world

Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe

83 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2008/9 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

83 Comments
Login to comment

How can Bush lie so much, he's horrid and bad!!!

I read recently that Bush and his friends allowed 9-11 to happen on purpose so he could kill Saddam Hussein and steal his oil.

How can a man who hasn't even tried very hard to catch Bin Laden say he has kept the USA safe?

OOohhh, he make me mad, i want to scream and scream, he's a warmonger!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bush said virtually no one could have predicted back then that the country would not be hit again for the rest of his presidency.

Except for that anthrax attack.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I may think so as well, but it just cost far far toooo much. If he could at least listen to Gen. Shinseki I believe that his story in Iraq would not be so messy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well he's right that there haven't been any attacks on US soil since 9/11. And now countries do have a much better system in place for coordinating efforts against terrorism, something he's been the leader in making. When talking about the safety within the US's borders I think he can make the claim that the situation is better now than it was on 9/10.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: You're right, of course, that there have been no more attacks on US soil since 9/11, but the idea that he has as a result kept the country safer is ludicrous. If there is a threat to something, it is in no way safe, whether or not that threat is carried out. Threats to and against the US have increases exponentially since bush and co. took office, started the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.

Again, there may not have been more attacks during his presidency, but the possibility of them has always been there and has never been stronger -- and that, in no one's book, means the US and Americans are 'safer'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

SuperLib: I missed the last part of your comment. I agree that it is more 'secure' than on 9/10 as well, but 'safer' is another issue.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

“It’s not a matter of luck,” Bush said, defending his security policies.

It's also not a matter of 'bad luck' that the US was attacked on his dime then, either.

'“While there’s room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made — and there’s plenty of debate — there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe,” Bush said'

There certainly can, you pompous ass! Evidently you didn't learn a thing from the shoe-throwing. Perhaps that should be an indicator of how 'safe' and loved you are. The US has never had more enemies than it does now, and that makes it LESS safe than it was before, not more.

Just because you're house is double bolted from the inside doesn't mean it can be damaged or destroyed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He also claimed he'd catch Bin Ladin and that we'd find WMD. 42 other presidents can make the same claim on terrorism. A blanket statement as "there can be no debate" about his results is the same absurd childishness we've gotten from him the last 8 years. The only thing I credit him for is waking up after 2006 and reforming some of his more ridiculous policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If you ask me, 9/11 woke up the whole of America. The prime reason America became safer is because Americans in general started paying attention. Any president could have sat in the oval office drooling and steps would have been made to beef up security.

Bush can take some credit for what he did do, though I still disagree with a lot of the more overt actions. But I have to agree with smith's "pompous ass" comments. No debate! Ha! There is plenty of room for debate and plenty of room for Obama to make some rollbacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While it's true there have been no further attacks on US soil, GWB is unlikely to be vindicated by history as Harry Truman was. Truman created a framework to deal with the Cold War, GWB isn't leaving anything remotely similar for his successors. Nor can we afford to blow through another five trillion. Obama is gonna have to make some adjustments.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush's inaction allowed the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=August6%2C2001%2CPresident'sDailyBriefingMemo

No, there's no debate. If he'd have done hios job to begin with we wouldn't have been attacked.

But the republicans believe hook, line and sinker. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well, if you are going to blame Bush for 9-11, you must also give part of that fault to Clinton as well, he had the man in the scope but never got a hold of him either. I guess to please a lot of people, Osama had to actually do something to bring people together to get him. Like GWB, Osama also holds part of the blame for Iraq as did Saddam.

Now, as he leaves, let's hope that all this America is safer crap stays and even gets better. I see many want to blame Bush and co. for 9-11 but what about 93? So, my point is that Bush haters didn't come out until much later, so where do we draw the fault line.

Just hope Obama does something that can quell the people who would want to kill in the name of religion wantonly. Carter hasn't been successful with them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's no sharing. george bush failed the US.

he allowed the bombing.

But...

The FBI and CIA knew who the bombers were and failed to act.

Oh and the george bush Memorial War in Iraq, that was george bush's present to his father.

But back to the US. george bush didn't tell the airlines about the information they were aware of. That's the same as abetting the bombers. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess one could argue that the US was safer after 9-11, in that since that day there has been no reason to stage another similar event. 9-11 was the new Pearl Harbor that gave Bush and his friends the "right" to invade and destroy Afghanistan and Iraq. As for keeping Americans safe, then he failed miserably since more Americans were killed in the invasions than on 9-11, and infinitely more were injured.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looking back on Sept 11, Bush said he rejected a strategy of retreat that would have had Americans hunkering down or seeking quick revenge by attacking nations that supported terrorism, but without a broad plan to address the root cause of the threat.

Now GWB is speaking about "root causes"?

Bush said virtually no one could have predicted back then that the country would not be hit again for the rest of his presidency.

This is a rather disingenuous assertion since it was members of his own administration, such as John Ashcroft, warning us "there's a 90 percent chance we're going to get hit again." Though the time frame was unspecified, that was part of the message which was used to instill fear in the American public so there would be fewer questions about GWB's "pre-emptive strike" response.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He could completely close every one of America's borders, deport anyone who isn't Christian and shot dissenters, and said he's kept the US safe. Doesn't mean he should do that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ok, which is it? GWB is stupid but was able to pull the wool over Americans' eyes and allowed 9-11 to happen so he could invade Iraq for some other reason unrelated to terror? or Was GWB smart and actually had a hand in 9-11 like a certain poster claimed? or GWB is stupid and was suckered into the war, allowed the economy to fail purposely, was soley responsible for the housing crises and its all fault that the GM 3 are going down the tubes (again, as another certain poster claims)?

Please tell me soon. My daughter will ask about how he was and I would prefer not to let her think that Americans were sooo stupid as many here claim we are.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee:

Truman created a framework to deal with the Cold War, GWB isn't leaving anything remotely similar for his successors.

Don’t you think that GWB started to freeze the US/Russia relation again with the missile base in Poland and the conflict in Georgia? I think he reversed the trust relationship between US and Russia. Also, he made many relationships worse than before. (With Europe, ME, South America)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh skipthesong, tell your daughter what you like. You're a republican so your story will astount her at how he protected America. I will tell my grandchildren the truth though.

I'll tell them how george bush refused to give the airlines pertinent information that would have saved lives.

I'll tell them how the CIA anmd FBI sat on information and did nothing.

I'll tell them as soon as the terrorist attacked cheney and rumpsfeld bounced and danced all over the whitehouse, parephrased "we're going to Iraq, we're going to Iraq."

I'll tell them about the liar who sent over 4000 Americans to their death in Iraq.

I'll tell them how dick cheney profiteered from no-bid contracts.

You tell your daughter how he saved lives.

Your story is nicer. She'll sleep better with lies, then she will with the truth.

No there's no debate.

Either the republican story or the truth. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look I still have 15 rolls of duct tape and hazmat suit. Just because dubya said it would make us safer. There is no debate he is a moron and the people took his jive hook line and sinker. By the way what was the outcome of his bill to keep him and his cronies out of jail for war crimes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Don’t you think that GWB started to freeze the US/Russia relation again with the missile base in Poland and the conflict in Georgia? I think he reversed the trust relationship between US and Russia. Also, he made many relationships worse than before. (With Europe, ME, South America)

I know there was a real fear in some places that if McCain won he would resurrect the Cold War. I'm cautiously optimistic that once GWB leaves office, it will not be too difficult for Obama to improve US relations with countries with which Washington has historically enjoyed strong relationships.

GWB's foreign policy represented a distinct break not only from that of Bill Clinton but of his father as well. Even he has had to move away from it. We've been talking to the Iranians for some months now. It might have moved beyond that save for the fact it would have hurt McCain (so much for "Country First").

There are countries where citizens harbor a generalized dislike of the US and it doesn't really matter who's president. But GWB was so toxic even they may come around a bit!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey DXXJP, I keep my windows covered with plastic and duct tape. That's what they told us to do. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look I still have 15 rolls of duct tape and hazmat suit. Just because dubya said it would make us safer.

Yeah, he forget the instructions: Duct-tape Bush into the suit and seal the airholes.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm conscious that the Iranian issue seems calmed down since several months. It's a good thing. At certain moment, I was convinced that Bush would hit Iran ! But with Russia, I'm not so optimistic as you know, Putin is not a saint and he took the opportunity to reverse the internal politics to the USSR period. I hope Obama will act to make the US/Russia relation(and the world) better.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream ..

First your wiki style link is a blank link. Nothing on it.

What information should we have listened to_? THe multi pages of reports during the Clinton administration that stated such an event will happen? The information during the late 90's that gave us the exact location for OBL? The information that was passed when Bush took office that OBL is not a threat and not a high priority? Or some information the the CIA and FBI recieved (amonst the millions of pieces of information they recieve daily) about a possible attack on the US? Maybe we should of went after OBL when they did the 93 bombing of the same buildings?

Before 911 the standard routine for a hijacking was to comply with the hijackers and no one got hurt. Been doing it that way since the 70's. That is why the plan they used worked, not because the goverment didnt stop them, because people didnt think what happened would. Now if you try to take a plane over with a box cutter, you will get mauled by the people on the plane.

Every one has a story to tell and just like when you question ten people about a crime you get ten different stories. You have your idea and your tale to tell, Skip has his tale to tell. Neither of you are telling the whole truth, and both of you are speaking from your political view. The truth we may never know, but I know it isnt either political parties version.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Recently Bin Ladin's been taking credit for our financial crisis thanks to his actions on 911 and Iraq. Bin Ladin himself said he wanted two things and predicted they would happen - we'd be out of Saudi Arabia (true) and our economy would suffer catastrophe (true). I wouldn't give him credit for it any more than Bush on terrorism.

The CIA and FBI can't stop anthrax attacks or the sniper, but that doesn't mean just because it happens they or the president gets blame either. Life isn't that simple.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But with Russia, I'm not so optimistic as you know, Putin is not a saint and he took the opportunity to reverse the internal politics to the USSR period.

Putin has been brilliant (which is bad for us). He's leveraged Russian control over the oil and natural gas resources of not only his own country but Central Asia as well. All the pipelines in the FSU countries still lead to Moscow. People think, "economic integration decreases the chances for conflict." But Putin cut off the Ukraine last winter and wouldn't hesitate too much to cut off Western Europe. They can forgo the income if they want to make a point.

Russia is now resurgent and it will require more attention from the next administration. As I've said before, the creation of alternative sources of energy would undercut not just Russia's, but Iran's ability to influence world events as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Here's a great game to throw the shoe at bush, if you haven't tried it yet: 'Sock and Awe'!

http://play.sockandawe.com/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5 - Not my link. I gave no links. You're mistaken.

And your truth is...? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Putin is gathering the power to become the next Stalin. (but more secretly) Bush & Co make the journalist silent by private or social pressure, Putin makes them silent by eliminating.

I don't say that Bush made Putin as he became now, but Bush gave the good opportunities for Putin to control the Russian people's opinion. And I'm not sure if Obama can change the Putin's politics...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't say that Bush made Putin as he became now, but Bush gave the good opportunities for Putin to control the Russian people's opinion. And I'm not sure if Obama can change the Putin's politics...

I don't have a lot of expertise in Russia. But I know much of the economy is controlled by criminal syndicates. The country has not made a smooth or even successful transition to a post-socialist state. Putin, to distract people, appears to have played the nationalism card.

Ascertaining Russia's legitimate security needs and whether GWB threatened them by trying to bring the Ukraine and Georgia into NATO is a matter of dispute. I don't know enough about it to arrive at a determination.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

besides the shoe terrorists America is safer -another reason to keep G-Mo and waterboarding.

I don't know how we are gonna stop the shoe throwers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush is best US pres ever. He knows how to go after the bad people, the terrists. Since 911, America has been safe because he made good decisions. Bush is a great man; I am unworthy to untie the sandals that will be thrown at him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What I really admire about the beloved President George W. Bush is that despite there being absolutely no evidence, he had the intuition to realize that Bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks of 9-11 and that the war against terror should be carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq. Very impressive man indeed, he was a great decider.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream at 10:55 AM JST - 18th December

george bush's inaction allowed the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=August6%2C2001%2CPresident'sDailyBriefingMemo

No, there's no debate. If he'd have done hios job to begin with we wouldn't have been attacked.

But the republicans believe hook, line and sinker. < :-)

Lying a habit or a hobby for ya ??? Thats a link in your post. I dont have a truth because I havent access to the information that would give an acurate answer, and hard to believe but you dont either. The truth will not be the one you read in a blog or a wiki page thats for sure.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5 my apology. That links been good for 4 years. But here's another one. Not trying to mislead you.

I don't lie. You republicans sure like to sling that word around. < :-)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream.. Another lie(or just plain ignorance).... Since Im a regristered Independent and the last "two party" guy I voted for was Bill (pants around his knees) Clinton..And I still to this day kick myslef for voting for a man who reduced my pay while I protected his butt.

That shows me what? That the FBI in 1998 had a report that AQ thought about Hijacking an airplane to use as a hostage situation to get a political person released? What does that have to do with using a plane for a bomb into the twin towers? Or do I have to put on my X-file issued glasses and see what isnt there?

Even on my best day of being an anti Bush guy I couldnt link that to the hijacking of 4 airplanes (or attempts) to use as self propelled bombs. And considering most of the data in that brief is from Clintons time I have a harder time blaming Bush for it, when it would seem Clinton should of been on top of it. Also with the information on that site you show me that Bush had no reason to think a little over a month later they would do 9-11. But I guess when you want to see something you see it, but when your not aching for something thats not there you just see the truth.

And Adaydream.. I accept your apology :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So is the debate about Putin's actions in Russia or Bush's protection of the US? The farther we stray from the topic the more obvious it is that the core argument wants to be ignored by some.

Saying that no attacks since 9/11 is irrelevant would be like me saying a dozen attacks since 9/11 would be irrelevant, if that had been the case. The fact is that it's much, much harder for a terrorist attack to happen today than it was on 9/10. Al Queda is not nearly as strong or organized as it once was, cooperation between nations is greatly improved, and overall security is greatly improved.

Europe, on the other hand.... How many attacks there since 9/11?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: "Even on my best day of being an anti Bush guy I couldnt link that to the hijacking of 4 airplanes (or attempts) to use as self propelled bombs"

And yet heaps of people on here can STILL try to link Saddam and Iraqis to the bombings of 9/11, and when that doesn't pan out you have SuperLib still searching for the WMDs that simply MUST have been there, and somehow you have people on here that can link all of this to some root evil that exists in 1.4 billion people.

This happened on bush's watch, after he chose to ignore valuable intelligence. Perhaps his rush to invade Iraq was overcompensation for ignoring the intel. that led to 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sabiwabi, daydream thinks Bush allowed Bin Laden to attack America.

daydream, Sabiwabi thinks there is no Bin Laden and that Bush invented him.

At best only one of you can be correct. So....which one of you is right?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the WMDs that simply MUST have been there

Yep, that's on topic, too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People, including Bush tend to forget (or as is often the case simply ignore) the fact 9/11 happened on Bush's watch. So his "no debate" is laughable, especially in light of more than a few un-answered questions....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahh but Smith I'm not one. Im not a Bush fan nor am I a fan of those who find it a daily ritual to Bash only Bush.Like nothing was caused by anyother person in Washington past or present. I think those who Bash Bush for the sake of bashing him have tunnel style vision and dont see anything close to a whole picture.

Show me the Intelligence that Bush ignored that was created and exposed in the months after he took over office, that explains the attack method and time frame, and wasnt already taken off the table as a real threat by Bill Clinton.

This was planned (all the intel shows) under Clintons watch. Even Adaydreams link shows it was all intelligence known before 2000. Bush didnt respond to WHAT intel? What valueable intelligence did he ignore? Please show us this intelligence that would lead anyone to believe they would do the attack on 9-11 2001 with airplanes?

Also from my understanding of the flow of things we didnt go into Iraq until march 19th 2003. Considering he had the congress approval to invade Iraq in October of 2002 and we didnt invade until March 19th 2003 He didnt seem to rush, but he did seem to not to listen to the UN on the matter.

Im not a supporter of how we went into Iraq, I would of perferred other countries to (for once) be the might of the UN and invade Iraq to enforce the sanctions. Does this mean I think Bush had the goal to invade Iraq from the beginning? NO. Does it mean I think he rushed into Iraq becasue he had intelligence failures on the 911 attacks? NO (considering the intelligence wasnt anything that indicated the attack of 9-11 and was from years ago and dismissed by the former presidents staff and Bill himself)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Super,

I wouldn't put it past Bush Co to have let the attacks happen to advance their agenda.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

nippon,

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/clarke.bush/index.html

or even;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/09/september11.alqaida

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Well Madverts..

Since you link to the same brief that adaydream did in your second post we will just say you didnt actually read that brief. And no it isnt any kind of actual warning about planes into buildings etc etc etc, and the intelligence was from before 2000. That intelligence was deemed not important by Bill then.

Your other link is to Clark who was unable to prove what he said and was discredited by all the other people in the meeting not to mention his book deal that he made.

What I asked for was "Please show us this intelligence that would lead anyone to believe they would do the attack on 9-11 2001 with airplanes?"

But what I got was the same old August 6th debrief that didnt say anything about the 9-11 attack at all, and a report of Clark "who released a book" then stated Bush knew more. Really is hard for someone to actually give the information requested?_ Or is it that information isnt real and therefore you can not produce such things?

I wait for my requested information.

Moderator: All readers back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moderator - how can a discussion about Bush keeping the US safe go off topic when posters mention intelligence briefings relating to the same subject?

Moderator: Posts that deal with pre-9/11 are not relevant.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

aday: why do you have to be so immature? I am not a republican, but I am not a dem either. However, I believe in giving credit where it is due and blame where it is due, regardless how I feel about a person. The article is about Bush praising himself about the security of the US. Have we been attacked in the US? have potential attacks been thwarted in the US? The thread is not about the war, it is not about the economy, it is about a statement made by Bush. He says there is no debate. If you disagree, prove him wrong with gong on an immature rant and calling me names!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: "Ahh but Smith I'm not one. Im not a Bush fan nor am I a fan of those who find it a daily ritual to Bash only Bush"

Never said you were... was just pointing out that said people exist, in comparison with the people you pointed out, and post here frequently.

"Please show us this intelligence that would lead anyone to believe they would do the attack on 9-11 2001 with airplanes?"

Here you go:

""Al Qaeda had planned attacks in London, Paris, Marseilles, Strasbourg, Singapore, and Rome, but most of the conspirators were arrested a short time after the Sept. 11 attacks. Meanwhile, no one had hijacked an aircraft in the U.S. using a "real" weapon in almost 15 years, although crashing planes into structures is not new. The Israelis shot down a Libyan jetliner they said was headed for a building in Tel Aviv in the 1980s. A Cessna 150 fell 50 yards short of the White House in September, 1994. French commandos prevented a jumbo jet, hijacked in Algeria by the Armed Islamic Group, from crashing into the Eiffel Tower the following December. In the mid 1990s, terrorist Ramzi Yousef plotted to have his friend Abdul Hakim Murad fly a light plane loaded with chemical weapons into CIA headquarters at Langley, Va., or to have him spray the area with poison gas. A Turkish hijacker attempted to crash an aircraft into the tomb of former Pres. Kemal Ataturk in Ankara in 1998. With enhanced security on at airports and passengers on commercial airliners who will react to any danger, this threat has diminished."

One of but many pieces of evidence that bush and co. willingly ignored the threat presented to them in intelligence, and then went on later to lie about it (with excellent dramatic performances by Condi for exaggeration), saying they had never envisioned the attacks by airplane.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/18/attack/main509488.shtml

Sorry, mods... but it is in answer to a query, and does indeed relate to the topic at hand.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think SuperLib is right when he says that Bush was a leader in creating a framework for cooperation against terrorism. I think he was rather heavy-handed in doing so and I'm not sure that the framework will hold, but he did do that.

I think Bush was right when he said that he stopped attacks against the US. I'm not sure, however, that attacks against the US have not been stopped by other administrations at other times.

I think Bush is wrong to take credit for there being no more attacks on American soil. In the first place, I think the administration has controlled the intelligence on what is and what is not an attack. More importantly, it's difficult to take credit for something that is not done.

The elephant whistler ever trumpets the absence of elephants.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Im a bit lost on your post Smith. How does events of the world change into tangible intelligence that Bush ignored? All the things in your post refer to times way before Bush and discarded by Clinton as not important in the protection of the US. 20/20 is perfect vision, and all the people from 1970 until 9-11 2001 read the same things your posting. Why would it be a red light for Bush to see the 9-11 attacks?

My question was what intelligence did Bush ignore that was about 4 airplanes being flown into buildings in the US as a plot by AQ on 9-11 2001. What you are showing me is examples of attacks by plane. In history people have attacked with cars, buses, planes, boats, people, dogs, cats, rodents, etc etc etc. But no president has locked down everything based off of historical events.

When JFK was killed they said they never expected a president to be shot even though Lincoln meet the same fate.

An estimated 100000 terrorist threats about AQ had been filed before Bush took office. None of the threats where deemed real from Bill's staff, but Bush's staff had beefed up the hunt for cells and such before 911 according to the 911-commission.

I think people are creating the "ignored intelligence" to support a hatrid of the war. He didnt ignore anything that wasnt already ignored by Clinton.

Did Bush make the US safer? Most likely yes. He tightened security in some of the more accesible areas, he brought the fight to the ME and AQ is focused on that area (right or wrong it still did serve to bring the AQ terrorist to that area), and to this date we have not had a major attack (other then the Antrax which isnt labeled an AQ attack) by AQ on US soil since 9-11. Does it mean the US is safeer after we leave the Middle east and AQ can refocus on us at home? Most likely not.

So to sum it up. We are safer at this moment then we were on 9-11 2001, but its a false safty that will disappear as soon as we leave the area of the ME.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"but its a false safty that will disappear as soon as we leave the area of the ME."

If you leave the ME.

But surely that argument tends to suggest that the US has definitely not been kept safe by Bush. Iraq is in turmoil, whether Superlib likes it or not the invasion has caused terrorists to run amok there - and a whole lot more arab people don't like you very much.

We have no idea as yet to how much further threat to the US from Islamic terrorists Bush's failed ME policies will have caused, but one thing is for sure, and that is Bush's "no debate" claims are laughable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5,

If I remember correctly, the various committees that addressed the question as to whether or not we were safer now than on 9/11 all concluded that we were not. Those reports were commissioned some time ago, however. I wonder when exactly it was that we became safer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I wonder when exactly it was that we became safer."

Possibly on the 4th Nov this year. Let's see what the new man can do to reverse the last eight years of madness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

moderator - bush seized the WH in 2000. It's on topic, but you're the man.

Moderator: We simply wish readers to discuss Bush's comments and the situation in the U.S. since 9/11, not prior to 9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: You asked for proof that it was known there would be an attack via airplanes, I gave it to you. Please stop asking for proof and then changing the subject when it's presented. That you have trouble following the proof is no statement on the fact that it was provided, but merely a statement on your inability to follow through with an argument, or accept when it is incorrect. Sorry, my friend, but it's true.

Bush was given that intel, and he ignored it. He, and others in his government, later chose to lie and say they had no idea, despite knowing all along that there was a credible threat. That does not make things 'safer' after the fact. He COULD have made things safer, but chose not to. He then made things WORSE by overreacting and misdirecting things towards Iraq, much later in the game after being unable to find Bin Laden, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry smith here is the copy of my request.. I asked for very specific info..

See below..

Show me the Intelligence that Bush ignored that was created and exposed in the months after he took over office, that explains the attack method and time frame, and wasnt already taken off the table as a real threat by Bill Clinton.

This was planned (all the intel shows) under Clintons watch. Even Adaydreams link shows it was all intelligence known before 2000. Bush didnt respond to WHAT intel? What valueable intelligence did he ignore? Please show us this intelligence that would lead anyone to believe they would do the attack on 9-11 2001 with airplanes?

Once again I wait for this intel that states what I asked. Not general information on types of attacks that happened before. On top of this the intel he had all was gone through by Clintons office and deemed not viable..

Clinton could be charged with the same thing as Bush. He could of made things safer, so could all the other presidents who did nothing about outside threats. Only reason any one blaims Bush is out of hatrid of the man and not sound or realistic logic.

Mod I promise last post on this topic for me, I dont really expect an answer since there isnt one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That does not make things 'safer' after the fact. He COULD have made things safer, but chose not to.

Brilliant........The first thing that Bush does after he is inaugrated in 2000 goes before the America people and declares he is going to set up the Department of Homeland Security due to some vague intel of an a terrorist plot.

The American people respond with a resounding yes!!! Give it a rest smith. The American people would never stand for it pre-9/11. They wouldn't stand for it pre-9/11 if it was President Gore and he declares the same thing. There would have been riots in the streets.

It's nuts to think that any President DEMOCRAT or REPUBLICAN pre-9/11 could have or would have been able to do anything more to make us safer given the political climate and mood of the country at that time. Wiretaps??? Freeze Bank accounts of possible terrorist supporters? Think Congress at that time would pass such legislation???

Congress would NEVER pass any such changes to reduce some vague possible threat.

9/11 changed everything and he has made the Government much more able to detect and defeat the threat. He deserves credit for that. We are safer now then before the 9/11. President Obama will be handed over a much different Government then Bush was handed in its capabilities of detecting and defeating terrorists plots and with the whole international terrorist threat. Feel free to knock yourself out to even try to disagree with that one.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: I hate to be nitpicky, but HERE'S a copy of what you said for the second time: "What I asked for was "Please show us this intelligence that would lead anyone to believe they would do the attack on 9-11 2001 with airplanes?" (at 05:44 PM JST - 18th December)

You can go back and read the rest of the comment, if you like, where you go one to chide Madverts for what you say was not answering your question.

Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on the story, namely Bush's comments. Don't get bogged down on pre-9/11.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sailwind: "The American people respond with a resounding yes!!! Give it a rest smith. The American people would never stand for it pre-9/11."

So you're saying that the American people would have never stood for warning the airlines of a potential threat? wow, sailwind... you really underestimate how much people enjoy their lives, I think. I didn't talk about stealing all your freedoms and the things done AFTER 9/11, I spoke of what could have been done to prevent the worst terrorist attacks of the history of the US, and bush chose to ignore them. He could easily have warned the airlines, etc., as has been mentioned all over this thread, and here we have the man -- and his few remaining defenders -- saying that, 'the country is safer' as a result of 9/11. I would have said making it safer BEFORE the event would be better, but hey... if you'll only allow tougher security checks at the airport after a few thousand deaths, it's on you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush said he has made the US safer after the 9-11 attacks and be it as it is we have not had any attacks , therefore at this time in place we have been more secure. Will it last ? who knows.

Just so its clear all airlines had been warned in 1998 when the terrorist threat about airplanes was introduced. None of the intel your listing was introduced in Bush's term it was all introduced in Clintons.

Some people should take the time to read the report congress did. the 911 commission breaks it down very well, and a lot of the changes we have in security came from that document. As sezwho2 stated at the time of the commissions report they did not feel the US was safer, but after that time things changed to increase overall security.

Even Cher (if she could turn back time) couldnt of changed the way the whole deal went down. The intel of when, where, and what wasnt there to see. We become much clearer in our vision after the fact.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts: I wouldn't put it past Bush Co to have let the attacks happen to advance their agenda.

And I wouldn't put it past you to believe it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nippon5: "The intel of when, where, and what wasnt there to see. We become much clearer in our vision after the fact."

Well, ultimately, that's what we're here talking about, isn't it? History has already proven who poor of a president bush is/was, and that's becoming clearer with every passing day, which is why he has to constantly come on the air and say things like, "I didn't sell my soul for popularity" (he did, but that too failed), "No one can debate that I made the country safer", etc. as a 'preemptive' strike in his own defense. He knows full well he is rightly hated around the world and by the majority of Americans, and has even gone so far as to pardon himself for future war crimes trials.

Again, easy to see this already... just wait until 'after the fact'.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Bush said he has made the US safer after the 9-11 attacks"

Well you should bloody wel hope so. The biggest and most horrific attack ever to happen on US soil, happened whilst bush way reading The Pet Goat. No jets were scrambled (they were strangely "elsewhere" and it seems number one priority was not the American people, but getting The Angler to a "safe location".

Something, if not many things about 9/11 is dodgy. I don't trust Bush Co, and after the Iraq fiasco, they have no credibility.

Move along...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No debate" because Bush has 'no database' he has made U.S. and rest of the world unsafe for infinite period of time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

True, there hasn't been another terrorist attack. That's because there are easier targets in Iraq. In some respects invading Iraq was a master stroke. Got the troops out of Saudi Arabia (an al Quaida demand), got rid of Saddam, gave the terrorists something to shoot at that wasn't American civilians. Got troops right next door to Iran and Syria should the need arise. From a parochial military point of view it was brilliant.

It's the aftermath that has been completely bungled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My money is on Bush, ne kept the USA safe for the past eight years

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It's not a matter of luck"

That's for sure.

"there are easier targets in Iraq"

And Bali, and Madrid, and London, and...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Madverts,

Actually, it was "My Pet Goat.

Ca1ic0cat, Actually, that's not true. There was a terrorist attack on U.S. soil after Sep. 11, 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, Taka, a post 9-11 "terrorist attack" we'll never forget.

Didn't that disgruntled mentally ill dude take his own life?

"terrorist attack"?

If you say so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka313.

You are right that 7 days after 9-11 the Antrax attacks started. They found a American man had sent the Letters out (in 2008 they found him and he killed him self). But at the time the US was still in the middle of 9-11 and considered it part of the same attack. SO you are correct, but considering the closeness of the 9-11 and the 9-18 attacks most consider them the same wave of attacks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USARonin,

I'm sure that the 5 people that died would appreciate your flippant attitude. Also, I'd have to say, if either of us worked in that mailroom, we would have been terrified and would consider it a terror attack.

Nippon5,

I see your point about the closeness but considering it was two different types of attacks that came from two unrelated sources, I consider it two attacks.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe

Hey - didn't everyone read the title to this article - there is to be no posting of any comments that suggest a debate about keeping the U.S. safe. Little kids, just shut up and accept what he dishes out. It is for your own good. Trust him. lol.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hey - didn't everyone read the title to this article

Sure did.

Didn't match what he actually said.

Did you actually read the article?

While there’s room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made — and there’s plenty of debate — there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe,” Bush said.

The Headline used

Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe

The Headline that would have more accurate

Bush says there can be 'no debate about the results ' about his keeping U.S. safe

Changes the whole tone doesn't it?

While there’s room for an honest and healthy debate about the decisions I made — and there’s plenty of debate — there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe,” Bush said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good little person that I am - I will not disagree with my President - especially when he says

there can be no debate about the results in keeping America safe

No, not for me to point out that America and Americans are less safe bacause of his actions.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the Beltway Snipers were apparently connected to a muslim terrorist group. Not reported very widely though

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/10/no-terrorist-attack-on-us-soil-since.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

BlackFlag,

But...anything that causes terror in the U.S. that has occurred after Sep. 11th, mustn't be labeled terrorism. The decider decidered it. And who are we to break his streak with silly things like facts?

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In regards to " Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe".

Is the U.S in danger? If so from who? Where are they/ he or she/ it? When did it start? Where did it start? And Why? - Who is writing this? all in regards to Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mr. 187, what would you like to debate then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In regards to " Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe". Are we debating fact or opinion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Are we debating fact or opinion?"

I don't know. So far, you've done neither.

Your serve.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, So far you do not know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bush says there can be 'no debate' about his keeping U.S. safe

"Are we debating fact or opinion?"

The only way I can make sense of it is to interpret it to be an order. Maybe Bush was ordering us to shut up? Maybe he will "Patriot Act" us if we don't?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites