No Terrorist attacks while Bush was President

[Truthmatters]

I think Obama's actions in the war on terror are so similar to Bush's that there is little point in trying to draw distinctions. Bush did a good job at handling it and I think he was successful in limiting the scope and number of terror attacks here in the U.S. It seems to me that Obama is continuing along the path that Bush set pretty well. He has not developed a radically different method or approach to preventing terrorism here in the U.S. To criticize Obama along these lines is vapid, shallow, pointless, fruitless, inane, and basically futile until such time as he makes changes that are significant.

The one thing I believe Obama deserves some criticism on is his rhetoric. He definitely doesn't talk a good game as Bush did.

There, I've said my peace. It seems to me that most of these discussions are just taking sides more than anything and not really about the issues.

The entire world hated the way Bush blustered and struted, he made us enemies in every country.

 

[dilloduck]

I think Obama's actions in the war on terror are so similar to Bush's that there is little point in trying to draw distinctions. Bush did a good job at handling it and I think he was successful in limiting the scope and number of terror attacks here in the U.S. It seems to me that Obama is continuing along the path that Bush set pretty well. He has not developed a radically different method or approach to preventing terrorism here in the U.S. To criticize Obama along these lines is vapid, shallow, pointless, fruitless, inane, and basically futile until such time as he makes changes that are significant.

The one thing I believe Obama deserves some criticism on is his rhetoric. He definitely doesn't talk a good game as Bush did.

There, I've said my peace. It seems to me that most of these discussions are just taking sides more than anything and not really about the issues.

The entire world hated the way Bush blustered and struted, he made us enemies in every country.

The ENTIRE fucking world ?

 

[Truthmatters]

It certainly ain't working with a community organizer at the wheel now is it? Fucking smart ass.

At least as good as a failed business owner. What you fail to understand is that in a democracy comprised of many ideologies any security system that is dependent on a single ideology is a failure. By your logic Bush designed a failed system. So why are you surprised at his failure?

This is a federal Republic dumb ass...try again.

MMMM NO,

we are a constitutional republic which is a type of democracy.

Federal republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[mudwhistle]

I think Obama's actions in the war on terror are so similar to Bush's that there is little point in trying to draw distinctions. Bush did a good job at handling it and I think he was successful in limiting the scope and number of terror attacks here in the U.S. It seems to me that Obama is continuing along the path that Bush set pretty well. He has not developed a radically different method or approach to preventing terrorism here in the U.S. To criticize Obama along these lines is vapid, shallow, pointless, fruitless, inane, and basically futile until such time as he makes changes that are significant.

The one thing I believe Obama deserves some criticism on is his rhetoric. He definitely doesn't talk a good game as Bush did.

There, I've said my peace. It seems to me that most of these discussions are just taking sides more than anything and not really about the issues.

The entire world hated the way Bush blustered and struted, he made us enemies in every country.

I think the brush that the media painted every time Bush opened his mouth or even when he didn't helped that along greatly.

 

[PeterS]

It certainly ain't working with a community organizer at the wheel now is it? Fucking smart ass.

At least as good as a failed business owner. What you fail to understand is that in a democracy comprised of many ideologies any security system that is dependent on a single ideology is a failure. By your logic Bush designed a failed system. So why are you surprised at his failure?

This is a federal Republic dumb ass...try again.

Ah. Ok. No democracy. Got it. But the fact remains the same. When you are governed by many political philosophies and security is dependent on a single ideology it is designed to fail.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Look, personally I think the Bush administration did do a heck of a lot of needed improvements to our security.

But I'm not the one who's trying to blame someone for this particular incident. I also don't blame the Bush administration for 9/11, or the Clinton adminstration for that matter.

Trying to blame Obama's administration for a failure in the system that Bush specifically put in place to prevent this type of incident is the height of hypocrisy.

No it's not. The system is under a new Administration and there are some factors that contributed to the failure of the system since January of 2009.
terrorism was put on the back burner. Threats of prosecutions of the CIA

 

[mudwhistle]

Would have done the job instead of the cluster that's going on in Detroit yesterday.

Obama set out immediately gutting the protections Bush and Cheney put in place. Can't get into specifics but it has manifested itself in a kinder more gentle approach to fighting the "Oversea Contingency Operation".

You say Obama "gutted" some protections. That statement is innacurate.

If you think Obama "gutted protections Bush and Cheney put in place", then surely you can list some of them for us.

I can list some of the most obvious ones right off without even looking it up.

His AG investigating CIA interrogators for criminal abuse. A wall went up in the intelligence community as soon as this was announced. Intelligence was not acted upon because of several reasons. Nothing was considered to be probable cause enough to place Mr Explosive Diaper on a no-fly list. Everyone was put on notice that they were being watched by this new administration. Officers decided that nothing was worth sticking their necks out under the adverse political climate that has existed since Obama took office.

Reading Maranda Rights to POWs on the battlefield assuring them that anything they say and do can be used against them...allowing them to clam up once they got lawyered up. Thus ending the free flow of hot pertinent intelligence.

This is only a couple.

 

[PeterS]

I think Obama's actions in the war on terror are so similar to Bush's that there is little point in trying to draw distinctions. Bush did a good job at handling it and I think he was successful in limiting the scope and number of terror attacks here in the U.S. It seems to me that Obama is continuing along the path that Bush set pretty well. He has not developed a radically different method or approach to preventing terrorism here in the U.S. To criticize Obama along these lines is vapid, shallow, pointless, fruitless, inane, and basically futile until such time as he makes changes that are significant.

The one thing I believe Obama deserves some criticism on is his rhetoric. He definitely doesn't talk a good game as Bush did.

There, I've said my peace. It seems to me that most of these discussions are just taking sides more than anything and not really about the issues.

The entire world hated the way Bush blustered and struted, he made us enemies in every country.

I think the brush that the media painted every time Bush opened his mouth or even when he didn't helped that along greatly.

And you don't think Bush opening his mouth had anything to do with it?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

At least as good as a failed business owner. What you fail to understand is that in a democracy comprised of many ideologies any security system that is dependent on a single ideology is a failure. By your logic Bush designed a failed system. So why are you surprised at his failure?

This is a federal Republic dumb ass...try again.

Ah. Ok. No democracy. Got it. But the fact remains the same. When you are governed by many political philosophies and security is dependent on a single ideology it is designed to fail.

in your flawed, biased opinion...maybe...in actual reality...no. The system worked fine under Bush when he put the mechanisms in place to detect and combat terror tactics.....Domestic terror incidents have no bearing on the issue at hand, which is Al Qaeda's mission to destroy the USA. and the dishonest OP knows that. You fell for his bullshit...so you aren't that smart are you?

 

[Coyote]

Would have done the job instead of the cluster that's going on in Detroit yesterday.

Obama set out immediately gutting the protections Bush and Cheney put in place. Can't get into specifics but it has manifested itself in a kinder more gentle approach to fighting the "Oversea Contingency Operation".

You say Obama "gutted" some protections. That statement is innacurate.

If you think Obama "gutted protections Bush and Cheney put in place", then surely you can list some of them for us.

It is inaccurate because Obama has changed very little from the Bush Administration regarding national security and terrorism. The reality that Obama came face to face with is that things are different when you are in office and have a great deal more information in hand, and face much more responsibility for your actions than you do as a candidate (much to the anger of his liberal supporters). That's the reality of most first term presidents however and that is where Obama's pragmatism asserts itself over ideology.

“It’s a reminder of how quickly we lose the real nuances of governing when you are campaigning,” Mr. Wehner said. “For many on the left who supported him, this is just this side of a betrayal, but for those who argue that he is a pragmatist, national security is the arena where they can most effectively make that case.”


Obama had the misfortune to come into office during one of the most difficult and contentious times in our countries history...but I do wish he would shut up on blaming the previous administration....at least he finally stood up and took full responsibility for the airport incident on Christmas, and is taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Hopefully, this will mark an end to the tiresome blame game. Now, if someone would only duct tape Cheney's mouth shut.

The only big change in security I can think of was scrapping the missile defense system in favor of systems using proven technology, less cost, and more applicable to the threats we are facing right now. I wouldn't call that "gutting". Other changes that come to mind are things like trying detainees in federal courts which has been successfully done in the previous administration and is hardly "gutting" but rather adding some credability to the process. Cheney's badmouthing comes across as sour grapes an an attempt to protect and rapidly sinking (or would it be stinking?) legacy.

Another interesting article: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/03/did_obama_change_the_national_security_paradigm_today.php - which indicates a major departure from the Bush Administration's (really Cheney's) doctrine of unitary executive power but results, in the end, in not a lot of substantive change in policy in so far as national security is concerned (certainly not "gutting"):

The other policy change today marks the beginning of a fairly dramatic departure from Bush administration's policy. Unlike President Bush, President Obama does not believe that the executive branch has the inherent authority to detain battlefield captives; indeed, according to the administration, Congress can authorize this exercise of power. The motion today does not preclude the executive branch from claiming some sort of power, too. Indeed, by limiting its scope to Guantanamo, it preserves (for now) the Bush administration's assertion of executive authority when it comes to detainees held elsewhere.

 

[uscitizen]

I think Obama's actions in the war on terror are so similar to Bush's that there is little point in trying to draw distinctions. Bush did a good job at handling it and I think he was successful in limiting the scope and number of terror attacks here in the U.S. It seems to me that Obama is continuing along the path that Bush set pretty well. He has not developed a radically different method or approach to preventing terrorism here in the U.S. To criticize Obama along these lines is vapid, shallow, pointless, fruitless, inane, and basically futile until such time as he makes changes that are significant.

The one thing I believe Obama deserves some criticism on is his rhetoric. He definitely doesn't talk a good game as Bush did.

There, I've said my peace. It seems to me that most of these discussions are just taking sides more than anything and not really about the issues.

The entire world hated the way Bush blustered and struted, he made us enemies in every country.

The ENTIRE fucking world ?

True, the radical elements of Islam such as AQ loved it.

 

[mudwhistle]

The entire world hated the way Bush blustered and struted, he made us enemies in every country.

I think the brush that the media painted every time Bush opened his mouth or even when he didn't helped that along greatly.

And you don't think Bush opening his mouth had anything to do with it?

Very little. Our media trashed him 24/7. It really didn't matter a heck of alot what he said.

 

[uscitizen]

i think the brush that the media painted every time bush opened his mouth or even when he didn't helped that along greatly.

and you don't think bush opening his mouth had anything to do with it?

very little. Our media trashed him 24/7. It really didn't matter a heck of alot what he said.

huh?

 

[mudwhistle]

Would have done the job instead of the cluster that's going on in Detroit yesterday.

Obama set out immediately gutting the protections Bush and Cheney put in place. Can't get into specifics but it has manifested itself in a kinder more gentle approach to fighting the "Oversea Contingency Operation".

You say Obama "gutted" some protections. That statement is innacurate.

If you think Obama "gutted protections Bush and Cheney put in place", then surely you can list some of them for us.

It is inaccurate because Obama has changed very little from the Bush Administration regarding national security and terrorism. The reality that Obama came face to face with is that things are different when you are in office and have a great deal more information in hand, and face much more responsibility for your actions than you do as a candidate (much to the anger of his liberal supporters). That's the reality of most first term presidents however and that is where Obama's pragmatism asserts itself over ideology. Obama had the misfortune to come into office during one of the most difficult and contentious times in our countries history...but I do wish he would shut up on blaming the previous administration....at least he finally stood up and took full responsibility for the airport incident on Christmas, and is taking steps to prevent it from happening again. Hopefully, this will mark an end to the tiresome blame game. Now, if someone would only duct tape Cheney's mouth shut.

The only big change in security I can think of was scrapping the missile defense system in favor of systems using proven technology, less cost, and more applicable to the threats we are facing right now. I wouldn't call that "gutting". Other changes that come to mind are things like trying detainees in federal courts which has been successfully done in the previous administration and is hardly "gutting" but rather adding some credability to the process. Cheney's badmouthing comes across as sour grapes an an attempt to protect and rapidly sinking (or would it be stinking?) legacy.

Obama didn't really take the blame. He mouthed the words but he claimed it was a systemic-failure...not a failure on his part. He said that he would not tolerate the failures that took place which means somebody else's failures....not his.


Gutting our protections means a change in philosophy in this case. He canceled out much of what was normal operating procedures in favor of his new policies. He changed the attitude or the resolve that was in place. Now we're more worried about health care and not enough about national defense. We would rather continue golfing and skiing instead of doing our jobs whenever a crisis arises. He put inexperienced and untested public relation arseholes in charge of our defense. Their natural reaction was to claim nothing went wrong...which proved to be grossly ignorant of the situation.

 

[Coyote]

I think Obama's actions in the war on terror are so similar to Bush's that there is little point in trying to draw distinctions. Bush did a good job at handling it and I think he was successful in limiting the scope and number of terror attacks here in the U.S. It seems to me that Obama is continuing along the path that Bush set pretty well. He has not developed a radically different method or approach to preventing terrorism here in the U.S. To criticize Obama along these lines is vapid, shallow, pointless, fruitless, inane, and basically futile until such time as he makes changes that are significant.

The one thing I believe Obama deserves some criticism on is his rhetoric. He definitely doesn't talk a good game as Bush did.

There, I've said my peace. It seems to me that most of these discussions are just taking sides more than anything and not really about the issues.

I agree with a lot of what you say except for the rhetoric. I much prefer the "speak softly and carry a big stick" approach to the chest-beating approach.

 

[PeterS]

This is a federal Republic dumb ass...try again.

Ah. Ok. No democracy. Got it. But the fact remains the same. When you are governed by many political philosophies and security is dependent on a single ideology it is designed to fail.

in your flawed, biased opinion...maybe...in actual reality...no. The system worked fine under Bush when he put the mechanisms in place to detect and combat terror tactics.....Domestic terror incidents have no bearing on the issue at hand, which is Al Qaeda's mission to destroy the USA. and the dishonest OP knows that. You fell for his bullshit...so you aren't that smart are you?

You need to talk to Giuliani then since he was the spewing "had no domestic attacks" under Bush. He of course ignored 911, the shoe bomber, the NY City subway plot (ironic since he was once mayor of the same city, the plot on the IM Pei building in Dallas, and a multitude of others that fall under the classification of domestic terror.

And again. If you are contending that security designed by one ideology only works with that ideology in place then with our form of government it is a system designed to fail. Stop complaining about a security system working exactly how your ideology designed it...

 

[Vast LWC]

I can list some of the most obvious ones right off without even looking it up.

His AG investigating CIA interrogators for criminal abuse. A wall went up in the intelligence community as soon as this was announced. Intelligence was not acted upon because of several reasons. Nothing was considered to be probable cause enough to place Mr Explosive Diaper on a no-fly list. Everyone was put on notice that they were being watched by this new administration. Officers decided that nothing was worth sticking their necks out under the adverse political climate that has existed since Obama took office.

Wow, that is a stretch-and-a-half. What does prosecuting people for TORTURE have to do with airport security?

And no "wall went up" in CIA intelligence gathering and sharing due to torture investigations.

That is a ridiculous assumption, CIA interrogators are not the same people as intelligence gatherers.

If you're suggesting that CIA analysts were witholding data in some sort of revenge for prosecutions in torture cases, that would be a criminal act. Is this what you are suggesting? If so you should provide the names of said analysts so they can be brought to justice.

Reading Maranda Rights to POWs on the battlefield assuring them that anything they say and do can be used against them...allowing them to clam up once they got lawyered up. Thus ending the free flow of hot pertinent intelligence.

This is only a couple.

Another crazy assumption.

Tell me, what specific effect would either of these factors have had on the case at hand?

We had the intelligence we needed in this case. No captured terrorist would have provided us with any additional information. The fault was in a lack of communication in the existing intelligence infrastructure.

In addition, and this is important:

The Yemeni plotters in this case who had been captured previously, WERE RELEASED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IN 2007.

Not to mention the fact that the lasat shoe bomber was read his miranda rights by the Bush administration.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Guiliani is an idiot and I have never subscribed to his bullshit...he doesn't speak for me.

 

[uscitizen]

Guiliani is an idiot and I have never subscribed to his bullshit...he doesn't speak for me.

Throw Rush under next. Rudi did not make the bus bump much at all.

 

[Vast LWC]

And, most importantly, if you blame the Obama administration personally for this incident...

...Then by the same logic the Bush administration is responsible for 9/11.

After all, they had actionable intelligence that was actually reported to them at the highest levels, and they did nothing.

So, if this is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush's fault, and for that matter Dick Cheney's fault, so Cheney should shut the hell up, because he's just incriminating himself.

Personally, I'd prefer not to go into this big blame game, but if you start down that road, that's where it inevitably leads.