A true Mystery: Why do Republicans say they kept the country safe?

[hjmick]

The true mystery, in my eyes, and I mean no disrespect here rdean, the true mystery is...

Why are you, and many more just like you, so fixated on the past? Why do you, and by "you" I mean you and those just like you, have such a hard on for the Bush administration? They're no longer in office, they can do no more harm, your guys currently control the government, everything shoud be peaches and cream. But no, you continue to harp on things you cannot change. Why not worry about the present? The future? If you continue tolook back, you won't be able to see where we're going.

 

[QUENTIN]

I've heard the Republicans claim over and over again they "kept the country safe". I can't figure out exactly what that means.

Some examples:

Republicans put at least 100,000 people into carcinogenic trailers after Katrina and then sat on the reports detailing why they were getting "sick".

FEMA Trailers for Katrina Victims Tainted by Toxic Chemical - ABC News

In 2007, a bridge collapsed during rush hour. This led to a report that at least 70,000 bridges in the US were a danger. What did Republicans do to alleviate this danger?

4 dead, 79 injured, 20 missing after dozens of vehicles plummet into river | StarTribune.com

More than 4000 young American patriots have been killed in Iraq. More than 30,000 injured or crippled. The Iraqis want us gone. A man who threw shoes at our president, one of the worst insults in Islam, became a "national hero" to the Iraqis. We are going bankrupt to rebuild a country that is now a religious theocracy by Constitution with Islam the "national religion" (Article 2) and want us gone. We have done nothing to help the million Christians who have been murdered or exiled.

40,000 Americans die each year because they have no health care. The Iraqis have the "public option" written into a constitution supported by American Republicans. See Article 31 and 32. What did Republicans do for health care here? Why do Republicans help the Iraqis, who don't even want help, but not the US?

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

Federal Spending Was on ‘Starvation Diet’ During Bush Years. That means the "infrastructure". Keeping roads and bridges and trains modern is very important to keeping Americans safe. Why nothing for the US? Don't we deserve a safe country?

CNSNews.com - Federal Spending Was on ‘Starvation Diet’ During Bush Years, Says Democratic Senator

So, I'm just trying to understand how Republicans kept America "safe". Throwing water at a "firecracker" when the house was burning was keeping us safe?

What are Republicans doing now to help "keep us safe"?

Because they're liars and their chief political strategy for years has been to rely on The Big Lie. Just say the exact opposite of whatever is obviously true so passionately and frequently that it becomes a popularly accepted truism.

Also because their "opposition party" has decided to cede the "strong on defense and national security" title to them without a fight or argument, and generally just lay back and take it.

It's patently ridiculous and dishonest, but from a politicking point of view, it's hard to argue with their success. Even as a generally reviled party, they still tend to get better marks on national security.

 

[MajikMyst]

a true mystery: why is rdean such a stupid fuck?
genetics or environment?

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

 

[Dr Grump]

a true mystery: why is rdean such a stupid fuck?
genetics or environment?

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

About sums it up...

 

[California Girl]

rdean = FUCKTARD

Hey asswipe... 40% of Americans don't pay income taxes... who'd you suggest we give tax cuts too? The 40 eprcenters who are laying on the 60 percenters' legs?

So you are saying the dems are a bunch of fucking IDIOTS.

Way to disingenuously conflate two entirely different topics. Tell me, did you have to take special classes to be such a dishonest sack of feces, or did it come naturally?

Between his knees? He already has his head between his ass cheeks.

That might be because the FACT is that the wealthiest Americans pay the most taxes.

How big a tax cut did you expect on your minimum wage?

Wow, you have to marvel at the true insight and keen intellect of Republican Master Debaters. Each and every one a cunning linguist.

I can't decide which is funnier: the fact that you think it cuts any of us to the quick to hear that we don't have the respect of someone we clearly wouldn't piss on if he were on fire, or the fact that you think you rate any more serious rejoinder than for us to mock you mercilessly.

Either way, you flatter yourself hugely.

Both are really excellent on the 'so stupid it is funny' scale... but, personally, what really entertains me is that this is what passes for 'politics' in rdeanieweanie's little brain.

 

[California Girl]

a true mystery: why is rdean such a stupid fuck?
genetics or environment?

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

About sums it up...

Ya think? Cuz it appears to me that there's an inability to grasp a simple but significant concept..... just because one is not a democrat, does not make one a republican. I know it's a difficult truth but it is the truth.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why do Republicans say what they say? Because they are delusional idiots living in some alternate universe.

Exhibit 999, Mary Matalin claiming that Bush INHERITED 9/11

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR93iKtFlcQ[/ame]

No, you're right, you can't make this shit up. At least you can't make shit up that's funnier than what the Republicans say for real.

 

[California Girl]

Why do Republicans say what they say? Because they are delusional idiots living in some alternate universe.

Exhibit 999, Mary Matalin claiming that Bush INHERITED 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xR93iKtFlcQ

No, you're right, you can't make this shit up. At least you can't make shit up that's funnier than what the Republicans say for real.

So, according to you the previous administration to Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 - is that your argument? Really?

How very, very naive of you if that is the case.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that people insist on blaming 'the republican', Bush, or any other individual or set of ideals for 9/11. It might be easier to believe that but it simply is not fact.

It insults the memory of those who died when their deaths are used for political gain - from either side. I think it's sad that we have so little morality left that we will use any weapon, no matter how distasteful, to score political points.

 

[jillian]

So, according to you the previous administration to Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 - is that your argument? Really?

Is that what he said? Really? I think he was just pointing out that for some reason the truthtelling about who was president on 9/11 is pretty er... lax.

How very, very naive of you if that is the case.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that people insist on blaming 'the republican', Bush, or any other individual or set of ideals for 9/11. It might be easier to believe that but it simply is not fact.

It insults the memory of those who died when their deaths are used for political gain - from either side. I think it's sad that we have so little morality left that we will use any weapon, no matter how distasteful, to score political points.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that bush was president for 11 months when 9/11 happened; did NOTHING after getting pdb's saying what bin laden would do; KNEW that there were people taking flying lessons....

and you still think Clinton was responsible for what happened 9 months into bush's term when the bush admin wouldn't even allow itself to be briefed on bin laden and only wanted to know about Iraq.

I'm suuuuuuuuuuuure you'd blame bush if the underwear bomber was successful. oh... you wouldn't have?

 

[elvis]

a true mystery: why is rdean such a stupid fuck?
genetics or environment?

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

would you have preferred the banks go broke? It's funny you mention wealthy americans and tax cuts. i saved 3 grand last year because of them and I'm not rich by any means. It's also funny how simple-minded you are, thinking that anyone who doesn't like rdean must be a Bush-bot. I didn't even vote for Bush in 2004.

 

[MajikMyst]

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

About sums it up...

Ya think? Cuz it appears to me that there's an inability to grasp a simple but significant concept..... just because one is not a democrat, does not make one a republican. I know it's a difficult truth but it is the truth.

Your right.. But the point of that is?? I was talking about republicans.. Or are you half wittingly trying to make a point about something that has nothing to do with the topic at hand??

Speaking of you however?? Is conservative ok?? Neocon perhaps?? Neotard maybe??

Whatever, you share in their ideas and views and your post shows that.. So whatever title you wish you where.. You were included..

 

[Dr Grump]

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

About sums it up...

Ya think? Cuz it appears to me that there's an inability to grasp a simple but significant concept..... just because one is not a democrat, does not make one a republican. I know it's a difficult truth but it is the truth.

I realise this. I was more talking about the overall gist of the post. That aside, this 'Dem" and "repub" thing cracks me up. I come from a nation of 4 million people that has seven different political parties in our parliament. There is a political party for everyone....This is why US politics cracks me up....prolly one of the worst systems in the western world, with the British a close second (which is the FPP system we had until 96)....

 

[California Girl]

So, according to you the previous administration to Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 - is that your argument? Really?

Is that what he said? Really? I think he was just pointing out that for some reason the truthtelling about who was president on 9/11 is pretty er... lax.

How very, very naive of you if that is the case.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that people insist on blaming 'the republican', Bush, or any other individual or set of ideals for 9/11. It might be easier to believe that but it simply is not fact.

It insults the memory of those who died when their deaths are used for political gain - from either side. I think it's sad that we have so little morality left that we will use any weapon, no matter how distasteful, to score political points.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that bush was president for 11 months when 9/11 happened; did NOTHING after getting pdb's saying what bin laden would do; KNEW that there were people taking flying lessons....

and you still think Clinton was responsible for what happened 9 months into bush's term when the bush admin wouldn't even allow itself to be briefed on bin laden and only wanted to know about Iraq.

I'm suuuuuuuuuuuure you'd blame bush if the underwear bomber was successful. oh... you wouldn't have?

Here's my point, Jillian. I blame all our politicians. Who in their right mind would have thought that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings - deliberately? Until it happened, it was incomprehensible to any sane person.

I didn't blame Clinton - I blamed both sides equally for fucking up. What I don't do - ever - is use 9/11 as a stick to beat a party I happen to disagree with. The people who died deserve more respect than to be used as a political football.

Anyone who blames one politician for a terrorist attack is naive at best, partisan at worst.

 

[California Girl]

About sums it up...

Ya think? Cuz it appears to me that there's an inability to grasp a simple but significant concept..... just because one is not a democrat, does not make one a republican. I know it's a difficult truth but it is the truth.

I realise this. I was more talking about the overall gist of the post. That aside, this 'Dem" and "repub" thing cracks me up. I come from a nation of 4 million people that has seven different political parties in our parliament. There is a political party for everyone....This is why US politics cracks me up....prolly one of the worst systems in the western world, with the British a close second (which is the FPP system we had until 96)....

I won't disagree with any of that, which is disappointing because I am clearly a neo-con, gun totin', bible thumpin', racist, gay-hatin', extremist.

 

[MajikMyst]

a true mystery: why is rdean such a stupid fuck?
genetics or environment?

I think the real mystery here is whether or not you think that post made you look intelligent or like an idiot??

The facts here is this.. You republicans have yet to post any verifiable facts.. It isn't desputed on anywhere that the tax cuts Bush passed out were for the most wealthy of Americans.. No republican elected to office now or during the Bush administration had disputed this fact.. Please show otherwise..

Yes.. Much of the lower and middle class got their cool little checks.. Which bought them little more than a family night at the movies and Denny's for dinner..

But this was about keeping america safe?? Bush and republicans failied miserable.. Bush became a recruiting tool for terrorism.. He created more enemies than before he took office.. Their policies on torture inflamed the extremists and would be terrorists.. The innocent people held without being charged or having access to an attorney certianly didn't help either..

And there were multiple attacks on our soil while Bush was in office.. Much of DC was shut down cause of a teenage boy shooting from the trunk of a car.. Remember the DC sniper.. The already mentioned Shoe bommer, and the Anthrax attacks.. Not to mention the standing water in New Orleans.. So Bush sucked big hairy catepiller balls!! We weren't safe under Bush.. I doubt we would be safe under any republican cause you people don't seem to understand the concept of taking care of your own people..

40,000 people die each year because of no healthcare and you all are going to do what you can to kill healthcare reform?? How can you all call yourselves patriots??

If Bush had half a brain, he would have killed his tax cuts on 9/12/2001... On that day we were at war and there was no need for tax cuts.. We needed the money to pay for the war?? Oh?? Wait?? My bad!!! He never did pay for it!! Obama is no trying to pay for it and morons are going to question spending?? Bush didn't even pay for his perscription drug plan.. Now Obama has to pay for that too.. Obama hasn't spent any money on anything!! All he has done is pay for the Bush years... The Bail out was under Bush.. Everything is Bush.. With the exception of Obama's stimulus package which is having some good results.. Every report I have seen is the economy is slowly making a comback..

Of course you rebuttlicans are going to deny all of this and once again shower us with your flare for the english language.. You will fail to provide any facts of your own.. Instead you will simply deny deny deny and deny some more.. The facts don't change because you denied them.. It just means your wrong..

would you have preferred the banks go broke? It's funny you mention wealthy americans and tax cuts. i saved 3 grand last year because of them and I'm not rich by any means. It's also funny how simple-minded you are, thinking that anyone who doesn't like rdean must be a Bush-bot. I didn't even vote for Bush in 2004.

Actually!! Yes!! I would have prefered they went broke!! It might have taught the others banks a lesson on what not to do.. As it is, they learned the government will bail them out.. You saved 3 grand?? WOW!!! That is awsome!! Would you like a brownie button or a chest to pin it on.. I don't care who you voted for.. The fact that you voted for him at all speaks volumes.. I am guessing that since you didn't mention 2000 you voted for him then.. I also don't care who you like or dislike.. Your post made you look like a complete ass and I called you on it..

And still.. There are no verifiable facts in your post. Well.. Ok.. I guess we could verify your tax return.. But?? 3 grand?? Ok?? So you got a couple of dogs at the ball game too.. Many of the top 1% people got millions in return.. Millions!! On the first year alone.. The tax cut cost the government $1.35 trillion dollars.. $1.35 trillion lost to the government on the same year we went to war.. And you wonder why there is such a deficit now?? You know what the tax cut cost this year?? Now that millions more are in poverty and less people are paying taxes and more are using food stamps.. $900 billion.. In 2001 there was a 4% unemployment rate.. By the end of his term it was 7.6%.. Nearly doubled.. Gotta love the tax cuts.. Poverty went from 12% in 2001 to 17% when he left office.. 17 million on food stamps in 2001 and over 30 million now.. Gotta love those tax cuts.. Of course you thrown in irresponsible spending on Bush's part.. Dergulation of the financial district..

Thems are the facts!!

 

[MajikMyst]

So, according to you the previous administration to Bush had nothing to do with 9/11 - is that your argument? Really?

Is that what he said? Really? I think he was just pointing out that for some reason the truthtelling about who was president on 9/11 is pretty er... lax.

How very, very naive of you if that is the case.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that people insist on blaming 'the republican', Bush, or any other individual or set of ideals for 9/11. It might be easier to believe that but it simply is not fact.

It insults the memory of those who died when their deaths are used for political gain - from either side. I think it's sad that we have so little morality left that we will use any weapon, no matter how distasteful, to score political points.

I think it is nothing short of pathetic that bush was president for 11 months when 9/11 happened; did NOTHING after getting pdb's saying what bin laden would do; KNEW that there were people taking flying lessons....

and you still think Clinton was responsible for what happened 9 months into bush's term when the bush admin wouldn't even allow itself to be briefed on bin laden and only wanted to know about Iraq.

I'm suuuuuuuuuuuure you'd blame bush if the underwear bomber was successful. oh... you wouldn't have?

Here's my point, Jillian. I blame all our politicians. Who in their right mind would have thought that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings - deliberately? Until it happened, it was incomprehensible to any sane person.

I didn't blame Clinton - I blamed both sides equally for fucking up. What I don't do - ever - is use 9/11 as a stick to beat a party I happen to disagree with. The people who died deserve more respect than to be used as a political football.

Anyone who blames one politician for a terrorist attack is naive at best, partisan at worst.

I don't know.. Using 9/11 as the stick to beat a party you disagree with is disrespectful in my view.. 9/11 is no stick.. And sadly the Bush adminstration didn't even see it necessary to cooperate with the investigation into the attack.. The people that died do diserve respect.. They also diserve the respect that the date on which they were killed is not used as a political stick..

Find another weapon..

 

[jillian]

Here's my point, Jillian. I blame all our politicians. Who in their right mind would have thought that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings - deliberately? Until it happened, it was incomprehensible to any sane person.

I didn't blame Clinton - I blamed both sides equally for fucking up. What I don't do - ever - is use 9/11 as a stick to beat a party I happen to disagree with. The people who died deserve more respect than to be used as a political football.

Anyone who blames one politician for a terrorist attack is naive at best, partisan at worst.

THiS IS THE REDCTED DECLASSIFIED PDB of August 6. 2001:

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladin since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."
After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [--] service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an [--] service at the same time that Bin Ladin was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Ladin's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.
Ressam says Bin Ladin was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Ladin has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Ladin associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are US citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qua' da members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [--] service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So it does seem they could imagine the use of planes. They SAID he wanted to use them. That intel existed.

Was this enough info to stop 9/11? NO! But it was sure as heck enough for him to stop clearing brush in Crawford and "beat the bushes" for more info.

And no,it isn't one person's fault. But blaming Clinton when the Bush admin wouldn't allow itself to be briefed... and TOTALLY and COMPLETELY ignored the above... is pretty silly.

Oh...and the millennium plot which WAS foiled...that was done by the Clinton admin.

So yes, it's a lot like whack-a-mole, but someone has to at least try to whack the moles.

 

[Old Rocks]

I've heard the Republicans claim over and over again they "kept the country safe". I can't figure out exactly what that means.

Some examples:

Republicans put at least 100,000 people into carcinogenic trailers after Katrina and then sat on the reports detailing why they were getting "sick".

FEMA Trailers for Katrina Victims Tainted by Toxic Chemical - ABC News

In 2007, a bridge collapsed during rush hour. This led to a report that at least 70,000 bridges in the US were a danger. What did Republicans do to alleviate this danger?

4 dead, 79 injured, 20 missing after dozens of vehicles plummet into river | StarTribune.com

More than 4000 young American patriots have been killed in Iraq. More than 30,000 injured or crippled. The Iraqis want us gone. A man who threw shoes at our president, one of the worst insults in Islam, became a "national hero" to the Iraqis. We are going bankrupt to rebuild a country that is now a religious theocracy by Constitution with Islam the "national religion" (Article 2) and want us gone. We have done nothing to help the million Christians who have been murdered or exiled.

40,000 Americans die each year because they have no health care. The Iraqis have the "public option" written into a constitution supported by American Republicans. See Article 31 and 32. What did Republicans do for health care here? Why do Republicans help the Iraqis, who don't even want help, but not the US?

Full Text of Iraqi Constitution - washingtonpost.com

Federal Spending Was on ‘Starvation Diet’ During Bush Years. That means the "infrastructure". Keeping roads and bridges and trains modern is very important to keeping Americans safe. Why nothing for the US? Don't we deserve a safe country?

CNSNews.com - Federal Spending Was on ‘Starvation Diet’ During Bush Years, Says Democratic Senator

So, I'm just trying to understand how Republicans kept America "safe". Throwing water at a "firecracker" when the house was burning was keeping us safe?

What are Republicans doing now to help "keep us safe"?

Because Bush did keep us safe from another terrorist attack, we did not have one on our soil. So far, we have had one attack the " Fort Hood Shooter," and a near miss with the underwear bomber in less than a year in office. It seems that bowing to the saudi prince and making nice with the terrorists of the world is just not working out for Obama. The hope and change he was talking about is not the hope and change most Americans want. He's weak on terror and the terrorists KNOW it.

By the time Bush had this much time in office, there were 3000 dead Americans on American soil.

Before 9-11, "I think Clinton has a fixation concerning Bin Laden".

Six months after 9-11, "Bin Laden is not a concern of mine!".

And how did Bush salute the Saudi Princes?

saudi arabia oil prince kiss george w bush on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[QUENTIN]

Who in their right mind would have thought that people would hijack planes and fly them into buildings - deliberately? Until it happened, it was incomprehensible to any sane person.

Yeah. Who would have thought?

Oh, just the FBI, CIA, National Security Council, and Bush's CIA Director and Chief Counter-Terrorism Adviser.

Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

On July 10, 2001 CIA Director George Tenet held an "emergency meeting" with Condoleeza Rice to warn her of an impending attack by Al Qaeda. She suggested he brief Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. Ashcroft brought up the concern at a National Security Council meeting (because the Cabinet-level position of counter-terrorism chief had been stripped), where according to Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to the Secretary of State, it was dismissed because "the Bush team thought the Clintonites had become obsessed with terrorism." There really could not have been more writing on the wall, more dire warnings, more notice that this Bin Laden guy was "determined to strike in the U.S." soon, in a plan modeled after the '93 WTC bombing, likely using "hijacked airplanes." But it was completely ignored by anyone with the authority to actually act on it.

As for Clinton, he could have done more there's no doubt and also not have blown up a vaccination factory in Sudan that led to widespread hatred of America there and hundreds of thousands of deaths, as well as a primary spark in the fire that became the Darfur genocide. But he focused more on terrorism than any previous president.

On December 24, 2000, The Washington Post did a story on the Clinton Administration's focus on counter-terrorism. He created a Cabinet-level counter-terrorism position (which Bush then removed upon taking office) and successfully thwarted the Jan 2000 "Millenium Attack" plots by Al Qaeda to attack LAX airport., Jordan, and an American warship near-simultaneously. The Post asked the Reagan Adinistration's top two counter-terrorism officials how they would rate Clinton's performance. "Overall, I give them very high marks," Robert Oakley said, "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama." Oakley's successor as ambassador for counter-terrorism in the Reagan admin, L. Paul Bremer, disagreed slightly. He believed the Clinton administration "correctly focused on Bin Laden." Clinton tripled the counter-terrorism budget and thwarted over a dozen major terrorist plots (against the UN, the pope, 12 commercial airliners, the American embassy in Albania, etc.) The Post's report concluded, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him." His administration was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

The past four former presidents all played a role in allowing 9/11 to happen. Reagan armed, funded, gave CIA training and support to Osama bin Laden's muhajadeen and supporting the Taliban militarily, monetarily, and diplomatically while they killed all the moderate Afghani civilians and poured acid in the faces of women who dared to go outside without a male family member accompanying them. Cause it was more important to have a proxy war with the crumbling USSR and that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" business always works out. GHW Bush, after he funded and armed the violent Muslim extremists and Taliban, decided that once the Cold War was over our agreements with Afghanistan didn't matter anymore. We abandoned Afghanistan, cut off more than 80% of our humanitarian aid (200,000 children died in Afghanistan over the next ten years from starvation, lack of clean water, and preventable diseases we were preventing while they were fighting the Soviets), and just let it fester. Hey the Russians were gone, how much trouble could Afghanistan really cause us, right? Clinton's counter-terrorism failures were the first WTC bombing, which if we want to talk inherited, happened 38 days into his presidency and the homegrown attack by two right-wing anti-government extremists in Oklahoma City. He also issued a presidential directive ordering the assassination of Bin Laden following the embassy bombing in Kenya, but obviously that was never carried out. The Bush Administration's failing on the subject are well-documented and while there is some blame to go around, it's pretty clear it falls far heaviest upon his shoulders.

 

[QUENTIN]

Heh, you start a post, find your citations, get up make breakfast, come back and finish up and it seems someone else has already had the same idea and knew about a certain pesky urgent warning that was completely ignored.