "For the next 6 months blame
everything on me. But after that you own it."
However, while incorrectly characterized as unprecedented, the current
problems are rightly seen by the electorate as at least a couple standard
deviations from the normal distribution - if not in those terms.
My rough and dirty calculation is that this allowance buys Obama a 12 to 18
month window before he truly owns it.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Whatever happens, Obama is responsible for his policies. He's not
responsible for working miracles. So when his policies are wrong,
like spending a terabuck that America doesn't have on yet another
stimulus, people should call him on it.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
library sized like an overseas shipping container filled with stuff
he didn't want anyone to find till long after his death, the real
deed to Whitewater, the envelope for the Tyson Foods chicken
payoffs, the real gun he used to whack Foster, the keys to the
Exocet missile he took Ron Brown out with, copies of another few
thousand illegally acquired FBI files on his enemies, tickets to
Tahiti from the White House Travel Office, a few more soiled
dresses, a couple of cases of well chewed Cuban cigars, and the
unabridged version of his autobiography. That last one was touch
and go just getting the bugger in.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Clay wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 12:28 pm, Lamont Sanford is a confirmed dimbulb whose ass I
> kick on a frequent basis <LOL>:
> ...
>
> > Clay wrote:
> > > Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of
> > > course, GWBush
> > > had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
> >
> > > OK... that was then, this is now.
> >
> > > IMHO... Obama still has July & August and a little bit of
> > > September...
> > > then this whole ball of wax will be all his.
> >
> > Nope. He inherited an economy that was on the brink of
> > becoming a full-blown depression. Things have improved
> > remarkably since then. But, until this recession is over,
> > it will always belong to Bush.
>
> What you just typed, idiot... takes no brains. You're basically
> saying that all things that are bad belongs to GWBush and if/when
> things turn good, it'll be Obama's doing.
>
That's exactly what he's saying. He's a political hack.
seon
"Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
<tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4A501B37...@yahoo.co.uk...
>
>
> Clay wrote:
>>
>> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course, GWBush
>> had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>>
It wasn't all GWB's fault. It was also Binladens fault. But he did threaten
to arrest any FBI agent who went after the Binladens and he did ignore
warnings. But the reason Binladen gave for 911 had nothing to do with GWB.
Mitchell Holman
news:4a50281b$0$2851$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
More like GHWB
seon
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9C3EEFE8EB0A9...@216.196.97.130...
And Clinton.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
seon wrote:
>
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4A501B37...@yahoo.co.uk...
> >
> >
> > Clay wrote:
> >>
> >> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course, GWBush
> >> had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
> >>
> It wasn't all GWB's fault. It was also Binladens fault. But he did threaten
> to arrest any FBI agent who went after the Binladens and he did ignore
> warnings.
>
Kook Alert.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
Dano
>>
> Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
Yet he had his greatest success when Bush took over.
Mitchell Holman
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in
>> news:4a50281b$0$2851$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > news:4A501B37...@yahoo.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Clay wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course,
>> >>> GWBush had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
>> >>>
>> > It wasn't all GWB's fault. It was also Binladens fault. But he did
>> > threaten to arrest any FBI agent who went after the Binladens and he
>> > did ignore warnings. But the reason Binladen gave for 911 had nothing
>> > to do with GWB.
>>
>> More like GHWB
>>
> Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
Al Queda was created out of the frustration
of US bases being put on "Holy" Saudi soil. Started
by Bush Sr, and continued under Clinton. A bad policy
all around.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
If you mean 9/11, don't you think that he built up to that under
Clinton?
Dano
> Dano wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>>>>
>>> Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
>>
>> Yet he had his greatest success when Bush took over.
>>
> If you mean 9/11, don't you think that he built up to that under
> Clinton?
As long as we have enemies (and we always have...always will), they will try
to attack us. Under Bush, there was a spectacular failure of keeping our
guard up. There abolutely WERE warnings. They were ignored...possibly
deliberately.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Dano wrote:
>
> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> > Dano wrote:
> >>
> >> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>> Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
> >>
> >> Yet he had his greatest success when Bush took over.
> >>
> > If you mean 9/11, don't you think that he built up to that under
> > Clinton?
>
> As long as we have enemies (and we always have...always will), they will try
> to attack us. Under Bush, there was a spectacular failure of keeping our
> guard up. There abolutely WERE warnings. They were ignored...possibly
> deliberately.
>
You are just making this up. How can you blame the new president
for policies that were in place when he took over?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
So you would've let Saddam have Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait too),
right?
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
Mitchell Holman
What made any of that a US concern?
1974 - Turkey invades Cyprus
US response - none
1975 - Libya invades Chad
US response - none
1975 - Indonesia invades Timor
US response - none
1978 - Vietnam invades Cambodia
US response - none
1979 - Tanzania invades Uganda
US response - none
1980 - Iraq invades Iran
US response - none
1982 - Argentina invades the Falklands.
US response - none
1982 - Israel invades Lebanon
US response - none
1990 - Iraq invades Kuwait.
US response - Desert Shield, Desert Storm,
all out war for "freedom" to Emir put back on his
throne, create US Bases in Saudi Arabia, sparking
the creation of Al-Queda.
Mitchell Holman
news:4A50E3CA...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
>
> Dano wrote:
>>
>> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>> > Dano wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' ) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>> Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
>> >>
>> >> Yet he had his greatest success when Bush took over.
>> >>
>> > If you mean 9/11, don't you think that he built up to that under
>> > Clinton?
>>
>> As long as we have enemies (and we always have...always will), they
>> will try to attack us. Under Bush, there was a spectacular failure
>> of keeping our guard up. There abolutely WERE warnings. They were
>> ignored...possibly deliberately.
>>
> You are just making this up. How can you blame the new president
> for policies that were in place when he took over?
EARLY 2001 - WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST
MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department "disapproved of the
Clinton Administration's approach to money laundering issues,
which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the
money flow to bin Laden." Specifically, the Bush Administration
opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that
targeted countries with "loose banking regulations" being abused
by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration
provided "no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset
Tracking Center." [Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
4/30/2001 - BUSH ADMINISTRATION SAYS BIN LADEN FOCUS WAS "MISTAKE":
The Bush Administration released the government's annual report
on terrorism, but unlike previous Administrations, it decided
to specifically omit an "extensive mention of alleged terrorist
mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official
told CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much
energy on bin Laden."
[Source: CNN, 4/30/01; AP, 6/29/01]
ADMINISTRATION SHIFTED LAW ENFORCEMENT'S FOCUS OFF OF COUNTER-
TERRORISM:
The New York Times reported that in the lead-up to 9/11, Attorney
General John Ashcroft "said fighting terrorism was a top priority
of his agency," yet upon entering office, "he identified more than
a dozen other objectives for greater emphasis within the Justice
Department before the attacks." On Aug. 9, the Administration
distributed a strategic plan to the Justice Department highlighting
its new goals from a list of Clinton Administration goals. The item
that referred to intelligence and investigation of terrorists was
left un-highlighted. [Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
BUSH ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED PROGRAM THAT TRACKED AL QAEDA:
"In the months before 9/11, the U.S. Justice Department curtailed
a highly classified program called 'Catcher's Mitt' to monitor
Al Qaeda suspects in the United States."
[Source: Newsweek, 3/21/04]
SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE HOUSE TASK
FORCE NEVER MET: In January of 2001, the U.S. Government's
bipartisan Commission on National Security gave the White
House a report that warned of an attack on the homeland and
urged the new Administration to implement its specific
"recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism. The
Administration rejected the Commission's report, "preferring
to put aside the recommendations." Instead, the Administration
waited until May of 2001 to appoint Vice President Cheney to
head a task force "to combat terrorist attacks on the United
States." But according to the Washington Post, neither "Cheney's
review nor Bush's took place." Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that
when senators "sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism
and homeland defense to Cheney's office on July 20," they were
told by Cheney's top aide "that it might be another six months
before he would be able to review the material."
[Source: Salon, 9/12/04; White House release,
5/8/01; Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02]
WHITE HOUSE BEGAN EFFORT TO CUT COUNTER-TERRORISM PROGRAMS: The
New York Times reported that in its final 2003 budget request,
the Administration "called for spending increases in 68 programs,
none of which directly involved counterterrorism...In his Sept.
10 submission to the budget office, Ashcroft did not endorse FBI
requests for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents,
200 intelligence analysts and 54 additional translators. Ashcroft
proposed a $65 million cut for a program that gives states and
localities counterterrorism grants for equipment, including radios
and decontamination suits and training." By comparison, "Under
Janet Reno, the department's counterterrorism budget increased 13.6%
in the fiscal year 1999, 7.1% in 2000 and 22.7% in 2001."
[Source: NY Times, 2/28/02]
ADMINISTRATION STOPPED PREDATOR FLIGHTS TRACKING AL QAEDA IN
AFGHANISTAN:
AP reported "though Predator drones spotted Osama bin Laden as
many as three times in late 2000, the Bush administration did
not fly the unmanned planes over Afghanistan during its first
eight months." Additionally, "the military successfully tested
an armed Predator throughout the first half of 2001" but the
White House "failed to resolve a debate over whether the CIA or
Pentagon should operate the armed Predators" and the armed
Predator never got off the ground before 9/11.
[Source: AP, 6/25/03]
WHILE CUTTING COUNTER-TERROR, THE WHITE HOUSE SENT FUNDING TO
THE TALIBAN: At the same time the White House was trying to
cut counter-terrorism funding, it gave "$43 million in drought
aid to Afghanistan after the Taliban began a campaign against
poppy growers." As the 5/29/01 edition of Newsday noted, the
Taliban rulers of Afghanistan "are a decidedly odd choice for
an outright gift of $43 million from the Bush Administration.
This is the same government against which the United Nation
imposes sanctions, at the behest of the United States, for
refusing to turn over the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden."
[Washington Post, 9/23/01; Newsday, 5/29/01]
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
The US is allies with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and there's the
national interest of access to oil.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
Mitchell Holman
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:4A50E3F9...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> >> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> news:4A50CCDC...@yahoo.co.uk:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in
>> >> >> news:4a50281b$0$2851$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> >> >> > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >> > news:4A501B37...@yahoo.co.uk...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Clay wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of
course,
>> >> >> >>> GWBush had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the
time.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> > It wasn't all GWB's fault. It was also Binladens fault. But he
>> >> >> > did threaten to arrest any FBI agent who went after the
>> >> >> > Binladens and he did ignore warnings. But the reason Binladen
>> >> >> > gave for 911 had nothing to do with GWB.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> More like GHWB
>> >> >>
>> >> > Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
>> >>
>> >> Al Queda was created out of the frustration
>> >> of US bases being put on "Holy" Saudi soil. Started
>> >> by Bush Sr, and continued under Clinton. A bad policy
>> >> all around.
>> >>
>> > So you would've let Saddam have Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait too),
>> > right?
>>
>> What made any of that a US concern?
>>
> The US is allies with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and there's the
> national interest of access to oil.
>
Name any treaty alliance between the US and Kuwait
and/or Saudi Arabia.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A50F3D8...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > What made any of that a US concern?
> > >
> > The US is allies with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and there's the
> > national interest of access to oil.
>
> So it's not about freedom--it's about oil.
>
The US doesn't have to invade every single nation if it provides
support to one nation. The US helped in Somalia and the US helped
in Iraq. The fact that it also helped in Afghanistan, the
Philippines and other places proves that oil isn't the only thing
that matters.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A50E3CA...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > You are just making this up. How can you blame the new president
> > for policies that were in place when he took over?
>
> Billy just made a funny.
>
How about just answering the question?
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
Jeffrey Turner
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
Saddam couldn't hold Kuwait. The logistics of his attacking Saudi
Arabia were just too daunting for anyone to take seriously.
> Are you saying people do not have the right, nay the duty, to remove a
> government that does not serve them?
Good point.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
Saddam couldn't hold Kuwait if the Americans sent in 500,000
troops. But under your rules, the Americans would not have done
that. And Saudi isn't about taking over all of the country but just
the oil fields, which are largely pretty near Iraq.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidential
Mitchell Holman
You still haven't backed up your claim that Kuwait
and SA were US "allies" and thus America was obligated
to help them.
Patriot Games
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>This is what the looney right will be saying for the next 7 years.
Are you EVER gonna stop LYING?
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:27e3bd65-4a33-4497...@v67g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The good thing about Huckabee is the 75% who don't believe in
> creationism ain't votin' for him.
How do you expect to get away with LYING when you ALWAYS get CAUGHT?
ABC News PrimeTime Poll. Feb. 6-10, 2004. ""I'm going to ask about a
few stories in the Bible. Do you think that's literally true, meaning
it happened that way word-for-word; or do you think it's meant as a
lesson, but not to be taken literally?"
"The creation story in which the world was created in six days."
Literally True: 61%
Not Literally True: 30%
Stupid: 8%
http://www.pollingreport.com/religion2.htm
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A515FBE...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > High Road to China Blue wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <4A50F3D8...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What made any of that a US concern?
> > > > >
> > > > The US is allies with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and there's the
> > > > national interest of access to oil.
> > >
> > > So it's not about freedom--it's about oil.
> > >
> > The US doesn't have to invade every single nation if it provides
> > support to one nation. The US helped in Somalia and the US helped
> > in Iraq. The fact that it also helped in Afghanistan, the
> > Philippines and other places proves that oil isn't the only thing
> > that matters.
>
> In Afghanistan it has to do with natural gas pipelines. Phillipines is a
> holdover of colonialism.
>
No matter where it is, you'll find some reason to conclude that
helping nations seek democracy is bad.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A518ED5...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Saddam couldn't hold Kuwait if the Americans sent in 500,000
> > troops. But under your rules, the Americans would not have done
> > that. And Saudi isn't about taking over all of the country but just
> > the oil fields, which are largely pretty near Iraq.
>
> So what? Is the purpose of the US military to defend Exxon's profits?
>
Do you think that oil is about Exxon's profits? Don't you
understand that the US requires access to oil? Do you own a car? Do
you have electric lamps in your home?
> Saddam
> would've had to sell oil, too. It's utterly worthless to Iraq if it just stays
> in the ground.
>
Really? Don't you think that by giving Saddam control of twice as
much of the world's oil that he had before, you give him a lot more
power to restrict exports and raise prices? And if you are willing
to give him Kuwait, why not the border oil fields in Saudi? So
Saddam has all that, what happens? The US national interest is
obvious.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
The US isn't "obligated" to help them.
Mitchell Holman
tv
> On Jul 2, 5:07 pm, Clay <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Sooo... my date is 9/10/09... and then it becomes Obama's mess.
>
> If the economy keeps turning around at the same rate, the only mess
> Obama will have to clean up by September will be the stain left by the
> fast evaporating piss puddle presently called the Republican Party.
The GOP will be remembered for high employment and loe natio0nal debt.
Obama will give our highest unemployment and largest national debt in
our life time. You can bet on it.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
They are US allies, you nut.
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
Mitchell Holman
>
>
> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:4A5228BA...@yahoo.co.uk:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> >> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> news:4A518ED5...@yahoo.co.uk:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Jeffrey Turner wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> High Road to China Blue wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <4A50E3F9...@yahoo.co.uk>,
>> >> >> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> >> >> > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> >> >>> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
>> >> >> >>> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> >> >>> news:4A50CCDC...@yahoo.co.uk:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in
>> >> >> >>>>> news:4a50281b$0$2851$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.
>> >> >> >>>>> net .au
OK. Prove it.
Show us any treaty of alliance between the US and
either Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. Much less both....
Harold Burton
Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:4A50CCDC...@yahoo.co.uk:
>
> >
> >
> > Mitchell Holman wrote:
> >>
> >> "seon" <s...@notmyrealaddress.com> wrote in
> >> news:4a50281b$0$2851$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> >> > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > news:4A501B37...@yahoo.co.uk...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Clay wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Leftists said that it was GWBush's fault for 9/11. Of course,
> >> >>> GWBush had only been POTUS for less than 7 months at the time.
> >> >>>
> >> > It wasn't all GWB's fault. It was also Binladens fault. But he did
> >> > threaten to arrest any FBI agent who went after the Binladens and he
> >> > did ignore warnings. But the reason Binladen gave for 911 had nothing
> >> > to do with GWB.
> >>
> >> More like GHWB
> >>
> > Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
>
>
>
> Al Queda was created out of the frustration
> of US bases being put on "Holy" Saudi soil. Started
> by Bush Sr, and continued under Clinton. A bad policy
> all around.
And requested by the Saudi's themselves. Bin Laden's bitch should have
been with his own family. Ayrabs aren't very bright, no wonder they're
such losers.
Progressive American
"Harold Burton" <hal.i....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hal.i.burton-CE4B...@news.newsguy.com...
>> > Bin Laden essentially started his terrorism under Clinton.
bin Ladin got started under Saint Reagan when Ronnie gave all those WMD's to
the Muslims in trade for the hostages in Iran, thus committing treason.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A52280C...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > High Road to China Blue wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <4A515FBE...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > High Road to China Blue wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <4A50F3D8...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > > > > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > > > > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > What made any of that a US concern?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The US is allies with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and there's the
> > > > > > national interest of access to oil.
> > > > >
> > > > > So it's not about freedom--it's about oil.
> > > > >
> > > > The US doesn't have to invade every single nation if it provides
> > > > support to one nation. The US helped in Somalia and the US helped
> > > > in Iraq. The fact that it also helped in Afghanistan, the
> > > > Philippines and other places proves that oil isn't the only thing
> > > > that matters.
> > >
> > > In Afghanistan it has to do with natural gas pipelines. Phillipines is a
> > > holdover of colonialism.
> > >
> > No matter where it is, you'll find some reason to conclude that
> > helping nations seek democracy is bad.
>
> Since the USA doesn't do that, your statement is not applicable.
>
The US doesn't do what?
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A522898...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > High Road to China Blue wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <4A518ED5...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> > > "Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )"
> > > <tributy...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Saddam couldn't hold Kuwait if the Americans sent in 500,000
> > > > troops. But under your rules, the Americans would not have done
> > > > that. And Saudi isn't about taking over all of the country but just
> > > > the oil fields, which are largely pretty near Iraq.
> > >
> > > So what? Is the purpose of the US military to defend Exxon's profits?
> > >
> > Do you think that oil is about Exxon's profits? Don't you
> > understand that the US requires access to oil? Do you own a car? Do
> > you have electric lamps in your home?
>
> China is securing its oil supplies, and not fighting any wars to do it. They're
> actually using the free market and buying the stuff, instead of fighting wars to
> steal the stuff.
>
The US isn't stealing oil, you nut. Freeing the people of Kuwait
isn't the US stealing oil.
> > > Saddam
> > > would've had to sell oil, too. It's utterly worthless to Iraq if it just
> > > stays
> > > in the ground.
> > >
> > Really? Don't you think that by giving Saddam control of twice as
> > much of the world's oil that he had before, you give him a lot more
> > power to restrict exports and raise prices? And if you are willing
>
> It's the same thing as always. When they raise prices too much, America gets
> serious about kicking the oil habit. Then the prices drop so America stays
> addicted. It's a well practiced pusher/junkie relation and they know how to play
> us.
>
> > to give him Kuwait, why not the border oil fields in Saudi? So
> > Saddam has all that, what happens? The US national interest is
> > obvious.
>
> Iraq had the missiles and miles of Saudi oil facilities along the coast to aim
> them at. But they didn't. Kuwait stole Iraqi oil, and that was all Iraq was
> interested in.
>
This is a lie.
Bill Bonde { 'by a commodius vicus of recirculation' )
High Road to China Blue wrote:
>
> In article <4A52DFB5...@yahoo.co.uk>,
> Which people of Kuwait did we free?
>
The people of Kuwait were freed back in 1991 from the evil of
Saddam. If you'll recall.
> > > Iraq had the missiles and miles of Saudi oil facilities along the coast to
> > > aim
> > > them at. But they didn't. Kuwait stole Iraqi oil, and that was all Iraq was
> > > interested in.
> > >
> > This is a lie.
>
> You whine real purdy.
>
How is it a "whine" to state a fact straight up?
--
I heard Clinton buried a time capsule at his new presidental
Charlie
wrote:
> "Clay" <clays0nl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:45cb6ab0-c76f-40b6...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> These are Bush's republican messes. There's no way out of it. You are
> forever stuck with the retard Alfred E. Retard, regardless of who canonizes
> the crappy little cowgirl.
> -Too fucking funny, forever.
Is your nickname something the daily kos suggested you make up? Or the
huffington post? Or move on? I just don't think you're intelligent
enough to come up with this on your own...like most libs it's the top
that tells you how and what to think. That's why the vast majority of
liberal dems are zombies...they rarely if ever stray from the party
line. I guess it's the freebies they desire in life.