I’ll put my safety in the hands of Republicans
Leonard Pitts article talking around this terrorism and freedom is convoluted. First of all I value the safety President Bush did provide this country and there is nothing leftist/liberals can do to diminish that major accomplishment of protection. Pitts like the rest of the media is really setting the stage to excuse Obama for the next terrorist attack—oh wait they are not terrorists are they Pitts— no to Obama and the Democrats they are “freedom fighters”.
Speaking of which Pitts wants ”freedom and then security” or is his wish freedom or security. That is like his ”non-sequitor dressed up as logic”—accusation against Cheney’s condemnation of Obama’s fuzzy headed offers to negotiate with the 2 Crazies from N. Korea and Iran. It seems both have put Obama in his place telling he and the world to stuff it. Obama does not have the sense to be embarassed by their out of hand rejection of his kiss-up to them with his offers to negotiate without pre-conditions. That was really just liberal continuation of trying to denigrate President Bush’s style of placing them in an axis of evil.
Pitts is also trying to re-write history. Clinton provided no safety to this country whatsoever. Had he gone after bin Laden after the first World Trade Center bombing there would not have been the second 9/11 disaster. But Clinton was either too cowardly or too busy bedding 21 year old interns to go after that “freedom fighter”
No thanks Pitts, I will place my safety and freedom in the hands of Republicans any day over liberal Democrats. We will see what the American public thinks when the next “freedom fighters” sneak their bomb across the Mexican border under cover of a bunch of illegals. I just hope they place the bomb under Pitt’s sorry butt and not my sorry butt.
Ron Jones
Alton
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