Jump to content

"No domestic terror attacks under Bush"


Recommended Posts

Talk about revisionism... :rolleyes:

 

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/...ush/#more-84563

 

Echoing recent comments from former Bush administration officials, Rudy Giuliani defended former President George Bush's record on terrorism Friday, saying the country was not subjected to domestic terror attacks when he was in office.

 

"We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama," Giuliani said on ABC's Good Morning America.

 

Democrats and other political observers were quick to question Giuliani's comments, wondering how the former New York City mayor would classify the attacks of September 11, 2001, as well as Richard Reid's attempted shoe-bombing in late 2001.

 

"Giuliani seems to have forgotten about the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and shoe bomber Richard Reid," ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who conducted the Giuliani interview, wrote on his blog.

 

Giuliani's comments are similar to those of former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino and former Dick Cheney aide Mary Matalin, both of whom have said in recent weeks no terrorism attacks occurred under Bush.

 

"We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term," Perino told Fox News last November.

 

In December, Mary Matalin - a former senior adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney - made comments that seemed to place the 9/11 attacks under President Clinton's watch. "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," Matalin a CNN analyst, told John King on CNN's "State of the Union" last month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In December, Mary Matalin - a former senior adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney - made comments that seemed to place the 9/11 attacks under President Clinton's watch. "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history," Matalin a CNN analyst, told John King on CNN's "State of the Union" last month.

 

 

That isn't fair at all, after all to say you inherited a problem from a previous administration would be the epitome of being a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that would be Carters and Clintons. (CRI) look it up sometime, you might learn something, then again you probably wouldn't.

 

Almost every president has had some sort of recession. I do not like how you ignore GW Bush's massive "The Great Recession" in favour of blaming Bill Clinton. That is just plainly dishonest of you.

 

Wow. Pasta Joe, blzrul, conner and Dave in norfolk. As soon as Hedd and John Dell-a-idiot get here the short school bus is FULL.

 

That is only because your fat a** takes up the whole back row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh

 

I love it when we have ALL the retards singing in unison....so lets run with it....

 

the wheels on the short bus go round and round, round and round...

 

The dipschit Micheal Moore says there is no terrorist threat, no terrorist threat, no terrorist threat, all during his movie.

 

The dipschit Democrats go clap, clap, clap...clap, clap, clap...clap, clap, clap,

 

The dipschit Democrats go clap, clap, clap, even though shoe bomber happened.

 

Now the Democrats say bad, bad, bad...bad, bad, bad...bad, bad, bad, when Rudy forgets the shoe bomber.

 

Where were the Dems when Moore spewed his crap, spewed his crap, spewed his crap?

 

Where were the Dems when Moore spewed his crap? Getting themselves elected...

 

They want us to forget they said, "the war is lost", "the war is lost", "the war is lost"

 

They want us to forget they said "the war is lost", now that the Dems have to fight it.

 

Why should we listen to coward's crap, coward's crap, coward's crap?

 

Why should we listen to coward's crap, when they have all been wrong? (The Surge mother f_ucker! I am now eternally right and you are now eternally wrong about that, your own community organizer has said so....now deal with it, you cowards, for the rest of your weak ass lives, oh and STFU)

 

Remind me again why we elected this Congress, elected the Congress

 

Remind me again why we elected this Congress, just so they can suck.

 

I could go on for 3 more pages, 3 more pages, 3 more pages

 

I could go on for 3 more pages, I dare you to run your mouth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's REALLY gota suck to be so insanely jealous of a person you have never even met.

 

:w00t::thumbsup:

 

 

Are you serious... If anything it is the other way around. It is usually the hillbilly that has the inferiority complex and the preconceived notions of the outside world... Well until they at least get out of their parochial existence. IMO, that my friend is why you see Palin attacking all the time, she still has not seen things for what they are worth.

 

And that is to be jealous about? :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost every president has had some sort of recession. I do not like how you ignore GW Bush's massive "The Great Recession" in favour of blaming Bill Clinton. That is just plainly dishonest of you.

Bush has got some skin in this game, afterall it happened under his watch, and in my view he didn't put the right people in place to foresee the crisis. He also didn't do enough to regulate the mortgage industry.

 

However, the (CRA) is largely to blame for the financial crisis that we are in. Fannie and Freddy would of never have made as many loans as they did if the Clinton administration didn't push for it, and that is a fact. Bush did try to regulate Fannie and Freddy but Barney Frank opposed it in 2004 and essentially said that Fannie posed no risk and effectively killed Bush's initiative.

Also, Bush did inherit the bursting of the dot com bubble which began the interest rate drops and to top things off, Clinton had his opportunity to kill Osama back in 98 I believe, which if he would of been taken out it is very possible that 9/11 would of never of occured, in which Greenspan lowered interest rates even further, for too long that fueled the interest rate bubble even further.

 

Then there is the repeal of the Glass Steagall act, which was the most effective banking regulation that we had in place for decades. This was huge, this allowed "responsible" depository institutions become like casino investment banks. Citigroup and Bank of America would of never of lost the billions and billions of dolars if this hadn't been repealed, and that is a fact. Which of course means that AIG wouldn't of had as many losses either since they insured lots of these Mortgage related bonds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

 

Are you serious... If anything it is the other way around. It is usually the hillbilly that has the inferiority complex and the preconceived notions of the outside world... Well until they at least get out of their parochial existence. IMO, that my friend is why you see Palin attacking all the time, she still has not seen things for what they are worth.

 

And that is to be jealous about? :thumbsup:

As usual you have twisted it around so much it is difficult to respond, but do you think Palin constantly brings up blzrul on completely irrelevant Internet threads and uses her picture as a avatar?

Hillbilly? do you honesty think anyone not from Chicago, California, or NY is a bucktooth inbred idiot?

This from a guy that worries about carp all day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, Bush did inherit the bursting of the dot com bubble which began the interest rate drops and to top things off, Clinton had his opportunity to kill Osama back in 98 I believe, which if he would of been taken out it is very possible that 9/11 would of never of occured, in which Greenspan lowered interest rates even further, for too long that fueled the interest rate bubble even further.

 

 

Rep. Dick Armey, GOP majority leader: "The suspicion some people have about the president's motives in this attack [on Iraq] is itself a powerful argument for impeachment," Armey said in a statement. "After months of lies, the president has given millions of people around the world reason to doubt that he has sent Americans into battle for the right reasons."

 

Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y.: "It is obvious that they're (the Clinton White House) doing everything they can to postpone the vote on this impeachment in order to try to get whatever kind of leverage they can, and the American people ought to be as outraged as I am about it," Solomon said in an interview with CNN. Asked if he was accusing Clinton of playing with American lives for political expediency, Solomon said, "Whether he knows it or not, that's exactly what he's doing."

 

GOP Sen. Dan Coats: Coats, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a statement, "While there is clearly much more we need to learn about this attack [on bin Laden] and why it was ordered today, given the president's personal difficulties this week, it is legitimate to question the timing of this action."

 

Sen. Larry Craig, U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee: "The foregoing, the premise of the recent film 'Wag the Dog,' might once have seemed farfetched. Yet it can hardly escape comment that on the very day, August 17, that President Bill Clinton is scheduled to testify before a federal grand jury to explain his possibly criminal behavior, Commander-in-Chief Bill Clinton has ordered U.S. Marines and air crews to commence several days of ground and air exercises in, yes, Albania as a warning of possible NATO intervention in next-door Kosovo ...

 

"Not too many years ago, it would not have entered the mind of even the worst of cynics to speculate whether any American president, whatever his political difficulties, would even consider sending U.S. military personnel into harm's way to serve his own, personal needs. But in an era when pundits openly weigh the question of whether President Clinton will (or should) tell the truth under oath not because he has a simple obligation to do so but because of the possible impact on his political 'viability' -- is it self-evident that military decisions are not affected by similar considerations? Under the circumstances, it is fair to ask to what extent the Clinton Administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to the motives behind its actions."

 

GOP activist Paul Weyrich: "Paul Weyrich, a leading conservative activist, said Clinton's decision to bomb on the eve of the impeachment vote 'is more of an impeachable offense than anything he is being charged with in Congress.'"

 

Wall Street Journal editorial: "It is dangerous for an American president to launch a military strike, however justified, at a time when many will conclude he acted only out of narrow self-interest to forestall or postpone his own impeachment."

 

Sen. Trent Lott, GOP majority leader: "I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time," Lott said in a statement. "Both the timing and the policy are subject to question."

 

Rep. Gerald Solomon: "'Never underestimate a desperate president,' said a furious House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald B.H. Solomon (R-N.Y.). 'What option is left for getting impeachment off the front page and maybe even postponed? And how else to explain the sudden appearance of a backbone that has been invisible up to now?'"

 

Rep. Tillie Folwer: "'It [the bombing of Iraq] is certainly rather suspicious timing,' said Rep. Tillie Fowler (R-Florida). 'I think the president is shameless in what he would do to stay in office.'"

 

Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum: "First, it [intervention in Kosovo] is a 'wag the dog' public relations ploy to involve us in a war in order to divert attention from his personal scandals (only a few of which were addressed in the Senate trial). He is again following the scenario of the 'life is truer than fiction' movie 'Wag the Dog.' The very day after his acquittal, Clinton moved quickly to 'move on' from the subject of impeachment by announcing threats to bomb and to send U.S. ground troops into the civil war in Kosovo between Serbian authorities and ethnic Albanians fighting for independence. He scheduled Americans to be part of a NATO force under non-American command."

 

Jim Hoagland, Washington Post: "President Clinton has indelibly associated a justified military response ... with his own wrongdoing ... Clinton has now injected the impeachment process against him into foreign policy, and vice versa."

 

Wall Street Journal editorial: "Perceptions that the American president is less interested in the global consequences than in taking any action that will enable him to hold onto power [are] a further demonstration that he has dangerously compromised himself in conducting the nation's affairs, and should be impeached."

 

Damn anti-American republicans. They opposed Clinton (Newt being a notable exception) when he went after Iraq and Osama. He was in a weak position politically (his own fault) so I would say the blame was somewhat shared. Quotes lifted from Salon.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then there is the repeal of the Glass Steagall act, which was the most effective banking regulation that we had in place for decades. This was huge, this allowed "responsible" depository institutions become like casino investment banks. Citigroup and Bank of America would of never of lost the billions and billions of dolars if this hadn't been repealed, and that is a fact. Which of course means that AIG wouldn't of had as many losses either since they insured lots of these Mortgage related bonds.

 

Even if you keep repeating it it won't make it any more true. Deposit taking institutions fared the best in the recent crisis, while the investment banks and AIG were destroyed. How would Glass Steagall have protected Bear, Lehman, Merrill & AIG? It wouldn't have.

 

The only reason BoA is on your list is because they had to absorb Merrill' losses. Wachovia went under because of the Golden West purchase, which again would have been ok under GS.

 

I know that there's a chorus of people screaming that GS should have never been repealed, but if there's one thing that this crisis isn't lacking it's people opining on things which covers their arses or demonstrates their lack of understanding.

 

Glass Steagall had nothing to do with how investment banks funded themselves and how all financials starting looking at their risk management which was starting to come under common Basel standards. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.

 

If you eliminate value at risk models, CDS, and the securitizations, then this crisis doesn't happen. And none of those have anything to do with Glass Steagall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bush has got some skin in this game, afterall it happened under his watch, and in my view he didn't put the right people in place to foresee the crisis. He also didn't do enough to regulate the mortgage industry.

 

However, the (CRA) is largely to blame for the financial crisis that we are in. Fannie and Freddy would of never have made as many loans as they did if the Clinton administration didn't push for it, and that is a fact. Bush did try to regulate Fannie and Freddy but Barney Frank opposed it in 2004 and essentially said that Fannie posed no risk and effectively killed Bush's initiative.

Also, Bush did inherit the bursting of the dot com bubble which began the interest rate drops and to top things off, Clinton had his opportunity to kill Osama back in 98 I believe, deriletion of dutywhich if he would of been taken out it is very possible that 9/11 would of never of occured, in which Greenspan lowered interest rates even further, for too long that fueled the interest rate bubble even further.

 

Then there is the repeal of the Glass Steagall act, which was the most effective banking regulation that we had in place for decades. This was huge, this allowed "responsible" depository institutions become like casino investment banks. Citigroup and Bank of America would of never of lost the billions and billions of dolars if this hadn't been repealed, and that is a fact. Which of course means that AIG wouldn't of had as many losses either since they insured lots of these Mortgage related bonds.

including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location;
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from a guy that worries about carp all day.

 

I don't worry about carp... States like MI and NY do.

 

I say let them in... Why are they persecuting the thing? What makes other sport fish (sport fish that were also brought into, what was geologically a mostly sterile Great Lakes ecosystem, by humans) more important?... Who knows, they may even NOT like the lakes. Rename them "silver fin" and eat them... It would fire up the whole commercial fishing industry again with the ability to take as much as possible whenever they wanted to. They have been living with them in the south for all these years... Didn't seem to be hurting the sport indusrty there.

 

I am worried about enviro-hyeteria more and enviro-elitism.

 

This from Baton Rouge:

 

SilverFin

 

"...We will never be able to fully eradicate these fish, so we are trying to make the best out of what these fish have to offer," said Gary Tilyou, administrator for inland fisheries. "By creating a demand for the meat, we hope to create a commercial and recreational freshwater fishing industry for Asian carp..."

 

"...On Thursday, the department will propose letting fishermen use dip nets, spears and snagging methods to take Asian carp — and to keep any that jump into their boats. They won't have any size or possession limits..."

"...Asian carp are commonly found in Louisiana in the Mississippi, Red and Ouachita rivers and Atchafalaya Basin.

 

"These Asian carp have been in Louisiana waters for close to 20 years and are sustaining their populations," Tilyou said. "This is a problem we have to manage to minimize impacts to our natural resources and the people that enjoy our Louisiana waterways..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

including how Clinton lost the nuclear codes and shrugged it off; how he stalled and lost the opportunity to launch a direct strike on Osama bin Laden at a confirmed location;

 

And the flack he got from Republicans had nothing to do with him waiting too long?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the Democrats say bad, bad, bad...bad, bad, bad...bad, bad, bad, when Rudy forgets the shoe bomber.

 

He also forgot his signature issue; 9/11. All he remembered were a noun and a verb.

 

He didn't even screen his own buddy Bernie Kerik's background when he recommended him for head of Homeland Security, and now he wants to lecture others on screening. C'mon man. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...