Is that the same security that the President and Cheney provided when the ignored the memos titled “Osama BinLaden determiend to hijack planes and crash them into Skyscrapers”? Maybe they were so heartened by the biblical coversheet they didn’t read the actual intelligence report.

Gotta love republicans who claim that the US was safer under Bush…?!?!? If you ignore the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor…The did a great job…except for…9/11.

All I know is that the twin towers were still standing when Clinton left office, he provided intelligence to the next administration telling them to watch out for Osama. Less then a year later, Towers - Gone. Pentagon - Attacked. Another plane forced to crash in the middle of PA. Thanks for the protection President Bush. Go attack Iraq.

Carnage, Clinton got the same memo in Dec 98, but was too busy getting impeached to do anything about it.

Now, what would YOU have done with a memo stating that muslim men were planning on hijacking airplanes in August of 2001? No names, no targets, no planes; just the well known fact that UBL wanted to attack America with planes? Increased profiling for muslims? Bases on what? The human rights groups would have been up in arms at the mere thought of profiling muslims, so what would you have done?

I think I know what this buffoon Obama will do. Surrender.

Go after Obama after the first Twin Tower bombing?

Is there new evidence that Obama was involved in the first bombing?

The followers of the blind Shiek were responsible, and we got them.

Si–

So we got the date wrong ? It did happen in the Clinton Administration ?

HKCHAS/Carnage,
Please tell me you seriously aren’t blaming 911 on President Bush. Or any other president for that matter. It happened and the world was changed forever. I am happy that President Obama is listening to Dick Cheney on how to continue to keep us safe.

Chas, I dont know what you are asking about. Slick Willy got a PDB in Dec 98 stating that UBL wanted to attack the US using airplanes, the same info contained in the PDB that Bush is being crucified over. How about you, what would YOU have done with the memo in August of 2001? As an added challenge, you also have to remember that the Gorelick Wall was still in place. That is the wall that prevented intelligence agencies from sharing information with Law Enforcement.

Si–

So, using that logic all the financial stuff YOU have been saying was Obama’s fault is really Bush’s ?

Timing is EVERYTHING.

Chas, your dancing; avoiding the question. You and carnage said it was Bush’s fault because he didnt act on a memo he got Aug 6, 2001. I asked both of you what you would have done, and neither of you will answer. Here is the redacted transscript of that memo, read it and tell us, what would you have done?

The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bring the fighting to America.”

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a — – service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in —, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members — including some who are U.S. citizens — have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a —- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Sheikh” Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Damn Si, if we had just gone after Bin Laden, instead of attacking Iraq, maybe we wouldn’t be having this argument.

BTW, did it or did int NOT happen on George’s watch ?

Chas, yes, it happened on Bush’s watch; happy now? Now how about answering the question, what would you have done with the Aug memo?

Bush did an excellent job of keeping the 3,000 people killed on 9/11 “safe”. Anyone here take the time to read the 9/11 commision report? Its free on the internet. While it would be unfair to definately say that 9/11 could have prevented,after reading the report it sure seems “Tenet,Rice,and Bush were asleep at the wheel.

Si Vis Pacem Para Bellum asks what we would’ve done with the same info. My answer? I don’t know. I’m a banker and not the leader of the free world. The leader of the free world should know. But he didn’t. His bad.

I expect my president to be a lot smarter than me rather than giving me a nickname and slapping me on the back. The current one is loads smarter than I am, thank god. I don’t set the bar that high!

The really evil part is that he used his mistake (i.e. letting 9/11 happen) to justify a horrendous and expensive war that’s killed way more ppl than 9/11.

And to the writer of the original letter, I’d like to see one shred of evidence where Obama or any democrat has called terrorists “freedom fighters” If you’re going to criticize someone, at least criticize them for something they actually did. For instance, I could criticize you for writing a short-sighted, lie-filled letter, because that’s something you actually did.

my id,
What would you have done??? Can you imagine the rage of the ACLU and the left wing of this country if the Bush admin or Clinton admin had tried to create a homeland security dept and the current airport restrictions pre 9/11? It is really ashamed that the left’s utter hatred of President Bush is so clouding their minds and judgement, all the while turning a blind eye to BHO as he bankrupts and socializes our once great country.

“Damn Si, if we had just gone after Bin Laden, instead of attacking Iraq, maybe we wouldn’t be having this argument.

BTW, did it or did int NOT happen on George’s watch ?”
— HKCHAS

HKCAS! How dare you bring your ‘facts’ into a discussion with Si and this genius ‘Ron Jones’, who is apparently unaware that the Bushies put no stock into Richard Clarke’s warnings until after they came true…

Sub Par Cerebellum is correct.
The Republicans made a political circus out of a blue dress in 1998 at the expense of taxpayers and the death of 3000 Americans. President Clinton would have concentrated on capturing Bin Laden before Bush was caught sleeping at the helm….

And for what?

If the same intelligence was provided to clinton about UBL attacking skyscrapers, then he must’ve paid those intelligence reports some attention as the WTC was still standing when he left office.

I still don’t understand how the 22%-ers who STILL think the sun rises and sets over W’s arse can’t see that his administration fell asleep when it was his turn to drive the bus. All the intelligence told him what was going to happen but they were all so clouded by wanting to attack Iraq, they ignored what was in front of their noses….unless those WMD’s were found…or that link to Saddam and UBL…or one of the many other bogus reasons Americans were forced to swallow after 9/11.

Ok,
To all:
Do you really and truely believe that 9/11 was 100% the fault of President Bush? Or do you just simply hate him so much it’s convenient to smear him?

Buddy…
We just get a little tired of hearing how safe we were under Bush.
More Americans were killed on U.S. soil than any other President since the Civil War.

Bud,
I’ll pose the same question. Do you really believe 9-11 was 100% the fault of President Clinton? Or do you simply just hate him so much as to smear him?

BTW: In answer to your question, I do not believe President Bush was 100% at fault. I blame Dick Cheney, he’s really the one who blew it off.

Jeri,
No. If you have read my previous post on this, I don’t blame either President. Or VP for that matter. It was an unfortunate incident, but it happenned. And the times have changed because of it. It’s easy to pass blame in hind sight. Not letting it happen again is and should be the issue. And no, I don’t hate President Clinton.

Bud,
I agree not letting it happen again is and should be the issue. However, I really do not believe we are that safe under any administration, be it a Clinton, a Bush, or an Obama admin. If they want to get us, they will get us. But as a side note a little off topic of this post, using 9-11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq was not right, and didn’t make us any safer.

Well Ron you must be feeling pretty safe then because our Secretary of Defense and soon to be Secretary of the Army are Republicans.
.
Good choices by our extremely smart and outstanding President.

Jeri,
I agree with you on the side note. But, the congress at the time could have stopped it, and didn’t. In hind sight, we should have concentrated on Ahfganistan.

Bud,
My sentiments exactly. That’s where the camps were, and that’s where the terrorists were.

Safety in the hands of the Republicans? Give me a break. You should especially be concerned if you live in any building owned by Larry Silverstein.

funny ever since they stoped color-coding the levels of danger we are facing I haven’t much thought about being unsafe!

Well, this enlisted US serviceman killed by a terrorist yesterday is 100% on Obama under the lib logic. The over 600,000 workers losing their jobs every month since 1-20, one hundred percent on Obama. I am sure all of you who want to blame 9-11 on Bush must agree. This is Obama’s watch.

Look,
You don’t EVEN want to go there talking about servicemen killed and jobs lost. How many servicemen were killed under Bush’s regime? How many people lost there jobs during Bush’s reign?
You sure you want to go there? Oh, I forgot, that’s either Obama’s fault or Clinton’s, never W’s. Stick your head in the mud.

Jeri: In case you have not noticed, Bush’s watch is over. I am sure there is a memo somewhere from some intelligence agency warning about Muslim terrorists hunting US soldiers right here in the USA. Why was it ignored? Don’t you see the hypocrisy?

We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama’s inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.

From health care to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn’t have the nerve to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?

Obama is useless. Worse than that, he’s dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now — before he drags us further into the abyss.

I refer here to Obama’s plan for “preventive detentions.” If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in “prolonged detention.” Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama’s shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.

In practice, Obama wants to let government goons snatch you, me and anyone else they deem annoying off the street.

Preventive detention is the classic defining characteristic of a military dictatorship. Because dictatorial regimes rely on fear rather than consensus, their priority is self-preservation rather than improving their people’s lives. They worry obsessively over the one thing they can’t control, what George Orwell called “thoughtcrime” — contempt for rulers that might someday translate to direct action.

Locking up people who haven’t done anything wrong is worse than un-American and a violent attack on the most basic principles of Western jurisprudence. It is contrary to the most essential notion of human decency. That anyone has ever been subjected to “preventive detention” is an outrage. That the president of the United States, a man who won an election because he promised to elevate our moral and political discourse, would even entertain such a revolting idea offends the idea of civilization itself.

Obama is cute. He is charming. But there is something rotten inside him. Unlike the Republicans who backed George W. Bush, I won’t follow a terrible leader just because I voted for him. Obama has revealed himself. He is a monster, and he should remove himself from power.

“Prolonged detention,” reported The New York Times, would be inflicted upon “terrorism suspects who cannot be tried.”

“Cannot be tried.” Interesting choice of words.

Any “terrorism suspect” (can you be a suspect if you haven’t been charged with a crime?) can be tried. Anyone can be tried for anything. At this writing, a Somali child is sitting in a prison in New York, charged with piracy in the Indian Ocean, where the U.S. has no jurisdiction. Anyone can be tried.

What they mean, of course, is that the hundreds of men and boys languishing at Guantánamo and the thousands of “detainees” the Obama administration anticipates kidnapping in the future cannot be convicted. As in the old Soviet Union, putting enemies of the state on trial isn’t enough. The game has to be fixed. Conviction has to be a foregone conclusion.

Why is it, exactly, that some prisoners “cannot be tried”?

The Old Grey Lady explains why Obama wants this “entirely new chapter in American law” in a boring little sentence buried a couple of paragraphs past the jump and a couple of hundred words down page A16: “Yet another question is what to do with the most problematic group of Guantánamo detainees: those who pose a national security threat but cannot be prosecuted, either for lack of evidence or because evidence is tainted.”

In democracies with functioning legal systems, it is assumed that people against whom there is a “lack of evidence” are innocent. They walk free. In countries where the rule of law prevails, in places blessedly free of fearful leaders whose only concern is staying in power, “tainted evidence” is no evidence at all. If you can’t prove that a defendant committed a crime — an actual crime, not a thoughtcrime — in a fair trial, you release him and apologize to the judge and jury for wasting their time.

It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.

9/11 was Bush’s folly! OBL is still free because Bush and Cheney wanted war against Iraq more than to get the guys that attacked and killed US citizens!

9/11 was directly tied to Ronald Reagan’s quisling withdrawal of Marines from Lebanon after the barracks was suicide bombed (the first time such a tactic was used against Americans—it worked!)! Reagan pulled out rather than level the terrorist training camps in the Bekaa Valley where the guys what did us were trained. Same as Bush/Cheney!

I don’t want anything to do with any “Republican” taking care of my safety. After I’m dead, they’ll remove all our troops near the guys that did it, start a war somewhere else so KBR/Halliburton can make more untold billions from heroes’ blood!

Ted Rall, good for you!

Hopefully all the regular liberals/Democrat citizens will start to understand just how lied to and used and abused they have been.

This country is headed down a path of such BS fascism it’s not even funny. Their lies are grotesque. Wrap it in a flag, say you love the USA, do any lipservice BS to sell it to the unsophistcated in this “fly-over” country. That’s the way they operate in DC and NY nowadays.

Ted Rall and So obvious.

If Ted is correct about preventive detention, is it not the next logical step after warrant less wire taps? Yet your side saw no problem with those.

Yet I believe Ted is wrong. I have heard the term, but only applied to those that are at GitMO that we feel cannot be released. So where did Ted get his information that it applied to US citizens?

Let us say that Ted is correct and Obama wishes to apply this to US citizens. Is Ted suggesting that the courts will roll over and allow this? Does he suggest that between all the Federal Judges and State Judges this will go unopposed? Does he suggest that the Federal and Local police will just blindly cooperate?

What simplistic and conspiratorial views that the right wing has, you guys are making your side look ridiculous.

Tim Hogan: You conclude that the terrorist movement is prominent because of Reagan pulling our troops out of Lebanon, and ignore the Somalia disgrace. You then conclude Bush and Cheney are why OBL is alive and ignore the fact that Bill Clinton declined to end this terrorist’s life when we literally had him in our crosshairs. I can’t imagine your analysis of anything is worth reading.

Bob, I think Ted was trying to state that once the American people accept this garbage against “terrorists” who have not been charged with any crime, then there is a strong possibility it will extend to our country. Go back through history and see how dictatorships form. This is SOP.

Regardless, it’s ridiculous even at Gitmo. To hold someone because you “think” they may be a “terrorist” is against the principals of our nation. If you cannot see that, then I cannot help you.

As far as having faith in our justice system, again that’s ridiculous. Time and time again they pass Draconian legislation. Just recently, The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a landmark 1986 ruling that forbid the police from questioning suspects without their attorney present.

Finally, you obviously need to brush up on your reading comprehension. Last paragraph from Ted:

“It is amazing and incredible, after eight years of Bush’s lawless behavior, to have to still have to explain these things. For that reason alone, Obama should resign.”

Right wing conspiracy theorist? Since when do those guys castigate the Bush regime on anything? Stop looking at things from a right vs. left perspective. They are different sides on the same coin. You have been fooled. Take corrective action.

So obvious

Thanks for explaining things to this guy. I thought I was pretty clear on things, particularly my indignation towards the Bush regime. I will consider the audience the next time I write on this blog.

So obvious and Ted

If I miss understood then I apologize.

However, while there are bumps in our justice system I still have faith that it does get it right in the end. If for no other reason it gets it right because we do have judges for life and we have multiple levels of police. Do it is impossible to pack the system.

Cheney admits there was never any evidence tying Iraq, 9/11

Oops.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney wants a do-over. After being party to an administration that repeatedly sought to tie the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with Saddam Hussein, he’s ready to let that assertion go.

In an interview with Fox News’ Greta van Susteren Monday, Cheney said there was no evidence tying Iraq and 9/11 — and that there never was.

“On the question of whether or not Iraq was involved in 9-11, there was never any evidence to prove that,” he told the Fox host. “There was “some reporting early on … but that was never borne out… [Former CIA Director] George [Tenet] … did say and did testify that there was an ongoing relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but no proof that Iraq was involved in 9-11.”

Cheney’s comments are a marked shift from those he made in 2003. Pressed to disavow assertions that Iraq was in any way involved with the attacks, the then-VP claimed the administration was learning “more and more” about al Qaeda-Iraq ties.

Now, after 4,308 US service members have lost their lives in Iraq, and no longer in office, the vociferous GOP hawk has appears to have changed his mind.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/02/cheney-no-evidence-iraq/

Ronald Reagan: I suggest you start practicing a title you will need in Jan, 2013: President Cheney

Former CIA station chief challenges claims that torture thwarted terror
Two current CIA officers agree

Milton Bearden, a former Central Intelligence Agency Pakistan station chief who served at the agency for three decades, says claims that the Bush administration’s so-called enhanced interrogation techniques saved American lives are likely false.

The retired senior CIA officer also says that the former administration’s repeated assertions that attacks were foiled through torture are hurting US credibility abroad, endangering alliances and aiding the cause of would-be terrorists.

Bearden, who formerly headed the CIA’s Soviet/East European Division and served as station chief in Pakistan, Nigeria and Sudan, was a key figure in the funding and training of the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation. He retired in 1994 but says he has communicated with contacts who agree they’ve heard of no evidence to support Bush officials’ claims.

If the Bush administration had proof of a plot stopped by enhanced interrogation, they would have produced it, Bearden says. “I cannot imagine that the system would not have leaked such a story,” he insists. “It would have been leaked in a New York minute.”

Former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney publicly defended their harsh interrogation approach last month. However, the techniques approved by Bush administration lawyers in 2002 appear to be prohibited by both the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention against Torture, to which the US is a signatory.

Two active CIA officers agree

Two other CIA officers, who have asked to remain anonymous due to their ongoing involvement in covert operations, seconded Bearden’s skepticism that any domestic plots of significance were disrupted during the Bush administration.

“Certain officials of the Bush administration would have had no qualms about exposing any of our officers, operational methods and sources of information if it meant scoring political points,” said one CIA covert officer, whose focus is the Middle-East, referring to the outing of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson. “The fact that [the Bush administration officials] continue to use the protection of sources and methods as a reason for why they can produce no evidence of a serious plot is not believable given what they have already made public.”

Another current CIA officer who works the Near East agreed that if any plot had actually been disrupted, someone from the Bush administration would certainly have leaked the proof, noting, “Nothing is sacred to them.”

Amazing, how does Cheney think he’s the answer man on this?
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/02/cia-chief-questions-claims/print/

“Ronald Reagan: I suggest you start practicing a title you will need in Jan, 2013: President Cheney”
— Doubtingthomas

Dude! Like, seriously!? My cat has a better chance of being elected president… Cheney will be succumb to a bum ticker before then.

That no good leftist Dick Cheney said today that Iraq had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 attacks. It’s horrible how these leftists lie about Bush’s 9/11 response. He kept us safe.

So, how did Cheney make us safer?
All he and his administration (Dick always called the shots) did was piss off a bunch a Muslims and made millions of new enemies. Oh, and Ron you are right in that your cat has a better chance of being elected, but Ol’ Dick may still be around cause dirt has a tendency of hangin around,

Jeri,
We are safe until we get hit again! Let’s try to prevent the next one instead of dwelling on the past.

Somalia was Bush I’s folly.

You yappers all think Reagan was some kinda saint but, he was a racist, quisling who put America in harm’s way for generations by letting the terrorists win in Lebanon!

Ron,
Umm…wasn’t Bush in office when the 9/11 terrorists attacks occured? If a democrat would have been in office, wouldn’t you blame him??
Stop relying on Rush Lindboob to give you your info, and read what Clinton did regarding terrorism. Bin Laden did not appear overnight.

Ron,
Umm…wasn’t Bush in office when the 9/11 terrorists attacks occured? If a democrat would have been in office, wouldn’t you blame him?? [NO I WOULD NOT, BUSH & CO WERE WARNED AND THEY DISREGARDED THE WARNINGS... AND I THINK YOU ARE TAKING POSTS OUT OF CONTEXT]
Stop relying on Rush Lindboob to give you your info, and read what Clinton did regarding terrorism. Bin Laden did not appear overnight.
— Joy309

Richard Clarke warned the incoming Bush administration (Rice, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz) that they would have to deal with Osama bin Laden and he was dismissed as a ‘hold-over’ from the Clinton administration (who also worked in the administration of George H.W. Bush) immediately following the 9/11 attacks Clarke said that it was likely the work of al Qaeda -Bush’s response: “Can we go after Iraq for this?”

I’ll put my safety in the hands of Republicans (how’s that working out for you?

Bush Administration’s First Memo
on al-Qaeda Declassified
January 25, 2001 Richard Clarke Memo:
“We urgently need . . . a Principals level
review on the al Qida network.”

Clarke’s memo, described below, “urgently” requested a high-level National Security Council review on al-Qaeda and included two attachments: a declassified December 2000 “Strategy for Eliminating the Threat from the Jihadist Networks of al-Qida: Status and Prospects” and the September 1998 “Pol-Mil Plan for al-Qida,” the so-called Delenda Plan, which remains classified.

Former President Bill Clinton on Fox News, September 22, 2006:

CLINTON: And I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans, who now say I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was too obsessed with bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neo-cons thought I was too obsessed with bin Laden. They had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after I left office. All the right-wingers who now say I didn’t do enough said I did too much — same people.

…

WALLACE: Do you think you did enough, sir?

CLINTON: No, because I didn’t get him.

WALLACE: Right.

CLINTON: But at least I tried. That’s the difference in me and some, including all the right-wingers who are attacking me now. They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try. They did not try. I tried.

So I tried and failed. When I failed, I left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy and the best guy in the country, Dick Clarke, who got demoted.

…

CLINTON: What did I do? What did I do? I worked hard to try to kill him. I authorized a finding for the CIA to kill him. We contracted with people to kill him. I got closer to killing him than anybody has gotten since. And if I were still president, we’d have more than 20,000 troops there trying to kill him.

Now, I’ve never criticized President Bush, and I don’t think this is useful. But you know we do have a government that thinks Afghanistan is only one-seventh as important as Iraq.

And you ask me about terror and Al Qaida with that sort of dismissive thing? When all you have to do is read Richard Clarke’s book to look at what we did in a comprehensive, systematic way to try to protect the country against terror.

And you’ve got that little smirk on your face and you think you’re so clever. But I had responsibility for trying to protect this country. I tried and I failed to get bin Laden. I regret it. But I did try. And I did everything I thought I responsibly could.

The entire military was against sending Special Forces in to Afghanistan and refueling by helicopter. And no one thought we could do it otherwise, because we could not get the CIA and the FBI to certify that Al Qaida was responsible while I was president.

More facts to feed your little grist mill…

Silly me, I forgot to provide a link to the National Security Archive database… because I know how diligent you are about research.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/index.htm

For all who think that Bush kept the US safe from terrorist attacks, there are about 3000 people who died on 9/11 who would probably disagree with you and another 6200 injured that might have a different opinion. I’ll take there word over the Bush apologists/rationalizers anyday.

I’m completely with you…

Bush’s Counter-terrorism Chief Richard Clarke sent a Pre-9/11 memo about the Al Qaeda threat; Clarke and his communications with the Bush administration regarding Osama bin Laden and associated terrorist plots targeting the United States were mentioned frequently in National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice’s public interview by the 9/11 investigatory commission on April 8, 2004. Of particular significance was a memo[17] from January 25, 2001 that Clarke had authored and sent to Rice.

Along with making an urgent request for a meeting of the National Security Council’s Principals Committee to discuss the growing al-Qaeda threat in the greater Middle East, the memo also suggests strategies for combating al-Qaeda that might be adopted by the new Bush Administration.

The Bush Administration ignored Clarke’s pleas and placing, no stock in the theory of Al Qaeda attacking the U.S.

When Clarke mentioned at the meeting that the attacks were likely the work of Al Qaeda, the first thing President Bush said was “can we go after Iraq for this?”

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, present at the meeting, confirmed this statement by Bush… (but let’s tell the sheep that voted for us that it’s about Iraq attacking us and WMD…)

A personal grudge because Saddam Hussein tried to kill his father is a poor reason to start a war which has cost our country so much blood and treasure -$800 billion at last count

It’s painfully obvious that the profligate cost of their war has not played a large part in the precipitous state of the economy…

“Lisa,
Nice try cherry picking all of your information, as a staunch liberal usually does. The fact is, besides what a few say, Bush did not commit war crimes. There were crimes comitted by individuals and the individuals were punished. What is so hard about that? You would make a nice Pelosi staffer with your “I’m on a personal endeavor to get that dirty ole Bush”. How childish!”
— budb1969
1:34 pm June 1st, 2009

Really? That is not corroborated by what I read budb’69…

(article uses British spelling owing to source)
Rumsfeld to ‘face difficulties’ over Guantanamo: UN expert

Former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld could soon be in trouble for the role he played in human rights abuses committed in the Guantanamo prison, a United Nations expert said Wednesday.

“In a year or two, his responsibilities will be established. Wherever he goes, he will face difficulties,” Leandro Despouy, who is Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, told journalists in Geneva.

A US bipartisan Senate report released late last year found Rumsfeld and other top administration officials responsible for abuse of Guantanamo detainees in US custody.

It said Rumsfeld authorised harsh interrogation techniques on December 2, 2002 at the Guantanamo prison, although he ruled them out a month later.

Despouy said the “strong resistance” put forward by the former US administration to current US president Barack Obama’s decision to close the detention centre has nothing to do with the officially cited reason of “national security” considerations.

Rather they are fearful that they may be taken to task once the detention centre is closed, said Despouy.

The UN expert called on the international community to “support” Obama’s decision to close the prison.

“If we act in the perspective of human rights, we should support the efforts of those who want these responsibilities to be established,” he added, referring to the harsh interrogation techniques used on the detainees.

He said the international community should help the US by taking in former detainees.

Obama has said he would close the notorious “war on terror” prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba by January 2010 and is seeking host states for up to 60 of the 245 inmates.

The Obama administration however faces a series of legal and political hurdles at home in its efforts to close the base, with strong opposition against releasing detainees into the United States.

In January, the UN’s special torture rapporteur called on the US to pursue Rumsfeld and former president George W. Bush for torture and bad treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.

“Judicially speaking, the United States has a clear obligation” to bring proceedings against Bush and Rumsfeld, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Manfred Nowak said, in remarks broadcast on Germany’s ZDF television.

He noted Washington had ratified the UN convention on torture which required “all means, particularly penal law” to be used to bring proceedings against those violating it.

budb, ‘ratify’ -in this context- means to approve or adopt.

A bit of advice -which you are completely within your prerogative to disregard…
-Do not refer to anyone else here as childish, OK?

http://rawstory.com/news/afp/Rumsfeld_to_face_difficulties_over__06032009.html