Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 189
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,259
    vCash
    1500

    But he kept us safe!!

    But he kept us safe!!

    Below Glenn Greenwald offers a great counter the whole "Bush/Cheney kept us safe" meme. I always hated that notion because it relies on what we don't know, and it pretends that 9/11 happened under some other guys watch. Why do these cats get a free pass for the most catastrophic act of terror ever perpetrated on US soil?

    But Greenwald makes a better point. If one concedes that that Bush/Cheney torture regime kept us safe, one must also conclude that Bill Clinton kept us safe, since the first WTC attack happened under his watch, and their were no more after it. This is really the only leg Bush-defenders have to stand on--"he kept us safe." But the last guy did that, and his foibles, while unfortunate, certainly don't rise to the "Heckuva job Brownie" level.

    VIDEO LINK: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540...23191#29023191
    (It's also embedded in the Coates piece)
    Ta-Nehisi Coates


    In addition to what Coates picks up on regarding the bunk "he kept us safe" argument, another very important point Greenwald makes in the interview is that part of what Cheney & Co. really are doing here is laying the groundwork for the public to blame Obama in the unfortunate event that another attack does take place, rather than rally around him in support as they did with Bush.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Eh, then there's the whole anthrax attack after 9/11. Along with sending our troops into Afghanistan and Iraq where they experienced daily terror attacks. And, you might as well throw the attacks on our allies in there as well (England, Spain, Bali, etc ...) that were all direct reflections in the greater WoT.

    Yea, I think it's probably an easier argument to make to say that "he" made the entire world a little more un-safe.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,589
    vCash
    1500
    You can't stop all terrorist attacks. It's impossible.

    GW made protecting the American people his #1 priority, and made Islamic fundamentalists his #1 target. I can't fault him too much for that.

    I won't get too specific because I'm tired of arguing this stuff.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    Mostly because it's an un-winnable argument.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    Ta-Nehisi Coates


    In addition to what Coates picks up on regarding the bunk "he kept us safe" argument, another very important point Greenwald makes in the interview is that part of what Cheney & Co. really are doing here is laying the groundwork for the public to blame Obama in the unfortunate event that another attack does take place, rather than rally around him in support as they did with Bush.
    I doubt people will rally around him like they did GW. If someting were to happen people will jump on him right away with how things like closing gitmo and releasing those imprisoned there shows he was soft on terorists.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Des Moines IA
    Posts
    9,701
    vCash
    1500
    I think a certain segment of the population would do that, sure. But, they're also looking for reasons not to support Obama to begin with. So, they obviously show up to the blame game with a predisposed prejudice. They'd be thrown off a jury in a heartbeat.

    In times of crisis, we have shown a propensity to rally around the title of "American."

    If and/or when a terrorist attack happens -- and seeing as how it's happened during the previous two administrations the odds are generally in favor of it (especially if Obama serves two terms) -- then it won't be Obama's fault any more than it was George Bush's or Bill Clinton's.

    W got the benefit of the doubt because his terror event was particularly tragic. But, he was given an opportunity -- Obama would be given one, too.
    Когда́ де́ньги говоря́т, тогда́ пра́вда молчи́т

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus View Post
    I think a certain segment of the population would do that, sure. But, they're also looking for reasons not to support Obama to begin with. So, they obviously show up to the blame game with a predisposed prejudice. They'd be thrown off a jury in a heartbeat.
    I doubt it, we already are aware of the threat, where as W or anyone for that matter at the time of 9/11, no one saw it coming. People would likely jump on that jury quickly.

    In times of crisis, we have shown a propensity to rally around the title of "American."
    Sure, but doing things like giving terrorists rights and closing prisons where they're kept will definately push people away from Obama.

    If and/or when a terrorist attack happens -- and seeing as how it's happened during the previous two administrations the odds are generally in favor of it (especially if Obama serves two terms) -- then it won't be Obama's fault any more than it was George Bush's or Bill Clinton's.
    Actually you could blame Clinton for 9/11 for not pushing harder to dismantle Bin Laden's organizations in the 90's.

    W got the benefit of the doubt because his terror event was particularly tragic. But, he was given an opportunity -- Obama would be given one, too.
    Not likely, we know it's possible for a terror event to happen unlike in 2001 where we were naive about it. Obama is pushing a pre 2001 agenda, which if something happens, will come back and bite him in the ***.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,589
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SmthBluCitrus View Post
    Mostly because it's an un-winnable argument.
    No. Mostly because it's the same argument I've been having with people for a handful of years.
    If and/or when a terrorist attack happens -- and seeing as how it's happened during the previous two administrations the odds are generally in favor of it (especially if Obama serves two terms) -- then it won't be Obama's fault any more than it was George Bush's or Bill Clinton's.
    That will be the perception though.
    W got the benefit of the doubt because his terror event was particularly tragic. But, he was given an opportunity -- Obama would be given one, too.
    The unprecedented nature of the attack had an effect as well.

    I agree with O'reilly on the main point though. If an attack happens, Obama is done. He'll have a tough time gaining back credibility.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,259
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Cubsrule View Post
    I doubt it, we already are aware of the threat, where as W or anyone for that matter at the time of 9/11, no one saw it coming.
    What, you never heard of the memo?

    If the same thing had happened on a Democratic president's watch, they'd have positively crucified him. Republicans, I guess, get a free pass becuase they're (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) "tough".
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by gcoll View Post
    No. Mostly because it's the same argument I've been having with people for a handful of years.

    That will be the perception though.

    The unprecedented nature of the attack had an effect as well.

    I agree with O'reilly on the main point though. If an attack happens, Obama is done. He'll have a tough time gaining back credibility.
    I share this view, you can't be light terrorist issues like he has and not expect reprecussions if something happens.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Shakedown Street, Japan
    Posts
    30,259
    vCash
    1500
    But what you're doing is missing the point. I assume you didn't even watch the video linked in the top post.

    By the same measure which Republicans use to argue, "Bush kept us safe", Clinton likewise kept us just as safe. In both presidencies there was one singular terrorist attack on American soil which happened within a year of the start of his presidency, and there were no attacks thereafter.

    Therefore, Bush being "tough" on terror by using torture and other crimes against humanity is NOT proven to be any more effective than Clinton's approach, and in fact Bush's approach almost certainly creates many more terrorists than Clinton's by enraging the Muslim world with its atrocities.
    I blog basketball at Roundball Mining Company///Twitter: @denbutsu

    Atheists Of PSD

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    What, you never heard of the memo?

    If the same thing had happened on a Democratic president's watch, they'd have positively crucified him. Republicans, I guess, get a free pass becuase they're (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) "tough".
    And look what happened immediately after it happened, and no I doubt it would have been different if it had been a democratic president. Also Clinton knew about the hijackers as well memo




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    9,186
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    But what you're doing is missing the point. I assume you didn't even watch the video linked in the top post.

    By the same measure which Republicans use to argue, "Bush kept us safe", Clinton likewise kept us just as safe. In both presidencies there was one singular terrorist attack on American soil which happened within a year of the start of his presidency, and there were no attacks thereafter.

    Therefore, Bush being "tough" on terror by using torture and other crimes against humanity is NOT proven to be any more effective than Clinton's approach, and in fact Bush's approach almost certainly creates many more terrorists than Clinton's by enraging the Muslim world with its atrocities.
    I could make the same argument that had Clinton used Bush's tactics after the first terrorist attack, 9/11 might have never happened.




    Major props to rdwilliamson

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    21,589
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    What, you never heard of the memo?

    If the same thing had happened on a Democratic president's watch, they'd have positively crucified him. Republicans, I guess, get a free pass becuase they're (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) "tough".
    You're kind of right. Republicans do get a bit of a longer leash on matters of national security.

    But Clinton had a shot at Bin Laden though. And it was much more than just some vague threat in a memo.

    But, hind sight is 20/20. Bush isn't blamed for 9-11...nobody really is. But, if another attack happens, there will be more people ready to point fingers.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    15,568
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by DenButsu View Post
    What, you never heard of the memo?
    Let's have an honest talk, DB. Even though the link you provided was neither honest, fair, or complete in explaining just what that memo was.

    It's August 2001, you're George Bush, and you were just handed this memo.

    The first few paragraphs give a brief history of Bin Laden and his organization, such as the embassy bombings. It says that OBL may have had a hand in the Millenium bombings. It goes on to say that OBL may be planning a terrorist attack in the US, or a series of attacks, and would like to take out DC.

    It said that quite a few of his terrorist buds lived in the US, and one of his cells in NYC was recruiting Muslim-Americans in the city.

    It mentions that OBL could be planning an attack on Federal Buildings in NYC and explosives could be involved. Hijacking is mentioned as well.

    So, DB, what do you do with this gem?

    You immediately scrutinize all Muslim-Americans in the New York area. Except liberals opposed that policy (profiling based on probability) before and after 9/11. Plus, you'd still be ****ed because how many of the hijackers were American, let alone from NYC?

    Then you say, okay, let's increase protection of federal buildings in NYC. This way, all this extra security at the federal buildings could watch with everyone else as planes slammed into the Twin Towers.

    And you know what? Those security officers would probably say "WTF? I thought this **** was supposed to involve explosives, not airplanes!!!"

    Because, had you been president in August 2001, you probably would have been very concerned with explosives.

    And on the off chance you would have focused on the line that mentions hijackings, you wouldn't have expected the planes to slam into buildings. After all, the only part of the memo that explicity mentions hijackings says that OBL would use hijacking to get terrorist prisoners out of jail. And as even your Average Joe knows, you can't exactly use hostages as leverage if their body parts are scattered in a Pennsylvania field.

    So what, pray tell, would you have done wise DB? How would you have used the not-so foreseeing memo to prevent 9/11?

    Or do you just want to use spin to bash Bush?
    "Compromise, hell! That's what has happened to us all down the line -- and that's the very cause of our woes. If freedom is right and tyranny is wrong, why should those who believe in freedom treat it as if it were a roll of bologna to be bartered a slice at a time?"

    RIP Jesse Helms

Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •