world

Obama on terror threats: 'The buck stops with me'

71 Comments

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

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

71 Comments
Login to comment

At last, a little common sense prevails...instead of people getting the axe for failures, they are given the opportunity to learn from their mistakes and improve...and by improving, we will be able to fight terrorists more efficiently...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can he fire himself for the failed system?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good effort,doing his best to sound like Mr Bush.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Can he fire himself for the failed system?"

Didn't you read sharky's post? Common sense be prevailing - the commander in chief is being given the opportunity to learn from his mistakes and improve!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But, added Obama, “When the system fails, it is my responsibility.”

The words of a genuine leader.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Wow - a President taking responsibility for his administration's failures. What a refreshing change from his predecessor's approach, who promoted those responsible for failure, without ever admitting to one himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"What a refreshing change from his predecessor's approach, who promoted those responsible for failure, without ever admitting to one himself."

That's not true.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits and Ivan: excellent posts. I'm just glad to finally have a CinC I can trust.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"I'm just glad to finally have a CinC I can trust"

Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the buck stops with me" means the buck stops with me.

"ultimately, the buck stops with me" means that it kinda sort of does, so long as it's not so bad, in the grand scheme of things, but just in case, i can blame other people if it's obvious enough, and if I fire them for messing up, that kind of falls under the umbrella of "ultimately..."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is it just me or does it seem like the US Airlines are going totally overboard now? Paranoia I think....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

by the way...I am totally happy I do not live in the US anymore and never will!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I reckon Barack Obama is the new Dick Cheney!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - Har?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USAFdude:

That's Sarge's debating technique.

It's the typed equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and saying "lalalalalalalala I can't hear you alalalalala"

Sarge - if it's not true, give me one instance of Bush accepting responsibility for any of his legion of failures, blunders, cock-ups and SNAFUs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is crap. Heads should roll for these stupid mistakes. Christmas day is a obvious target to begin with on top of everything else.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The buck stops with me:

*Good: when people learn from their mistakes and improve, as expected.

*Bad :no one takes any responsibility anymore, unintended but possible.

...all depend on final result, time will tell.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good to see a leader say "I am responsible." Very nice change from the previous character who could only manage "I am the decider."

But to be a bit critical. Until we start to face up to the root causes of terror we will never be truly safe. Like hackers, these guys are always just a step out of sync with those trying to protect us. When a momentary lapse happens, we have a tragic event.

We need to be working on the roots of terror. And that means far more engagement in communities where terror grows. It means working harder to develop a fair approach to the Palestine issue. And it means doing more to care for the welfare and security of the poor in countries like Afghanistan, Yemen etc.. so that the recruiters for terror groups have a lot harder time convincing new joiners.

We will only ever be a secure as our policies are humane and properly focused. This is the real challenge.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

WayneRooney

Good effort,doing his best to sound like Mr Bush.

B/S george bush never took responsibility for anything.

Sarge

That's not true.

Tell me when george bush ever took responsibility for anything.

Like said earlier by another poster, it's refreshing that a president takes responsibility for something.

But then republicans wouldn't recognize taking responsibility for any mistakes anyway. Remember george? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"But, added Obama, “When the system fails, it is my responsibility.”"

Yah... well.... it would be nice if took credit for other things, but why pin his fortunes on this kind of Russian roullette game? I guess everyone sees the vulnerability that this gives him, right?

If you are a right wing nut wanting a pissing match with the US and a more feisty administration so that you can build up your own defenses... hire a Nigerian.

If you are a right wing nut in Florida wanting the Republicans to sweep the elections coming up... hire a Nigerian.

If you want to bring down Clinton AND Obama in one fell swoop, find the country that Clinton was nicest to most recently, then hire a Nigerian to go there, have him get caught, blame it on Clinton, and bring down Obama too.

The NRA can bring down Obama by arranging for someone to carry a loaded gun all the way from DFW to Narita. In this case you don't have to hire a Nigerian. A Texan will do it for free. They often do.

I am just guessing, but probably Obama's reliance on the TSA to find every little bomb and gun for the rest of his tenure is bucking the odds. Has there been a single year that the TSA has NOT let someone or something through? I think he is taking credit for Bush's failures. Magnanimous maybe, but not smart. I know the Republicans will burn the Reichstag someday, but I did not expect Obama to be in it when it happens.

One of the things I do not like about Obama is that he is trying to be too much of a nice guy while it is obvious that the other side does not play nice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh... How could I forget?

Do you think Obama will ever be in favor of cutting the TSA budget or backing off from the hysteria? Not now. TSA employees can look forward to clear sailing and annual pay hikes at least up through 2016. They have the president by the shorthairs. He has been coopted by the dark side of the force.

Just not smart, in my opinion. This makes him way too vulnerable and earns him so little political capital.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

meloveulongtime: Is it just me or does it seem like the US Airlines are going totally overboard now? Paranoia I think....

It's just you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ultimately the buck stops with me

Two successful attacks and an averted one on Christmas Day by Islamoterrorists on American soil all within the first 11 months on his watch.

Heckuvajob, Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Harry Truman declared 'The buck stops here.' The greenback was actually worth somethin back then. Hearin a corny paraphrasin of that line from a president who has debauched our national currency doesn't inspire me much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Look guys, nobody fires the President for terrorism under their watch, not for this one, not for 9/11, not for Timothy McVey, and not for the first World Trade Center attack in the underground parking lot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ronald Reagan also used the term "The buck stops here", and the dollar was worth something at that time too. Guess Obama figures if he uses this phrase also that he can be a successful president...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ronald Reagan also used the term "The buck stops here", and the dollar was worth something at that time too.

With Reagan and Daddy Bush tripling the national debt in their time in office, the dollar was worth a heckuva lot less in 1992 than it was in 1981. The dollar regained a lot of its strength during the 90s, but then fell dramatically again in the mid-part of this decade. Consequently, it started falling after George W. Bush -- aka "Wrong-rudder Rudy" -- announced his "strong dollar policy."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama on terror threats: 'The buck stops with me'

Well there's a pleasant change of pace from the old cult of non-accountability.

Then again...a buck isn't worth that much these days.

Taka

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I actually would NOT agree that Obama is responsible for this security breach. He might be responsible for making sure that it gets fixed but I blame the people who left the system at it's present level of operations first. The body scanners should have been implemented long ago. Anybody who thinks that this stuff is "revealing" ought to look at the web prints. Even your average schoolgirl stalking nightshot toting perv isn't going to be interested in this stuff. It's much less intrusive than a pat down. It would speed things up at the airports too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I actually would NOT agree that Obama is responsible for this security breach. He might be responsible for making sure that it gets fixed but I blame the people who left the system at it's present level of operations first.

By openly taking responsibility, President Obama is setting an example. Everyone below him on the chain of command needs to take on the same level of ownership over whatever it is they are responsible for. Shirking and slacking were never part of Barack's M.O.

The body scanners should have been implemented long ago.

The method that is likely to be adopted to get past security is similar to that used by drug runners: Injesting or otherwise inserting plastic explosives (sealed in a type of prophylactic) into the intestines. This was performed on a recent assassination attempt in Saudi Arabia.

The problem is that the body of the "mule" absorbs a great deal of the explosive force of the blast. This can be overcome by a bathroom break where the explosives are expelled from the body and reassembled outside of it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IvanCoughalot at 12:02 PM: "give me one instance of Bush accepting responsibility for any of his legion of failures, blunders..."

Well, if this is not considered off topic, I guess I can respond -

You mean failures and blunders like liberating two countries and preventing any more terrorist attacks after 9/11?

Taka313: "Well there's a pleasant change of pace from the old cult of non-accountability. Then again...a buck isn't worth that much these days"

I've noticed that these days the president is Barack Obama, and the Democrats control Congress.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge - as I thought. No attempt to show an instance where Bush acknowledged his failures, just the same tired old lines.

President Obama has accepted he is ultimately responsible for a failure on his watch. Your boy never could. That makes the current President a bigger man.

Or would you like to try again? Just one time when Bush held up his hands and said "Ok, I screwed up". As opposed to times when he pretended nothing was wrong as the world fell apart around him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

george bush never made a mistake, just ask him. he never took responsibility for anything, let alone the 2900+ lives that died on his watch.

Obama is so very lucky that the explosives didn't. America and the world are lucky that Abdulmutallab’s underwear didn't go off.

Obama and bush were both faced with Al-Quaeda's attacks or attempted attacks. We'll see if Obama looks for a new place to start a war like bush did. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Everyone thinks a teensy weensy bit more technology is going to make us safe

The danger of technology is how it fosters a false sense of security. And let's not get started about all the false positives.

I should have mentioned in a previous post that the current body scanners will not detect material hidden within the body.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You know what is really dumb about this scenario? You know how I know the US is screwed up?

What if the airliner had really been blown up? Boom. Everybody dead. It would have been a month... no, a year.... of national mourning for the heroes of flight xyz. Heads would have rolled, handwringing, fingerpointing. War on three or four countries leading to national ruin and deaths of thousands at least. Probably tens of thousands, mostly brown people, dontcha know. Airlines would be given more billions because people would stop flying, etc. Oh it would be chaos.

Why? For 200 or so randomly allocated people and a jetliner that is a rounding error on Northwest's balance sheet. It's nothing in the grand scheme of things, and the US IS the GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS! Nigerian teenagers should NOT be determining US policy in any form. If those passengers had died of the flu, no one would even bat an eye. They would not even bother to buy a mask or get vaccinated. We know that. If it had been the Space Shuttle malfunctioning and blowing up, well, people would have been bummed for a week, we know that from experience. If 200 people had died at Taco Bell, people would still eat burritos. But terra from evildoers is kryptonite apparently...even when botched by nincompoops... oh yeah... it is worthy of any kind of hysteria imaginable. Let's cavity search our grandmothers and close Disneyland and all our borders, cause it's a crisis! One guy from the third world is reason enough to put our lives on hold and "take measures." People in most countries don't even assign that much importance to earthquake or tsunami preparedness. Hurricanes and wildfires do more damage every year and people still live in Florida and California.

Obama is an idiot for taking responsibility in an atmosphere of hysteria and incompetence such as this. He is relying on a nation of nut-cases to understand his magnanimity, and they do not get it by half. 9.11 released some kind of stupid gas on America and people have not recovered yet, apparently.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pat down or scanner? Simple.

What are your other choices? Suggestions 5SpeedRacer5? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No attempt to show an instance where Bush acknowledged his failures, just the same tired old lines."

You were expecting otherwise? At least sarge can accept mentioning the terra President, Mr GeeBee himself. Other posters that have come down with a bout of ODS don't seem to accept anything other that positive references since Nov 2008....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"don't seem to accept anything other than positive references since Nov 2008...."

whoops...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You mean failures and blunders like liberating two countries and preventing any more terrorist attacks after 9/11?

He didn't prevent the shoe bomber, the shoe bomber prevented himself from being a terrorist by being an idiot. Why is it what the underwear bomber is considered a terror attack but what the shoe bomber did isn't consider a terror attack? Is it because he had a package beside his package? A little consistency is needed. Obama apologized for the underwear bomber, did Bush apologize for the shoe bomber?

On a side note, it's a sad time in the world when people are identified by what part of their clothing is explosive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream

My choice would obviously be 1979, or maybe 1994. A time machine would suit me best. Getting back to where people were not hysterical would be the best.

Alternatively, doing nothing. Freedom is worth losing an airliner a year. I am sure of that, and I happen to believe that it would not come to that, even. The measures in place are adequate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5

Freedom is worth losing an airliner a year.

Are you writing this with a straight face? Do you seriously feel this way? < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, the old DEVO song is Freedom of Choice.

As they say in the song, the truth is that people want Freedom from Choice. They had no idea how right they were.

The "simple" choice of pat down or scanning is unacceptable to me. I won't fly in regular aircraft anymore if I have to do that. I have alternatives that most people do not have, and I will use them.

Why not fly to Toronto and take a bus to New York, then fly to Atlanta? You see. These enhanced measures are mainly for foreigners, not for people who reside in the US. All of the 9.11 terrorists were US residents, but people forget that. We want to catch the unsuccessful terrorists, not the successful ones, you see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Straight face. Do you have a clue how many hijackings there were between 1970 and 1985? What did people do? Nothing. Did the 747 plowing into a Japanese hillside deter people from flying? Nah. Far from it.

Certainly, what I feel is not important. I don't wish for them to blow up or crash, but read my posts. Why are 200 people on a plane more important than an entire civilization, an industry, a multi-trillion dollar deficit, or the principles of freedom and personal privacy? Why? The "manhours" lost to searches and installation of all these technogizmos and cameras, along with their costs to design, install, operate, etc. come to just jillions of dollars and they are patently NOT effective. An airliner a year is a smaller expense, probably by a factor of a hundred, compared to all that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5

All of the 9.11 terrorists were US residents

There's a difference between a green card and US residence.

The FBI was aware of them all in flight school and one agent sent for an investigation about them. She connected the dots. She documented there entrance and laid out the possible attack and the bush FBI ignored the facts. And after the 9/11 attack bush made funny videos about WMD being under his under trash cans and behind curtains, we really had a president who was concerned about our safety.

Take your other means of transportation. I don't fly very much any more, but if I have to I'll take off my shoes, walk through a scanner and then take my seat on the plane. Sure I'll grumble. But I'll go through it to get to my destination. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@5SpeedRacer5:

You know what is really dumb about this scenario? You know how I know the US is screwed up?

Awesome post! Suitable for framing and displaying on every wall and cubicle in the USA.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are 200 people on a plane more important than an entire civilization, an industry, a multi-trillion dollar deficit, or the principles of freedom and personal privacy?

It's not just 200. It's 5000 flights a day with 200 passengers just in the US. That's not considering the flights from overseas, also. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Adaydream

I mean RESIDENTS as in THEY RESIDED THERE. As in... they don't need to take an international flight to get to Montgomery Alabama.

THat is pretty obvious, so take back your green card.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom is worth losing an airliner a year. I am sure of that, and I happen to believe that it would not come to that, even. The measures in place are adequate.

In other words, it is not the act of terror that is the goal of the terrorist, it is the response to the act of terror. A country that could shrug off a 9/11 and go about its business of learning from the mistakes that were made without the hysteria would truly be a great nation.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The point is that the only people getting ENHANCED MEASURES for flights are NOT the people who did the 9.11 terror. In fact, the only group of potential terrorists will be those from OUT of the country, who have not succeeded at downing a single airliner or doing anything else, for that matter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why are 200 people on a plane more important than an entire civilization, an industry, a multi-trillion dollar deficit, or the principles of freedom and personal privacy?

They are not. But the incident creates the kind of fear that certain elements of our government then take advantage of and nurture. This how a people can be controlled.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Taka,

I was meaning that at least he doesn't hyper-ventilate when you mention Curious George, like one individual who certainly wasn't part of the team a while back!

Happy new year to you anyway :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

who have not succeeded at downing a single airliner or doing anything else, for that matter.

We have been so lucky that they didn't succeed in blowing up the planes. Sounds like you'd feel more persuaded if we had 200 or 400 or maybe 1000 deaths by exploding planes. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream. Yes, right. ALL of the planes to the US will be blown up by terrorists if we do not have security measures. Right. Sure. I used the figure of ONE airliner to make a point. I think ZERO is the likely outcome. People below a certain age now apparently BELIEVE that planes will fall out of the air if people are not scanned first. That is ludicrous. Did you know that there are countries where scanning technology and practices are in fact very primitive.. and well.. bad? I have been to some of them. Guess what... their planes STILL don't blow up. Imagine that. In point of fact, Mr. Nigeria did not even have to blow himself up to get Americans scurrying like ants. That is the problem. 200 people dying on a plane should upset people, but it should not cause screaming panic in Dubuque Iowa.

Meh. I can't argue with you. One of us is arguing from false premises. I encourage you to think long and hard about it. Public policy issues are usually decided on a cost/benefit and risk-based set of criteria. The whole airline thing has gone from rationality to a lunatic crusade. And now it is being forced on other countries.

In the last decade, ten to twenty times fewer people died of terrorism than died slipping in their bathtubs. All needless tragic deaths to be sure, but why doesn't someone frisk me for soap before I take a bath? For the love of God why? Think of the children!

Yabits. You really should not encourage me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"In other words, it is not the act of terror that is the goal of the terrorist, it is the response to the act of terror. A country that could shrug off a 9/11 and go about its business of learning from the mistakes that were made without the hysteria would truly be a great nation."

Oh Yabits. I almost wet my pants with glee when I read this. Thank you so much for understanding. You know... "shrug off" is interesting. I guess what a great nation would do is say, "look... it sucks what you terrorists did, and we will make you pay, but we are not going to change because our way of life is better. The world is behind us, not you. We will be vigilant, we will not be cowed." Or something like that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"They are not. But the incident creates the kind of fear that certain elements of our government then take advantage of and nurture. This how a people can be controlled."

Yes Yabits. I think that this is what is happening. Fear. People are succumbing to fear and panic. Napolitano is greenlighting everything now because she wants to keep her job and protect Obama. Everyone thinks it is the easy thing to do... and they just go along. Things have changed A LOT in the last five or six years, and nobody even notices. People are giving up their privacy and freedom and they just do not care anymore. It is wrong.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5, I don't like the measures, but I'll accept them as a way of doing business to keep even one plane from falling out of the skies. You can do whatever you like.

I remember when we smoked on planes, carried on whatever we wanted. But times change. These changes are for safety. They weren't invented as a policy to harass people.

Have a good day. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sdaydream

Why stop there? Call me a pinko, commie, traitor, murderer and whatever else. You think it is "luck" that they have not succeeded, and I am the guy who will give them that edge to let them kill 1000 patriots every year. That is the emotional argument everyone makes, so you should do it with more gusto.

That argument works.

What it ignores is the billions of hours people spend dying their deaths five minutes at a time. All the time people have to work to pay the taxes and fees to fund all of this ineffective technology and labor. People are dying for this policy of "security" even if they do not go up in flames in an airliner. Add in the failed industries, the unfunded programs that really could use the government spending, etc. etc. The costs are gargantuan.

It also ignores that we will never be safe. Never. No technology or procedure will work. If you keep out the foreigners, some guy from North Carolina will go to Pakistan, get trained, and come back and do it. The CIA found some people doing just that a month or so ago. The system will never work. Smart guys at MIT have said so. I believe them.

The cost of losing an airliner a year are small in comparison. And we have not lost one in what.... almost ten years? You will say it is because of countermeasures, but you know...they are not catching terrorists at security check points, are they? Are they? Ever wonder why?

So your emotional argument is in support of a hugely expensive system that does not work, and is probable worse than doing nothing. Good thing that America is full of emotion, otherwise they would listen to reason, right? Which is really my point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"don't like the measures, but I'll accept them as a way of doing business to keep even one plane from falling out of the skies. You can do whatever you like."

How noble of you. Dooming humanity to slavery and submission to keep even one plane from falling from the skies. If I was sure that it was ME that the terrorists wanted to kill and had a choice of dying, or dooming the US population to cavity searches, I would let the terrorists lop off my head in a second and regret that I have but one life to live for my country. I would do that.

The people of Flight 93(?) made exactly exactly the same choice, and I honor that. The hijackers of that flight would probably not have succeeded if there had been reinforced cabin doors. Why was that obvious, inexpensive measure never ever implemented after 9.11? Did you ever wonder? Never? Then don't give me your crocodile tears about caring for every single plane that flies. You don't care about safety. You care about the party line.

"I remember when we smoked on planes, carried on whatever we wanted. But times change. These changes are for safety."

I remember too, ya old fogie ; ) . But you are right, wrong, right, and wrong. People were NEVER allowed to carry on just any old thing. There was a time when things were reasonable and rational. Those times changed, and considering that the system does not work, changes were NOT made for safety. They were made for some other reason, right? They are not reasonable. And are becoming ever less so.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5SpeedRacer5

Why stop there? Call me a pinko, commie, traitor, murderer and whatever else.

Hmmmm, that's not me. I don't see the need or good that name calling does. I just don't understand your logic. But, that's me. Your logic sounds irrational to me. But that's your opinion. So be it. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Ahhh, someone owning up to their responsibilities. How refreshing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

who took responsibility for 9-11 in the bush administration?

Answer, that would be no one. But they used 9-11 to lie their way into invading Iraq, but that was irresponsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"who took responsibility for 9-11 in the bush administration? Answer, that would be no one."

Wrong answer. Correct answer: George W. Bush. And he took the lead in liberating two countries and preventing any more terrorist attacks on the U.S.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge your belief in george bush is as outlandish as Rudy Guillioni (sp) saying that the terrorist never attacked the US during george bush's reign.

Obama did what bush never could and that's stood up and took responsibility for it being on his watch. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

RE: Guiliani

When Giuliani was questioned later Friday about his statement, he explained to CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he misspoke.

"I usually say we had no domestic attacks, no major domestic attack under President Bush since Sept. 11," he said. He said after all the warnings of more attacks that came immediately after Sept. 11, many were surprised that this country avoided another major terrorist attack.

Giuliani said: "I did omit the words 'since Sept. 11.' I apologize for that."

Shoe bomber Richard Reid tried to bring down a trans-Atlantic flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001 using similar methods to the Christmas Day attempt. In both cases, quick action by courageous passengers and crew members helped avoid catastrophe.

Concerning Friday's interview, GMA's George Stephanopoulos said he should have asked Giuliani what he meant.

"All of you who have pointed out that I should have pressed him on that misstatement in the moment are right," he wrote on his blog. "My mistake, my responsibility."

Of what consequence is the public "owning up"? Did Franklin D. Roosevelt take responsibility for Pearl Harbor? No, he did not. Public posturing does not matter. Which would you prefer: an unapologetic President that takes care of business or an apologetic one that does not? The Fort Hood Massacre should have woken up the administration, never mind the "smaller", but equally indicative attacks (both successful and unsuccessful) last year.

As with President Bush's failure to remove Rumsfeld, President Obama's failure to remove Napolitano indicates that there is no serious change in policy taking place. Yes, there are other appointees other than the Secretary of Homeland Security that need to be replaced, but the top is a good place to start.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium:"who took responsibility for 9-11 in the bush administration? Answer, that would be no one. But they used 9-11 to lie their way into invading Iraq, but that was irresponsible."

Bang on, mon frere! Extreme kudos for putting 8 years of bush FAILURE into a nutshell.Said nutshell is like kryptonium to neo-con stupidity.Hahah ha ha! Well, anyways, it's just really,really TOO funny that the few remaining bush supporters here can7t see the forest for the treeline on this one, and hence they mistakenly conclude that just because their have been more incidents of terror threats against America since Barack Obama, who is the most wonderful president of any country,anywhere,ever took office,that this must mean he is weak or something.

But hey,logic was never there strong suite and your posts confirms one of my well-known syllogisms:

Canadians like you and I (not me, as some MISTAKENLY like to say) are not American.

People outside of a country can understand it best.

Canadians can therefore understand America BETTER than Americans.

Anyways, I hope this fabulous speech also makes it into one of the many,many collections of President Obama's words of wisdom.Sometimes they are the only thing that can get bush OUT of my head. Said speeches are as popular as ever,kind of like the man himself.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldGeezer we had the opportunity to elect change last year and we voted for Barack Obama. That's change you can believe in.

george bush knew that Al-Quaeda had plans to attack the US by airplane, but instead of letting the airlines know what they knew, they kept silent. Then the FBI was aware of every single 9/11 terrorists and never questioned them. Never put them on a watch list. But watched them walk through the gates at the airport and become this nations greatest attack by Al-Quaeda.

But did george bush say that they screwed up and didn't pass along the information that they were aware of and could have stopped the 9/11 attackers? I'll answer that for you "NO!!" bush never took responsibility for hiding the information. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sarge is 100% right and we would be better off if we had never heard of Obama, meanwhile the Mexican border is heating up and the Army is paying $10,000 for recuits to to do what our Marines in Okinawa could do in a quick minute. Have you never sung the Marine hymn? I am proud to have been a Marine.The drug wars along the Southern States need the fine hand of the United States Marines.

Meanwhile, you hear the word impeachment growing ever louder.............

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm a proud Marine, no longer on active duty.

I disagree with Sarge, but that's no big surprise.

I agree that the drug smugglers are as dangerous as terrorist and are killing maybe as many people that the Muslim terrorist have in the US, but we can't go into Mexico. These killings are still in Mexico. Marines have no place in it.

The only place you're hearing impeachment is in your own head or Fox News maybe. But Obama is doing what he was voted into office to do. Even though the party of "NO" has consistently tried to stop him, he's doing 'mostly' what he said he would.

george bush took the responsibility that he'd been given and abused it. he abused his office and abused the United States of America for his and dick cheney's personal benefit.

Semper Fi < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The Buck Stops with Me". More Power to President Obama. How refreshing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Meanwhile, you hear the word impeachment growing ever louder.............

Do we? When? And on what grounds?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

adaydream,

OldGeezer we had the opportunity to elect change last year and we voted for Barack Obama. That's change you can believe in.

That's not reasoning. That's campaign propaganda.

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