No Terrorist attacks while Bush was President

[Screaming Eagle]

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.

You're welcome to your own opinion, I think that if you appear to be someone no one wants to fight, there will be fewer fights than if you seem soft and fun to pick on.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All I have to say on this subject is this:

The Bush administration spent trillions of deficit-creating dollars to put a system in place that would supposedly 1) stop things like this from happening, and 2) destroy the terrorist organizations.

Since Mr Obama hasn't defunded any of the Bush era programs, which are all still in existence, doesn't the fact that these things are still happening mean that the Republican-led War on Terror was a tremendous failure?

Just saying...

Obama cut back on Defense so this isn't true. He wants to get rid of nukes and he defunded the F22 program. What other programs has he defunded.

I'm just saying.

Yeah, and I hear they were going to put a feature on the F22 that would allow them to pick off an underwear bomber, right in his seat on an in-flight passenger plane, and not harm a hair on another passenger's head!!!!

That would have been AWESOME!!! Damn you Barack Obama!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Anyone who's been in the intelligence community or any government department can tell you when heads start to roll everyone starts to cover their own asses. Even you're smart enough to figure this out.

I would be willing to bet the same thing might have happened during the first months of the Bush Administration. People were worried about their jobs. Imagine the fear being possibly incarcerated for something that was at one time legal would generate.

One thing I learned while I was holding my clearance and they kept repeating it.....the best intelligence is HUMINT. [Human Intelligence]


The pipe-line was severed when Obama and his lawyers started giving them rights any citizen deserves but never was given in history to those taken in combat.

It's pretty straight forward. Anyone in the biz knows what Obama was doing and they didn't like it.

 

[Vast LWC]

Anyone who's been in the intelligence community or any government department can tell you when heads start to roll everyone starts to cover their own asses. Even you're smart enough to figure this out.

I would be willing to bet the same thing might have happened during the first months of the Bush Administration. People were worried about their jobs. Imagine the fear being possibly incarcerated for something that was at one time legal would generate.

One thing I learned while I was holding my clearance and they kept repeating it.....the best intelligence is HUMINT. [Human Intelligence]


The pipe-line was severed when Obama and his lawyers started giving them rights any citizen deserves but never was given in history to those taken in combat.

It's pretty straight forward. Anyone in the biz knows what Obama was doing and they didn't like it.

Funny you should say that. My MOS in the Army was in Military Intelligence, specifically in communications survellance (No need for any more detail on that in this forum).

My point being that I am quite familiar with HUMINT, COMINT, and SIGINT, and I am very familiar with intelligence gathering.

And strangely I do not agree with your assesment.

 

[mudwhistle]

Anyone who's been in the intelligence community or any government department can tell you when heads start to roll everyone starts to cover their own asses. Even you're smart enough to figure this out.

I would be willing to bet the same thing might have happened during the first months of the Bush Administration. People were worried about their jobs. Imagine the fear being possibly incarcerated for something that was at one time legal would generate.

One thing I learned while I was holding my clearance and they kept repeating it.....the best intelligence is HUMINT. [Human Intelligence]


The pipe-line was severed when Obama and his lawyers started giving them rights any citizen deserves but never was given in history to those taken in combat.

It's pretty straight forward. Anyone in the biz knows what Obama was doing and they didn't like it.

Funny you should say that. My MOS in the Army was in Military Intelligence, specifically in communications survellance (No need for any more detail on that in this forum).

My point being that I am quite familiar with HUMINT, COMINT, and SIGINT, and I am very familiar with intelligence gathering.

And strangely I do not agree with your assesment.

I wonder what you clearance was. Did you interview POWs???

The reason you feel that way is probably because you didn't spend alot of time doing your job.

I have a friend who was in MI...and I deployed with them at times.

They weren't much better then MPs from what I could see.

Many of the others were deep in some hole looking at documents...not working in the field with actual combatants. I think it all depends on where you were assigned. If you were in communications you were a radio operator or you had control of COMSEC.....but you rarely worked with enemy combatants.

 

[Screaming Eagle]

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 don't think so. Granted he was a poor speaker, but I think he improved greatly during his presidency. When he left office I thought he had become a fairly good speaker. This way seems pretty fair to me: the first 1-2 years dismally poor speaking ability, 3-4 years, still bad but improving, 5-6 years, kind of in the middle, 7-8 years, fairly good, but not excellent or anything. The few times I've seen Obama off the teleprompter he was worse than Bush ever was. Not that any of that matters, I am referring to the actual context of the speeches, the words themselves, the content, the rhetoric. Delivery is less than important in foreign affairs as only a handful of countries speak English.

Other countries do not have our best interests at heart, they have theirs. Them not liking Bush doesn't imply that he wasn't doing what was best for us.

 

[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 don't think so. Granted he was a poor speaker, but I think he improved greatly during his presidency. When he left office I thought he had become a fairly good speaker. This way seems pretty fair to me: the first 1-2 years dismally poor speaking ability, 3-4 years, still bad but improving, 5-6 years, kind of in the middle, 7-8 years, fairly good, but not excellent or anything. The few times I've seen Obama off the teleprompter he was worse than Bush ever was. Not that any of that matters, I am referring to the actual context of the speeches, the words themselves, the content, the rhetoric. Delivery is less than important in foreign affairs as only a handful of countries speak English.

Other countries do not have our best interests at heart, they have theirs. Them not liking Bush doesn't imply that he wasn't doing what was best for us.

Yup....libs want somebody that can put on a show...not someone of substance.

Seems Obama is losing credibility because he can't silence dissension.

 

[Coyote]

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.

"He mouthed the words" is pretty much a subjective interpretation.

"This incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies...Ultimately the buck stops with me." That's taking responsibility while acknowledging the facts- it was a failure on many levels and that must be addressed. President Bush used language very similar to Obama's when taking responsibility for failed intelligence in Iraq and a sluggish early response to Hurricane Katrina - was that too just "mouthing the words"?

Would you rather hear a rant blaming an individual in what was clearly a failure on multiple levels spanning both administrations- the kind of failure of agency coordination that was initially addressed in the 9/11 report but apparently not acted on strongly enough in either the Bush administration or Obama's (I do not think that Obama has not made any substantive changes in regards to intelligence) Is public scapegoating appropriate here is acknowledging the problem and FIXING it? Is or is not Obama taking steps to fix it?

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.

Such as what philosophies and operating procedures?

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.

National security is not the Presidents only job nor is it the only issue facing our nation today. Health care, for those that lack it is every bit as important.

You say: "He put inexperienced and untested public relation arseholes in charge of our defense"

Who was in charge of our "defense"? His defense and national security "team" includes: Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton, NSC members: Tom Donilon, Dennis Ross, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_McDonough"]Denis McDonough[/URL] and Ben Rhodes (who's position is Foreign policy speechwriter) ....

Out of that group most are not "in charge of defense"....the one who most closely resembles the descripter "public relation arseholes" is, I guess Ben Rhodes yet his credentials in Middle East policies aren't bad - he contributed to both the Iraq Study Group and the 9/11 Commission reports.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

"He mouthed the words" is pretty much a subjective interpretation.

"This incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies...Ultimately the buck stops with me." That's taking responsibility while acknowledging the facts- it was a failure on many levels and that must be addressed. President Bush used language very similar to Obama's when taking responsibility for failed intelligence in Iraq and a sluggish early response to Hurricane Katrina - was that too just "mouthing the words"?

Would you rather hear a rant blaming an individual in what was clearly a failure on multiple levels spanning both administrations- the kind of failure of agency coordination that was initially addressed in the 9/11 report but apparently not acted on strongly enough in either the Bush administration or Obama's (I do not think that Obama has not made any substantive changes in regards to intelligence) Is public scapegoating appropriate here is acknowledging the problem and FIXING it? Is or is not Obama taking steps to fix it?

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.

Such as what philosophies and operating procedures?

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.

National security is not the Presidents only job nor is it the only issue facing our nation today. Health care, for those that lack it is every bit as important.

You say: "He put inexperienced and untested public relation arseholes in charge of our defense"

Who was in charge of our "defense"? His defense and national security "team" includes: Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton, NSC members: Tom Donilon, Dennis Ross, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_McDonough"]Denis McDonough[/URL] and Ben Rhodes (who's position is Foreign policy speechwriter) ....

Out of that group most are not "in charge of defense"....the one who most closely resembles the descripter "public relation arseholes" is, I guess Ben Rhodes yet his credentials in Middle East policies aren't bad - he contributed to both the Iraq Study Group and the 9/11 Commission reports.

Check the Constitution. Health Care is not in his job description.

Defending the nation is.

Obama initiated the atmosphere that contributed to the failures. Sure...no system is full-proof but Obama must take the blame for taking us off the war footing we were on.

They said it over and over that the war on terror was over and yet you still feel they weren't serious. They didn't think we were at war and we paid a price for it. Thank God it wasn't worse.

 

[asaratis]

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.

...not when you factor in the incompetence of the people Obama assigned to be in charge of the day to day operations of the system that would have worked right had the administration's appointees been up to the task.

Putting incompetent people in charge of a good system does not relieve them of blame when the system is mismanaged. Janet's head should be on a platter by now.

 

[Coyote]

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.

"He mouthed the words" is pretty much a subjective interpretation.

"This incident was not the fault of a single individual or organization, but rather a systemic failure across organizations and agencies...Ultimately the buck stops with me." That's taking responsibility while acknowledging the facts- it was a failure on many levels and that must be addressed. President Bush used language very similar to Obama's when taking responsibility for failed intelligence in Iraq and a sluggish early response to Hurricane Katrina - was that too just "mouthing the words"?

Would you rather hear a rant blaming an individual in what was clearly a failure on multiple levels spanning both administrations- the kind of failure of agency coordination that was initially addressed in the 9/11 report but apparently not acted on strongly enough in either the Bush administration or Obama's (I do not think that Obama has not made any substantive changes in regards to intelligence) Is public scapegoating appropriate here is acknowledging the problem and FIXING it? Is or is not Obama taking steps to fix it?



Such as what philosophies and operating procedures?

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.

National security is not the Presidents only job nor is it the only issue facing our nation today. Health care, for those that lack it is every bit as important.

You say: "He put inexperienced and untested public relation arseholes in charge of our defense"

Who was in charge of our "defense"? His defense and national security "team" includes: Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton, NSC members: Tom Donilon, Dennis Ross, [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_McDonough"]Denis McDonough[/URL] and Ben Rhodes (who's position is Foreign policy speechwriter) ....

Out of that group most are not "in charge of defense"....the one who most closely resembles the descripter "public relation arseholes" is, I guess Ben Rhodes yet his credentials in Middle East policies aren't bad - he contributed to both the Iraq Study Group and the 9/11 Commission reports.

Check the Constitution. Health Care is not in his job description.

It may not be explicitely stated, but addressing the needs of his constituents is part of his job.

Defending the nation is.

That to.

Obama initiated the atmosphere that contributed to the failures. Sure...no system is full-proof but Obama must take the blame for taking us off the war footing we were on.

He's taken responsibility for the Underoobomber but as far as "initiated the atmosphere that contributed to the failures" - I fail to see how that occurred since what contributed to the failures includes what was considered accepted practice left over from the Bush administration. Obviously improvement is needed and that is acknowledged.

They said it over and over that the war on terror was over and yet you still feel they weren't serious. They didn't think we were at war and we paid a price for it. Thank God it wasn't worse.

Who said that? Do you have a quote? I can find plenty of quotes where Obama is explicitely stating that we are at war with Al Queda.

 

[Vast LWC]

Check the Constitution. Health Care is not in his job description.

Defending the nation is.

Obama initiated the atmosphere that contributed to the failures. Sure...no system is full-proof but Obama must take the blame for taking us off the war footing we were on.

They said it over and over that the war on terror was over and yet you still feel they weren't serious. They didn't think we were at war and we paid a price for it. Thank God it wasn't worse.

And, as I stated before, that means that you must feel that 9/11 was the Bush administration's fault.

By your logic, since the Bush administration had plenty of intelligence warning them of an imminent attack, it was clearly at fault for the single largest terrorist attack ever.

Strange that you don't talk about that though. And I'm thinking you probably voted for them in 2004, I'm not absolutely sure, but I think it's probable.

Now personally I don't feel this way, but since you do, you may as well admit it.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

As far as the "War on Terror" goes, making this into a "war" empowered the terrorists and gave them legitimacy.

In fact, every time you make something like this a top story in the world media, you are further empowering the terrorists.

Terrorists have nearly no power if they get no media.

If, on the other hand, you call them what they are: sociopathic religious nutjob murderers, then they have no legitimacy.

That's why they need to be turned into criminals, not a legitimate nation-like enemy. Once you give them legitimacy, you're playing their game.

 

[EriktheRed]

Rachel Maddow eviscerated Giuliani on this tonight. It was elegant. A bonus shocker for me was seeing a clip of Mary Matalin claiming that Bush inherited 9/11.

Stephanapoulos has been taking a lot of heat for not calling Mr. "Noun, Verb, 9/11" out on this, too.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Well, he's right.

There were no terrorist attacks during Bush. Didn't you get the memo? They were all "man-made disasters".

 

[Vast LWC]

Wow, I guess no-one had a response to that.

Guess I should make a new thread about it.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...hould-really-stop-playing-the-blame-game.html

 

[rightwinger]

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.

No, no, no

You don't get it 9-11 was Clintons fault

Everything after 9-11 was Bushes protecting us except for the anthrax attacks, DC Snipers, shoe bombers, abortion clinic bombings........and anything else the republicans choose to ignore

 

[Coyote]

What all the finger-pointers don't realize (other than the fact that they're going to get arthritus from all the pointing) is that the reality of the world today means terrorist attacks are eventually going to happen.

Terrorist tactics evolve in response to counter-terrorism "fixes" just as counter-terrorism measures evolve in response to new tactics. What worked well in one year maybe countered in the next. It's why profiling should not be relied on because they're just going to send people who don't fit the profile du jour.

Blaming any president (whether it's Obama, Bush, Clinton) is a pointless and partisan exercise in ignorance. "Mistakes" will be made because the landscape is constantly changing and we are constantly balancing the needs of a free and open society with security. We could effectively end most terrorist threats if we had a society like China's....but I don't think anyone wants that trade off.