|

The odd argument that George W. Bush kept America safe — except, of course, for the attacks of 9/11

bush_shrug2

THIS is like saying that a certain fertilizer plant in West, Texas, has a pretty good safety record — if you don’t count that big explosion the other day:

An odd argument that President George W. Bush kept America safe from terrorism “except for 9/11″ made its way to the House floor Wednesday, coming from Rep. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.).

The claim resurfaced on the right immediately after the Boston bombings, and made its way back into conservative punditry in the days that followed, Steve Benen reported.

As Benen and others have noted, it’s hard to ignore the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11 and the hundreds who have been killed since in tallying Bush’s terrorism record. But the “since 9/11″ count also leaves out the 2002 shooting at the Los Angeles International Airport, the anthrax attacks after 9/11, the recent ricin letters, the Richard Reid shoe bombing, and the D.C.-area snipers.

Cotton tried to narrow the parameters to make his case accurate, specifying “jihadists” who “reached their targets.”

By that accounting, the Bush record on terror attacks was perfect. Obama, meanwhile, has racked up five terror attacks, notwithstanding that two of the plots Cotton cited — the Times Square bombing and the underwear bombing — failed.

——–

And then there’s THIS:

I’m not sure Republican pundits have fully thought through the wisdom of the “other than 9/11″ argument.Bush received an intelligence briefing on Aug. 6, 2001, at which he was handed a memo with an important headline: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”

Bush, however, was on a month-long vacation at the time. He heard the briefer out and replied, “All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.” A month later, al Qaeda killed 3,000 people.

Share:

46 Comments

  1. Brian Opsahl

    Republicans like do it this way..?
    GW Bush was a great President after 911 Yada,Yada,Yada …!!

  2. I wonder if that briefing is on display at his presidential library.

  3. Neftali

    Liberals: What could have been done to stop the 9/11 attacks?

  4. Neftali nailed it.

    Answer the question boys.

    H0w do you think an announcement of the war on terror would have been viewed if we hadn’t lived through 9/11/2001?

    Liberals pitched a fit AFTER the attacks. They would have absolutely stroked out if some of the anti-terror intiatives would have begun before any attack of the magnitude of 9/11 had happened.

  5. Brian Opsahl

    Bill Clinton was laubing tomahawks at him narrowly missing by some 30 minutes…on 3 differant ocassions….then the republicans would take to the house floor to addmonish him like wag the dog.

    Or when Condy Rice gave him that memo that warned him that an attack was eminate,and he sat on it till that fatefull day….you mean them..?

  6. Brian Opsahl

    Today you have republicans saying on the house floor that it is Obama’s fault…for that Boston bobming, You truly have a bunch of rotten lousey anti-American hateful assbags in your party you know that..

  7. Neftali

    Brian – Yeah….Clinton did a real good job of preventing the first World Trade Center bombing, and he did an equally good job of preventing the USS Cole bombing.

    This isn’t about the opinions of a few lowly Congressmen. I could spam you up to your eyeballs on a daily basis about the stupid things I hear from various liberals in Congress. Its about the strategy of US Presidents.

    Now answer the question.

  8. The “war on terror” was a rhetorical phrase developed by Bush and the GOP to keep the US at a constant state of “war” and help pass such insane legislation as the Patriot Act and to keep Americans in a constant state of fear. And, by and large, it’s worked. You can never “defeat” terror. It’s always existed and it always will. That’s the price we pay for living in a free society. Let’s face it, little could have been done, most likely, to prevent 9/11. However, Bush had actionable intelligence in his hands, in plenty of time to take action, and he failed. Period.

  9. Brian Opsahl

    Wow,Nef…and here I thought that guy was in prison…oh yea he is..isnt he doing like 5 life terms….? the Cole bombing at least was a military target. was it not..?

    You guys keep wanting everybody to look elsewhere than the idiot Bush and truly I do see why..but the excuses are becoming a joke…that’s on you guy’s…!!

  10. expdoc, neftali, from what I’ve read, several FBI agents were aware of some of the hijackers learning just certain aspects of piloting jets, which caused them to be suspicious of their intentions but their superiors didn’t allow them to follow up on those leads. This info is very common knowledge and happened well before the 911 attacks. Lots of indicators something was about to happen were there, that were not followed up on.

    What I find odd about the latest event in Boston is, these guys were on the radar of the FBI and Russia contacted the American authorities about these guys too. I’m really surprised they didn’t have knowledge of their internet activities and a deeper level of oversight on these two, especially for the searches about making bombs. These young men didn’t appear to me to be that savvy to hide their tracks, considering they didn’t do much to avoid detection from all the camera’s that are in place just about everywhere these days.

  11. Neftali

    Brian – I asked what could be done to prevent it. Not what happened afterwards. Get a clue, man!

    monkey – Bush also created the Department of Homeland Security, which was the most significant government reorganization since the Cold War, and the most substantial reorganization of federal agencies since the National Security Act of 1947. After reviewing this list, I’d say they were fairly successful.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foiled_Islamic_terrorist_plots_in_the_post-9/11_United_States

    Robert – Your statement sounds like a bunch of Captain Hindsight garbage.

  12. Brian Opsahl

    Don’t complain about the deficit then,because as you already know Bush blew-up the deficit to pay for all these American restrictions he came up with,and didyou know that you can be on the terrorist no fly list,but you can still go out and buy 50 pounds of high explosives without a BACKGROUND check…sad…isnt it republicans….who work for the NRA and corporate America..again very sad.

    You asked and I answerd….if the republicans had stopped the wag the dog crap…maybe one of those tomahawks land on him…?
    or if bush paid attention to those memos from Condi….just maybe..Nef

  13. Neftali, If you want to play that game, what could have been done to prevent the Boston attack?

  14. Neftali

    Robert – I have no idea what could have been done to prevent the Boston attack. I don’t buy this talk about how Russia warned the FBI, etc, etc. I imagine there are thousands of potential terrorists out there that our various Federal agencies are monitoring. Hard to keep track of everything and prevent every possible type of terrorist attack. Sometimes really bad stuff just happens. But then, I’m not placing any blame on the President, I never have and never will. On the other hand, you liberals appear to be placing blame on Bush which is absurd.

    Brian – You keep on going on these wild tangents. You need medication.

  15. Liberals haven’t blamed GWB for 9/11. However, we do push back whenever a wingnut says, “he kept us safe AFTER 9/11″ which is simply a ludicrous argument. You cannot have it both ways.

  16. Neftali

    monkey – your buddy Brian is blaming GWB, but then he’s more nutty than most. But we can certainly have it both ways. Does anyone one think that Al Gore, or anyone else would have prevented 9/11 if they were President? No one rational does. But based upon my wikipedia link above listing the number of foiled terrorist attacks, an argument can indeed be made that Bush kept us safe.

  17. “Liberals pitched a fit AFTER the attacks. They would have absolutely stroked out if some of the anti-terror intiatives would have begun before any attack of the magnitude of 9/11 had happened.”

    So what you are saying is without 9/11 the politicians would of had a hard time passing things like the patroit act? So at the cost of 3,000 people politicians got what they wanted.

    Now we are looking at passing laws like pipa, cispa, and and sopa. All laws that will effect internet use and we just happen to have two yahoos that learned everything they know from the internet. Pretty convenient for those wanting to restrict our rights even more wouldn’t u say.

  18. The PNAC said without a Pearl Harbor type event, all their goals would not be achievable, voila, 911 and The Patriot Act is whipped in out in how many days.

  19. Brian Opsahl

    Nef,

    I have never once blamed GW Bush for the attacks as in it’s his fault,what I have said over and ,over is …..he did not pay close attention to the warnings he was getting,and he did not listen to folks from the Clinton administration also.

    The only person who’s fault 911 is …UBL the rat that planned it…and that’s it Nef..!!

    Show me where I say it’s Bushs fault…if NOT, it’s you who has the issues

  20. Brian,
    This sounds as though he was responsible,
    “Bush-was looking the other way when we lost over 3000 American lives during 911″

  21. UBL never planned 911. That was the ruse, but even the FBI most wanted list never ever said he was behind 911. For years after 911, his image was on that list as being behind other terrorists events, but not 911. His name was used as a boogyman. Pat can correct me if he thinks what I’m saying is wrong, but I’m quite certain I’ve posted old FBI wanted list that proved what I’m saying.

  22. The difference between 911 and the Boston event was plenty of information was available something big was coming. We’ve seen all the examples of info presenting that premise posted here and through the years on various websites. It was also noted how many of those warnings were just brushed off by the Bush Administration. Had they now brushed them off and 911 still happened, at least they could have shown they were on top of the info they were getting as best possible.

    With the Boston event, the FBI knew the older man was a possible threat and were not keeping up on his activities even though Russian security agencies (who share info with our agencies) had informed us of his activities while he was in Russia. In the Boston event, from what I know, Obama and his administration hadn’t been given the fore-warnings as the Bush administration had been given.

    But still, no one can fully be prepared for such events unless they had the person under 24 hour observation as I’m sure the FBI and NSA do have some people, but apparently they are not choosing their candidates for that level of surveillance carefully enough. Probably because their informants provide them with so much bogus info, they don’t have enough people power to follow up on all of them.

  23. Nef. . . make your irrational argument about “Bush kept us safe” to the friends and relatives of the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11. It makes no sense. It’s like saying, “well, after my house burned to the ground, the fire dept. kept us save by dousing the embers.”

    I’m not “blaming” Bush for 9/11. Did he have actionable intelligence upon which he failed to act prior to 9/11? Yes. We’ve covered that and it’s not in dispute. Does that necessarily blame him for the attacks? No. The nature of Osama’s decentralized organization is such that we could’ve taken out Osama and the attacks may still have occurred.

    But, you need to get off this “he kept us safe AFTER 9/11.” Well, Roosevelt prevented any more attacks on US soil, AFTER Pearl Harbor. That makes about as much sense as your argument.

  24. Neftali

    The simple fact is that after years of escalating terrorists attacks on the United States by foreign combatants, 9/11 hit the next President, and for him it was the last straw. Bush led an unparallelled attack against terrorist activities, and did indeed keep us safe.

    Another interesting article about Bush, especially for those egotistical people like Brian Opsahl who have the nerve to call him an idiot. According to a Standford Economics professor Keith Hennessey, Bush is smarter than you.

    “President Bush is extremely smart by any traditional standard. He’s highly analytical and was incredibly quick to be able to discern the core question he needed to answer. It was occasionally a little embarrassing when he would jump ahead of one of his Cabinet secretaries in a policy discussion and the advisor would struggle to catch up. He would sometimes force us to accelerate through policy presentations because he so quickly grasped what we were presenting.”

    “In addition to his analytical speed, what most impressed me were his memory and his substantive breadth. We would sometimes have to brief him on an issue that we had last discussed with him weeks or even months before. He would remember small facts and arguments from the prior briefing and get impatient with us when we were rehashing things we had told him long ago.”

    http://keithhennessey.com/2013/04/24/smarter/

  25. Invading a sovereign nation most assuredly increased the animosity among religious radicals. If Bush only used common sense, an atlas and a compass.

  26. Brian Opsahl

    Nef,

    You have been implying that 911 was Clinton’s fault so what game are you playing here.
    Stop trying to say what YOU think im saying. I have been clear as a bell on my opinions on this subject. let me say this again for you …of course I do NOT think 911 is GW’s fault…as I said before…got it..!!

  27. And don’t forget his lack of strategery.

  28. Nef. . . the more you post on this, the more desperate you become.

    I suppose the friends and families of the thousands of dead and injured US soldiers from the misguided Iraq war would probably agree that he kept us safe, right? That worked out really well for them, didn’t it? So glad that GWB used 9/11 as an excuse to lead an “uparallelled attack against terrorist activities” that weren’t really emanating from Iraq. Keep clawing at stuff here. I’m sure you’ll latch on to something eventually.

  29. Neftali

    monkey – Obviously you and the rest of your liberal clan have conveniently forgot about the events after 9/11. The Bush administration manged to put a halt on the world wide financial network used by terrorists. Then of course was the whole initial invasion of Afghanistan which in a period of 6 months wiped out all the Al-Qaeda strongholds in Kabul and other cities. It took over 2 years for the terrorists to regroup and since then they’ve essentially had to rely of guerrilla warfare tactics. In addition, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security plus the passage of the Patriot Act created a mini-crusade against the terrorists. That’s action. That’s leadership. Iraq is a totally separate incident. But you simple-minded liberals keep trying to equate the two.

    Now let’s look at a similar situation from the leftist angle in one of Pat’s favorite topics–Benghazi. Here is have an incident where the terrorist uprising was probably not preventable, but there was unquestionably a lack of leadership in what could have easily have prevented the deaths of non-combative US diplomats. Instead we have a series of failures and coverups. And most amazing of us, the left thinks that the person responsible and accountable for these failures should somehow be the next President.

    So there you have it. In summary, George W. Bush has proven to be a better leader Hilary Clinton.

  30. “So there you have it. In summary, George W. Bush has proven to be a better leader Hilary Clinton.”

    As I read that I thought of Edith Ann and put it in her voice and finished it with her signature ending.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhAS1qiuu1Q

  31. Neftali

    Dr. Krauthammer NAILS IT:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-bush-legacy/2013/04/25/b6de6efa-add8-11e2-8bf6-e70cb6ae066e_story.html?wprss=rss_opinions

    “Clare Boothe Luce liked to say that “a great man is one sentence.” Presidents, in particular. The most common “one sentence” for George W. Bush is: “He kept us safe.”

    Not quite right. With Bush’s legacy being reassessed as his presidential library opens in Dallas, it’s important to note that he did not just keep us safe. He created the entire anti-terror infrastructure that continues to keep us safe.

    That homage was paid, wordlessly, by Barack Obama, who vilified Bush’s anti-terror policies as a candidate, then continued them as president: indefinite detention, rendition, warrantless wiretaps, special forces and drone warfare, and, most notoriously, Guantanamo, which Obama so ostentatiously denounced — until he found it indispensable.”

    “Like Bush, Harry Truman left office widely scorned, largely because of the inconclusive war he left behind. In time, however, Korea came to be seen as but one battle in a much larger Cold War that Truman was instrumental in winning. He established the institutional and policy infrastructure (CIA, NATO, the Truman Doctrine, etc.) that made possible ultimate victory almost a half-century later. I suspect history will similarly see Bush as the man who, by trial and error but also with prescience and principle, established the structures that will take us through another long twilight struggle and enable us to prevail.”

  32. Brian Opsahl

    Nef,…really dude..!!

    So complain about those 5 Americans killed,but say a bunch of BS about those 100,000 THOUSAND killed in there homeland at there backyards,in town meetings,going to feed your family. Yea ok..you are getting more desperate by the day…!!

    if Blaming a Liberal is how your playing it then the word Commander in Chief means what to you…?

  33. Brian Opsahl

    When you use words like principle and prescience then add lying and decieving they call those oxy morons for a reason…take your meds and write me back…ok

  34. A positive spin from crazy Charles. Now we know Bush was an incompetent leader.

  35. Neftali

    Brian Opsahl – So none of those 100K attacked American Troops. None if those was involved in the Halabja poison gas attack. None of those involved actively supported the regime of a ruthless dictator. They were just nice people minded your own business. Once again, your comment makes zero sense. You must really love governments that massacre their own people. You should move to Chechnya, that appears to be more your cup of tea.

  36. Brian Opsahl

    Ah,you have resorted to insults…!!

    Your really grasping for straws here Nef, I am making zero sense, whlie you try and justify the killing of Thousands of people in THIER own Country in there own back yards,walking down the street minding there own business….it happened every single day over there because your idiot in Chief wanted to show his daddy he could do war better than daddy could…!! what other reason do you attack a Nation for..certinly not 911..!! and we all know Nef, those weapons were never found and that makes us the bully doesn’t it and thier are plenty of other Country’s that gas and kill there own…right..!!

  37. Brian, didn’t our govt through their corporate shills and as Donald Rumsfeld acting as the go between, sell Saddam the chemicals he used on the Kurds? That’s how we knew he had such weapons back in the early 80s.

  38. Brian Opsahl

    BINGO…we have a winner.ding,ding,ding, Thank You Robert….there is so much more….!

    Rumsfeld also said, and I quote …there are no good target’s in Afganistain…so instead he …fill in the blank…Nef…!

  39. Neftali

    You guys are pathetic. Now you are resorting to conspiracy theories. And the only people in that have even hinted about a link between 9/11 and Iraq in this thread is you liberals. And you give yourself a pat on the back thinking you’re so informed. Please.

    Let me spell it out for you real slowly, and for the last time cause I’m tired of constantly repeating myself to you numbskulls.

    We attacked Iraq because we thought, Republicans and Democrats alike combined with most of our allies, that Saddam Hussein continued to possess a real threat to the region because of the possible use of WMD’s. Yes, there ended up not being any. (for the most part) And yes, our interest in the region is critical, and yes it does have to do with oil. The potential of massive war in the Middle East would have severe economic repercussions world wide. Its not just about protecting family business. In the end, Iraq is better off. We are better off. The world is a better, and safer place because of our actions.

  40. Nef. . .

    The beautiful thing about the GOP echo chamber is that it’s a gift that keeps on giving. The same chamber was convinced that Romney would win the election, big, some even said. Yeah, he lost and pretty convincingly, too. You can continue to parrot the “he kept us safe” myth that’s now being propagated by the wingnuts in the echo chamber but in the end, you know it’s not the case.

    I’ve tried to explain it really slowly–even using simply analogies–to you, but it’s obviously not going to sink in. Believe what you want to believe about GWB as you celebrate the opening of his library and the beginning attempts to re-fashion his legacy into something beyond a mediocre to horrid presidency. If it makes you feel good to try to rehab the image of a president who was in charge during the worst attack on our soil EVER; two ill-planned and executed wars begun under dubious circumstances and put on the nation’s credit card; a massive expansion of government (HomeSec,TSA, etc), a crumbling economy; a ridiculous corporate bailout; the Patriot Act; and other too-numerous-too-mention trainwrecks, more power to you.

    Back in realityville post-Bush, the economy is finally showing signs of life, the stock market is booming, unemployment is slowly dropping, we’re finally getting out from under those two ridiculous wars and the American public is seeing that the GOP’s endless fascination with abortion, gay marriage and immigration is sending the party right off the cliff. Purge the far-right wingnuts from your party and you might have a shot in future elections.

    Have a good weekend!

  41. Brian Opsahl

    Ah…Nef..we attacked Iraq because we thought….that’s a big we there…so lets be a little more clear here sir…Bush attacked Iraq because he thought he could BS the house and the rest of us about those WMDs that he and Chenney made his cabinet friends look real hard at finding a reason to go there. It is a FACT that the intell folks (Richard Cook) told Bush that the reports about centerfuses and yellow cake where BS and Bush used the lie about the connection to Iraq intell and Mohammad Atta getting together in a picture that Chenney said on TV was them together…that is a proven lie Nef…proven lie’s that got over 100,000 thousand innocent people KILLED…Sir…! all based on PROVEN lie’s..

    If Iraq is better off without 100,000 of it’s people then your insane…sir

  42. Neftali,

    Arguing with a deranged person will only bring you pain.

    Let ‘em read this, they may actually seize up.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323789704578445232153839720.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

    Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 because he was not George W. Bush. In fact, he was elected because he was the farthest thing possible from Mr. Bush. On some level he knew this, which is why every time he got in trouble he’d say Bush’s name. It’s all his fault, you have no idea the mess I inherited. As long as Mr. Bush’s memory was hovering like Boo Radley in the shadows, Mr. Obama would be OK.

    This week something changed. George W. Bush is back, for the unveiling of his presidential library. His numbers are dramatically up. You know why? Because he’s the farthest thing from Barack Obama.

    Obama fatigue has opened the way to Bush affection.

    ***
    In all his recent interviews Mr. Bush has been modest, humorous, proud but unassuming, and essentially philosophical: History will decide. No finger-pointing or scoring points. If he feels rancor or resentment he didn’t show it. He didn’t attempt to manipulate. His sheer normality seemed like a relief, an echo of an older age.

    And all this felt like an antidote to Obama—to the imperious I, to the inability to execute, to the endless interviews and the imperturbable drone, to the sense that he is trying to teach us, like an Ivy League instructor taken aback by the backwardness of his students. And there’s the unconscious superiority. One thing Mr. Bush didn’t think he was was superior. He thought he was luckily born, quick but not deep, and he famously trusted his gut but also his heart. He always seemed moved and grateful to be in the White House. Someone who met with Mr. Obama during his first year in office, an old hand who’d worked with many presidents, came away worried and confounded. Mr. Obama, he said, was the only one who didn’t seem awed by his surroundings, or by the presidency itself.

  43. And this might make ‘em actually arrest.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/25/w-outclasses-barack-and-bill-without-even-trying/

    DALLAS — Shortly after Barack Obama was elected in 2008, a fellow reporter who’d covered President George W. Bush all eight years told me she’d had enough of the travel and stress and strain of the White House beat, that she was moving on.

    We reminisced about all the places we’d been, all the crazy days and wild nights, all the history we’d seen — first hand. Just before we said our goodbyes, I asked her if she’d miss covering President Obama.

    “Not at all. He’s an inch deep. Bush is a bottomless chasm, a deep, mysterious, emotional, profound man. Obama is all surface — shallow, obvious, robotic, and, frankly, not nearly as smart as he thinks. Bush was the one.”

    Her words, so succinct, have stuck with me ever since. By the way, she’s a hardcore Democrat.

    But she was right. And that contrast was apparent to all who watched Thursday’s ceremonial event to open W’s new presidential library in Dallas. The class and grace and depth of America’s last president completely outshined that of his successor (who, coincidentally, or perhaps not, was the only one seated in the shade on a sunny Texas day).

    *snip*

    But on Thursday, Mr. Obama skipped the praise he had laid on W the night before. “Whatever our political differences, President Bush loves this country and loves its people and shares that same concern and was concerned about all people in America, not just those who voted Republican. I think that’s true about him, and I think that’s true about most of us.”

    Except it’s not. Especially not this president. He has made his presidency about dividing America — along lines of class, sex, race, sexuality, you name it. Successful people are “the rich who need to pay their fair share.” Last week, he had a name for elected lawmakers who opposed his new gun laws — “liars.” And more than any president before him, he has set out to destroy the other party, casting Republicans as out of touch, archaic, maybe even racist.

    Then, finally, W took the podium. Gone were the punched phrases, the comfortable pauses, the perfect elocution of Barack and Bill. Back was the Texas drawl, the too-fast delivery — nerves? No, just impatience — that the wine-sipping media so deplored.

    *snip*

    But it was the end that gave us the truest glimpse of the man. Like so many other times, the power of America got to him. With tears in his eyes, his voice breaking, he said: “It’s the honor of a lifetime to lead a country as brave and as noble as the United States. Whatever challenges come before us, I will always believe our nation’s best day lie ahead.” By the end he was in tears, barely able to creak out: “God bless.”

    Then with a wink and a wave, he turned and went back to his chair. Leaning in to Laura, he said with a shrug, “Sorry.” Then he sat down, looking shell shocked. The 10,000-plus crowd was on its feet, cheering. That made him even more sheepish. He pawed at an escaping tear. Then he noticed the other presidents on their feet. So he stood back up, and held up three fingers — W.

    But there was one last classy move not many saw. The program nearly over, Sgt. 1st Class Alvy R. Powell Jr. came to the side of the stage to perform the “Star Spangled Banner.” A big, powerful black man, Mr. Powell belted out the anthem. With the crowd applauding, the sergeant moved along the line of people, shaking hands with all. After greeting W, he turned to go. But the 43rd president put his hand on the sergeant’s arm and said, “Stay,” just as a chaplain stepped forward to give a benediction.

    So the final tableau of the day: Five presidents, five first ladies, heads bowed in prayer. And Sgt. 1st Class Alvy R. Powell Jr. No one, really, just the man a president asked to “stay.”

  44. Neftali

    Brian – I try not to resort to using Godwin’s law, but I’ll make a conscious exception in this case.

    Is 1930’s Germany better off after WWII even though thousands of its own innocent people were killed by allied forces? Of course. Same thing applies to Iraq.

    As far as intelligence goes, for every person that said there wasn’t WMD’s, there was 6 more that thought it was there. Playing Captain Hindsight is always real easy after the truth is discovered. As for that quip about Cheney, I already disproved about Cheney in a different thread, but since you obviously lack intelligence and a memory, I’ll repeat myself. (again)

    “On September 10, 2006, Cheney responded to questions from Tim Russert about Atta in Prague on Meet the Press:

    MR. RUSSERT: Any suggestion there was a meeting with Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, with Iraqi officials?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. The sequence, Tim, was, when you and I talked that morning, we had not received any reporting with respect to Mohamed Atta going to Prague. Just a few days after you and I did that show, the CIA, CIA produced an intelligence report from the Czech Intelligence Service that said Mohammad Atta, leader of the hijackers, had been in Prague in April of ‘01 and had met with the senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. That was the first report we had that he’d been to Prague and met with Iraqis. Later on, some period of time after that, the CIA produced another report based on a photographer—on a photograph that was taken in Prague of a man they claim 70 percent probability was Mohammad Atta on another occasion. This was the reporting we received from the CIA when I responded to your question and said it had been pretty well confirmed that he’d been in Prague. The—later on, they were unable to confirm it. Later on, they backed off of it.

    But what I told you was exactly what we were receiving at the time. It never said, and I don’t believe I ever said, specifically, that it linked the Iraqis to 9/11. It specifically said he had been in Prague, Mohamed Atta had been in Prague and we didn’t know…

    MR. RUSSERT: And the meeting with Atta did not occur?

    VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. I mean, we’ve never been able to, to, to link it, and the FBI and CIA have worked it aggressively. I would say, at this point, nobody has been able to confirm..”

    So again,

    Again,

    Again,

    Again,

    Again,

    Again,

    Not a Lie.

    Not a Lie.

    Not a Lie.

    Not a Lie.

    Not a Lie.

    Its not a lie if you believe it to be true. A lie is when you know the truth, and you purposely set you to deceive. In this case, action was taken on evidence the vast majority of the intelligence community believed to be true. End of Story.

    My God, man. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

  45. Doh!
    “Also in this August 2002 interview, Clarke noted the Bush administration, in mid-January of 2001–before the 9/11 attack–decided to do two things to respond to the threat of terrorism: “One, to vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all the lethal covert action finds which we have now made public, to some extent; the second thing the administration decided to do was to initiate a process to look at these issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.”

    In other words, what Clarke was saying in 2002 to members of the press was that the Bush administration’s response to the war on terror was much more aggressive than it was under the Clinton years.

    Now he is singing an entirely different tune. This is a man who lacks credibility. He may be an intelligent man, he may be a dedicated public servant, but clearly he has a grudge of some sort against the Bush administration. If he was unable to develop a more robust response during the Clinton years, he would only be able to blame himself. He was in charge of counterterrorism during those 8 years. How could the Bush administration be to blame in 8 months for the previous administration’s failure over 8 years to truly declare war on al-Qaida?”

    http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/

  46. Brian Opsahl

    Funny you should ask that question Wilson…? you rail about Mr.Obama all the time should he be blamed for the 8 years of complete failure that Bush was.

    How could Bush addmin. be to blame in 8 months for the previous admin.failure over 8 years to truly declare war on Al-Qaida….so which is it …in YOUR own words Wilson …thanks for addmiting what I have been saying all along…trying to have it both ways are you…Yea gotha dude..!! nice try

    What now ….you going back to get personal again…hhhmmm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>