Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Bush started making changes the day he got into office regarding how we handle terrorism. << Nope. The committee never had a single meeting prior to 9/11. They were warned repeatedly about bin laden and al qaeda and the taliban, and did nothing. Not one single thing. >> It was the dems who put a wall up that didn't let us get the 9/11 hijackers before the attack happened. << What are you talking about?
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060407/ap_on_el_ge/troubled_republicans" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 60407/ap_on_el_ge/troubled_republicans</a> By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer WASHINGTON - President Bush has hit new lows in public opinion for his handling of Iraq and the war on terror and for his overall job performance. Polling also shows the Republican Party surrendering its advantage on national security. The AP-Ipsos survey is loaded with grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power. Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction — the largest percentage during the Bush presidency and up 13 points from a year ago. "These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one." Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes. There is more at stake than the careers of GOP lawmakers. A Democratic-led Congress could bury the last vestiges of Bush's legislative agenda and subject the administration to high-profile investigations of the Iraq war, the CIA leak case, warrantless eavesdropping and other matters. As bad as Bush's numbers may be, Congress' are worse. Just 30 percent of the public approves of the GOP-led Congress' job performance, and Republicans seem to be shouldering the blame. By a 49-33 margin, the public favors Democrats over Republicans when asked which party should control Congress. That 16-point Democratic advantage is the largest the party has enjoyed in AP-Ipsos polling. << +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I'm feeling more hopeful with each passing day.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<Nope. The committee never had a single meeting prior to 9/11. They were warned repeatedly about bin laden and al qaeda and the taliban, and did nothing. Not one single thing.>> What committee??? Clinton met with Monica more than he did the CIA and the FBI. He was clueless and history proves this. Bush set up meetings WEEKLY with the top officials from these agencies to get a handle on terrorism. He said he was tied of " swating flys " and wanted to really take it to terrorists who had been killing Americans for years. It takes a lot of nerve for a liberal to call Bush out for being weak on terrorism while they have tried to derail every thing he has done to take action since 9/11. If we have it your way, Saddam still fills mass graves and we most likely would have been hit again by Muslim terrorists.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The GOP openly mocked and criticized him for it at the time, but when bush attained office, they did NOTHING about the threat, even though they had been provided several clear and urgent warnings.> I've posted the quote from Richard Clarke several times that show that this is not true. <Except the comparison isn't apt - bush is doing something completely different than clinton.> That statement is true, although the reasons you give are not. President Bush is doing something completely different than President Clinton did - he's aggressively taking the fight to the enemy. But that's not the point, it's that Presidents have the right to make information known. President Clinton did it, but the press largely didn't mind because they liked him. It's only when President Bush does it that they make that the issue. <I know douglas - you would like for us all to believe that the reason given for the iraq war was all about the UN resolutions, and not about the WMD, nuclear programs, and imminent danger to americans, but that's just not what happened.> It was about all those things, as I have demonstrated many times. But here's another piece of evidence - a NY Times editorial that notes that, before we began our liberation of Iraq, President Bush was speaking about how a free and prosperous Iraq would reduce the threat of terrorism. <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60F17F83E580C748EDDAB0894DB404482&incamp=archive:search" target="_blank">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/a bstract.html?res=F60F17F83E580C748EDDAB0894DB404482&incamp=archive:search</a>
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << WASHINGTON - President Bush has hit new lows in public opinion for his handling of Iraq and the war on terror and for his overall job performance. Polling also shows the Republican Party surrendering its advantage on national security. >> Wow... this is so 2004 all over again. Last time I checked, Bush and the GOP on game day destroyed the libs.. once again. The media loves pushing this stuff, but it's a mirage Gadzuux. Why not ask the people who they would rather lead us during a war. Bush / Cheney Kennedy / Boxer Want to see the poll numbers on that one my friend?? But keep the faith that we will pull a Vietnam and lose!
Originally Posted By gadzuux Beau - they never met. <a href="http://democrats.senate.gov/dpc/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-99" target="_blank">http://democrats.senate.gov/dp c/dpc-new.cfm?doc_name=fs-108-2-99</a> >> On May 8, 2001, President Bush announced that Vice President Cheney would "oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm." (Statement by the President) The task force was to focus specifically, in Vice President Cheney's words, on the threat of "domestic terrorism...a terrorist organization overseas or even another state using weapons of mass destruction against the U.S., a hand-carried nuclear weapon or biological or chemical agents." (CNN, 5/8/01) Moreover, President Bush announced that he would "periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts." (Statement by the President, 5/8/01) The Washington Post reports that, in the four months between the President's announcement and the September 11 attacks, "neither Cheney's review nor Bush's took place." (1/20/02). According to the 9-11 Commission, the Cheney Task Force "was just getting underway when the 9/11 attack occurred." (9-11 Commission, Staff Statement Number 8, "National Policy Coordination," p. 9). << >> "Clarke asked on several occasions for early Principals Committee meetings on these issues [outlined in his January 25, 2001 memo] and was frustrated that no early meeting was scheduled. He wanted principals to accept that al Qaeda was a "first order threat" and not a routine problem being exaggerated by "chicken little" alarmists. No Principals Committee meetings on al Qaeda were held until September 4, 2001. << >> Reporting for the Washington Post, Barton Gellman has written that "beginning on August 7, 1998, the day that al Qaeda destroyed the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, Clinton directed a campaign of increasing scope and lethality against bin Laden's network that carried through his final days in office." (12/19/01) When President Bush took office in January 2001, Clinton Administration officials briefed the incoming Bush Administration on its efforts to eliminate al Qaeda. The 9-11 Commission's March 24, 2004 Staff Report notes that, on January 26, 2001, Richard Clarke provided the National Security Council leadership with two plans for increasing counterterrorism efforts, a 1998 comprehensive plan and a 2000 strategy paper. Neither of these plans were adopted, and the Bush Administration did not develop its own counterterrorism strategy before the attacks of September 11. << >> In his testimony before the independent commission investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks, Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted that the Bush Administration had been briefed by outgoing Clinton Administration officials: "the outgoing Administration provided me and others in the incoming Administration with transition papers as well as briefings that reinforced our awareness of the worldwide threat from terrorism." (3/23/04). Brian Sheridan, an assistant secretary of Defense under President Clinton, stated "I offered to brief anyone, any time on any topic [related to terrorism]. Never took it up." (Los Angeles Times, 3/30/04) Mr. Benjamin also noted that Don Kerrick, a three-star general who served as President Clinton's deputy National Security Advisor and continued through the first four months of the Bush Administration, issued a memo to the new National Security Council leadership about al Qaeda, saying, "We are going to be struck again." He never heard back: "I don't think it was above the waterline. They were gambling nothing would happen." << >> The Bush Administration was repeatedly warned by both the U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies that al Qaeda was planning an attack. In his testimony before the independent 9-11 commission, Richard Clarke asserted that both he and Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) George Tenet "tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the Al Qaida threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials." Clarke further stated that "President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat...He was told this dozens of times in the morning briefings that George Tenet gave him." The White House has confirmed that, on August 6, 2001, President Bush's Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) specifically focused on al Qaeda's intent to attack the United States, and specifically warned that airplane hijackings could be involved. According to press reports, the PDB included a fresh report from British intelligence warning that al Qaeda was planning multiple hijackings. << >> President Bush himself admitted that, when it came to the threat of terrorism, before September 11, 2001, "I didn't feel a sense of urgency." (Bush at War, Bob Woodward, 2002). Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith told the independent September 11 commission that Secretary Rumsfeld "asked him to focus his attention on working with the Russians on agreements to dissolve the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and preparing a new nuclear arms control pact," not on terrorism. (9-11 Commission Staff, Statement No. 6). The 9-11 commission staff statement also notes that lower-level officials in the Department of Defense's Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (SOLIC) operation "told us that they thought the new team was focused on other issues and was not especially interested in their counterterrorism agenda." <<
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, I am convinced that if Saddam led us today, to where stockpiles of WMD's are stored and if we got Bin Laden tommorrow, you would STILL find a way to believe every possilbe Bush myth out there. Why not look at the FACTS and then make a judgement. To say that Bush did nothing different than Clinton regarding terrror when he took office is flat out wrong and there is a mountain of evidence to prove this. Bush is going to go down as one of the great presidents of all time when history looks back on what he did. Abe Lincloln was hated and had horrible poll ratings also.... he turned out to be an American hero because he did what was right and he ignored the naysayers who tried to bring him down.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Myths? Those are direct quotes in the posts above. >> To say that Bush did nothing different than Clinton regarding terrror when he took office is flat out wrong and there is a mountain of evidence to prove this. << Comprehension isn't your strong suit. I'm saying exactly the opposite, and providing that "mountain of evidence" to support my contentions.
Originally Posted By Mort2 >>Why not look at the FACTS and then make a judgement. To say that Bush did nothing different than Clinton regarding terrror when he took office is flat out wrong and there is a mountain of evidence to prove this.<< I couldn't agree more with you, Beau. And I think 9/11 proves just that.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, where do you get this stuff? Your information you got from democrats.com or whatever it is, goes against everything people know about Bush and his early days in the White House. BUT... Douglas will set you straight with the facts. Here is my problem with your argument regqarding bush doing nothing early on. Bush since 9/11 has been a terror warrior and for this, you and your liberal friends have called him every name in the book. So this routine that your upset about Bush not taking action pre 9/11 is pure nonsense and a joke. Your side has been against the Patriot act, you have been against the terrorist spying program, your side has never had a anti Saddam protest yet you call Bush a liar and Hitler. For these very reasons your side is not to be trusted with anything bigger than a record store and will be a minority party for decades to come.
Originally Posted By oc_dean I have to say .. every now and again .. these World Events topics give me as much entertainment as topics like "TDS ToT, see how DCA's got the shaft" Here .. I just laugh at the constant apologists talk, trying to defend Bush. It's a total riot! The ideology I gather from a certain few seems to escape Common Sense. It just astounds me. But go right on ahead.......
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I feel the same way WD! Being an independent, it astounds me that there are posters here than have NEVER agreed with me on anything! I used to take it personally but now I realize that some people are just plain nuts. You have to agree with me on something unless you're .............
Originally Posted By woody Bush needs defending as much as he deserves the trashing. What's the difference? I happen to like balance.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Dean, what is really amazing is that people think Bush is some lying devil who is ruining the world. A booming economy and a real fight against scum bag terrorists, removal of Saddam and tht taliban is a failure to you and your fellow no idea, whining liberals? I know for a FACT that if your peeps were somehow not the losers they are and were in power... the ecomomy would not be as strong, Saddam would still be raising hell in Iraq and we most likely would have been hit with another terror attack or three on our soil. Oh, we would also have wack liberal judges on the surpeme court who make their own laws based on what France says. Welcome to reality futurist.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By cape cod joe Good balance Woody! Good stuff Beau especially the Supreme Court judges. Imagine a bunch of Judge Cashmans (judge from Vermont who let the child rapist off with 2 months) or that nut judge from Ohio who let the child predator walk because "he needs help"> a convicted felon himself on the Supreme Court. They would add amendments to "rehabilitate" the child rapists so they can rape again. It sounds like a hyperbole, but after the Vermont and Ohio fruitcakes on the bench, I like living behind a moat where I can let the kids outside and not have to worry. The economy is so bad here that I just spent around 250 on groceries and buying lobsters as were many other people. I WASN'T buying lobster just a few short years ago. The valid point is that many business people have told me that how our insurance agency goes, so goes the economy as we have such a mix of customers. It goes well, and George deserves at least a modicum degree of credit as even my father begrudgingly admitted while having prime rib at the Outback Steakhouse a couple weeks back. Life is good and George IS the PRESIDENT> So like Woody says--bad but how about some good also? fair and balanced.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA <Nearly 70 percent of Americans believe the nation is headed in the wrong direction> 70 percent of Americans must be whining, kvetching, wimps, right? Who don't get it? Who don't appreciate going out to dinner and to Disneyland?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<The economy is so bad here that I just spent around 250 on groceries and buying lobsters as were many other people. I WASN'T buying lobster just a few short years ago.>> LOL, that is awesome! "But..but.. the entire country is a wreck, no jobs are to found, soup lines are everywhere, Bush has made Main Street USA a ghost town with his evil policies!!!!!!!!!!!"
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
