But he kept us safe!!

[blenderboy5]

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.

If God forbid a serious terrorist attack happens under Obama, he's home free in terms of the blame game. The far left attack machine will immediately blame it on Bush, he'll probably use the pro-America capital gained by any sitting president after an attack to promote things irrelevant to national security, etc.

Hopefully it would slow down his closure of Gitmo, but really that would be small potatoes after a terrorist attack.

[DenButsu]

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?

Just so it's clear, I wasn't throwing that out there to say, "9/11 is Bush's fault". cubsrule said he "wasn't aware of the threat", I only meant to show that he was, or should have been. My only point is that the "kept us safe" defense of Bush necessarily employs a double standard of letting Bush off the hook for 9/11 while blaming Clinton for WTC 93 and everything from then onward (including 9/11). Clinton didn't do the 93 attack and Bush didn't do 9/11. I don't blame either for either - I blame the terrorists.

But the difference is that Clinton achieved the same result of no further attacks during his administration without pulling a Gitmo, or waterboarding, or Iraq War, or illegal wiretapping, etc. So the argument that Bush made us safer than Clinton is bogus. And in fact, all indications, when you look at why people actually become terrorists, are that Bush did more to endanger us by doing more to create more terrorists, albeit indirectly.

[SmthBluCitrus]

So, let me get this straight:

1993 WTC bombing -- Clinton didn't do enough seven weeks into his presidency, so it was his fault.

9/11 -- Clinton's fault, too. Even though we were nine months into Bush's Presidency. It's because he (Clinton) didn't pursue bin Laden aggressively enough ... even though he fired missiles into Afghanistan (yet, that's dismissed as a wag).

Any future potential terrorist attack -- Obama's fault. Because the Democratic Party is weak.

Really? Give me a break! I didn't realize that Republicans were always absolved from blame when it came to terrorism.

[Jerry34]

If God forbid a serious terrorist attack happens under Obama, he's home free in terms of the blame game. The far left attack machine will immediately blame it on Bush, he'll probably use the pro-America capital gained by any sitting president after an attack to promote things irrelevant to national security, etc.

Hopefully it would slow down his closure of Gitmo, but really that would be small potatoes after a terrorist attack.

And that's why I think the smartest thing the terrorist could do to really f-up this country would be to have another major attack during the first few years of Obama's run. Because the far right attack machine is just as strong and we would have one polarized country.

[Cubsrule]

Just so it's clear, I wasn't throwing that out there to say, "9/11 is Bush's fault". cubsrule said he "wasn't aware of the threat", I only meant to show that he was, or should have been.

Not even Bush knew that planes were gonna be flown into the trade center or the pentagon. Even though he might have gotten a threat letter what did you want him to do, round up all the Arabs coming into the country? I mean really, tell me what Bush should have done?

My only point is that the "kept us safe" defense of Bush necessarily employs a double standard of letting Bush off the hook for 9/11 while blaming Clinton for WTC 93 and everything from then onward (including 9/11). Clinton didn't do the 93 attack and Bush didn't do 9/11. I don't blame either for either - I blame the terrorists.

No one blames Clinton for 93, but had he gone harder after Bin Laden and his followers it is concievable 9/11 would have never happened.

But the difference is that Clinton achieved the same result of no further attacks during his administration without pulling a Gitmo, or waterboarding, or Iraq War, or illegal wiretapping, etc. So the argument that Bush made us safer than Clinton is bogus. And in fact, all indications, when you look at why people actually become terrorists, are that Bush did more to endanger us by doing more to create more terrorists, albeit indirectly.

Yet Clinton knew about the hijackers and did nothing about them, and the Bush creating more terrorists is bogus, Al Queada is a shadow of its former self and Bin Laden has hardly any control over it anymore. But that could change if Obama pushes a pre 9/11 agenda.

[Cubsrule]

So, let me get this straight:

1993 WTC bombing -- Clinton didn't do enough seven weeks into his presidency, so it was his fault.

I am still yet to see any poster on this board say that.

9/11 -- Clinton's fault, too. Even though we were nine months into Bush's Presidency. It's because he (Clinton) didn't pursue bin Laden aggressively enough ... even though he fired missiles into Afghanistan (yet, that's dismissed as a wag).

He also knew about the hijackers and did nothing about it.

Any future potential terrorist attack -- Obama's fault. Because the Democratic Party is weak.

Really? Give me a break! I didn't realize that Republicans were always absolved from blame when it came to terrorism.

Obama pushing a pre 9/11 agenda is dangerous considering terrorists will hate us regardless of what we do. If he continues Bush's hard stance on terrorism and something happened I would definately give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you do things like closing Gitmo and refuse to use whatever means to keep the country safe and on top of it give terrorists their rights when they don't even live here and hate us, then something happens, who do you blame?

[SmthBluCitrus]

I am still yet to see any poster on this board say that.

Not openly, no. But, it's certainly implied. And, so are the repercussions -- he didn't do anything, except when he did (which didn't count because of Monica).

Obama pushing a pre 9/11 agenda is dangerous considering terrorists will hate us regardless of what we do. If he continues Bush's hard stance on terrorism and something happened I would definately give him the benefit of the doubt. But when you do things like closing Gitmo and refuse to use whatever means to keep the country safe and on top of it give terrorists their rights when they don't even live here and hate us, then something happens, who do you blame?

So, he's closing Gitmo? Who cares? It's not as though he's letting every single detainee walk out and strap a bomb to his chest. Each case is getting reviewed and the legal action will be pursued based on the individual case. Even attempting to make a case that the shutdown of Gitmo will create more terrorism is irresponsible.

And, I'd like you to define Obama's "pre-9/11 agenda" that he's apparently pursuing. Because, I really don't buy it.

[DenButsu]

If he continues Bush's hard stance on terrorism and something happened I would definately give him the benefit of the doubt.

Yeah, you and every other Republican. Uh-huh.

The GOP has only one game right now: Oppose Obama in everything he does, regardless of what it is or whether it's good for the country or not. Look at what happened with the stimulus bill. Obama included tax cuts in order to incorporate Republican ideas and show he was open to compromise, and they attacked the bill with all their fury. Right now, Obama could completely clone every single Bush/Republican policy out there, and they're still going to paint him as the bad guy. Not that I blame them for that, necessarily, but let's not be dishonest about what's happening and try to gloss it over as something it's not. They're doing their best to **** him. That is all.

But it's not what the people want, and it's not what the people voted for. Support for Obama and his agenda remains strong outside the hardened Republican base. His mandate stands. And part of it is to change the way the war on terror is conducted, including the closing of Guantanamo, including the cessation of torture, and including a greater push for diplomatic solutions that take into account the harmful repercussions (that could come back to bite us in the ***) of the harm we inflict when we suspend human rights and recklessly wreak havoc in parts of the world where opportunistic Al Qaeda types are just waiting for those recruitment opportunities the Bush administration was so generously dropping in their laps.

Terrorism can never be completely eradicated. But to the extent that we can take action to prevent it, that action can be taken without torture, without unnecessary human rights abuses, and without a blind eye to the geopolitical consequences of our own actions. It can, and now that Obama's in office, it will. And although I'm not a religious man myself, to that I say, "Amen".

[Cubsrule]

Not openly, no. But, it's certainly implied. And, so are the repercussions -- he didn't do anything, except when he did (which didn't count because of Monica).

Shooting a couple missiles into Afghanistan and calling it a day is a half assed attempt. That's why people say he didn't do anything.

So, he's closing Gitmo? Who cares? It's not as though he's letting every single detainee walk out and strap a bomb to his chest. Each case is getting reviewed and the legal action will be pursued based on the individual case. Even attempting to make a case that the shutdown of Gitmo will create more terrorism is irresponsible.

And, I'd like you to define Obama's "pre-9/11 agenda" that he's apparently pursuing. Because, I really don't buy it.

Closing Gitmo is just the start, and while he might not let them walk out with a bomb I imagine quite a few will walk out and that is dangerous. Also the ban of coercive interrogation methods and the US Patriot Act. If something were to happen people will point to these things as the reason why. And what will Obama say?

[Jerry34]

Not even Bush knew that planes were gonna be flown into the trade center or the pentagon. Even though he might have gotten a threat letter what did you want him to do, round up all the Arabs coming into the country? I mean really, tell me what Bush should have done?



No one blames Clinton for 93, but had he gone harder after Bin Laden and his followers it is concievable 9/11 would have never happened.



Yet Clinton knew about the hijackers and did nothing about them, and the Bush creating more terrorists is bogus, Al Queada is a shadow of its former self and Bin Laden has hardly any control over it anymore. But that could change if Obama pushes a pre 9/11 agenda.

So Clinton knew about the hijackers and could have done something but Bush just gets a free pass because he would have looked racist?

[cabernetluver]

The GOP has only one game right now: Oppose Obama in everything he does, regardless of what it is or whether it's good for the country or not.

Actually you could have stopped right there. The GOP has no positive agenda. The only thing I have heard from the GOP is the cure to everything is tax cuts and a violation of the oath of the taken by the President.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I fail to see in that oath, the one each president takes, these "hard line" acts that have been so strongly defended by the right. Where does one see the idea that extraordinary rendition helps preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I fail to see in that oath, where a violation of my rights, as a citizen of the United States, under the Bill of Rights, by eavesdropping on my conversations without warrant helps preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

I fail to see where the absolute banishment of the press from showing the burials of our fallen heroes, guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, helps preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

[PHX-SOXFAN]

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.

that would be relevant if he actually released prisoners, or said he was going to. All he said was that they would not be detained without cause, trial, etc. The bush adm. already released plenty that have gone back into terrorism. What obama is proposing is a thorough system where that doesn't happen, people are tried and punished, and there isn't a symbol of secrecy and injustice. you know kind of like Iraq. A place where even saddam can get a trial.

[Cubsrule]

Yeah, you and every other Republican. Uh-huh.

Sure I would, I can't speak for everyone but why wouldn't I support him in something I believe in.

The GOP has only one game right now: Oppose Obama in everything he does, regardless of what it is or whether it's good for the country or not. Look at what happened with the stimulus bill.

The stimulus bill goes against conservative philosphy, of course its gonna get opposed and you're naive to think otherwise.

Obama included tax cuts in order to incorporate Republican ideas and show he was open to compromise, and they attacked the bill with all their fury.

More like make a half assed attempt, and a majority of those are for cuts for those who don't pay income taxes.

Right now, Obama could completely clone every single Bush/Republican policy out there, and they're still going to paint him as the bad guy. Not that I blame them for that, necessarily, but let's not be dishonest about what's happening and try to gloss it over as something it's not. They're doing their best to **** him. That is all.

No they wouldn't, that's just naive again and you're trying to reach, as far as them ****ing him, of course they are going to refuse to support him when what he is pushing for they don't believe in.

But it's not what the people want, and it's not what the people voted for. Support for Obama and his agenda remains strong outside the hardened Republican base.

And yet his support as well as support of the stimulus has dropped.

His mandate stands. And part of it is to change the way the war on terror is conducted, including the closing of Guantanamo, including the cessation of torture, and including a greater push for diplomatic solutions that take into account the harmful repercussions (that could come back to bite us in the ***) of the harm we inflict when we suspend human rights and recklessly wreak havoc in parts of the world where opportunistic Al Qaeda types are just waiting for those recruitment opportunities the Bush administration was so generously dropping in their laps.

And you honestly think terrorists are gonna change their ways because we give them rights and close Gitmo. These people will hate us regardless, the sooner you realize that the better.

Terrorism can never be completely eradicated. But to the extent that we can take action to prevent it, that action can be taken without torture, without unnecessary human rights abuses, and without a blind eye to the geopolitical consequences of our own actions. It can, and now that Obama's in office, it will. And although I'm not a religious man myself, to that I say, "Amen".

Feel free to believe that, but if we catch a high ranking operative and he refuses to give us information, you can try to talk to him all you want. See how much info. you get out of him.

[Cubsrule]

So Clinton knew about the hijackers and could have done something but Bush just gets a free pass because he would have looked racist?

All Bush got was a threat letter, really tell me exactly what BUsh could have done? I'm all ears.

[Cubsrule]

that would be relevant if he actually released prisoners, or said he was going to. All he said was that they would not be detained without cause, trial, etc. The bush adm. already released plenty that have gone back into terrorism. What obama is proposing is a thorough system where that doesn't happen, people are tried and punished, and there isn't a symbol of secrecy and injustice. you know kind of like Iraq. A place where even saddam can get a trial.

Then why should leave the door open to more of them to return?