Who to Blame?

Posted Sunday, December 27, 2009, at 7:00 PM
View 50 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Mike,

    Look at the focus on terrorism by any President before 9/11 and look at the focus on terrorism by Obama and any of the Presidential candidates since 9/11. I'd say your comparison is far from an equal comparison when considering how 9/11 forever changed how any President will focus on issues relating to terrorism.

    I don't expect Obama to protect us from every attempted attack. There's just no possible way he can do it. There were attempts stopped under Bush and hopefully more will be stopped in the future. However, you must be listening to a bunch of different people than I am because I haven't heard the Republican leadership come out and start blaming Obama for this. I'm not saying they're not being made but I am curious who all these people are and what they are saying.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Dec 28, 2009, at 1:23 PM
  • *

    "You were quoted in the Detroit Free Press this morning as saying that, you know, the key is to connect the dots and maybe the Obama administration will now realize that. Is it really fair to hold the Obama administration responsible here?" asked Chris Wallace.

    "Yeah, I think it really is," replied Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Michigan. "Connecting the dots here is not really on this particular case. It's connecting the dots that we've seen over the last 11 months, over the last eight years." - Fox News, Sunday, December 28th. He is the ranking member for the Republicans on the House Intelligence Community.

    "We have to outthink the terrorists and when we formed the airport security system, we realized we could not use collective bargaining and unionization because of that need to be flexible. Yet, that appears to be the top priority now of the administration," Senator Jim DeMint R-South Carolina said Sunday on Fox News.

    Of course in my original blog I never said Republican leadership I said Republicans. Here are some more

    From Peter King a Republican Representative from New York who was very vocal in his attacks on Democrats for releasing information from private security meetings doing ... the same thing.

    "His name was in a database indicating significant terrorist connections ... I'm not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback (actually that's exactly what he's doing) here...but let's see what was missed." He then went on to compare Obama not doing a press conference on a failed terrorist attack to George Bush not visiting Louisiana after Katrina hit. How he makes that leap of logic is way beyond me.

    And of course from Mary Matalin who treats Bush as a god rewriting history to shield Bush away from 9/11.

    "We inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation's history." Mary Matalin on CNN, Sunday December 27th.

    Last time I checked if something happens during your presidency that is not inheriting it. But it is the old Republican 9/11 ploy. Bring it up whenever you can to remind people about 9/11. On this particular panel they were discussing recessions and she without any prompts brings up 9/11.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 28, 2009, at 1:52 PM
  • *

    It should also be noted that Jim DeMint who blamed Obama and chiefly the TSA has in the past voted against TSA funding and is currently holding up the nomination of a new head to the TSA. A case of another Republican forgetting that there is a public record out there.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Dec 28, 2009, at 7:37 PM
  • *


    How is this any different from Obama blaming all of the current problems on Bush?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 11:05 AM
  • *

    Are you talking about the recession that started and was propagated by the Bush Administration?

    It's two completely different things.

    My point in the blog which I apparently didn't make clear enough was that the same Republicans who blamed a previous administration for the attacks on 9/11 and shielded Bush from any responsibility are now turning completely around and fully blaming a failed attempt on the Obama Administration, solely.

    Obama inherited the recession from Bush but claimed it as his own which Republicans were more than happy to let him take the full ownership of it just so Bush wouldn't have to take any responsibility.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 3:03 PM
  • *

    My point was that it seems that everyone is always looking for someone to blame about everything. Where does the buck stop? I find this scapegoating ridiculous when either Conservatives or Liberals do it. You seem to only take offence when Conservatives do it. I didn't catch Obama claiming the recession as his own I mostly hear him talking about how he inherited it. Besides its not his OR Bush's recession it is ours, we are all to blame.

    Blame, blame, blame!! Where is accountability? Sure people and systems mess up, it's bound to happen. The important thing is to try to fix the situation rather than make sure people understand who you are trying to blame or defend. We got lucky this time that the terrorist was incompetent, rather than try to place blame why don't we work on correcting the situation.

    Obama appears to be saying the important things now I don't believe he is blaming anyone just says we need to fix it. Too bad so few seem to agree.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 4:57 PM
  • *

    "I love these folks who helped get us in this mess and then suddenly say, 'Well, this is Obama's economy ... That's fine. Give it to me!... My job is to solve problems, not to stand on the sidelines and harp and gripe." President Obama, July 15, 2009.

    But you point is taken. I missed it in your first post. "The buck stops here." Politics would be so much better off if more politicians took that stance. Who to blame isn't important, making sure the action doesn't happen again is. That was the original point I was trying to make in my blog and I got a little bogged down.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 5:07 PM
  • Mike,

    The GOP mind-set-in-concrete was fully revealed with Senator DimWit DeMint saying --

    "Most Islamic terrorists are Muslims."

    Would have been the easiest thing to laugh and ignor him.

    Problem is the several million dollars annually, Senator Dimwit

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 7:06 PM
  • -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Tue, Dec 29, 2009, at 8:50 PM
  • How much do our policies here affect how the screening is set up in Amsterdam? There were people on the flight that said the screen in Amsterdam seemed to be lax and that they were trying to get everyone through fast and didn't exactly seem to appear to be completely worried about about someone taking a bomb onto the plane.

    We can try to prevent all the terrorist attacks, but there will always be the one that finds his way through the cracks.

    The blame game needs to stop in every aspect of Washington; not just with the terrorist attack. That is really the only way people will get solutions to our problem solved.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 8:26 AM
  • *

    Chuncky just said it best. While the Republicans are demonstrating the more overt buffoonery the Democrats promise different but largely achieve the same results. It's clear that the Republicans are opposing every thing the Obama administration but it seems that half of the Democrats are, too. During the campaign I remember feeling that this would happen. The orgy of bad business in Washington will never change. (sigh)

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 8:44 AM
  • *

    On the Senator Dodd Amendment, the author leaves out quite a bit of information and gets information wrong. He says that Dodd proposed an amendment but never says if the amendment was passed.

    Also he misidentifies Joe Lieberman as a Democratic senator when he is an Independent Senator.

    More information is needed on this.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 11:34 AM
  • *

    Herndon I agree with you but please stay away from namecalling.

    I love how now Senator Demint is actually blaming Democrats for him holding up the nomination of the TSA Director. I think Obama needs to pull a Bush and do a recess appointment for the TSA. No doubt, if he does Republicans will go plum crazy, forgetting their previous support for Bush when he appointed Bolton to the UN during a recess.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 11:36 AM
  • *

    Riddle me this: A terrorist tries to blow up a plane but it is botched and he is apprehended. The President, on vacation at the time, waits several days before making any comments to the press or to the American people. He is not criticized by the other party or by the media for waiting. Which president is this?

    It is, of course, George W. Bush in December 2001 after Richard Reid's failed shoe bombing.

    Fast Forward to December 2009 and Republicans are all in a twitter about Obama pulling a Bush. Even former Vice-President Cheney who was rarely seen in eight years as Vice-President but is now seen every two weeks got into the act apparently forgetting that his boss did the exact same thing.

    Amazing breed of people, these Republican politicians are.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 11:54 AM
  • s.s./d.d.

    -- Posted by doodle bug on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 2:54 PM
  • *

    It is very telling that since the failed terrorist attack that some in the media, certain Republican congressmen, and former Vice President Cheney have spent more time and energy attacking the Obama White House than condemning the actual terrorist attack. What is so telling is that these same individuals not just a few short years ago would jump through any hoop to brand anyone that went after George W. Bush the way they are going after Obama as traitors and anti-Americans.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 6:26 PM
  • Mike,

    I noticed no where on your post, did you assign any blame as to who was responsible. I did not see a "Al qaeda did it", or "Islamic terrorists did it". Do you honestly think you can sit in judgement of those you criticize?

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 7:45 PM
  • Flying High

    Why are we so bad at detecting the guilty and so good at collective punishment of the innocent?

    By Christopher Hitchens


    In my boyhood, there were signs on English buses that declared, in bold letters, "No Spitting." At a tender age, I was able to work out that most people don't need to be told this, while those who do feel a desire to expectorate on public transport will require more discouragement than a mere sign. But I'd be wasting my time pointing this out to our majestic and sleepless protectors, who now boldly propose to prevent airline passengers from getting out of their seats for the last hour of any flight. Abdulmutallab made his bid in the last hour of his flight, after all. Yes, that ought to do it. It's also incredibly, nay, almost diabolically clever of our guardians to let it be known what the precise time limit will be.

    Oh, and by the way, any passenger courageous or resourceful enough to stand up and fight back will also have broken the brave new law.



    Now, which party is to blame?

    -- Posted by MrsSmith on Wed, Dec 30, 2009, at 8:59 PM
  • Bush had the opportunity to stop the terrorist threat but chose to avenge his father's honor instead. The terrorists have had more time to recruit, train, and infiltrate due to the failure of the Bush administration to reign in the terrorist cancer on our planet.

    Had Bush/Chaney been more interested in protecting the United States and less interested in lining the pockets of their friends in various corporations, the terrorist threat would have been decreased rather than increased by now.

    The Republican'ts are to blame.

    -- Posted by ontheleftcoast on Thu, Dec 31, 2009, at 12:59 AM
  • *

    I believe CPB if you actually read my blog I wasn't pushing blame on anyone so yes I can criticize those who choose to blame Americans because they have a D after their name and completely ignore the actually terrorist.

    I'm not judging anyone, just simply calling out their hypocrisy.

    The Republicans are so intent on proving to Americans that they are better on terrorism that they will criticize Obama for waiting for three days before commenting on the terrorist act yet celebrate Bush for waiting 8 days after an almost identical attempt just a few months after 9/11.

    I don't blame anyone but the terrorist himself for the act.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 31, 2009, at 1:51 AM
  • *

    Last time I checked Mrs. Smith not a single passenger that helped subdue the terrorist has been charged with any crimes, so I guess the real question is what's your point, other than to push blame on someone other than the actual attempted terrorist?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 31, 2009, at 1:53 AM
  • *

    It is funny to me MrsSmith that in your zeal to blame Democrats for this you quote an avid atheist who also happens to be a satirist. He despises both liberals and conservatives of American politics. The only thing he has done in his entire career that you happen to agree with is supporting the Iraq War and terming the phrase Islamofascist.

    He absolutely hates religion and believes that religion is the cause of all of societies ills.

    But hey I guess you'll quote ANYBODY if you think that person helps you prove your point.

    You did forget to mention in your quoting of Hitchens the fact that after 9/11 passengers on the Washington-New York leg weren't even allowed to get up to go to the bathroom.

    As much as he hates liberalism he hates neo-conservatism even more saying at one point, "I'm not any kind of conservative."

    His most recent book is "God is Not Great - How Religion Poisons Everything". In the book he argues that organized religion is, "[v]iolent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children". His four main theses in the book are that: religion misrepresents the origins of humankind and the cosmos, religion demands unreasonable suppression of human nature, religion inclines people to violence and blind submission to authority, and religion expresses hostility to free inquiry.

    He is against overturning Roe v Wade, favors legalization of marijuana, and supported President Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Dec 31, 2009, at 12:40 PM
  • As the American people go back and forth blaming Republicans or Democrats for whatever ails our world....I would ask that you read the following link and ask yourself the following question. "Is either party really working for the best interest of the American people?"

    I would also ask you to ponder this statement; Do the left (liberals) and the right (conservatives) have more in common than they realize?


    -- Posted by Kurt on Thu, Dec 31, 2009, at 4:51 PM
  • "Last time I checked Mrs. Smith not a single passenger that helped subdue the terrorist has been charged with any crimes, so I guess the real question is what's your point, other than to push blame on someone other than the actual attempted terrorist?"

    I think the law Mrs. Smith was pointing out is the new law made because of that attack that no one can stand up during the last hour of the flight nor can they have a pillow or blanket on their lap.

    The people who subdued the terrorist, would be in violation of that law had it been in effect at the time.

    Will the law actually save lives? I doubt it, just means the terrorists will start with 90 minutes left in the flight.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 1:29 AM
  • *

    Classic fear monger technique. Criticize the new law and tell the terrorists a better time to act. I guess we could always use the Republican technique as well, if no terrorists act out while the new rule (not law it is not enforceable, you will not be arrested if you stand up in the last hour of the flight) is in place just give all credit to the administration that was in when the rule was put in place.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 12:21 PM
  • It looks as though Jim DeMint is doing the right thing after all;


    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 1:16 PM
  • *

    That's odd CPB because for eight years you sat silently while the Bush Administration allowed the government to spy on Americans at will and dig up dirt on Democrats yet you aren't willing to forgive a guy that looked up information of his estranged wife's boyfriend over 20 years ago.

    The fact that he had already cleared this up in November and it hasn't even been mentioned by DeMint goes further to show that DeMint is NOT doing the right thing just being yet another obstructionist. It was a one time instance that he mistakenly told the Senate he had someone else do.

    I'm sure after 20 years your mind isn't crystal clear either.

    If you are going to sit there and seriously suggest that DeMint holding up the confirmation had anything to do with this and not purely political grandstanding then you are blinder that you have let on.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 1:26 PM
  • Yes Mike, there are some things I have done in my past that might get me disqualified from a job at the TSA. I would hope the head of the TSA is someone of the highest integrity, someone who has a history of always making the right decisions. Not someone who has a history of vindictiveness, as Mr. Southers has shown.

    I am also willing to sacrifice a little personal privacy for the safety of many, as would most Americans. Are you?

    Whether or not DeMint's holding up the confirmation of Southers has anything to do with political grandstanding, it has allowed for a moment of scrutiny as to the qualification of Southers. For that, I applaud him.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 2:23 PM
  • *

    No CPB I am not willing to give up any of my rights. That's what it is to be American. We have these rights for a reason. IF you willingly give up any rights, losing rights by force is right around the corner.

    An isolated incident that occurred over 20 years is not enough to disqualify someone. I always say that people in this country are always willing to forgive, but apparently you are not at least when it comes to Democrats. You hold the fire hard under anyone that identifies as a Democrat or liberal and yet you allow anyone that is a Republican or Conservative say whatever they want or say whatever they want. Also one case of looking up someone is not a history if vindictiveness. If that's how you classify a history then pretty much everyone on this site and everyone in the world has a history of vindictiveness, because in your definition it only takes one AND ONLY ONE instance to make a history.

    As I said in my previous post CPB DeMint's holding up of the confirmation had nothing at all what-so-ever to do with this information coming out. Southers self reported this the day after his confirmation hearing in November. I'm sorry that your sources of news and information have held onto it until it's politically convenient for Republicans and Conservatives. In DeMint's defense of holding up the nomination the other day he not one time mentioned this issue from over 20 years ago.

    But of course, today, now that the story has miracously shown back up DeMint suddenly remembers it. Amazing that he is holding the fire to someone who has issues remembering something from over 20 years ago yet he can't remember something from a few months ago. Naturally he is also whining and complaining that Democrats are trying to rush through the nomination. We have an attempted terrorist attack, with a nominee for the office that handles these situations being blocked for over a month and the Republicans are once again grandstanding and obstructing government.

    Pat DeMint on the back as hard as you can CPB because as soon as it is politically convenient for him he will turn on you.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 2:56 PM
  • Funny, I don't recall making the distinction between republican and democrats, but you did, and tried to blame me for it. But if that's your nature, I guess go with it.

    Believe me, nobody rolls their eyes more than me when my guys screw up bad.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 3:12 PM
  • *

    Not specifically identifying party ID doesn't mean that you don't make a party distinction.

    You roll your eyes? Well good for you that will bring real change. I've criticized my side quite often for their mistakes or if they do something I don't agree with, you roll your eyes. I feel better now.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 4:30 PM
  • Clueless

    Linda Chavez

    Friday, January 01, 2010

    Clueless. It's the word that best describes the Obama administration's first year in office. They've proven themselves clueless about creating jobs; clueless about handling growing nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea; and now, most devastatingly, clueless about protecting Americans from terrorist attacks on our own soil. And with nearly one year under the belts, they can't keep blaming the Bush administration for everything that goes awry.

    It is hard to imagine a more incompetent handling of the thwarted Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. jetliner. First, the commander in chief was too busy enjoying his vacation in Hawaii to do much more than issue platitudinous assurances that he was "actively monitoring" the incident, while dispersing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to the weekend talk shows to downplay the significance of the event.

    When the news media began uncovering evidence that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was exactly who he claimed to be when taken into custody -- a terrorist tied to an al-Qaida network in Yemen -- the administration began backtracking on its earlier statements that the incident was not part of a larger terrorist plot and that "the system worked." But it took the president three days to appear before the American public to insist on a thorough investigation. By that time, everyone knew that the would-be suicide bomber's own father had alerted U.S. intelligence officials of his son's threat to American security. But the warnings didn't keep Abdulmutallab off a jetliner headed to the United States.

    Even the words the president used in his press conference Dec. 28 suggest how clueless he is. He described Abdulmutallab as a "passenger (who) allegedly tried to ignite an explosive device," repeatedly referring to Abdulmutallab in his comments as a "suspect." These are the weasel words we use when talking about ordinary criminals, which is no accident. The Obama administration's anti-terrorism philosophy is to treat terrorist attacks like criminal actions, not acts of war.

    The Obama administration's response to the deadly terrorist attack at Fort Hood in November was exactly the same. For days after Nidal Hasan gunned down his fellow soldiers at the Texas Army installation, killing 13 and injuring dozens, the administration tried to portray Hasan as a troubled lone wolf whose actions had nothing to do with his increasingly radicalized Islamic faith. But as news organizations revealed that the FBI had been monitoring Hasan and that he had been in contact with a known radical imam in Yemen, the insanity explanation looked increasingly lame. Now the administration is engaged in a review of why so many clues to Hasan's terrorist intentions went ignored.

    The Obama administration's cluelessness has reached the point that even the president's admirers have to admit something is drastically wrong. The Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, one of President Obama's most fawning fans, wrote this week: "The more I think about the Christmas all-but-bombing, the angrier I get. At the multiple failures that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to get on the plane with explosives sewn inside his underwear. And at the Obama administration's initial, everything's-fine-everybody-move-right-along reaction." And Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, now wants to stop the administration from releasing Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, in light of growing evidence of al-Qaida's active presence there.

    Many of us who criticized Barack Obama's candidacy did so because we felt he was too inexperienced to be president. His first year in office has done nothing to allay those fears. He has put together a team of White House operatives who politicize every crisis. Their first concern seems to be to protect the president from blame, not to protect the American people from harm, whether it be from failed economic policies or terrorist attacks.

    And the president seems unable to go much beyond reading a script. He shows little actual leadership, whether in crafting a health care plan or devising a coherent foreign policy, preferring to delegate to others duties that he should assume. He turned over responsibility for the stimulus plan and totally revamping of U.S. health care to Democrats in Congress, with predictably unsatisfactory results. Meanwhile, his policy of engagement with enemies like Iran and North Korea has simply emboldened them to pursue their nuclear aims at a faster pace.

    Americans have given President Obama an extended honeymoon, but their love affair with a man who showed much promise, if not actual accomplishment, is cooling down. The latest Rasmussen presidential tracking numbers show the president at only 47 percent approval. Unless President Obama dramatically changes course, 2010 will be the year when most Americans begin thinking about divorce.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 1, 2010, at 9:45 PM
  • Puhleeeze, WallisMarsh,

    From the top -- The administration's "digging for facts" has revealed career bureaucrats in at least three departments failed in several areas.

    Career embassy staff and up-line State Dept. bureaucrats failed to pass along the terrorist's fathers warnings.

    The CIA knew A Nigerian was training with Al Qaeda in northern Yemen. Failed to push that information to the top.

    Bureaucrats at Homeland Security failed in their responsibility to pursue incidents in all areas and do what they're paid for--CONNECT THE DOTS.

    Simple Fact -- the present administration did not hire and did not promote any of these bureaucrats. Not in 11 months.

    It was an isolated incident, probably a test run, and just at the busiest travel time, the need was for a low-key approach, rather than hysterical crying "The Sky is Falling."

    Bush ignored the shoe bomber for a week and then barely mentioned him.

    Obama first directed full reviews and as soon as basic facts were revealed, reported to the nation in detail.

    BUSH HERO-OBAMA BUM to the neo-cons.

    When informed of the 9/11 attacks, Bush sat in a classroom reading to children, rather than getting back to Air Force One.

    Republican Calvin Coolidge took a South Dakota fishing trip early one summer. State officials secretly stocked the Black Hills streams with imported trophy trout. Coolidge's fishing camp was remote and cut off from any real contact with the White House. Coolidge remained in South Dakota for months. Now that's a GOP vacation.

    Ronnie and Nancy spent about ten per cent of their time in the White House at the Santa Barbara ranch; Ike and Mamie were at the Gettysburg farm or in Colorado a huge percentage of the time; Nixon made good use of the San Clemente home; Jimmy Carter spent a great deal of time in Plains -- with the press regaling us with Billy, Miz Lillian, the Aunts and Uncles and cycle riding sister; Jerry Ford loved Vail, CO.

    Poppa Bush spent lots of time at the family beach mansion south of Kennebunkport, Maine and in Texas;

    Good ol' DubYah insisted on the White House Press Corps huddling under tin roof sheds at Crawford during his frequent vacations to the ranch. He was not out of contact, except--both teen-age daughters ran afoul of Texas law for underage drinking and showing fake IDs.

    The 21st Century president has full satellite communications links to the world, can video conference with any staff, cabinet officers, military leaders in D.C., Brussels, Bonn, Iraq or Afghanistan 24/7. This president is spending Holiday time in his home state with young daughters who are unlikely to ever present fake IDs.He took an East Coast island vacation last summer and goes to Camp David some weekends, as has every president since FDR.

    Go back and check Reagan, both Bushes, Jerry Ford, Nixon and Ike -- for vacation time and time at their summer White Houses -- and compare those numbers with Pres. Obama.

    Ike and Mamie, the Nixons, Fords and Bush families were commuting in and out of New York City constantly without a single GOP complaint.

    Pres. Obama delivered on a promised night out for his wife and the Neo-Con wolves howled.

    All praise for Bush's grandstand bit of taking the mail plane to a carrier just off San Diego, strutting across the deck in a jet jockey's pressure suit under that grand "Mission Accomplished" banner.

    Thirty-six people died in Afghanistan last month. While your hero was strutting, Bin Laden was rebuilding and digging in.

    The Nigerian "Crotch bomber" was trained by Al Qaeda in Yemen. What happened to "Mission Accomplished," and hanger deck strutting.

    I can't remember any GOP president who looked reporters straight in the eye and said, "I screwed up," "We made a huge mistake there," "We did not really understand how deep the recession was until March", "I am withdrawing the nomination immediately, based upon information."

    As for politicizing -- Check back eight years, review the Nixon White House where every senior staff member was convicted of felonies, one V.P. was sentenced for political corruption and Nixon resigned in complete disgrace.

    Finally -- your specious attack that Obama did not walk into Congress and manage legislation for Health Care.

    He presented his Health Care message in virtually every campaign speech, his inauguation, State of the Union, the special appearance before both houses, in personal visits to Capital Hill offices and caucus rooms and in countless media interviews.

    Every congressman and senator knew those proposals.

    We have a constitutional separation of powers.


    As for foreign policy.

    Iran has agreed to ship all low grade unranium for processing into fuel grade uranium -- no weapons grade.

    This president has rallied more than 30 countries to help in Afghanistan, has unified all of Asia to block North Korea, has enlisted the Chinese to join actions toward North Korea and has near complete blockade of North Korean weapons shipments. No bombast or posturing, just quiet negotiations.

    Your purely partisan nonsense is a joke. The world press, governments around the globe, regional commissions and other groups are all expressing their approval of the "Obama style."

    The common thread, "It is wonderful to be able to have a discussion with an American President and not be forced to endure another lecture."

    The jingoistic, Super Patriot attitude that the whole world should kiss the U.S. posterior is totally out of touch.

    Thanks to two Bush presidents, who together amassed more national debt than all other presidents combined -- actually Poppa Bush did that in the 80s, DubYah exceeded his daddy -- the American Dollar is now weaker than in 200 years, we are deeply into debt to the Persian Gulf oil sheiks and to the Chinese -- and cannot repay those debts.

    Our military is bled dry after two wars for a combined 15 years. The troops are just now getting the equipment they have needed from the start.

    Listen to the top military leaders. The Chief of Staff is direct in his evaluations of Obama's leadership and along with other Pentagon Brass and General McCrystal in Afghanistan -- is in full agreement with the way decisions are being made with everyone speaking their mind and a Commander in Chief leading them toward common understanding.

    Then we come to the Rasmussen Report. For an honest review of public opinion, these people are so far off base as to be laughable.

    According to Rasmussen, McCain/Palen were a can't lose ticket in October, 2008.

    Rasmussen Report is a GOP political shill.


    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 1:16 AM
  • America Retreats -- Mullahs Advance

    January 02, 2010

    America Retreats -- Mullahs Advance

    By James Lewis

    There's good news and bad news for 2010.

    The good news is that there is a real hero of freedom in Ira: a member of the Iraqi parliament named Mithal al-Alusi. In the Iraq war, one thing most Americans have wondered about is who really stands for the people and who, if anybody, still harbors those glowing embers of freedom that ultimately overthrew Soviet totalitarianism. (That's the one our kids don't learn about in school anymore because it might make America look good.)

    Is it really true that Iraqis wanted their freedom after three decades of Saddam Hussein's brutal fascism? The Left, both here and abroad, always denied that there were freedom-fighters in the Soviet Union. Then came Nadezhda Mandelstam, Sakharov, Solzhenitsyn, the Samizdat underground press, and Nathan Sharansky. We forget those names at our peril. Obama will not remember them for us.

    What about Saddam Hussein's Iraq and all the other neo-fascist regimes that now dominate the U.N. General Assembly? Where were their freedom-fighters? Well, in Saddam's Iraq, many of them fled to freer countries. Hundreds of thousands were killed or tortured, or else had their family members taken away forever. There is a reason why Iraqi Shi'ites revere martyrs -- they've seen so many of them. By the time the U.S. military rolled up Saddam Hussein's forces in three weeks in 2003, only the bare husk of a nation was left. The Bush administration tackled the awesome job of reconstructing a terribly abused and humiliated nation. Our Leftist media did nothing but abuse those Iraqis who yearned for a better life and who supported a new, more modern and tolerant country. There were heroes, all right -- they were the ones who were blown up by al-Qaida and Iran's proxy terror groups. And then there were survivors. What we have now in Iraq is a government of survivors. It is far, far better than Saddam, but it is not out of danger.

    Mithal al-Alusi sounds like a man of extraordinary sanity and grace to emerge from all the madness. He is a man of peace who also recognizes danger from Tehran's fascists and their nukes. He has seen fascists all his life, so he can recognize them. He is even willing to call Iranian fascists "fascists." Telling the truth is the key to everything good -- but it takes immense courage. Mr. al-Alusi is one of whose who is willing to tell the truth, but when he called for peace with Israel -- still taboo in Iraq -- his two sons were blown up. Yet he has not changed his public position. This is not the kind of heroism many of us can understand, much less emulate. What we can do is acknowledge it.

    And there's even more good news from Iran itself: a whole generation of heroes of freedom -- unfortunately not being helped by the United States, either in word or in deed, for fear of offending the fascists in power. It's tough noogies for the Freedom-Fighters of Tehran.

    So now the biggest threat to peace is Tehran's nuclear weapons, as we have known it would be ever since Jimmy Carter capitulated to the mullahs. Iraq's M.P. al-Alusi believes that Iranian nukes are much closer to reality than our risible CIA would have us believe. The CIA has been wrong about every single new nuclear regime since Stalin's A-bomb in 1949, so it makes sense to believe the opposite of whatever it says. The CIA doesn't report facts; it just plays politics.

    As Caroline Glick points out in the Jerusalem Post, the mullahs are now making extremely rapid geostrategic gains in the Middle East. They are encircling Israel from all sides except for Egypt and Jordan, and in the south they still have the Gaza strip filled with Hamas radicals. The mullahs may be feeling the chill breath of history on their necks now that they are losing their own people. So they are big fanatics in a big hurry. They have to get those nukes fast, to scare their own people as well as all their neighbors. Those fast chess moves make sense if Ahmadinejad is shoring up all his defenses and buying all the alliances he can, on the assumption of a large-scale war in 2010.

    That's not what you wanted to know for New Year's. I know.

    Still, here are the ineluctable strategic facts, the ones that never change. Saudi Arabia is just fifty miles from Iran's Bushehr reactor. The oil sheikhdoms of the Gulf are within Iranian missile and gunboat range. Iranian terrorists can strike any of its neighboring nations. Iraq is right nextdoor to the Islamofascists of Tehran, weakened by a decade of internecine warfare, and the Iraqis still see constant terrorist attacks against innocent civilians in their cities, with truck bombs and IEDs made in Iran.

    There's all kinds of oil right outside of the mullahs' control. They just invaded a piece of Iraq to conquer a single oil well. Testing! Testing! Even Kuwait is right at the top of the Gulf. (Remember that place? There was a Gulf War I to rescue Kuwait in 1991. It worked, but don't let the Democrats hear about it.) Afghanistan borders Iran, as does Pakistan, which has its own Nukes Plus Radicals problem. Look at Iran on the map and you can see why the Persian Empire controlled so much territory for so long -- and why the Muslim caliphates always had to try to control it.

    Iran's terrorist proxy Hezb'allah now controls the state of Lebanon. Syria has been in Iran's corner for a long, long time and is now armed with Iranian missiles that take only the press of a button to launch. Until Israeli jets knocked it out, the Syrians were trying to build an Iranian-North Korean nuclear reactor near the Euphrates River. (Needless to say, the CIA denied its existence for months even after the Israelis knocked it out.) Under Hamas, the Gaza Strip has become a terror zone supplied by Iranian martyrdom fanatics. Between Hezb'allah and Hamas, there are more missiles pointing at Israel's population centers than there were before last year's conflict. Add Syrian and Iranian missiles, and there is a ring of steel around the smallest Western-style state in the Middle East, a place where Palestinian Arabs can appeal to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem and win by hiring smart lawyers. That doesn't exist anywhere else in the neighborhood.

    The latest domino to fall to Iran could be Turkey, which has one of the the biggest military forces in NATO. Turkey is now under the control of an Islamic party, which is slowly reversing eight decades of secularism and democracy. They are Sunni Muslims, but they can be bought and coerced by Iranian Shi'ites. After all, Islamists have two common enemies: the Big Satan (us) and the Little Satan (Israel). Turkey just signed 47 trade agreements with Syria, and therefore indirectly with Iran.

    Europe would die without Middle Eastern oil. The Europeans are deluded, historically ignorant, and lazy to boot, enticed by hot pursuit of an illusory Peace of the Lion and the Lamb, Forever and Ever, Karl Marx Willing. To guarantee the peace, they spend a pittance for defense, knowing they can get the U.S. military to rescue them in Kosovo and Georgia. We just saw the Euroclimate farce in Copenhagen falling apart because even the Chinese and the Russians no longer believe in Marxist Wonderland. Only fools and Eurosocialists are suckering their taxpayers that way...oh yes, and the Obama administration. But we knew that.

    The whole Middle East knows it, too. That's why the dominoes are falling Ahmadinejad's way right now. The Arabs and Turks know there's no downside to dissing this American president, but there is a huge downside to upsetting the mullahs. So they make rational choices and go with the strong horse, just as Osama bin Laden told us they would.

    Under President We're So Sorry!!!, the United States doesn't scare anybody. So there's a big Mount Everest avalanche a-comin', and the Israelis are not going to wait for the next administration in 2012 or 2016, because that will be much too late for them. That's what the mullahs see also, and they are acting accordingly.

    Oh yes, and then there's another piece of good news: John Kerry wants to go to Iran to negotiate peace. His spokesman just denied it, so it has to be true. Senator Kerry is the guy who just blocked U.S. trade sanctions against Iran. Trade sanctions are the only peaceful leverage we have, so between Kerry and Obama, the world has been rendered helpless...short of war, that is.

    But it's Barack Hussein Obama who has set the stage.

    Now everybody else has to play on it.

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 6:43 AM
  • *


    The fact that you absolutely lied about who I am and where I have lived, the fact that you came on my blog and spread lies and misinformation about me, the fact that you were caught doing it, and the fact that you have still yet to apologize for those lies makes anything you post on here as subject and immaterial.

    But to actually post work by someone else that is nothing more than a hit piece on Americans because they happen to look at the world than you do and would rather try to solve issues peacefully than to start yet another war is truly detestable.

    To take an attempted terrorist attack to attack Americans that don't fall at the feet of Conservatism and their ideology of shoot first don't ever ask questions is disgusting.

    The fact that I have to remind you that the people you rail against so hard because they don't cowtow to the way you think things should be ran is absolutely sad on your part.

    If you want to take up space and post other people's blogs then start your own, don't post them on my blog, that or link it.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 7:49 AM
  • ThreatsWatch.Org: PrincipalAnalysis

    Wither Sovereignty

    Executive Order Amended to Immunize INTERPOL In America - Is The ICC Next?

    By Steve Schippert, Clyde Middleton

    Last Thursday, December 17, 2009, The White House released an Executive Order "Amending Executive Order 12425." It grants INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) a new level of full diplomatic immunity afforded to foreign embassies and select other "International Organizations" as set forth in the United States International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945.

    By removing language from President Reagan's 1983 Executive Order 12425, this international law enforcement body now operates - now operates - on American soil beyond the reach of our own top law enforcement arm, the FBI, and is immune from Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

    For Immediate Release December 17, 2009

    Executive Order -- Amending Executive Order 12425


    - - - - - - -




    By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (22 U.S.C. 288), and in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2©, Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.



    December 16, 2009.

    After initial review and discussions between the writers of this analysis, the context was spelled out plainly.

    Through EO 12425, President Reagan extended to INTERPOL recognition as an "International Organization." In short, the privileges and immunities afforded foreign diplomats was extended to INTERPOL. Two sets of important privileges and immunities were withheld: Section 2© and the remaining sections cited (all of which deal with differing taxes).

    And then comes December 17, 2009, and President Obama. The exemptions in EO 12425 were removed.

    Section 2c of the United States International Organizations Immunities Act is the crucial piece.

    Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable. (Emphasis added.)

    Inviolable archives means INTERPOL records are beyond US citizens' Freedom of Information Act requests and from American legal or investigative discovery ("unless such immunity be expressly waived.")

    Property and assets being immune from search and confiscation means precisely that. Wherever they may be in the United States. This could conceivably include human assets - Americans arrested on our soil by INTERPOL officers.

    Context: International Criminal Court

    The importance of this last crucial point cannot be understated, because this immunity and protection - and elevation above the US Constitution - afforded INTERPOL is likely a precursor to the White House subjecting the United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). INTERPOL provides a significant enforcement function for the ICC, just as our FBI provides a significant function for our Department of Justice.

    We direct the American public to paragraph 28 of the ICC's Proposed Programme Budget for 2010 (PDF).

    29. Additionally, the Court will continue to seek the cooperation of States not party to the Rome Statute and to develop its relationships with regional organizations such as the Organization of American States (OAS), the Arab League (AL), the African Union (AU), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), ASEAN and CARICOM. We will also continue to engage with subregional and thematic organizations, such as SADC and ECOWAS, and the Commonwealth Secretariat and the OIF. This will be done through high level visits, briefings and, as appropriate, relationship agreements. Work will also be carried out with sectoral organizations such as IDLO and INTERPOL, to increase efficiency.

    The United States is not a party to the Rome Statute - the UN treaty that established the International Criminal Court. (See: Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)

    President George W. Bush rejected subjecting the United States to the jurisdiction of the ICC and removed the United States as a signatory. President Bill Clinton had previously signed the Rome Statute during his presidency. Two critical matters are at play. One is an overall matter of sovereignty and the concept of the primacy of American law above those of the rest of the world. But more recently a more over-riding concern principally has been the potential - if not likely - specter of subjecting our Armed Forces to a hostile international body seeking war crimes prosecutions during the execution of an unpopular war.

    President Bush in fact went so far as to gain agreement from nations that they would expressly not detain or hand over to the ICC members of the United States armed forces. The fear of a symbolic ICC circus trial as a form of international political protest to American military actions in Iraq and elsewhere was real and palpable.

    President Obama's words have been carefully chosen when directly regarding the ICC. While President Bush outright rejected subjugating American armed forces to any international court as a matter of policy, President Obama said in his 2008 presidential campaign that it is merely "premature to commit" to signing America on.

    However, in a Foreign Policy in Focus round-table in 2008, the host group cited his former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power. She essentially laid down what can be viewed as now-President Obama's roadmap to America rejoining the ICC. His principal objections are not explained as those of sovereignty, but rather of image and perception.

    Obama's former foreign policy advisor, Samantha Power, said in an early March (2008) interview with The Irish Times that many things need to happen before Obama could think about signing the Rome Treaty.

    "Until we've closed Guantánamo, gotten out of Iraq responsibly, renounced torture and rendition, shown a different face for America, American membership of the ICC is going to make countries around the world think the ICC is a tool of American hegemony.

    The detention center at Guantánamo Bay is nearing its closure and an alternate continental American site for terrorist detention has been selected in Illinois. The time line for Iraq withdrawal has been set. And President Obama has given an abundance of international speeches intended to "show a different face for America." He has in fact been roundly criticized domestically for the routinely apologetic and critical nature of these speeches.

    President Obama has not rejected the concept of ICC jurisdiction over US citizens and service members. He has avoided any direct reference to this while offering praise for the ICC for conducting its trials so far "in America's interests." The door thus remains wide open to the skeptical observer.


    In light of what we know and can observe, it is our logical conclusion that President Obama's Executive Order amending President Ronald Reagans' 1983 EO 12425 and placing INTERPOL above the United States Constitution and beyond the legal reach of our own top law enforcement is a precursor to more damaging moves.

    The pre-requisite conditions regarding the Iraq withdrawal and the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility closure will continue their course. meanwhile, the next move from President Obama is likely an attempt to dissolve the agreements made between President Bush and other states preventing them from turning over American military forces to the ICC (via INTERPOL) for war crimes or any other prosecutions.

    When the paths on the road map converge - Iraq withdrawal, Guantánamo closure, perceived American image improved internationally, and an empowered INTERPOL in the United States - it is probable that President Barack Obama will once again make America a signatory to the International Criminal Court. It will be a move that surrenders American sovereignty to an international body whose INTERPOL enforcement arm has already been elevated above the Constitution and American domestic law enforcement.

    For an added and disturbing wrinkle, INTERPOL's central operations office in the United States is within our own Justice Department offices. They are American law enforcement officers working under the aegis of INTERPOL within our own Justice Department. That they now operate with full diplomatic immunity and with "inviolable archives" from within our own buildings should send red flags soaring into the clouds.

    This is the disturbing context for President Obama's quiet release of an amended Executive Order 12425. American sovereignty hangs in the balance if these actions are not prevented through public outcry and political pressure. Some Americans are paying attention, as can be seen from some of the earliest recognitions of this troubling development here, here and here. But the discussion must extend well beyond the Internet and social media.

    Ultimately, a detailed verbal explanation is due the American public from the President of the United States detailing why an international law enforcement arm assisting a court we are not a signatory to has been elevated above our Constitution upon our soil.

    By Steve Schippert on December 23, 2009 3:00 AM

    -- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 9:03 AM
  • wallismarsh,

    Thank you for your diligent hard work. You alone have conveyed more information in 3 posts than all the MSM combined. As you are aware, you will be threatened, belittled, and have your integrity called into question. My advice, ignore them and continue your work. Again, THANK YOU!

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 10:02 AM
  • *

    CPB, anyone who comes on here and makes up information about a blogger he either knows not to be true or simply doesn't know at all deserves to have their integrity called into question. It does call into question that you would condemn man for something that happened over 20 years ago but applaud a fellow poster that has pushed lies and disinformation as recently as a week ago (I guess as long as that person agrees with you, you will allow just about anything).

    Also I was thinking about your earlier statement about giving up some of your personal privacy to ensure the safety of many and it reminded me of a quote by one of our founding fathers:

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 1:54 PM
  • A thought most, if not all, Americans didn't want to see their fellow man jumping to their deaths from a sky scraper rather than being burned alive. I thought wrong.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 4:39 PM
  • *

    That is just a disgusting and shameful thing for you to post CPB. You should be ashamed of yourself for even suggesting that anyone on here or elsewhere in this country wanted to see that.

    You owe a great many people an apology for that statement, but I know it won't come.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 4:45 PM
  • You know Mike, I do owe a great many people an apology. I apologize to those of you who want total personal freedoms and are willing to take a risk of being hit by terrorists from within. I apologize to those who desire their personal freedoms at all costs, yet are willing to mortgage that costs with the lives of all others. I apologize to those lovers of absolute freedom, who wish to deny me my right to defend myself and my family against all attacks. There, you have it.

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 5:53 PM
  • *

    Okay so now myself and others who choose to defend the Constitution instead of shredding it just to feel safe are responsible for terrorist attacks. I wondered how far you would go in blaming defenders of freedom, I never thought you would fully blame them. I always thought it was the terrorists that were to blame for attacks and attempted attacks, but according to you it's those that "desire their personal freedoms at all costs" that are responsible.

    Do you even read what you write before you post? For eight years we were all reminded that we were in Iraq to protect our freedoms and rights yet now all of a sudden those freedoms and rights aren't that important just so long as you can feel safe?

    Thank God our troops are fighting for your right to accuse Americans of wanting Americans to die and not even realizing that what you have said is absolutely offensive and then not only not apologizing for that statement then to go on and criticize Americans that believe in absolute freedoms, like our founding fathers.

    You are truly an amazing person.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 6:05 PM
  • *

    Who exactly that believes and yes loves absolute freedoms is denying your rights? You do realize that statement is a complete contradiction, right? Those that believe in and love absolute freedoms aren't in the business of denying rights.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 6:07 PM
  • So you are saying that it is best government NOT conduct any type of surveillance on any of its citizens and visitors, especially those suspected of terrorist contacts, in exchange for a hundred if not thousands of deaths from terror activities? That's a pretty high price for your freedoms, wouldn't you think.

    Are you saying absolute freedoms equals no laws? Or are there limitations on absolute freedom?

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Sat, Jan 2, 2010, at 11:09 PM
  • "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin.

    Chunky, The Constitution gives us legal ways of gathering information via search warrants. I think the patriot act went to far in the powers it granted Versus The Constitution. Unfortunately, too my knowledge it was never brought up before the supreme court; I would have liked their ruling.

    Mike I wasn't trying to fear monger with the one hour comment. Fact is, if a terrorist gets a bomb on a plane they'll blow it up. Anyone standing up or with something in there lap the last hour of the flight is going to look suspicious. If they are told to sit down and refuse, odds are is when the plane, they'll be arrested for the disturbance even if they are not charged.

    The government failed on this one. But whenever more then one agency has to talk to each other, its going to happen. The bastards can't talk to each other so no one can get the big picture to connect the dots.

    With the new body scanners, Personally, I wouldn't feel an invasion of privacy with them. Maybe though, the companies need to figure out how to get the image to be a generic body image then just have what is picked up overlaid onto that, Or maybe they should just tell people they reprogrammed the computer to do that.

    Short, of making everyone fly naked, with plain metal detectors, there's no way to figure out if there's something non-metallic on the person. Seems like to me the terrorist found out how to get the bomb on board, just didn't get it properly detonated. I'd rather focus on preventing that attack rather then trying to blame people for the one we luckily missed.

    -- Posted by npwinder on Sun, Jan 3, 2010, at 12:45 AM
  • *

    There should be limitations on surveillance on Americans absolutely, especially if there is no cause in the first place to spy on them. My question is do you really believe that government should spy on any citizen (as you stated) or on just certain Americans.

    "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." FDR. Smart words, unfortunately he didn't follow through on his own words when he locked up thousands of Japanese Americans for "their safety".

    npwinder, I don't believe I accused you of terror mongering, if I did I apologize.

    The simple fact is that those people that want to cause terror, will. Our best hope is to stop it before it happens. But stopping every time an attempt occurs to blame those in charge, or in certain cases those that were in charge prior to the attacks doesn't solve anything.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 3, 2010, at 5:16 AM
  • *

    It amazes me that after of the political grandstanding that Senator DeMint has been doing non-stop since December 25th he actually comes out on a talk show on Sunday demanding that we have to "take the politics out of" the debate. Silly, silly man.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 4, 2010, at 2:06 PM
  • *

    "The simple fact is that those people that want to cause terror, will."

    Agreed.. not that I have much of a problem with scanners, but build a bigger rat trap... next thing you know there will be people with explosives surgically implanted. Unfortunately I think we will only be able to minimize, not rid ourselves of, terrorist actions. And even more unfortunate is the fact that although often necessary at this point, every military action we perform adds to extremist membership, which in turn pushes us into more military action.....

    -- Posted by Jaded American on Mon, Jan 4, 2010, at 2:18 PM
  • *

    I absolutely agree the more we go in militarily against countries that have ties to terrorists the more terrorists get recruited into organizations like al Queda.

    It has been said quite often around this blog site that the terrorists that we are fighting are not aligned with any one country, but the question from that is if they aren't typical militaries from countries why do attack countries.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 4, 2010, at 4:59 PM
  • *

    I see that now Rudy Guiliani is now in on the Republican attempt to completely rewrite history on 9/11 and actually claim that no there was no domestic terrorism under George W. Bush:

    "We had no domestic attacks under Bush. We've had one under Obama." --Rudy Guilliani

    Amazing that the man who was mayor of New York on 9/11 and used it exclusively when he ran for President would claim that there were no domestic attacks under Bush. I wonder how the families of the 3,000 that died that day would feel about that.

    Of course his office has come back and tried to spin his comment claiming that he was of course talking about since 9/11 but even so he then completely ignores the Shoe Bomber just a few months later and the spate of Anthrax attacks the next year.

    I am still completely amazed that Republicans say this crap and are not called on it. They talk about everyone else revisioning history when they in fact in the last two weeks have claimed that Bush wasn't responsible for 9/11. Bush wasn't in office on 9/11, and now the claim that 9/11 never actually happened.

    I guess they are right they are better on terrorism because they are the only ones that can completely ignore the worst attack on American soil.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 4:08 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: