Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush

[CrusaderFrank]

Huh? Did you read what you posted?\\

RULED OUT, dumbass!

Slow on the uptake there Jeny. I baited about the Anthrax attacks so somebody could say that it was never proven who did it. That way I could post that the Bush Administration really wanted it linked to Al Qaeda or at least someone from "The Middle East."

The Anthrax was weaponized and could only have been made at a bioweapons lab.

 

[The T]

For my lib amigos and amigas.

What Dana said (as she said it) is wrong.

Of course there was a terrorist attack on America by Islamic terrorists during President Bush's tenure as President.

Are you guys REALLY of the opinion that she was denying that, though?

Oh brother.

Not ONE of you is willing to acknowledge that she merely misspoke and instead INTENDED to be making the claim for what hapened here AFTER 9/11/2001?

That's pathetic . . .

of you libs.

Exactly!

Stoopid desperate libs. They'll glom onto anything to further their views.

Even bullshit like this.

*yawn*

Exactly. Two words to describe them : petulant children. And if they don't appreciate that asessment? Then I'd suggest that they cease the behaviour.

 

[NYcarbineer]

9/11 was a criminal act, at least that what Holder and Obama are saying

If that serves as the new rationale, why did we go to war over a criminal attack? Why can't we try those responsible in criminal court?

September 11 was nothing if not a terrorist attack. Dana doesn't know about the Cuban Missile crisis or terrorism. And yet she served as the idiot Bush's press secretary! Wow!

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

 

[WillowTree]

A maistake was made, but those on the right do not seem to be able to admit to that.

No asswipe, we know the attack happened on President Bush watch as a direct result of the dick swing clinton's inept handling of the situation for 8 years, he treated them like criminals just like your current elected asswipe is choosing to do. btw the current asswipe has had one already and we are counting. Kerry ON

So how could Clinton have prevented 9/11? By invading Iraq?

so how could Bush have prevented 9/11?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If that serves as the new rationale, why did we go to war over a criminal attack? Why can't we try those responsible in criminal court?

September 11 was nothing if not a terrorist attack. Dana doesn't know about the Cuban Missile crisis or terrorism. And yet she served as the idiot Bush's press secretary! Wow!

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

Yeah, again, we did that "treat terrorism as a criminal act" in 1993 after the first WTC attack and it doesn't work, I mean for the hometeam; jihadists and their fanatical supporters tend to like it

 

[The T]

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

Yeah, again, we did that "treat terrorism as a criminal act" in 1993 after the first WTC attack and it doesn't work, I mean for the hometeam; jihadists and their fanatical supporters tend to like it

Exactly. Keep the "Paper Tiger" image.

 

[The T]

If that serves as the new rationale, why did we go to war over a criminal attack? Why can't we try those responsible in criminal court?

September 11 was nothing if not a terrorist attack. Dana doesn't know about the Cuban Missile crisis or terrorism. And yet she served as the idiot Bush's press secretary! Wow!

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

They've already admitted to it, asked for their martyrdom. Why prolong the enivitable since Holder and OBAMA keep telling us they "will be found guilty..."?

What sense does this make again??

[Will we make them lifetime residents on the Government dole in PRISON]?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Something about this thread doesn't jove.

 

[jillian]

Stoopid desperate libs. They'll glom onto anything to further their views.

maybe we should rehash all of your stellar posts.... then we can really amuse ourselves analyzing someone who "glom onto anything to further [her] views".

 

[The T]

Something about this thread doesn't jove.

By jove (!) I think you've got it!

 

[Mr. Peepers]

so how could Bush have prevented 9/11?

Clinton left strong warnings and intelligence to the Bush administration and briefed them on the importance and it was all but ignored for 9 whole months. Maybe if someone had paid attention, the whole thing could have been averted.

President Bush. It is quite true that nobody predicted Sept. 11—that nobody guessed in advance how and when the attacks would come. But other things are true too. By last summer, many of those in the know—the spooks, the buttoned-down bureaucrats, the law-enforcement professionals in a dozen countries—were almost frantic with worry that a major terrorist attack against American interests was imminent.

TIME Magazine: Before Sept. 11 — The Secret History

 

[jillian]

For my lib amigos and amigas.

What Dana said (as she said it) is wrong.

Of course there was a terrorist attack on America by Islamic terrorists during President Bush's tenure as President.

Are you guys REALLY of the opinion that she was denying that, though?

Oh brother.

Not ONE of you is willing to acknowledge that she merely misspoke and instead INTENDED to be making the claim for what hapened here AFTER 9/11/2001?

That's pathetic . . .

of you libs.

what's pathetic is i've never seen anyone on the right acknowledge that we were attacked on Bush's watch.

i can just imagine the 2,000 spam threads if we were attacked now.

 

[Darkwind]

If that serves as the new rationale, why did we go to war over a criminal attack? Why can't we try those responsible in criminal court?

September 11 was nothing if not a terrorist attack. Dana doesn't know about the Cuban Missile crisis or terrorism. And yet she served as the idiot Bush's press secretary! Wow!

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

Splitting hairs. A lawyer would be proud of the way you couched that sentence.

He has committed crimes. War crimes, and precedence says that he should be tried in a Military Tribunal.

What do you leftists have against Military Tribunals? Afraid the defendant will be found guilty?

 

[Rozman]

I've heard this lady before. You really should be truthful here. They must have been talking about the days after 9-11. The first President to have a terrorist attack committed on US soil after 9-11. Well that distinction belongs to our current President. The terrorist act,well that's the attack on our soldiers at Ft.Hood Texas.

 

[Darkwind]

I've heard this lady before. You really should be truthful here. They must have been talking about the days after 9-11. The first President to have a terrorist attack committed on US soil after 9-11. Well that distinction belongs to our current President. The terrorist act,well that's the attack on our soldiers at Ft.Hood Texas.

Technically, Clinton was the first president to have a terrorist attack on the contiguous United States.

He was just clueless. 9-11-01 was the second.....There was no other until just last month.

 

[beowolfe]

that's the thing about wing nuts. They lie and fully expect their supporters to take it as the truth.........and a lot of them do.

 

[CurveLight]

Dana Perino: "We Did Not Have a Terrorist Attack on Our Country During President Bush's Term"

Now I've heard of revisionist history but REALLY?

I guess Dana has never heard of that whole September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack.

Hey stupid, she was referring to the years after 9/11.

What about the terrorist attack on 7/27/08?

 

[CurveLight]

Ask Dana how many states there are in the USA.

Obama and Holder are saying it was a criminal act and belongs in criminal court. If it was a "terrorist attack" as you allege why are we bringing KSM to a Criminal Court?

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

Splitting hairs. A lawyer would be proud of the way you couched that sentence.

He has committed crimes. War crimes, and precedence says that he should be tried in a Military Tribunal.

What do you leftists have against Military Tribunals? Afraid the defendant will be found guilty?

How can War crimes be committed by individuals not associated with a State? Uniformed military?

 

[CurveLight]

I've heard this lady before. You really should be truthful here. They must have been talking about the days after 9-11. The first President to have a terrorist attack committed on US soil after 9-11. Well that distinction belongs to our current President. The terrorist act,well that's the attack on our soldiers at Ft.Hood Texas.

Stop spreading emotionally based rumors. If Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack then so was Columbine.

 

[The T]

If KSM didn't commit a criminal act then we have no legitimate cause to impose a criminal penalty on him.

Splitting hairs. A lawyer would be proud of the way you couched that sentence.

He has committed crimes. War crimes, and precedence says that he should be tried in a Military Tribunal.

What do you leftists have against Military Tribunals? Afraid the defendant will be found guilty?

How can War crimes be committed by individuals not associated with a State? Uniformed military?

Who says they have to be uniformed. The mere act and subsequent words from UBL had confirmed it. Are you this dense normally?

Remember the 9/11 Commission that stated that AQ and other radical Islamists were at war with us at the time and we didn't recognize it for what it was?

Dig a bit. It will serve you well.