Flashback: Aug. 6, 2001.
Six years ago today, President Bush received a classified intelligence briefing that warned bin Laden was determined to strike inside the U.S. Bush was described as being “carefree” on the day he received the briefing at his Crawford ranch in Aug. 2001. Condoleezza Rice later dismissed the urgency of the briefing, claiming it was “not a warning” but rather an “historical memo.”
Carpetbagger has more.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
It’s a “historical memo” now, ain’t it, Condi?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:23 pmHow many years has it been since Clinton and Sandy Burglar decided NOT to take Bin Laden when he was offered by Sudan?
The left’s hatefulness for Bush makes it impossible for them to make a consistent, reasonable argument against his anti-terror policies. Imagine the ACLU and ThinkProgress if we waterboarded the nineteen hijackers before 9/11.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pmBoy…. If nothing else, they sure can whip things around to mean something different then what it is……
The best damn word smithing I have yet to see comes from the Republican party!!!
Just immagine this bunch of crooks being in charge during our break from England……… We would actually still be part of it and probably still owe her to this day for the money that we borrowed to fight the war.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:26 pmAnd he ignored it.
Amazing.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pmThey let it happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheney and his neocons friends knew the 9/11 event would allow them to execute their plans.
They let it happen !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pmPerhaps Bush was mourning Heroshima that day.

August 6th, 2007 at 1:28 pmYeah, yeah, yeah, that moment was bad for the president and for the nation, but let’s get on to more important topics.
I am so profoundly depressed by the collapse of our fundamental freedoms — the very things that defined the United States to so many around the world — at the request of the Worst President Ever, aided and abetted by cowardly, unprincipled Democrats in Congress.
It’s a sad, sad moment in our history. Our representatives have let fear rather than principle determine our laws.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmGet off the memo!!! If Bush had detained the nineteen hijackers, tortured their asses and prevented 9.11, you would be crying that their civil rights were violated!!!?!?
Instead of bile and hatred, the left could trying making a clear, consistent argument against Bush’s anti-policies. The August 6th memo is neither.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:29 pmFwd: How to create an Angry American
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgfzqulvhlQ
Are we paying attention YET?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:30 pm#6 - if only Bush had wiretapped the nineteen hijackers on 8.6.01?? Please stop being such a shameless pig!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pm“I Heart Alito” could you try restating the point that you tried to make in #6?
It’s kind of incoherent.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:31 pmwho gives a crap, what happened to the goat?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmBush supporters really know how to lower the bar for their guy.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmAnd Bush still does not care about Osama, but he likes to use his ghost to scare the Congress to let him spy on everybody in United States.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:32 pmComment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:31 pm
Let me repeat, Bush supporters really know how to lower the bar for their guy.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:33 pmahh… “The August 6th P D B” …
6th anniversary… that would be
August 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pmcandy, iron or wood…
…
TP - post the entire memo or as much as you have. Here is one redacted version:
“Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.
Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladensince 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and “bringthe fighting to America.”
After U.S. strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladentold followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.
An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] serviceat the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’saccess to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.
The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden’s first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that BinLaden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate theoperation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning hisown U.S. attack.
Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.
Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he preparesoperations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.
AI Qaeda members — including same who are U.S. citizens — have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains asupport structure that could aid attacks.
Two Al Qaeda members found guiltyin the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.
A clandestine sourcesaid in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New Yorkwas recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.
We havenot been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of “Blind Shaykh” ‘Umar’ Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.
Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance offederal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives. “
August 6th, 2007 at 1:36 pm#13 - at least in GOP circles, no one is denying their is a war on terror. Newt aside, of course.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:37 pm“All right. You’ve covered your ass, now.”
August 6th, 2007 at 1:38 pmPresident Bush to CIA briefer on PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.”, August 6, 2001.
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — August 6, 2007 @ 1:36 pm
And still, he did nothing…..
August 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm#13 - at least in GOP circles, no one is denying their is a war on terror. Newt aside, of course.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:37 pm
We’re gonna get that abstract concept any day now - dead or alive! Bring it on!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:39 pm“The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01
“I want justice…There’s an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, ‘Wanted: Dead or Alive,’”
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI
Ahhh the good ‘ol days…….
August 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pmWe’ll attack it with metaphors and long-range similes!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:40 pmYour political philosophy is nothing if it can’t protect your engine from thermal viscosity breakdown.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pm#22 - I worked in the twin towers, as*wipe. Their is nothing abstract about seeing your co-workers jump to their death. Try losing a few friends to terror and get back to me you unAmerican slime.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pmIf Clinton had done more to stop Osama instead of getting a BJ. This wouldnt even of been a issue
August 6th, 2007 at 1:41 pmIf there is a war on terror, which is doubtful, since it’s impossible to declare war on a noun, then it is most certainly being lost as badly as the “wars” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush can’t win against a pretzel, bicycle or Segway; he certainly won’t defeat a noun. He’s a deserter, remember? And he’s scared to death of horses, which is really funny. Reagan wasn’t afraid of horses, although he was jealous of their larger intelligence.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pmInstead of bile and hatred, the left could trying making a clear, consistent argument against Bush’s anti-policies.
We’ve been doing both for years, and we really don’t care if you like it or not. You’d probably be happier if you didn’t keep covering for that loser in the White House.
Just sayin’.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pm.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
How does it feel knowing that George W. Bush didn’t give a shit if you and your friends died that day? Or any day? And did absolutely nothing in his power, which was considerable, to stop it?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:44 pmNote that the most right-wing administration in U.S. history was incompetent beyond the imagination of God.
Coincidence? I think not.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pmronjazz - you would know considering your about as smart as horse’s ass.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pmThe reason the war effort is being lost is cause you liberals are undermining us.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pmWe’ll attack it with metaphors and long-range similes!
Comment by Wilco — August 6, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
Congress must give us the power to use “like” or “as” in defeating this adjective!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pmHere’s a question: If George Wanker Bush wasn’t so distracted by needing a BJ from Jeff Gannon, would he have caught Osama? Or responded correctly to Katrina? Or acted in accordance with FISA and _NOT_ spied on US citizens?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:45 pm“I worked in the twin towers, as*wipe. Their is nothing abstract about seeing your co-workers jump to their death. Try losing a few friends to terror and get back to me you unAmerican slime.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:41 pm”
Then you should be even more pissed that they were brought down INTENTIONALLY!!!!!
Why don’t you put your anger where it belongs?????
But no…… You would rather call other Americans “un-American” because of a one line sentence. You are the DEFINITION of “un-American”.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmBut there is no hell
August 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmThe quality of Frenchman shall be lost, 1st, by naturalization in a foreign country; 2d, by accepting, without the authority of government, public employments bestowed by a foreign power; 3dly, by adoption into any foreign corporation which shall require distinctions of birth; 4thly, in short, by any settlement made in a foreign country, without intention of return.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:46 pmHere’s the Clinton record on terrorism, Little Mister:
# PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pm# Bill Clinton stopped cold the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to kill the Pope.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Boston airport.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
# Bill Clinton stopped cold a planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
# Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
# Bill Clinton brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
# Bill Clinton did not blame the Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after Bush left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively — and successfully — to stop future terrorist attacks.
# Bill Clinton named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.
# Bill Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists. It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.
# Bill Clinton increased the military budget by an average of 14 per cent, reversing the trend under Bush I.
# Bill Clinton tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
# Bill Clinton detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries.
# Bill Clinton created national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
# Of Clinton’s efforts says Robert Oakley, Reagan Ambassador for Counterterrorism: “Overall, I give them very high marks” and “The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama”.
# Paul Bremer, current Civilian Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley as he believed the Bill Clinton Administration had “correctly focused on bin Laden.
# Barton Gellman in the Washington Post put it best, “By any measure available, Bill Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him” and was the “first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort”.
“The reason the war effort is being lost is cause you liberals are undermining us.
Comment by GitMORules — August 6, 2007 @ 1:45 pm”
Sorry, but a war cannot be lost by FACTS!!!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThe libs are undermining what?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pmand how?
by giving bush every bit of funding he’s asked for? by approving Petraeus unanimously?
please tell me how liberals have undermined “us?”
#22 - I worked in the twin towers, as*wipe. Their is nothing abstract about seeing your co-workers jump to their death. Try losing a few friends to terror and get back to me you unAmerican slime.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
If you think “terror” killed your co-workers, you’re a moron.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pmGreat, MY birthday is remembered for Hiroshima and Bush blowing off the PDB. Sigh….
August 6th, 2007 at 1:48 pmI’ve kept my feelings for you contained for as long as I could. I am in love with you though, and true, honest love shouldn’t be contained and kept quiet for this long.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pm#40 - enlighten me - who killed my best friend?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pmComment by Badmoodman — August 6, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
Happy Birthday…..anyway! :)
August 6th, 2007 at 1:49 pmGitMORules
now, what did i say about that? …
August 6th, 2007 at 1:50 pmreally bad form… bad layout…
and just what are “ules”?
…
the reason the war on terror is being lost is because cowards like you are here instead of over there. Facts lean left. Lies are the coin of the rightard realm.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pmBefore September 11, 2001, it looks like Bush had his head in the sand when it comes to terrorism. He pulled his head out. Have you?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:51 pmheh, facts? are you serious? well heres a fact, if we didnt have to worry about you libs getting pissed about gitmo and abu grab we could have scared the shit out of the terrorist. but instead you dumbasses starting crying everything. you libs dont have what it takes to fight a war. everything you do emboldens the terrorists.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:52 pmThere’s been a mini-blogswarm planned on this for several days now.
Hope you’ll join in.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:53 pmHe pulled his head out. Have you?
Attacking the wrong country is a sign that, no, in fact Bush never pulled his head out.
Then again, Bush’s own hand-picked biographer admits Bush was talking about invading Iraq back in 1999.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm.
Comment by GitMORules’ Mother — August 6, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Good post. I wonder how many would want to debate any of these statements?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pmbin Laden = real
al-Qaida = real
fighting them over there,
so that we don’t have to fight them here = correct
President G. W. Bush = A God send
Vice President Cheney = A true Patriot
Islamists = a dying breed.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pmif we didnt have to worry about you libs getting pissed about gitmo and abu grab we could have scared the shit out of the terrorist.
Wow, ‘worries’ stopped you from defeating terrorism?
You’re even weaker than I thought.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:54 pm.
Memo, schmemmo. It’s just a damned piece of paper and it never mattered, cause I don’t know how to read anyway.
Now gets me a memo with some more pictures and less of them ‘word’ thingies.
-Bush jr.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:55 pm# 25-
August 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pmIf the Repukes would have allowed Clinton to strike instead of screaming “wag the dog” Bin Laden may have been taken care of. These bootlicking lockstepping righties now claim “partizan witch hunt”, but years and millions spent investigating a BJ was the right thing to do, huh? I guess Monica was a bigger threat to national security than lying us into war and Bush/Cheney wiping there asses with our Constitution. Why do the as@wipes on the right blaim Clinton so much? Because they EXPECT the Dems to clean up ALL the Rights messes even when they try to stop them from doing so.
Invading Iraq is pulling your head out of the sand?
Apparently, Bush’s head went somewhere closer to his body.
And how do you scare terrorists willing to die with Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pmComment by GitMORules — August 6, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Yup. The muslim-loving, PC-police liberals are helping terrorists.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:56 pmIslamists = a dying breed.
Comment by Pyrrho — August 6, 2007 @ 1:54 p
Pyrrho = stone sack of sh*t from hell.
There, now your list is complete.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:57 pm#60 - we also investigated Vince Foster’s murder. I am sure if Harriet Miers wound up dead in a corn field, liberals would accept that she committed suicide.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pmYup. The muslim-loving, PC-police liberals are helping terrorists.
Comment by Pyrrho — August 6, 2007 @ 1:56 pm
Uttterly nonsensical statement. Totally meaningless.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:58 pmronjazz. are you saying we need to expend more resources for the war on terror?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pmI am sure if Harriet Miers wound up dead in a corn field, liberals would accept that she committed suicide.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Another silly, empty comment.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pmIslamists = a dying breed.
Comment by Pyrrho — August 6, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
If this was true, Al Qeada would be weaker not stronger, and Iraq would be nearly stable. To bad you don’t see the consequences of Bush’s actions help to recruit for Islamic extremists, while inflaming the middle east against the west, and each other.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pm#40 - enlighten me - who killed my best friend?
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Saudi Al-Qaedas commanded by Osama bin Laden who was in turn trained by the CIA.
Next question?
August 6th, 2007 at 1:59 pmHe pulled his head out. Have you?
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
Out of the sand and proceeded to stick somewhere else that’s he’s left it since then.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:00 pmI am sure if Harriet Miers wound up dead in a corn field, liberals would accept that she committed suicide.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
Another silly, empty comment.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — August 6, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
You should check out Ralph’s website. it is a hoot. He claimed last week that Hillary Clinton should be arrested since she was obviously responsible for the Minnesota bridge collapse, since her headquarters were a mere 4 miles from the bridge. His grasp on reality isn’t real tight.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:03 pmVince Foster??
Why not just bring up Chappaquiddick?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pm#62 - not silly or empty argument.
Liberals love to claim Clinton was investigated for just a bj as if it was just the christian right going after him. Set aside the fact that liberals wanted Clarence Thomas denied a Supreme Court seat because ONE woman claimed he left a pube on her diet coke, Clinton was in trouble for much more than that.
The Clintons saw more dead people than Haley Joel Osmont. I am sure if Bush had friend after friend and his White House counsel turn up dead, liberals would just accept that as fact. No conspiracy there!!! NOT!!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:04 pmronjazz. are you saying we need to expend more resources for the war on terror?
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
how stupid are you, on a scale of 1 to 10? 15?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:05 pmhow stupid are you, on a scale of 1 to 10? 15?
Comment by ronjazz — August 6, 2007 @ 2:05 pm
It goes to 11, man… it goes to 11!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:06 pmThe soybeans are starting to die in pond areas of the fields. I’m sure the corn is suffering, too.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:08 pmTP sure does S-U-C-K now!!!!!
They are CENSORING EVERYTHING!!!!
They are LOOSERS!!!!!
I used to like them, but now they are nothing but another arm of the propaganda machine…..
So sad….
August 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pmThe Clintons saw more dead people than Haley Joel Osmont. I am sure if Bush had friend after friend and his White House counsel turn up dead, liberals would just accept that as fact. No conspiracy there!!! NOT!!!!
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
This has all been debunked so many times by sane people. If this is all you have to go w/, then clearly you have nothing. NEXT!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pm…
…it looks like Bush had his head in the sand when it comes to terrorism. He pulled his head out. …
is that some sort of an absolution?
never… ever…
August 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pmnever ever will i forgive any of this…
let alone forget…
…
The most appalling thing was that after the baby was changed, they didn’t even bother to sanitize the table. What do you think?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:09 pmMaybe even 12…. or 13…
August 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pmlet alone forget…
…
Comment by katy — August 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
No, it’s not absolution. It’s a false statement, and that’s all it is. Man, the trolls are thick here today.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:14 pmnever… ever…
never ever will i forgive any of this…
let alone forget…
…
Comment by katy — August 6, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
———————————–
Me neither, katy. Good thing Bush is determined to put an end to radical islam!!!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:16 pmThinkProgress. when you post this; you insinuate that Bush should have taken the threat of terrorism seriously.
When supporters of the war on terror suggest that today’s progressives should also take the threats of terrorism seriously, we are accused of fear mongering or hysterically fostering imaginary boogeymen. So, which is it. Are the threats from Islamic jihadists real? Should the threat be taken seriously? Should it be addressed? Or, are you just comfortable with the double standard?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:17 pm22 - I worked in the twin towers, as*wipe. Their is nothing abstract about seeing your co-workers jump to their death. Try losing a few friends to terror and get back to me you unAmerican slime.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Take a look at this sweetie:
http://911blogger.com/node/10025
August 6th, 2007 at 2:18 pmGood thing Bush is determined to put an end to radical islam!!!
Comment by Pyrrho — August 6, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Along w/ democracy and the Bill of Rights!
Why does the Bill of Rights hate America so?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:21 pmThinkProgress. when you post this; you insinuate that Bush should have taken the threat of terrorism seriously.
When supporters of the war on terror suggest that today’s progressives should also take the threats of terrorism seriously, we are accused of fear mongering or hysterically fostering imaginary boogeymen. So, which is it. Are the threats from Islamic jihadists real? Should the threat be taken seriously? Should it be addressed? Or, are you just comfortable with the double standard?
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
But of course he didn’t take threats of terrorism seriously, and still doesn’t. Attacking Iraq proved it. taking terrorisn seriously is what Clinton did, with success. Bush? Friends with terrorists, makes money off them. Typical Repig greedhead, and America-hater.
As well as deserter.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pmSo, which is it. Are the threats from Islamic jihadists real? Should the threat be taken seriously? Should it be addressed? Or, are you just comfortable with the double standard?
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
It is NOT “from Islamic jihadists”….. It is about giving “any threats” attention…..
Your notion that ONLY “Islam” is the threat is REDICULOUS!!!!!
The point to the article is that HE WAS WARNED ABOUT AN IMMINENT THREAT and DID NOTHING!!!!!
Who cares where that threat comes from????? I could care less if it comes from Canada, Mexico, or anywhere else!!!!
Your argument is as empty as your head…..
August 6th, 2007 at 2:22 pm22 - I worked in the twin towers, as*wipe. Their is nothing abstract about seeing your co-workers jump to their death. Try losing a few friends to terror and get back to me you unAmerican slime.
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Proof that you actually worked there, please.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pmi dunno, tros…
August 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pmit sounds like an absolution… like all’s forgiven for them…
“yea, he shudda paid more attention… yea, he shudda put in more troops… yea, he shudda done things differnt…
but that was then and this is now and we gotta gitr dun…
all’s well…”
…
heh, facts? are you serious? well heres a fact, if we didnt have to worry about you libs getting pissed about gitmo and abu grab we could have scared the shit out of the terrorist. but instead you dumbasses starting crying everything. you libs dont have what it takes to fight a war. everything you do emboldens the terrorists.
Comment by GitMORules — August 6, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
——————————————-
Lemme get this straight — you think the reason things aren’t going all that well in Iraq is because the chickenhawks and the wingnuts are “worried” about us libs getting “pissed”??? And if it wasn’t for this deep concern you have had about the sensibilities of liberals, you would have been able to “scare the shit” out of terrorists??? Wow — I had NO idea we liberals had that kind of power!
This sounds more like the typical “let’s find a scapegoat” strategy. The reasoning that blamed the entire fall of Vietnam on Jane Fonda is now blaming liberals for a lack of stability in Iraq.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:28 pmkaty. Are you trying to say it’s more important to persecute the past than it is to prepare for the future?
The current democrat witchhunts will probably pay the same kinds of dividends that Republicans got from scrutinizing Bill Clinton’s love life. But go ahead. In the long run, it will be much better for the country.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:29 pm“The current democrat witchhunts will probably pay the same kinds of dividends that Republicans got from scrutinizing Bill Clinton’s love life. But go ahead. In the long run, it will be much better for the country.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:29 pm”
I love the Republicans definition of “OVERSIGHT”…… “witchhunts”…..
Dude….. They are doing what the Republicans REFUSED to do….. Perform their DUTY to oversee how the Country is ran.
In just 6 months we have already found 100 times enough things to Impeach this bunch with that it makes my head hurt……. Just immagine what we will find in another 6 months?????
Unlike the Repubs rediculous “witchhunt” with Bill Clinton, there are actually crimes here that HURT our Nation!!!!!!
I don’t expect someone like you to see that….. After all….. You have your head burried in Bush’s A$$ and the only time you hear anything is when he tells you what he wants you to hear…..
August 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThe Clintons saw more dead people than Haley Joel Osmont. I am sure if Bush had friend after friend and his White House counsel turn up dead, liberals would just accept that as fact. No conspiracy there!!! NOT!!!!
Comment by I Heart Aloto’Dix — August 6, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Good thing Bush is determined to put an end to radical
islam!!!
Comment by Pyrrhohead — August 6, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
Plus, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless Dentyne for patients who chew gum!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:34 pmAnd Mr. Alito lover, if you really did work in the Twin Towers, which I suspect is a f*cking lie, my above post applies to you as well. You should be angry that the Bush adminsitration had no interest in helping your imaginary friend there.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pmPlus, 4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless Dentyne for patients who chew gum!
Comment by DRxJ — August 6, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
——
Wow! You are a real doctor, huh?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:35 pmlike all’s forgiven for them…
“yea, he shudda paid more attention… yea, he shudda put in more troops… yea, he shudda done things differnt…
but that was then and this is now and we gotta gitr dun…
all’s well…â€
…
Comment by katy — August 6, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
I agree. They’re trying to absolve him. Doesn’t mean it’s honest or we have to buy it. It’s a false argument and needs to be called that. It’s rather astonishing how no one is ever held responsible by theis admin, no matter how big the FUp, UNLESS, it’s a Dem.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:37 pmAll the conversations we’ve had about our friendship and where it’s at and what it means is so confusing to me. At one point you were telling me how important I am to you and how you don’t want to lose me - that I make you forget about your problems and you have so much fun with me. Then you tell me that you don’t see yourself ever loving me. I never asked you to love me. I’m content loving you and just having you there as my friend.
Comment by Marcus Aurelius — August 6, 2007 @ 2:18 pm
——–
¿Que?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:38 pmBush ignored the Hart-Rudman commission and appointed Cheney to come up with a better plan. Cheny never met once to hash out any plan. Bush ignored the Gore commission which called for armed air marshals, reinforced cockpit doors and increased security at check in. Bush ignored the 55 briefings from t he FAA and the CIA memos while taking an extended vacation while the system was “flashing red.” Bush ignored the repeated warnings from other countries’ intelligence agencies in early Sept. and allowed NORAD to stand down for exercises.
That’s what happened, you stupid Bush cultists. Your cultleader completely dropped the ball!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:40 pmRemoveBush. congratulations. you’re continuing efforts to impeach Bush, well, continue. Nobody seriously believes that will ever happen. But, answer this. While you’re busy issuing another supeona, what part of the liberal agenda is being promoted? What has the democratically controlled congress done (I’ll give you the minimum wage). When Bush is gone, what will you have to show for it?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:44 pmLike when Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he had the opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden? How much would we solve if we spent all our energy trying to persecute him for that? The public sees what you are doing. I hope its worth it to you.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pmpaul: “What has the democratically controlled congress done (I’ll give you the minimum wage).”
Yes, Paul. It’s been tough for Dems to enact new legislation. Do you have any explanation for this. I mean, why wouldn’t they? Have Repubs in congress or the president had anything to do with this in your mind?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:48 pmpaul: “Like when Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he had the opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden? How much would we solve if we spent all our energy trying to persecute him for that?”
I guess you need a history lesson, paul. Repubs WERE trying to persecute him, but it was for something else. Again and again, I will point out what Sidney Blumenthal points out in “The Clinton Wars.” On the very day Clinton was 45 minutes late in his attempt to kill bin Laden, he had been held in deposition all morning answering questions about oral sex. After the attack, Republicans accused him of trying to “change the subject.” If anything, we should be “persecuting” Repubs for their shameful record of OBSTRUCTING Clinton’s attempts to deal with the problem.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:52 pm“While you’re busy issuing another supeona, what part of the liberal agenda is being promoted? What has the democratically controlled congress done (I’ll give you the minimum wage). When Bush is gone, what will you have to show for it?
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:44 pm”
If it were not for the Republicans FILLERBUSTERING EVERYTHING, then there would be a lot completed….. Because things have not been completed, does not mean the Dems have not been effective…… Look at how many Fillibusters the Repubs have held?????
Oh…. Who had to perform the budget for 2007 after entering office because the previous Congress could not?????
I would prefer that Congress stop all work and perorm Impeachment now!!!! We can recover from that, but we will NEVER recover from the damage done if they do nothing about it now, if it is not already too late.
So tell me…. Who was it that was whinning about an up or down vote when they were in chargea???? Who was it that prevented ANYTHING from the Dems being discussed?????
At least the Dems allow the Republicans a voice and try to be fair. Unlike the previous Congress!
August 6th, 2007 at 2:53 pmLike when Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he had the opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden?
Comment by saul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
Here, let me fix your small, but significant, error:
Like when President Bush dropped the ball when he had the opportunity to capture or kill bin Laden on the border of Pakistan back in 2002?
There.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:54 pmYou’re so welcome!
Have a nice day!!!
“Like when Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he had the opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden? How much would we solve if we spent all our energy trying to persecute him for that? The public sees what you are doing. I hope its worth it to you.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pm”
You mean that time that Congress would not authorize it because they were trying to Impeach him and claimed that he was “wagging the dog”????
You mean like that time that the Republicans stopped Clinton?????
Is that the time you are talking about????
August 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pmRet. Col. Jack Ripper. You’ve gone a long way towards proving my point. Thank you.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pmThe Clintons saw more dead people than Haley Joel Osmont. I am sure if Bush had friend after friend and his White House counsel turn up dead, liberals would just accept that as fact. No conspiracy there!!! NOT!!!!
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
I assume that you have a list of all these “dead people”? If you are going to cite Vince Foster’s death as being anything but a suicide, that was debunked by three separate investigations. If you are going to cite James McDougal’s death from a heart attack, the man had a pre-existing heart condition. If you are going to resurrect the rather tired “Clinton Body Count” list that has been circulating on the internet for years, that’s been thoroughly debunked by snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/ politics/ clintons/ bodycount.asp
So what else do you have to back up your claim?
August 6th, 2007 at 2:55 pmSo what else do you have to back up your claim?
Comment by missmolly — August 6, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
ummmm, a very small appendage that he uses to void with???
August 6th, 2007 at 2:57 pmpaul, your last post is completely incoherent and obtuse. I can only surmise that you have no real answers.
I’m not surprised. There is no question that Bush dropped the ball and history shows that Clinton spent much more time and energy trying to get bin Laden than Bush ever has. Those are the facts and nothing you sputter out can change them.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:58 pmRepubs (or insert, Democrats) for their shameful record of OBSTRUCTING Clinton’s (insert Bush’s) attempts to deal with the problem.
Can’t partisan’s see past their short term goals and recognize that two wrongs don’t make it right. Can’t partisan’s learn from the mistakes (of both parties) that the public in general is not interested in retribution. Most are more interested in fixing problems than cementing blame for past mistakes.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:04 pmMost are more interested in fixing problems than cementing blame for past mistakes.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Nah. That’s ridiculous. What was Whitewater about? Or Bush’s attempt to lay that bridge collapse off on Dems as fast as he could.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:06 pmSo what else do you have to back up your claim?
Comment by missmolly — August 6, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Well, technically speaking, the Clintons did have to look at the Repub-controlled House the entire time they were in office. Some of those guys certainly looked dead to me at the time. Perhaps he has a point, sort of, maybe, in a weird, funny but not funny, unintentional kind of way…
August 6th, 2007 at 3:09 pmMost are more interested in fixing problems than cementing blame for past mistakes.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
“I know we are, but what are you?” Guess you gave up your position, eh?
August 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pmhe had been held in deposition all morning answering questions about oral sex.
How much work can our leaders get done if the congress is myopicly engaged in an inquisition, scrutinizing anything and everything that occurred during the Bush administration (scooter libby, alberto gonzales, pat tillman, etc, etc, etc,). And how much work can the administration get done, while being the focus of the inquistion?
You’re feelings about the republican assault on Clinton is how most feel about the democrats current obsession with Bush. You just don’t see it. But that’s okay.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:11 pmThe public sees what you are doing. I hope its worth it to you.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
August 03, 2007
Democratic Seats Secure, Republicans at Risk
The latest strategy memo from James Carville and Stan Greenberg touts a recent poll in the 70 most competitive Congressional districts which shows the Democrats “in a strong position to hold their gains from 2006 and move far into Republican territory in 2008.”
“Indeed, Democrats hold an 18-point electoral advantage in their own districts while Republicans are losing their districts by 5 points overall — 7 points in their most vulnerable districts, 51 to 44 percent.”
Key finding: “Republican incumbents are paying a big price for the deep discontent in the country and for aligning with the President who is no more popular in the Republican districts than in the Democratic ones. “
August 6th, 2007 at 3:12 pmOff topic, but very amusing, none the less…
Legislator Claims He Was Scared Into Offering Sex
Florida state Rep. Bob Allen (R) “told police he was just playing along when a undercover officer suggested in a public restroom that the legislator give him oral sex and $20 because he was intimidated,” the Orlando Sentinel reports.
Said Allen: “This was a pretty stocky black guy, and there was nothing but other black guys around in the park.” He added that he feared he “was about to be a statistic.”
Nonetheless, the police officers involved in the arrest tell a very different story.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:14 pmYou just don’t see it. But that’s okay.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
This is actually about trying to untangle the biggest mess I’ve seen in this country’s history, but you don’t see it. But that’s okay.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:15 pm“Like when Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he had the opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden? How much would we solve if we spent all our energy trying to persecute him for that? The public sees what you are doing. I hope its worth it to you.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pmâ€
Interesting that Clinton gets censure for his failure to catch/kill Bin Laden when he had no public support to use the military to do so and was ‘bound by rule of law’, domestic and international from doing everything he might have wanted to do.
Now Chimpy and the Organ Grinder have had the full power of the US military to go anywhere at any time, with full public support, and with disregard of any law or Constitution. And yet…. after nearly seven years in office, they have completely failed to catch/kill Bin Laden….
August 6th, 2007 at 3:16 pmYou’re feelings about the republican assault on Clinton is how most feel about the democrats current obsession with Bush. You just don’t see it. But that’s okay.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Ok, there’s a very subtle but nonetheless important distinction between the Republican investigation of Clinton and the Democratic investigation of Bush. Let me spell it out the major points of each investigation for you in very basic legal terms:
Dem. Investigation of Bush:
- Violations of Constitutional protections of basic individual liberties
- Use of the Department of Justice to interfere in the outcome of elections
- Violation of civil service rules in hiring of Justice Department employees
- Documented abuse of investigative authority under the Patriot Act
Rep. Investigation of Clinton:
- Blowjob
See the difference? It’s complicated legalese, I know…
August 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmI see the difference. But what you don’t have after 6 years of threats and almost a year of congressional control is anything substanative. I’m watching, but so far, all I see are partisan pipe dreams. Good Luck.
Good crowd. Gotta go.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pmBut what you don’t have after 6 years of threats and almost a year of congressional control is anything substanative. I’m watching, but so far, all I see are partisan pipe dreams. Good Luck.
Good crowd. Gotta go.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
6 yrs of threats don’t mean anything. That’s a pointless comment.
Bushco looks more and more like an organized crime family everyday.
“I don’t remember…”
“I take the 5th, yer honor…”
It goes on and on. If you don’t root out a cancer, it just keeps growing.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmBush is a COWARD.
He showed his true stripes to the world when he failed to respond on Sept 11, 2001 after being told “America’s under attack.” The COWARD sat there for almost seven minutes without taking action or even consulting with his staff.
Bush is a COWARD and a FAILURE.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:17 pmThis is a very funny thread. Lets see…
The Clintons saw more dead people than Haley Joel Osmont. I am sure if Bush had friend after friend and his White House counsel turn up dead, liberals would just accept that as fact. No conspiracy there!!! NOT!!!!
Comment by I Heart Alito — August 6, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
===============================================
What does this have to do with Bushy missing that memo that said that OBL wanted a shot at America and was working hard to take that shot? Do you know what we call people who derail the topic of a thread in order to score cheap political points? Trolls.
===============================================
“Like when Bill Clinton dropped the ball when he had the opportunities to capture or kill bin Laden? How much would we solve if we spent all our energy trying to persecute him for that? The public sees what you are doing. I hope its worth it to you.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:48 pmâ€
===============================================
We have a saying for people like you, paul. When you open your mouth, you lie like a rug. Obviously you don’t want to acknowledge that your boys in the congress back in 1998 screamed bloody murder over Clinton attempting to do something. Does the expression “Wag the Dog” mean anything to you, you lieing sack of sh*t?
===============================================
“While you’re busy issuing another supeona, what part of the liberal agenda is being promoted? What has the democratically controlled congress done (I’ll give you the minimum wage). When Bush is gone, what will you have to show for it?
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 2:44 pmâ€
===============================================
Well, hi there, again, you lieing sack of sh*t. Thanks to your boys in Congress and the President, many things Democrats would like to do have been blocked. What was that line that Lott said? “The strategy of being obstructionists can work or fail… and so far, it is working for us.†So, you lieing sack of sh*t, it looks like it’s your boys who are making it so that Dems can’t accomplish legislative victories.
But to answer your question, just off the top of my head, this is what we have accomplished so far.
A step towards ethics in the Congress with earmarks now transparent and easier to see.
Reduced cost for getting an education which is all to important in this economic climate your boys have created.
Minimum Wage increase (which we had to fight tooth and nail to get).
A terrorist related bill that actually *does* something (inspect cargo containers, give moneys to first responders, fund police operations, etc.)
These are just off the top of my head, you lieing sack of sh*t. There are bound to be others, with many of them held up behind your boys in the Congress and Oval Office. Like Lott said, “The strategy of being obstructionists can work or fail… and so far, it is working for us.†Though judging from early poll results, that may not be working so well.
But I trust that you lieing sack of sh*t will be there to pillory the new PotUS and Congress in ‘09 with outright dumbsh*t lies like that gem you just threw out above.
Oh, yeah. What do the Democrats troubles in Congress with your boys have to do with Bush dismissing that PDP? Nothing? Well, guess what that makes you, troll.
================================================
#
Caps Missingheh, facts? are you serious? Caps Missingwell here‘s a fact, if we didnt have to worry about you libs getting pissed about gitmo and abu graib we could have scared the shit out of the terroristinappropriate use of singular to refer to a group. but instead you dumbasses starting crying everything. you libs dont have what it takes to fight a war. everything you do emboldens the terrorists.
Comment by GitMORules — August 6, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
================================================
I just highlighted a few of the numerous mistakes you made up there. Basic mistakes like punctuation and capitalization. Now, let’s see…what does this have to do with Bush missing that PDP back in 08/06/01? Absolutely positively NOTHING. And what does that make you? Attempting to divert the conversation? That makes you a TROLL.
Here’s a clue bus for you. If Bush had listened to his advisors back in 08/01, we’d have two more buildings in New York, 3000 people more in New York, and four more planes throughout the US. But Dubya wouldn’t have gotten his little war, Haliburton wouldn’t be fat on public treasure, and you’d still be in your mom’s basement, wearing your mom’s dress, typing on your mom’s computer, running up your mom’s electric bill. At least it wouldn’t be so rediculous as it is now, though. ;)
That’s enough troll $#!+ for me though.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pmdoh! … of course!… why didn’t i think about this…
via caller to randi…
why does dumby need even MORE spying powers
August 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pmif he can’t even do the right thing when the information
is handed to him?!?… right in his hand…
nuttin’…
I see the difference. But what you don’t have after 6 years of threats and almost a year of congressional control is anything substanative. I’m watching, but so far, all I see are partisan pipe dreams. Good Luck.
Good crowd. Gotta go.
Comment by paul — August 6, 2007 @ 3:37 pm
I can’t respond to Paul, since he’s already gone, but this post points out a trend I wonder if everybody else is noticing. Where the trolls used to proclaim their hero as innocent, a true patriot, doing the right thing, victim of a witch-hunt, etc. etc., their posts now are on the theme of “ha ha, can’t catch us!” — attacking the Dems for their lack of action without denying the administration is corrupt.
Americans deserve better.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:37 pmAmericans deserve better.
Comment by missmolly — August 6, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Yep. Agreed.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:44 pm“And he ignored it.
Amazing.
Comment by Zooey — August 6, 2007″
Let’s pretend you were the president at the time (God help us). What would you have done?
August 6th, 2007 at 4:50 pmhttp://consortiumnews.com/Print/2006/032306.html
“In December 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al-Qaeda attacks,†Clarke said on CNN’s “Larry King Live†two years ago. “President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks.
“Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.
â€Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the President ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did (national security adviser) Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.â€
Thanks for playing mikey, when does school start again for you?
August 6th, 2007 at 4:52 pm*
August 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pmZELDA !?!
.
> al-Qaida = real
It exists as an idealogy. As an organization with a definite list of members and formal structure, it does not. If I’m wrong and you know who keeps the master membership list, tell me who think they think has that info..
The name AQ started as a prosecutorial construct created by a paid government informant and used to try and prosecute bin laden using a RICO type statute in the 90’s actually.. we used to the term before any islamists ever did..
> #13 - at least in GOP circles, no one is denying their is a war on terror. >their is a war on terror.
then can you please define victory in that war? and can you please let me know how we can know when we won, other than trust the word of a single man who won a popularity contest?
> I was in the twin towers…
uhm huh. “im a lawyer”.. “I’m a soldier”…I guess “I worked in the twin towers” is a new one? what company did you work for? and what was your position in that company? I must say, the concept a rabid, blathering troll like you would have gainful employment is a little hard to fathom..
August 6th, 2007 at 4:54 pmtoasterhead, thank you for your response to paul while I was at lunch. Very appropriate. It never ceases to amaze me the way republicans see no difference between investigations into a personal affair and investigations into constitutional crimes. And paul seems to have convinced himself that most Americans agree with him. Strange.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:56 pmPrinceton, NJ (AHN)-President George W. Bush is not the only one suffering from low approval ratings. While Bush’s approval rate remains steady at 33 percent, a new Gallup poll finds that only 29 percent of Americans say they approve of Congress, down from 33 percent a month ago.
I hope the new congress investigates itself down to 10%. The more time they spend bickering, the less money they will take from us to fund wasteful government programs. Good plan, my progressive friends.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:07 pmWhy does every repug troll forget that after the US was first attacked in 1991, the perpetrators were found through good and ordinary police work, charged, tried and sent to jail
NO ATTACKS FOR 10 YEARS!!
Only after the monkey in chief came in and decided to ignore every warning and piece of advice handed over to him (including the then newly identified perpetrators of the COLE) did we roll out the red carpet for OBL and his Saudi terrorists to hit us again.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:19 pmWell, hi there, again, you lieing sack of sh*t.
Well, guess what that makes you, troll.
Do you know what we call people who derail the topic of a thread in order to score cheap political points? Trolls.
and you’d still be in your mom’s basement, wearing your mom’s dress, typing on your mom’s computer, running up your mom’s electric bill. At least it wouldn’t be so rediculous as it is now, though. ;)
That’s enough troll $#!+ for me though.
Comment by Jeremy — August 6, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Apparently, If you disagree with the post, you are derailing the tread.
Although I’m sure most of you disagree with me (I definitely understand that) but is there at least one progressive here that would acknowledge that name calling to try to make you point, is at best, ineffective?
August 6th, 2007 at 7:20 pm“The COWARD sat there for almost seven minutes without taking action or even consulting with his staff.”
Bush fails to act for seven minutes; progressives fail to act for 6 years.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:23 pm>I hope the new congress investigates itself down to 10%.
Any information in that poll that would indicate the drop in popularity is due to investigations as opposed to say “constant republican obsctructanism”?
August 6th, 2007 at 7:24 pmpaul, this “congress is rated lower” cannard you people keep repeating is so tired and pathetic. Do us a favor, will you? Since you think it’s such an important indicator, look into it a little further. Why don’t you break that approval down between Repubs and Dems. You can find the info at Pollingreport.com as usual. Report back and tell us what you find out. We won’t be surprised by the results.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:26 pmPaul: “Bush fails to act for seven minutes; progressives fail to act for 6 years.”
What do you mean by that, Paul. We all saw Bush sit there and read My Pet Goat. Most of us know that he actually heard that the first plane hit BEFORE he went into that classroom. By contrast, Dems have controlled congress for 6 months dealing with republican obstruction and presidential vetos.
SO, WHAT THE HELL DID YOU MEAN BY THAT!
August 6th, 2007 at 7:29 pmComment by Chocolate Jesus Loves to be Frank in his mouth — August 6, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
I bet you don’t believe bin Laden exists, do you?
heYoo
August 6th, 2007 at 7:40 pm!-+!+-!
Iohannes: “I bet you don’t believe bin Laden exists, do you?”
I bet you think you’re a sharp cookie, but so far you’ve shown me absolutely nothing.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:50 pmI just can’t understand how someone who is incapable of speaking a coherent sentence can become president. It’s just disgusting.
August 6th, 2007 at 7:57 pmRet. Col. Jack Ripper.
You tell me. Besides complaining about and or obstructing Bush initiatives, what action has been spearheaded by Democrats or Progressives to combat terrorism or make this country safe from terrorists?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:08 pm“I recently converted Bush’s SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile.”
from this source:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/kerry_iq_lower.htm
August 6th, 2007 at 8:15 pm>I bet you don’t believe bin Laden exists, do you?
I never said that. Care to address any of the questions I asked?
How can you destroy every member of an organization that has no formal membership roster or structure?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:15 pm> I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile.
this was after all the cocaine and alchohol binges, right?
August 6th, 2007 at 8:16 pmfrom pollingreport.com:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job?
For Democrats 30% approve, 55% disapprove, 15% unsure.
Thanks for the source.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pmI come to the conclusion that american people not only live in denial but are to stupid ever to understand what is happening to them . It does not take very high IQ to know who done what is been done to them and why so one wonders how many centuries this people need that obviously none of them have finally to understand who is doing what to them ? And just do something about it beside talking ? And hey Dumbo’s is ok sometimes beside talking to actually stop and think as well connecting your mouths to any brains you may have it may save your lives one of this days .
August 6th, 2007 at 8:35 pmThe WH IGNORED a real warning in this memo, together with warnings from other countries and from the CIA — but apparently needs to wiretap innocent citizens in order to find out what terrorists are doing — this makes no sense — unless the real agenda was and is (1) to declare war on Iraq for no real reason and (2) to turn the US into a totalitarian police state.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:38 pmOH YES FORGOT THIS . Bin Laden exist? And if it does so what ? He never attacked your country and he never need to do that as since the beginning of your existence your so called for fathers as well the following leaders forming your government as you call it have done a very good job them selves attacking the country and enslaving the population feeding them one illusion after another so if there are any enemies against USA as the claim goes one will wonder how come all the attacks against USA have been orchestrated and executed by your Federal governments agencies and all the outside alleged enemies of your country found out they are enemies of the land of the free and the brave when your special forces started under cover operations against them with your brave air force killing women and children ? I don’t think any of your enemies and lately you have make enemies of all the normal thinking human beings around the planet been indeed normal and thinking have to attack any of you . We are absolutely sure what you fail to destroy for your selves over there your Federales will finish for you after putting every one of you behind bars for slave labor it is indeed also cheep labor and remember what the IDIOT as you call him said to you . If you not with me then you are against you . Happy trails
August 6th, 2007 at 8:46 pmThis post is accusing Bush of not acting on the intel prior to 9/11. And there is sentiment here that Bush was incompetent because he took no action for seven minutes after he found out the second plane hit.
Whether you agree with them or not, Bush has taken very tangible steps since 9/11 to pursue terrorists around the world and protect us from terrorists here at home. Many (or most) of those initiatives have been scrutinized by liberals and decried as illegal acts.
Bush has acted. Again, can anyone here present just one liberal initiative (spearheaded by democrats or progressives) to pursue terrorists abroad or protect us from terrorists at home?
With all the bravado here, there should be at least one example. Anyone?
August 6th, 2007 at 9:01 pmUsually people who pick web names such as “HardHawk” have problems providing the proper type of service at both ends of their very Freudian moniker.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:19 pm#142, You want to list the initiatives of your fearless leader that have made us safe from terrorists? Seeing as right now chimpy is wadding his underpants and screaming about how close we are to destruction?
For example, was ignoring the experience AND warnings from Clinton and his counterterrorism experts as well as the HUNDREDS of warnings flowing in from around the globe before 9-11 one of those initiatives?