Dick Cheney should really stop playing the blame game.

[Vast LWC]

Obama ran national security for the past year. He had everything to do with it.

Let's see right before Obama the country was safe 7 years, Obama takes over and we have had 3 terrorist attacks in the US, within a year.

During the whole time, Obama promises to undo Bush's security measures, i.e. enhanced interrorgation techniques, even threatening to prosecuting these hero CIA agents, giving terrorists "rights", lets afghanistan go to hell, doesn't take the war in Iraq seriously, and his security of homeland security, doesn't even acknowledge that we we are dealing with terrorists.

Putting the accuracy of your statements aside for the moment....

Which of those actions were specifically responsible for the failure to identify the "Christmas Bomber"?

 

[Meister]

And just what is your messiah's plan....bring terrorists to civilian courts.

Judge tosses out most evidence on Gitmo detainee - National - NewsObserver.com
A federal judge has tossed out most of the government's evidence against a tarrorism detainee on grounds his confessions were coerced, allegedly by U.S. forces, before he became a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

Please tell all of us just what obama is doing different other than having combatants have the same rights as citizens of this great nation.

NOTHING. That is my point.

My point is that Obama has done nothing to change the existing Bush anti-terror measures. And certainly nothing that would have affected the Christmas Bomber case.

Which means that if Obama is to be held at fault for the "Christmas Bomber", then 9/11 is Bush and Cheney's fault.

THAT'S MY ONLY POINT thoughout this conversation, is that you can't have one without the other, logically.

I'm not even saying that Bush and Cheney are responsible for 9/11, because I personally don't believe they are. I'm just saying that you can't point the finger for one instance without pointing the same accusing finger at the other.

By the way doofus, there is no way to completely protect America from future attacks....even YOUR MESSIAH can't make a promise like that.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, there is NO WAY to completely protect America from terrorist attacks.

Whats the answer, Vast? What is the answer? The terrorists are still trying and succeeding under the messiah in our country. Even after all his ass kissing, and rhetoric, he can't even seal his goods.

What "ass-kissing"? What terrorist has President Obama given "ass-kissing" to? Why don't you put your moronic talking-points and rhetoric aside and look at the logic here?

By the way, I will criticize anyone or about anything I like.
You and your ilk I'm sure were doing it for 8 years, then you have the balls to hammer on conservatives about it. I laugh at your pathetic ass.

And when you make a criticism that's hypocritical, I will point it out.

And I will sure as hell be happy to point out where your criticism implicates your own "Messiah", or at least was the "messiah" for you all until he showed everyone what an utter incompetent moron he really was, LOL.

I'm no big fan of Geo. Bush...if anyone wants to blame him, be my guest. I'm certainly not in lockstep with the republicans, as most of the liberals on this board are with the messiah.
Bush set up security measures to help protect the United States in the future after 9-11-2001. This COULD be known as a reference point. With the drawers bomber, there was a big lapse in security on our end, there were plenty of warnings before Christmas that this guy was a bad guy. We have a no-fly list, and this guy should have been on it...and wasn't.Yet. Britain did something about it, but nobody connected dots on our end. That is a fail for the US, and is unacceptable. Obama picked his people for positions in his administration, and if they failed, so does he.

obama has been kissing ass where ever he goes, and especially in the middle east. You will find out that the current messiah is every bit a moron as the last one. I'm sure you will never admit it, but the writing on the wall is in front of you, and your looking back.

 

[CMike]

Obama ran national security for the past year. He had everything to do with it.

Let's see right before Obama the country was safe 7 years, Obama takes over and we have had 3 terrorist attacks in the US, within a year.

During the whole time, Obama promises to undo Bush's security measures, i.e. enhanced interrorgation techniques, even threatening to prosecuting these hero CIA agents, giving terrorists "rights", lets afghanistan go to hell, doesn't take the war in Iraq seriously, and his security of homeland security, doesn't even acknowledge that we we are dealing with terrorists.

Putting the accuracy of your statements aside for the moment....

Which of those actions were specifically responsible for the failure to identify the "Christmas Bomber"?

The intelligence failure not to investigate him further, when his father turned him in. He probably should have been detained and interrogated.

 

[Vast LWC]

I'm no big fan of Geo. Bush...if anyone wants to blame him, be my guest. I'm certainly not in lockstep with the republicans, as most of the liberals on this board are with the messiah.
Bush set up security measures to help protect the United States in the future after 9-11-2001. This COULD be known as a reference point. With the drawers bomber, there was a big lapse in security on our end, there were plenty of warnings before Christmas that this guy was a bad guy. We have a no-fly list, and this guy should have been on it...and wasn't.Yet. Britain did something about it, but nobody connected dots on our end. That is a fail for the US, and is unacceptable. Obama picked his people for positions in his administration, and if they failed, so does he.

obama has been kissing ass where ever he goes, and especially in the middle east. You will find out that the current messiah is every bit a moron as the last one. I'm sure you will never admit it, but the writing on the wall is in front of you, and your looking back.

While there is something to be said for the "it happened on his watch" argument, my argument here is not that. To the extent that it did happen on Obama's watch, it is somemwhat his fault, just as since 9/11 happened on Bush's watch it is somewhat his fault.

But that is different from saying Obama caused it to happen, or Bush caused it to happen, by intentionally weakening the things that would have otherwise stopped the actions in question.

I don't think either administration caused either event to happen.

The only thing I am trying to point out through this entire thread is that if you consider one adminsitration to be "at fault" for one instance then the logical conclusion is that the other administration is at fault for the other instance.

And that Dick Cheney is a giant hypocrite for being one of the primary Obama critics in this matter.

 

[Vast LWC]

The intelligence failure not to investigate him further, when his father turned him in. He probably should have been detained and interrogated.

And said intelligence failure was not due to any of the supposed factors you listed, so....?

 

[CMike]

The intelligence failure not to investigate him further, when his father turned him in. He probably should have been detained and interrogated.

And said intelligence failure was not due to any of the supposed factors you listed, so....?

Yes, I do. One of the points that I mentioned was Obama railing against the CIA doing its job effectively.

Guess who didn't properly investigate the panty bomber? The CIA.

Had they been more aggresive he would have been in Gitmo instead on the NWA flight.

 

[Vast LWC]

Yes, I do. One of the points that I mentioned was Obama railing against the CIA doing its job effectively.

Guess who didn't properly investigate the panty bomber? The CIA.

Had they been more aggresive he would have been in Gitmo instead on the NWA flight.

So, you're saying that since the CIA's boss, the President, criticized them, and told them they needed to do their job better, the CIA intentionally refused to do their job correctly?

Wow, that's a pretty giant stretch. It would also be criminal negligence.

And it's an utterly ludicrous conclusion.

Seriously, you need something better than that. LOL.

 

[Annie]

Here's your problem with premise. Bush, like Clinton had no intention of a war on al Quaeda or any foreign target. He was all about domestic agenda. So, when the 'memo' appeared, which was probably the 10 or 100th such, he saw nothing actionable. No specifics, got it?

Which is why, I, personally, don't hold Bush accountable for 9/11.

Then 9/11 happened and suddenly the dots flew in. All the hints from flight schools, etc., that had been shelved.

Well it happened and nearly 3k Americans died. 4 commercial jets were turned into missiles. Things changed.

Then Obama was elected and 'he realized that the changes had caused terrorism', so he went back to 9/10.

Which is an utterly false premise. Obama kept the EXACT same anti-terror intelligence structure Bush wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars creating, and no memo appeared on his desk at all.

So, again, if you say the "Chistmas Bomber" is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush's fault.

Here's an easy solution to your argument: Just admit that Obama wasn't "at fault" for the "Christmas Bomber", and the logic dilemma will magically dissappear!

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

 

[froggy]

Dick and Dubba should be taking the blame.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

Which is only evidence that they were in the process of nailing him when he tried to blow himself up.

What does that prove except that the bureacracy was just too thick with red tape, and has been even after all the trillions of dollars spent on fixing the system?

Certainly Obama has not introduced any additional red tape into the process of investigation, and definitely not where this case is concerned.

 

[CMike]

Yes, I do. One of the points that I mentioned was Obama railing against the CIA doing its job effectively.

Guess who didn't properly investigate the panty bomber? The CIA.

Had they been more aggresive he would have been in Gitmo instead on the NWA flight.

So, you're saying that since the CIA's boss, the President, criticized them, and told them they needed to do their job better, the CIA intentionally refused to do their job correctly?

Wow, that's a pretty giant stretch. It would also be criminal negligence.

And it's an utterly ludicrous conclusion.

Seriously, you need something better than that. LOL.

You got it backwards. Obama didn't tell them that they needed to do their jobs better, just not to do their jobs effectively.

Obama threatened to prosecute CIA agents who were "rough" with terrorists, who got infomration to stop a terrorist attack of flying a plane into a LA building.

He made it clear to CIA agents to be nice nice to terrorists. Well, guess what? Playing nice nice to terrorists doesn't work. I am sure he scared CIA operatives from doing what needs to be done to stop terrorist attacks

I can't tell you specifically what happened because we don't have access to that information. However, what I do know is from the moment he got in, he was ranting about dissembeling the safeguards that Pres. Bush put in.

Effectively interrogating terrorists

Apprehending terrorists no matter where they

Aggresively putting terrorists under surveillance

Protecting intelligence agencies from terrorists and their lawyers getting critical information

The war in afghanistan

The war in Iraq

I only know what Obama said. Those were the major points that he made. I presume he implemented what he said in detail. I don't have the details because we don't have access to it.

 

[CMike]

Here's your problem with premise. Bush, like Clinton had no intention of a war on al Quaeda or any foreign target. He was all about domestic agenda. So, when the 'memo' appeared, which was probably the 10 or 100th such, he saw nothing actionable. No specifics, got it?

Which is why, I, personally, don't hold Bush accountable for 9/11.

Then 9/11 happened and suddenly the dots flew in. All the hints from flight schools, etc., that had been shelved.

Well it happened and nearly 3k Americans died. 4 commercial jets were turned into missiles. Things changed.

Then Obama was elected and 'he realized that the changes had caused terrorism', so he went back to 9/10.

Which is an utterly false premise. Obama kept the EXACT same anti-terror intelligence structure Bush wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars creating, and no memo appeared on his desk at all.

So, again, if you say the "Chistmas Bomber" is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush's fault.

Here's an easy solution to your argument: Just admit that Obama wasn't "at fault" for the "Christmas Bomber", and the logic dilemma will magically dissappear!

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

Also unlike 911, Obama had the specifics of this threat and didn't deal with it.

 

[CMike]

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

Which is only evidence that they were in the process of nailing him when he tried to blow himself up.

What does that prove except that the bureacracy was just too thick with red tape, and has been even after all the trillions of dollars spent on fixing the system?

Certainly Obama has not introduced any additional red tape into the process of investigation, and definitely not where this case is concerned.

It proves that he should have been apprehended in Yemen, along with his terrorist buddies.

He should have been under surveillance, he should have been detained, he should be questioned using "enhanced interrogation techniques", and the plot along with his accomplises should be in Gitmo.

 

[Vast LWC]

You got it backwards. Obama didn't tell them that they needed to do their jobs better, just not to do their jobs effectively.

Obama threatened to prosecute CIA agents who were "rough" with terrorists, who got infomration to stop a terrorist attack of flying a plane into a LA building.

He made it clear to CIA agents to be nice nice to terrorists. Well, guess what? Playing nice nice to terrorists doesn't work. I am sure he scared CIA operatives from doing what needs to be done to stop terrorist attacks

I can't tell you specifically what happened because we don't have access to that information. However, what I do know is from the moment he got in, he was ranting about dissembeling the safeguards that Pres. Bush put in.

Effectively interrogating terrorists

Apprehending terrorists no matter where they

Aggresively putting terrorists under surveillance

Protecting intelligence agencies from terrorists and their lawyers getting critical information

The war in afghanistan

The war in Iraq

I only know what Obama said. Those were the major points that he made. I presume he implemented what he said in detail. I don't have the details because we don't have access to it.

This entire statement is based compleltely on assumption and faulty logic.

and this part of the statement:

"I can't tell you specifically what happened because we don't have access to that information. However, what I do know is from the moment he got in, he was ranting about dissembeling the safeguards that Pres. Bush put in."

Is simply speaking from between your buttocks.

When you make a compleltely unsubstantiated statement like this, you need to provide specific quotes, and links. You see, most people aren't like the average ditto-head, we don't just "take your word for it".

Again: How, specifically, did giving Miranda Rights to terrorists or stopping the torture of terrorists, have to do with the failure to stop the "Christmas Bomber" from getting on that airplane? What are the exact connections that you are drawingn to go from a to b. Google is an excellent tool, if such connections exist, right-wingers would have been all over them, so surely you can find us some examples.

 

[Vast LWC]

Which is why, I, personally, don't hold Bush accountable for 9/11.



Which is an utterly false premise. Obama kept the EXACT same anti-terror intelligence structure Bush wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars creating, and no memo appeared on his desk at all.

So, again, if you say the "Chistmas Bomber" is Obama's fault, then 9/11 is Bush's fault.

Here's an easy solution to your argument: Just admit that Obama wasn't "at fault" for the "Christmas Bomber", and the logic dilemma will magically dissappear!

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

Also unlike 911, Obama had the specifics of this threat and didn't deal with it.

Obama didn't have the specifics of anything at all. No-one had put any memo on his desk with a threat in this matter, specific or other wise.

Unlike 9/11, when Bush had in fact been alerted, with a memo, on his desk.

 

[Annie]

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

Also unlike 911, Obama had the specifics of this threat and didn't deal with it.

Obama didn't have the specifics of anything at all. No-one had put any memo on his desk with a threat in this matter, specific or other wise.

Unlike 9/11, when Bush had in fact been alerted, with a memo, on his desk.

You KNOW this how?

 

[Meister]

Hello???? They KNEW country of origin. They KNEW name of bomber. Indeed they knew it so well they've admitted to wanting to questioning him upon landing, however events interceded, causing him to get a lawyer.

Also unlike 911, Obama had the specifics of this threat and didn't deal with it.

Obama didn't have the specifics of anything at all. No-one had put any memo on his desk with a threat in this matter, specific or other wise.

Unlike 9/11, when Bush had in fact been alerted, with a memo, on his desk.

Yeah right...just like clinton was alerted. A lot of alerts, but no specifics is no alert.

 

[CurveLight]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

"But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

Are you that dumb you just proved there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and you don't realize it?

 

[CurveLight]

Curve don't you know by now that when you misquote stuff I am going to find it, post it, and you are going to look like an idiot?

From the 911 Report

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

?But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship"

Bent doesn't give a fuck what it ACTUALLY says. When he deliberately misquotes something, well, by golly, that's what they SHOULD have said!

There you go again whining about dumb shit. I said the CR said there was no relationship between alkida and iraq and he reinforced that was true. You guys are fucked up when you look at something that clearly proves you are wrong only to claim that same evidence says you are correct.

 

[CurveLight]

Are you talking about collateral damages or are you talking about the Al Qaida terrorists we killed that had nothing to do with Al Qaida?

You are simply one stupid mother fucker. Even the 9/11 Commission pointed out there was no relationship between iraq and alkida. My guess is you will now reference the Bush admin invented term of "alkida in iraq." They made up that term just to fool dumbasses like you into believing alkida was in iraq. The groups was made up mostly of iraqis. What the fuck else you got? Oh yeah. Yo punk ass wants to hide behind the "collateral damage" phrase. Fuck your dishonesty. Fuck your punk pussy ass for pretending to care about the US. You don't give a fuck about america. The only difference between pussies like you and alkida terrorists is they follow up on their rhetoric. You're nothing but a self induced ignorant fuckwad and you don't have the first fucking clue about what is happening. You stupid ****. When you purposefully drop bombs you are purposefully killing everyone with the range.

Do you have any idea how fucking sick and stupid it is to try and defend our actions of killing civilians with a stupid fucking phrase? Do you? I don't think you do. You're just another ignorant **** that wants to justify all the sick shit we do. Fuck off you hypocrite. Let me know when you are capable of being honest.

Wow, you sure can tell when the ignorant ones start to post. If you don't have the facts....you don't resort to lying as you have, then back it up with a post like this. Stick your tail between your legs and just wait for the next ass whooping.

Looks like curv...I mean lightweight had a meltdown.
When confronted with facts all he had was a post like this. my, my. Mommy should soap out a mouth like that.

Figures a **** like you would focus on the petty shit and whine about that