Romney: I ‘love’ Bush.
By on Jan 3rd, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Romney: I ‘love’ Bush.
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who is attempting to distance himself from President Bush while still vigorously supporting the Iraq war, told supporters yesterday that he “loves” that Bush has kept America safe as president:
“We’re a nation united that stands behind our fighting men and women. We honor them and respect them,” Romney said at a conference center here. “We love what they’ve done for us, and we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years.”
UPDATE: Georgia10 responds, “Yeah, Romney’s right. We are a nation united in love for Bush. Why, there’s a bucketload of love for him, which is 33% full of love, to be exact.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Sounds a bit gay, Mitt. Conflicted Mormon, eh?
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:34 pmSafe from what? Fascism, no. Scorn, no. Ridicule, no. Death and destruction, no, no, no.
I know we’re safe from having to pay attention to the Constitution.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pmRomney will say or do anything to get him and his God elected. The right side sure has a lousy field of candidates to choose from.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 pmIf anything, the WAR CRIMINAL in the WH has made the US more unsafe. He has created the perfect situation to acctually increase terrorism (Al-Queida was not in Iraq prior to the occupation). The US’s image around the Globe is an ugly one, thanks to Bush and his JUNTA. As per really safe, and the ability to cope with real emergencies… ask the people of New Orleans if they ‘love’ Bush as much as Rommey does!
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:39 pmsafe for the last 6 years… no word about those first 9 months, tho, eh???
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:40 pmWell, we’re certainly safe from democracy.
But only for the time being. The Bush administration must be ever vigilant against the Will of the People.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pmIf you don’t count the tens or hundreds of thousands of newly minted Jihadists created by Bush’s war and occupation in the Middle East, sure, that’s some safety record.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:42 pm“we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years.â€
What’s with the “we”, Keemosabee?
If anything, this president has made the world a more dangerous place by financing some of the armed militias in Iraq, with the same shortsightedness that lead Reagan to train, arm, and finance the Mujahideen in Afghanistan back in the 80s…
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pmTell that to the tens of thousands of soldiers that are maimed or dead Mitt. And tell your punkass chickenhawk sons to go fight them over there once your presidential campaign implodes.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:46 pmI love bush too, just not the same kind ol’ Mitt likes.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:49 pmThere is no ’safe’.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pmDefending the country is a responsibility of the President and on that count, he has seemed to succeed.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Ahhhhh. Do you wuv Bush too?
Get off your knees. It’s embarrassing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 pmAlright TP. Romney said he loves how the Shrub has “kept us safe”, which is an entirely different argument. However, he really didn’t say he directly loves GWB. Now ask Jeff Gannon, and well…
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pmBut, it would probably be difficult to deny that we haven’t been attacked domestically by jihadists since 9/11
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Why would jihadists go through all the expense and effort of attacking the U.S. again when we, ourselves, are doing their work for them – by destroying our democracy from within? 911 may have planted a seed of terror, but BushCo is watering and fertilizing it by keeping the fear alive and growing within our people.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pmThat’s right – all 33% of us!
How desperate are these guys when they think they need to run on Bush’s record???
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:51 pmPlease, this one needs to be addressed by the one american that can address it properly. He that knows the mormon, and the military. He is at 11 on the manly scale.
look for the post from the general, for he must comment on such manlove for humanity to witness.
http://patriotboy.blogspot.com/
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:53 pmCaptainMantastic… there were no “jihadists” on 9/11! That was made in USA! 9/11 was internal job. Show me the footage of a 757 hiting the Pentagon! Explain how the three towers came down in less than 10 sec, explain how concrete and steel structure had “total collapse”! Tell dicky Chenney to unswer questions under oath! Explain what was he doing on 9/11! Explain why the guy that they are claimimg he kept the US safe in the past years, spent 5 minutes sitting on a class room while the false flag operation was going on! going
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pmThe Mittster’s name and face certainly should be next to the Webster’s dictionary word for flip flop. Yesterday, the Mittster threw the Hot Air-in-chief under the bus on his foreign policies. And now the Mittster/Bush lovefest is still on. Both draft dodgers are two of a kind.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pmLieberman and Bush kissed, and Lieberman beat out the Progressive candidate in the general election – how ’bout them apples?
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pmDefending the country is a responsibility of the President and on that count, he has seemed to succeed.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Yeah those victims of Hurricane Katrina didn’t have to worry about a jihad while they were drowning and dying from the heat and lack of water. And thanks to Bush those Blackwater mercenaries kept them from crossing the bridge to safety. But as long as they don’t die at the hands of Islamic fundamentalist it’s good. Because we all know when a Christian Fundamentalist sends you to your death you should be grateful.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pmI meant: Why he spent 5 min sitting on a class room, AFTER he was notifyed that “America was under attack”!!!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pmhow exactly have we been safe the last six years? were there any terrorists attacks on US soil (not foreign embassies) during the Clinton years? why not thank him for keeping us safe then?
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:55 pmSorry, Cap’n, but PLC puts a big spike in your argument in post 17.
Unless you think that it’s a good strategy to keep rats out of your house by building a heaping garbage pile in your backyard to draw them there.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pmPS: keep saying you love Bush… the people are tired of him, and won’t want to elect somebody like him, or who likes him…
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 pmThis the same Romney who two days ago said:
“I think we did a less than effective job in managing the conflict following the collapse of Saddam Hussein,†the former Massachusetts governor said at a news conference. “I think we were under prepared for what occurred, understaffed, under planned, and, in some respects, under managed.“
Is Romney a flip-flopper or does he love leaders who are under prepared and who under plan, staff, and manage?
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:58 pmwere there any terrorists attacks on US soil (not foreign embassies) during the Clinton years? why not thank him for keeping us safe then?
Comment by Pete Bogs — January 3, 2008 @ 12:55 pm
Pete, you obviously don’t understand the troll mentality. “Clinton Did Itâ„¢” is only used to defend BAD things Bush did. The successes of Clinton’s presidency don’t exist.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pmBut, it would probably be difficult to deny that we haven’t been attacked domestically by jihadists since 9/11 and the general realization that they had declared war on the U.S and posed a significant threat.
Yes, we haven’t been attacked, but that doesn’t mean that Bush has kept us safe. As long as he is manufacturing new enemies of the US on a daily basis HE IS NOT KEEPING US SAFE. Besides, OBL’s reason for attacking the US was to bankrupt us and to destroy our government. Well, he doesn’t have to do that anymore since Bush is doing it for him.
So, keep up your fantasy that Bush is keeping us safe if it helps you live with your fear. Thinking, rational people know that Bush has not only NOT kept us safe, but has made us much less safe for now and for years to come.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pmHow desperate are these guys when they think they need to run on Bush’s record???
Comment by Mark @ News Corpse
How stupid are they to think they can run on the record of the worst president on record?
Mitt is an empty headed Ken doll. His candidacy is being funded by the same people who brought us the stupidist president in history. Like Dubya, he’ll say anything his MIC corporatist owners tell him to say.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:59 pm“I think we did a less than effective job in managing the conflict following the collapse of Saddam Hussein,â€
Don’t you just love the way these repukes repackage an illegal invasion and occupation.
Call it the spade that it is, Mittens, you effing coward. And send your boys over there to prove it.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pmSafe???!!!! How much is the oil barrel this week? That is soooooooo safe!
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:03 pmWe’re certainly safer with no toothpaste or hair gel in airplane cabins.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:04 pmBut, it would probably be difficult to deny that we haven’t been attacked domestically by jihadists since 9/11 and the general realization that they had declared war on the U.S and posed a significant threat.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Exactly what “domestic” jihadists are you talking about?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:06 pmRomney spent over 6 million in Iowa alone and he loves Bush. Does anyone need a third reason not to want this “man” to be president?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pmIt’s possible that you’re right. It’s also possible their attention is diverted to efforts in Iraq, Afganistan, and Pakistan.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Sadr, Opium and Mushareff. yeah.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:08 pmIf he is standing behind the troops why did he veto their bonuses?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pm1. Show me a declaration of war – not the word “war” used by some ex-shepard in a cave, and not “war” in the sense of the “war” on drugs or the “war” on poverty, but war in the classical sense of the word.
2. We weren’t hit by a meteor, either, I guess Bush is responsible for that, too.
Your talking points are exceedingly shallow.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:10 pmHow about a real, apples to apples comparison of Clinton and Bush?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pmDuring Clinton’s years in office, the WTC is attacked and nearly destroyed. The government under Clinton apprehends, convicts, and incarcerates the perpetrators. The Clinton administration does not exploit the situation with fear mongering. During Bush’s presidency, the WTC is again attacked and the response is to start a war with and occupy an unrelated country, not capture the perpetrator, and to promote fear in the American people. BushCo uses terrorism and terror/fear for its own gain.
Defending the country is a responsibility of the President and on that count, he has seemed to succeed.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 12:45 pm
Actually his responsibility is to defend the Constitution.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:11 pmExactly what “domestic†jihadists are you talking about?
Comment by Wayne
Timothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Ann Coulter.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pmwhatever
data mining does not keep us safe and will not prevent future terrorist attacks.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:13 pmJeez, these 25%’rs never learn. Bu$h was warned by the outgoing administration that OBL was determined to attack US soil, most likley with hijacked airliners. A CIA operative even briefed Bu$h about this and was scorned. The FBI tried to warn of arabs taking flight classes, nnot concerning themselves with actually learning how to LAND an airplane. What did Bu$h do? took the whole month of August ‘01 off for vacaction. Cheney? Created a ‘task force’ and assigned some petty underling to head it.
Bottom Line: Bu$h was warned and did nothing.
Bottom Line: 9-11 happened under REPUBLICAN WATCH – ALL 3 BRANCHES
Bottom Line: the PNAC said they needed a catastrophe such as this to rally Americans behind their global ambitions.
Bottom Line: Sure made it convenient to attack Iraq, somehting Bu$h was hell bent on doing BEFORE 9-11.
Anyone who can’t connect the dots here should be eliminated from the human gene pool.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:14 pm“This is your CaptainMantastic speaking. Because we are hitting a bit of turbulence, we are going to try to shift our position in the air. We still don’t know where we are going or why but we’ll try to make it a smooth ride for you. Thank you, again, for flying AirBush.”
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pmTimothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Ann Coulter.
Comment by shoeless — January 3, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Add pat robertson and a few of the other christiannistas, Huckabee included, but I am not sure he meant them
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pmThat’s true, but it’s a little like the economy issue. Just because the economy does well or poor, the president may not be the cause. But, the president usually bears the responsibility for it.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
You mean like in the 1980’s, when Reagan got credit for the economic expansion of ‘84 thru ‘86, but no blame for the TWO RECESSIONS during his term.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:16 pmDick & Bush’s tax breaks for the rich and multiple redeployment of ill equipped soldiers have allowed Mitt’s five sons to RV across America. What’s not to love?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:18 pmThe government under Clinton apprehends, convicts, and incarcerates the perpetrators. The Clinton administration does not exploit the situation with fear mongering. During Bush’s presidency, the WTC is again attacked and the response is to start a war with and occupy an unrelated country, not capture the perpetrator, and to promote fear in the American people. BushCo uses terrorism and terror/fear for its own gain.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 3, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
Thank you for stating the difference so clearly
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:19 pmHave not more Americans died in the war on terror in the last 6 years than in the prior 6 years?
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 3, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
Does that count the Americans who died in the War on Black People (aka Hurricane Katrina)?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:20 pmTimothy McVeigh, Terry Nichols, Randy Weaver, David Koresh, Ann Coulter.
Comment by shoeless — January 3, 2008 @ 1:12 pm
Add pat robertson and a few of the other christiannistas, Huckabee included, but I am not sure he meant them
Comment by Wayne
Oh that’s right. I forgot. When white Republicans commit or call for acts of terror on behalf of their extremist right-wing ideology, they aren’t terrorists. You have to brown to be a terrorist.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:22 pmWayne. I didn’t communicate it well. I meant jihadists attacking within U.S. borders.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Got ya.
The biggest problem I have with the argument that Bush is “protecting us” is that he abandoned going after al qaeda in afghanistan, invading Iraq for bogus reasons. Then after invading Iraq, he tries to change the original reasons for invading, stating we have to fight al qaeda there. While all along al qaeda and bin Lauden is still in Afghanistan.
Its like watching a con man take peoples money with the old ball and cup scam.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
We were caught off guard, its the same old fear mongering used to start many wars.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:25 pmWayne. I didn’t communicate it well. I meant jihadists attacking within U.S. borders.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Do you count the anthrax attacks? These were politically-based acts of violence against innocent people.
And really, the terrorists haven’t needed to attack us. Between the school shootings and the eastern seaboard blackout and the collapsing bridges and the wildfires and the hurricanes and the poisoned FEMA trailers, al-Qa’ida would be hard-pressed to find something to do to us that we aren’t already doing ourselves.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pmThank you for stating the difference so clearly
Comment by Wayne — January 3, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
You’re quite welcome. Unfortunately, only the clear-headed will understand or act on that understanding.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:27 pmOh Captain, that’s a bunch of baloney. This was a really serious threat and taken very seriously by our intelligence apperatus. We knew OBL was a threat, that’s why Clinton tried to Tomohawk his ass back in 99. Of course, Clinton was accused of diverting the attention in the wag the dog manner from Lewisnky.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pmAt any rate, the ONLY people that did not take this threat seriously were the same PNAC people who were hell bent on invading Iraq.
Afghanistan was simply a staging ground. If they were serious, they could have caught OBL in Tora Bora. But they needed him to perpetuate fear. Same as Zarchawi; we knew where he was in kurdistan and could have rubbed him out easily, but again, he was useful to the warmongers, more fear to spread around. then, when thigs are looking bad, they need to whack someone. Lo and behold, we have a picture of Zarchawi’s dead ass to parade around on Fox News.
Please, try again.
Connecting the dots in hindsight is relatively easy. Many people were looking at the intel. Very few saw the threat as significant as it was before 9/11. We were caught off guard. And by we, it wasn’t just the Bush administration.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Not true. Richard Clarke spent years connecting those dots. No one in the Bush administration would listen to him. He couldn’t even get a meeting to discuss the issue after Jan. 2001.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pmEvery war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:28 pmGeorge Orwell
“…and we also love a president who has kept us safe these last six years.â€
That’s like the Hapburgs bragging in 1918 that they’ve kept Austria-Hungary safe from the threat of Serbian nationalists.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:29 pmVery few saw the threat as significant as it was before 9/11. We were caught off guard.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
Not counting the authors of the Presidential Daily Briefing on August 6, 2001, of course.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 pmVery few saw the threat as significant as it was before 9/11. We were caught off guard. And by we, it wasn’t just the Bush administration.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
No, the Bush Administration failed to listen to the Clinton Administration when they warned Bush upon taking office. The Bush administration ignored the memo “Bin Lauden determined to strike US”
Bush was caught off guard by his own intellectual laziness.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pmI think the questions about his policies in fighting terror at the expense of the Constitution have merit.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Reproduced without comment.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:31 pmKept us safe?:
The FBI estimates that at least 30,000 gangs, with 800,000 members, are having an impact on 2,500 communities across the United States.
Terrorism is already here for those communities. Jihad? To folks living in these areas they could care less about what Bush is or is not doing to keep terrorist from attacking us. They’re already under attack.
The more we spend over there, the more we will see this situation grow here.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pmPLC. I appreciate your efforts, but if you consider 9/11, Clinton’s policies could be considered inadequate. -Captain Mantastic
Thats because the wag the dog G(r)OPers gutted the legislation.
Clinton Administration developed the nation’s first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 pmClinton Administration stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge
Clinton Administration stopped the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania
– Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
– Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
– Did not blame 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.
–Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-Clinton Administration 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.
Now, it did use to be 24%, didn’t it?
Comment by CaptainMantastic
That was his all-time low. Right now, depending on the poll, his current ratings are 28 to 36%. Of course the higher poll numbers come from conservative news outlets like Faux Noise. Since all our major MSM are owned and operated by right wingers, I am surprised that they are aren’t able to get a higher rating for Bush. It all depends on how the question is worded and who you poll.
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
Here’s one of the few independent polling outfit’s latest polls on Bush:
http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/Rls2255.pdf
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:33 pmWayne. I didn’t communicate it well. I meant jihadists attacking within U.S. borders.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:19 pm
Do you count the anthrax attacks? These were politically-based acts of violence against innocent people.
Comment by toasterhead
Do you mean the mysterious domestic jihadists who used anthrax to attack two liberal Democratic Senators, and who were mysteriously never apprehended by the Bush administration?
I wonder why the great Bush didn’t defend us from those domestic jihadists?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:34 pmAt least we don’t have to worry about being attacked by a flouride wielding dentist
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 3, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
Thank God the Bush administration is protecting the purity of our precious bodily fluids, Mandrake!
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 pmMitt seems to “love” the seven years of Bush attacking our democracy; Mitt seems to “love” the imperial fascist corporatist aggression by the Bush gangster regime against the people of Iraq; Mitt seems to “love” the Bush crime family spying on all Americans since they staged their Royalist coup in 2000… It that what you call “a new kind of love,” Mr. Romney?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 pmDo you mean the mysterious domestic jihadists who used anthrax to attack two liberal Democratic Senators, and who were mysteriously never apprehended by the Bush administration?
Comment by shoeless — January 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
That anthrax was also traced down as US military grade Anthrax, from a US bio-weapons lab, but the investigation was stopped and no one arrested.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:36 pmWayne. This is very plausible/probable. However, it is difficult to deny his willingness to act in the aftermath.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Explain why the Taliban still controls 50% of Afghanistan.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pmOh man. What an utterly clueless pandering, blithering, drooling MORON.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:39 pmYou have a point. I think most people don’t count them, because they aren’t seen to be jihadist related and/or a recurring significant threat.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Suppose the anthrax attacks had been directed at Bush/Cheney, and the perpetrator had been caught (as he surely would have been in that case), and he turned out to be of middle eastern origin. Then would the attacks count as “jihadist related”?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pmHere, Captain, let me fix that post: PLC. I appreciate your efforts, but if you consider 9/11, Clinton’s policies could be considered inadequate in terms of meeting the lofty and wide-ranging goals of PNAC as opposed to simply having a positive, world-wide supported, measured response to an illegal and reprehensible act by a group of thugs.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:42 pmWayne. This is very plausible/probable. However, it is difficult to deny his willingness to act in the aftermath.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Explain why the Taliban still controls 50% of Afghanistan.
Comment by Wayne
As well as the 50% of Pakistan in which Osama bin Laden resides.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pmThe “terrorists” have won. Terror was used effectively against the US. That mission was accomplished.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 pmWayne. This is very plausible/probable. However, it is difficult to deny his willingness to act in the aftermath.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Actually, it’s pretty easy to deny it considering it’s more than six years later and most of the people responsible for the attack have yet to be caught or tried.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:45 pmMittens, you go and tie your horse to that cart.
Yes, that cart.
Yup, the one going off the edge of the cliff.
Make sure you are on the cart.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:46 pmWayne. This is very plausible/probable. However, it is difficult to deny his willingness to act in the aftermath.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bush’s invasion of Iraq is similar to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Both Hitler and Bush claimed that they were protecting the homeland. We know now that Bush was lying just like Hitler.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pmWayne. This is very plausible/probable. However, it is difficult to deny his willingness to act in the aftermath.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 3, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Custer, John Wilkes Booth, Hitler, PeeWee Herman, and lots of other individuals had a “willingness to act in the aftermath” as well. It is the DIRECTION and INTENTION of that action that dtermine whether it should be applauded or condemned.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pmThe “terrorists†have won. Terror was used effectively against the US. That mission was accomplished.
Comment by Che — January 3, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
It’s true. We’ve given them nearly everything they wanted.
- Pulled U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia? Check
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm- Decimated U.S. economy in drawn-out guerilla war? Check
- Hampered the ability to respond to domestic natural disasters by shifting equipment and personnel out of the country? Check
- Restricted freedom of dissent by creating a state of permanent panic? Checkmate
Why would jihadists go through all the expense and effort of attacking the U.S. again when we, ourselves, are doing their work for them – by destroying our democracy from within? 911 may have planted a seed of terror, but BushCo is watering and fertilizing it by keeping the fear alive and growing within our people.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian
Memorize this passage. Use it anytime a right sider attempts to trumpet the fact that Bush has kept us safe “over here”. PLC nails the correct response. Jihadist are killing Americans wholesale over there, why would they bother to come here and kill Americans?
Perfectly stated PLC!
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:50 pmAnd kudos to Shayne and PatrioticLiberalChristian for some truly awesome posts – you guys are on fire!!!
*applause*
~A
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:51 pm94 – toasterhead – don’t forget the suspension of habeas corpus and the scary fascist implications of the Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act – fascist dictatorship, brought to you by BUSHCO!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pmPerfectly stated PLC!
Comment by StratRat — January 3, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
Thank you. I’ve never been so ashamed and hurt to be correct. I want my country back.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm98 – PLC – hear-freakin’-hear!!!!!
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:53 pm100 – Bart – Bush’s regime resembles Hitler’s in far more than this, and I’ve been saying so for the last 6 years, right down to the creepy “Homeland” stuff.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:58 pmtoasterhead – don’t forget the suspension of habeas corpus and the scary fascist implications of the Patriot Acts and the Military Commissions Act – fascist dictatorship, brought to you by BUSHCO!!
Comment by Leftside Annie — January 3, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Oh, yes – definitely. I consider that part of the “restricted freedom of dissent” bullet. If I had listed out every step towards fascism and every constitutional principle being guanoed on, well, I’d still be typing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:00 pm102 – yep. *sigh*
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:02 pmThey don’t call him Man-crush Mitt for nothing.
-GSD
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pmAny IDIOT could have seen, that they planned to launch an internal resistence.
Comment by BARTLEBEE
Not true. None of the right-wing Republican IDIOTS could see it. When the Fedayeen melted into the countryside without resistance, the wingnut IDIOTS were too busy crowing about the great victory by their glorious commander in chief to notice that the Mission had just begun.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:16 pmshoe, bart, let us not forget the ‘rush’ to Baghdad, and the colossal failure to secure the munitions depots which were then looted by the militias, and used to kill our troops.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:27 pmshoe, bart, let us not forget the ‘rush’ to Baghdad, and the colossal failure to secure the munitions depots which were then looted by the militias, and used to kill our troops.
Comment by RUCerious — January 3, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
Again, completely Bush’s fault.
In his pre-invasion message to the Iraqi people, he should have added “do not loot munitions depots and use them to arm yourselves for prolonged guerilla warfare against our troops and yourselves” to his pleas of “do not destroy oil wells” and “go shopping.”
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:29 pmshoe, bart, let us not forget the ‘rush’ to Baghdad, and the colossal failure to secure the munitions depots which were then looted by the militias, and used to kill our troops.
Comment by RUCerious
At least he made sure the Oil Ministry was safe.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:32 pmWrong. Our country was attacked after 9/11 by anthrax….and herr dubyah still hasn’t caught those terrorists either.
Comment by Dr. Matt
Well, he kept them couped up for a while. But, lately they have been escaping from the White House to spend more time with their families.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pmUh, Mittens, when you are stuck in a hole, stop digging.
January 3rd, 2008 at 2:43 pmBush’s invasion of Iraq is similar to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Both Hitler and Bush claimed that they were protecting the homeland.
Comment by delafield — January 3, 2008 @ 1:48 pm
YES!!!!!
FINALLY someone else said it!
THANK YOU delafield! I mean it. Not enough people are drawing this OBVIOUS comparison.
Bush’s invasion of Iraq is almost identical to Hitlers invasion of Poland.
Including the results.
Just like the Pol’s, the Iraqis are using homemade explosives to strike back at an overwhelming occupying force.
And just like the invasion of Poland, Bush used an attack on the homeland as an excuse to invade Iraq.
Comment by BARTLEBEE —
I Couldn’t say it better! Plus, 9/11 was not made by islamic jihadists with boxcutters… it was an internal military operation!
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:00 pmThe “Polish terrorist attack on a German radio station” was really carried out by Germans under orders from Hitler. They took some Polish bodies from a concentration camp to leave around the scene. Then Hitler said “We have been attacked, we must respond”!
Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) was definitely involved in 9/11. At least in training and funding.
January 3rd, 2008 at 4:12 pmSo, he’s not just a bigot, but a self hating gay? Just kidding of course. I don’t believe Mitt has the capacity to love a man or a woman. For that you need a soul.
January 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 pmLast year when it was politically expedient, Romney was critical of Bush on the Iraq war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/10/AR2007051002129.html
They don’t call him “Reversible Mittens” for nothing.
January 3rd, 2008 at 7:15 pmThe Mittster is a genuine comic. Sadly, he believes that messaging falsehoods about his various positions will see him across the threshold of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I hope the fair-minded and observant Republican voters will show him short thrift. He should be banished to the obscurity he deserves, instead the MSM seems eager to afford him some credibility. His quest for the WH brings with it the inescapable threat of another Bush getting their hands on the levers of power by way of the VP spot. Jeb Bush! Just days ago the senior Bush accompanied the Mittster for his explanation of what he/his religion stood for to the knuckle-draggers. Most observers would note that altruism is an alien attribute of these powerful people. So I suspect some form of quid pro quo bargain was forged for the appearance.
January 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am