Hewitt: Obama’s election would ‘greatly increase the likelihood of an attack on the United States.’
Hewitt: Obama’s election would ‘greatly increase the likelihood of an attack on the United States.’
On Wednesday, right-wing talker Hugh Hewitt claimed on his radio show said that he really wanted to go to the Sept. 13 football game between USC and Ohio State because “it’s probably the last football game we’ll ever get to see before the United States gets blown up by the Islamists under Obama. Hewitt continued his fearmongering on CSPAN’s Washington Journal this morning, saying that “the likelihood of an attack on the United States” would “greatly increase” if Obama were elected:
HEWITT: I think Sen. Obama’s election will greatly increase the likelihood of an attack on the United States — a significant one. Because of the policies he advocates, a return to the 90s, the Clinton-style prosecute but do not pursue the terrorists before they’ve committed crimes is a recipe for disaster for the United States.
Watch it:
Hewitt comments echo former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who said last week that the “best outcome” of an Obama presidency would be “more embassy bombings, more World Trade Center attacks.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
“Hewitt: Obama’s election would ‘greatly increase the likelihood of an attack on the United States…BY THE NEOCONS’”
June 27th, 2008 at 1:17 pmThis country really needs to increase health care. The number of right wingers that are suffering from mental problems has become epidemic.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pm9-11 happened with a:
Republican president
Republican vice president
Republican House
Republican Senate
Republican mayor of New York
But somehow with a Democratic president we’ll be prone to another 9-11 style terrorist attack?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:19 pmrog, is this a satirical quote or a genuine opinion?
Just checking.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:20 pmYAWN. The right wing is not even creative on its threats.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pmFrosty, maybe Hewitt is suggesting that the terrorists are “fair and balanced®”.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:21 pmLiberalVoter:
The Right Wing Elites are just really skillful liars and the least educated among us eat it up. I think it’s proof that we need to increase the quality of our education system.
Or yeah, they’re just nuts.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pmJuan C. Says:
YAWN. The right wing is not even creative on its threats.
Juan! I was just wondering where you’d gotten to. Not on a honeymoon, were you?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:22 pmI hope people see these fear mongers for who they really are… petty thugs.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pmralph:
Ha!
:D
June 27th, 2008 at 1:23 pmFrosty Cupcake Says:
9-11 happened with a:
(…)
Republican mayor of New York
Hey now, you can’t blame the Mayor of NY for the terrorist attack of 9/11! That’s unfair.
You can, however, blame him for ignoring the toxic air and sending people back to work with no regards for their health.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pmSeem’s to me the last attack was on dumbshit;s watch, right.? If a reich winger get’s in it’s far more likely since past episode’s are more likely to repeat….Would someone please fix stupid’s post’s he is so boring…..
These guy’s sure are on a repeat cycle…Don’t any of them have anythin smart to say…Damn…Take kool aid off the store shelve’s it’s killing the last 2 brain cell’s of these troll’s…Blessings
June 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pmrog, is this a satirical post, or a genuine opinion?
Just checking…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pmrogerse Says:
and who had more time to stop 9/11…
The incoming administration repeatedly warned about Al Qaeda and even about the possibility of attacks with airplanes. The incoming administration that dismissed suggestions that terrorists were a greater threat than, oh, Iraq.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pmFrosty Cupcake:
Point well taken.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:25 pmThanks to BushCo, whomever the next president is, it’s more likely there’ll be an attack on US soil.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:26 pmgummitch:
Adapting myself, friend. A lot of internal ukemi. Heh.
More news later.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:27 pmNo, silly, the passage of time is more likely to result in a terrorist attack against the mainland US. Attack No. 1 on WTC came in 1993. Attack No. 2 came in 2001. 8 years +/- between them. 8 years, 2 presidential terms. Hmmmm.
Maybe AQ just wants to spread the joy of failure for not paying attention to each and every American President. Perhaps the next President will learn from W’s mistakes (yes, he has made a few) and pay attention. Lord knows he’ll have no reason not to – he gets to listen to every single solitary “electronic” conversation which occurs anywhere in the world. Sure hope that’s not too much to listen to, but hey, what’s the US if not made out of money to fund the military-industrial-espionage-incarceration complex.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pmgummitch:
They were too busy salivating over Iraq’s oil to bother with pesky intel like “Bin Laden Determined to Strike US”.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:29 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
rogerse Says:
and isn’t it true…
rog, is this a satirical quote or a genuine opinion?
Wow, tough question ralph! One the one hand, roger has never had a genuine opinion of his own. On the other hand, roger is not nearly bright enough for satire.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pmNew’s flash….We have been under attack and constant as well since 2000 when this administration took over..It’s called enemy’s of the domestic type..Blessings
June 27th, 2008 at 1:31 pm.
Hugh
Blew-itSpew-it engages in psychological terrorism.Elect Obama and these kittens die.
PSYCHOLOGICAL TERRORISM
.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:32 pmrogerse Says:
gummitch Says:
the incoming administration didn’t have several terrorist attacks, throughout its administration.
Like the previous attack on the WTC, in which that administration succeeded in locating, arresting, convicting and imprisoning the guilty parties?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pmIf they hate our freedom, and we’re free to elect a black man, of course they’ll hate us more. Therefore Americans should elect leaders who’ll reduce our freedoms so terrorist will like us more. But then we’d be aiding and abetting them. Dang, who makes up this bull-hockey!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:33 pmI don’t know about anyone else, but I am sick and tired of these people trying to scare everyone to doing what goes against their own best interests.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pmrogerse Says:
the incoming administration didn’t have several terrorist attacks, throughout its administration.
Nahh, just 4 planes crashing everywhere and a WTC #7 crumbling out of fear.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pmThis article is virtually identical to what was posted yesyerday, are things that slow?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:34 pmrogerse Says:
You’re right… and it would be way to much to ask if we expected the ‘decider’ to listen to the advice of the outgoing administration or even have one meeting with his counter-terrorism expert or even read a paper in the years before his administration…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pmTotally someone else’s fault…
I mean, how silly to expect the President to know anything about governing or leadership…
Clearly I meant “Yesterday”
June 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pmSavor it people. #25 may be Roger’s most mind bogglingly stupid post ever. It is indeed true that when Chimpy entered the White House on 1/20/01 he obviously had not had “several terrorist attacks throughout [his] administration. Now. . . bit of a different story wouldn’t you say? How many of our troops has Mr. “Bring it on” gotten killed by suicide bombers over the past 7 years?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:35 pmCrap. What a flarking MORON.
STFU, you stooge for Evil.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pmWe cannot go back to the Clinton way of stopping major al Qaeda terrorist attacks. It didn’t work.
Richard Clarke disagrees with you Tracy… and he’s actually studied the issue.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:36 pm(I hear he’s some type of counter-terrorism expert)
Tracy5 Says:
We cannot go back to the Clinton way of stopping major al Qaeda terrorist attacks. It didn’t work.
As if the Bush/McSame way worked any better…
June 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pmrogerse Says:
and who had more time to stop 9/11…
Are we forgetting that President Clinton drew up plans to take out Bin Laden in the last days of his presidency. His Administration passed the plans on to Condie Rice and Georgie decided to ignore, as he did his daily briefing memos.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pmhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/aug/05/afghanistan.usa1
USA:
FEAR
EATS
THE
SOUL
Fear-mongering is an act of terror.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:37 pmHewitt opening his mouth greatly increases the likelihood something blatantly stupid and ridiculous will be said.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pmAnd on who’s watch did 9/11 happen? Oh yeah, the liars, Bush and Cheney.
They were told – they did nothing – they wanted it happen – they knew and did NOTHING.
And now the NeoScum want another to happen – Why do Repukes hate Americans?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pm.
When can I pursue Hugh Hewitt for a crime he hasn’t committed yet based on a simple assumption that he is capable of committing that crime?
Would he support this as a good idea?
After all, that is his logic, back at him.
Should I kidnap his family and rendition them for torture?
Hold Hugh for six years and attempt to deny him ANY Rights at pursuing a FAIR trial for that potential crime he has yet to commit?
All based on keeping my family safe from HIS terrorism?
.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:39 pmthese guys have the most expensive defense money can buy and they still run around like a bunch of pussies.
how did these guys find the courage to leave home?
i’ve never seen such cowardice.
stop trying to project your fear on me.
go hide under a bed, let men handle your security.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pmYeah, too bad they weren’t able to stop that Millenium Bomber at the Canadian border… oh, wait…
Well, too bad they were able to capture, prosecute and imprison those responsible for the ‘93 WTC bombing… oh, wait…
Of course, you do have a point in that they weren’t able to stop the OKC bombing. But then, that was a domestic right-wing terrorist.
And Clinton ignored the PDB titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” so you have that point. Oh wait, that was Bush, wasn’t it…
So tell us, T5… how much warning do you think a responsible President needs in order to stop a terrorist attack? A full year? Obviously, a month’s warning isn’t enough, right?
June 27th, 2008 at 1:40 pmWhat you ment to say is that; if Obama gets elected we (the CARLYLE GROUP) will stage a false flag attack against it’s own country just to put Republicans back into Washington after the blowout of 08. Were not buying it this time!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:41 pmOh, this I gotta see…
(ralph scrolls up to find the post)
(ralph is stunned)
Wow. You just may be right, paleolib. I didn’t think it was possible.
Well done, rog!
June 27th, 2008 at 1:42 pmrogerse,
June 27th, 2008 at 1:43 pmAnd Bush’s convictions prevented just what?
ralph the wonder llama Says:
So tell us, T5… how much warning do you think a responsible President needs in order to stop a terrorist attack? A full year? Obviously, a month’s warning isn’t enough, right?
Actually, Bush had 7 months. Remember, Richard Clarke was trying to get cabinet level meetings as far back as February 2001, in order to get these knuckleheads to wake up about the al Qaeda threat. They ignored him.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm# 4 – also a Republican Governor of New York, for what it’s worth.
Look, there will be a “next attack” We can’t possibly catch or assuage everyone with a grievance who’s willing to resort to violence, whether foreign Islamic fundamentalist, domestic right-wing militia kook, or crazy college professor who knows how to make a bomb.
Here are the three certainties about that next attack.
1 — If Democrats don’t go along with everything Republicans want in the name of fighting terrorism, then the Republicans will blame the Democrats for not being tough and patriotic and supportive of Republican initiatives.
2 — If Democrats DO go along with everything the Republicans want, the Republicans will blame the Democrats for not having been willing to go even further.
3 — It’s Bill Clinton’s fault.
Say Democrats go along with warrantless searches and torture of suspects and suspension of habeas corpus and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan and attacking Iran. When the next attack happens, Republicans will say “we could have stopped it if only those spineless Democrats had supported our proposed preemptive strike on Luxembourg”, or “if Bill Clinton had followed up during his presidency with a military strike after receiving the intelligence on the al Qaeda/Luxembourg connection, this terrorist attack never would have happened.”
Since we already know the Republican play book (blame Clinton, Democrats are pussies), how about if Democratic “leaders” quit supporting Republican policies. Since we’re going to be blamed either way, we might as well do the right thing.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:49 pmWell, sure, if you wanna get technical. But obviously even seven months isn’t enough time. I’m hoping T5 can give us an accurate reading on how much time a President actually needs to prepare to stop a terrorist attack.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pmI suppose the Good News about this is Hewitt will be off the air starting Jan 20, 2009 since he’ll be cowering in his fallout shelter.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:50 pmNostradamus had nothing on Orwell.
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pmI’m more afraid of the fascist loving Republicans in our White House and Congress than I am of any members of al Qaeda. Who really hates us for our freedom? It is the Republican administration and members of congress assisted by the enabling Democrats that our robbing us of our freedoms. I don’t think we need to own guns to protect us from al Qaeda, or Iraq or Iran. We need guns to protect us from Bushco and Blackwater storming our communities and declaring martial law.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm“… how much warning do you think a responsible President needs in order to stop a terrorist attack? A full year? Obviously, a month’s warning isn’t enough, right?
Great question Ralph!
In that same vein, another question for the Bush lovers:
What is a reasonable amount of time before a new president becomes responsible for what happens under his watch vis-a-vis an attack and the previous administration is not held responsible?
I’m curious what they would say – probably nothing, because it’s a serious, albeit simple, question and requires an honest answer.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pmrogerse Says:
Ralph, we gotta let go of this one… it’s just too painful to watch it suffer.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pmThat appears to be the position that T5 is taking. And you, too, since you intimated that 9/11 was Clinton’s fault, since he “had more time”…
I think a month should have been plenty of forewarning. But those who support the President seem to think that seven months was not enough time to get up to speed, since they refuse to place any blame at Bush’s feet. Can I get a clarification from you on your feelings about this question?
Of course, if and who had more time to stop 9/11… was satirical, and not a genuine opinion, please clear that up too.
Thanks.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pmSo if we elect McCain, the terrorists are just going to pack it up and head home?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pmPeople who spread fear, and great fear are terorist. Isn’t it time to call this sort of fear mongering for what it is. They obviously are trying to help the very people they are at war with.
For those who don’t get it, a terrorist uses terror as a weapon, and terror is fear.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:01 pmbelac, you’re obviously a bleeding-=heart liberal.
Besides, rog will suffer no matter what he does in life. He invites it on himself. The least we can do is make sure that he doesn’t get seriously injured.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:02 pmTake your meds rog, you’re losing it. Your supreme leader has had 7 years to catch OBL how much more time would he need. Maybe if people like you and W would watch some news other than Fox you’d all get a clue about what a pathetic bunch of failures you all are. Not one clue in the entire bunch.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:05 pmter·ror·ize
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ter·ror·ized; ter·ror·iz·ing
Date: 1823
1 : to fill with terror or anxiety : scare
2 : to coerce by threat or violence
— ter·ror·i·za·tion
There seems to be a lot of terrorists already here in this country!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pmThey shoot horses don’t they?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pma neoconservative buckeye fan!
whoa! that’s as bad as it gets!
hope he’s standing at ground zero when the US gits blowed up
June 27th, 2008 at 2:07 pmOkay, I’m lining up with belac and Witch1 and everyone else who has pleaded for mercy for the troll. It’s really getting pathetic. Diarrhea all over his school clothes, vomit on his fingers… with all his incessant babbling he’s gonna get it in his mouth sooner or later, and I don’t want to watch that.
Can someone contact Troll Central and tell them they’ve got a medical emergency here?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:09 pmtranslation:
Hewitt: McBush’s election would ‘greatly increase the likelihood of 9/11: The Sequel (because we need to strip Americans more of their Constitutional Rights) — hence, blame Iran and then make more money for the Military and all the investors (see: US Senate etc)– thus greatly making our Military Corporate Economy more reobust”
June 27th, 2008 at 2:16 pmCan’t we play with him just a little bit longer? He’s not quite blue enough yet.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:20 pmSo Clarke has actually stated that Clinton’s policies for combating terrorism worked better than Bush’s?
Yes, he has.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pmI thought you said you were gonna read ‘Against all Enemies’
Was that a fib?
I know how you feel about dishonesty.
T5, why don’t you try educating yourself? Read Clarke’s book.
Clarke was in fact critical of Clinton’s anti-terrorism policies, until he worked under George W. Bush and saw what real failure looked like.
By the way, T5, can you tell us, exactly how long you think it should take a responsible president to get up-to-speed to stop a terrorist attack?
Thanks.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:27 pmHelp me understand:
I thought that electing a Muslim as president would lower the level of threat. After, they could speak to their own.
/sarcasm
June 27th, 2008 at 2:30 pmIsn’t he doing the same thing they’re claiming Delahunt supposedly did – arent’ they inciting or encouraging violence with these words?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pmBecause of the policies he advocates, a return to the 90s, the Clinton-style prosecute but do not pursue the terrorists before they’ve committed crimes is a recipe for disaster for the United States.
Hewitt uses classical Staw Man: no one advocates not pursuing known terrorists (like bin Laden) before they’ve committed crimes. Oh, except for Mr. “I’m not really that interested in Osama” Bush.
But there’s a huge fookin difference between pursuing “terrorists” with counterintelligence operatives (remember Valerie Plame?) and invading a sovereign country that even these criminals recognize. That their intended audience’s inability to do so convinces me of some form of retardation, which they affectionately call “convservative” or “Republican.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pmAll the Rethuglicans can offer is “Fear Politics” — they cannot run on their record. Or they’d be run out of town!
June 27th, 2008 at 2:34 pmoops. should have read “Their intended audience’s” not “That their intended audience’s”. I moost need another whisky.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:36 pmIt’s not surprising that the Right lies and distorts in order to deflect attention away from their pathetic governance. Bill Clinton attacked terrorist camps using cruise missiles, etc. He took A LOT of heat from the Republicans because of this- now they lie and pretend he did nothing, thinking that we’re too stupid to remember. Whattya bet he could have nailed Bin Laden if the GOP hadn’t made such a stink about it? Blame yourselves and go back to hiding under your beds you pathetic cowards. You cringe in fear on a daily basis because you’re afraid of a minuscule bunch of religious nut-cases roughing it out in the desert.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:37 pmrogerse Says
June 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
so a few months wasn’t in fact enough time to stop 9/11?.
_________________________________________________
NOW I know who you remind me of. We used to have a little troll in here named Frank M. His shtick was to distract from the topic at hand by asking questions incessantly, like a three-year old, and usually the questions were derived from taking a snippet of somebody’s post and applying the most creative interpretation to it possible. Then whenever somebody would answer his inane question, he’d just ask an even more stupid one.
I knew the M.O. was familiar. Are you Frank M under a different name, or are you just one of his proteges?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pmBe afraid, be very afraid while the GOP takes away your right to privacy. Why would the terrorists come over to do what the Bush administration has done for them? Hugh Hewitt is a moron, even if he went to Harvard. How can educated people be so stupid?
June 27th, 2008 at 2:40 pmWhen I see these whining, near hysterical neocons so afraid it makes me grind me fookin teeth. Worse, they fail to see the irony of their calling their opponents “girlie men”, the scared little bastages.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:41 pmDo ya’ll get the feeling rogerse(rogerdo) is just posting to see his own words? Because they sure as hell don’t make any “since”
a return to the 90s, the Clinton-style prosecute but do not pursue the terrorists before they’ve committed crimes is a recipe for disaster for the United States.
That is so odd. The first WTC attack, weren’t the perpetrators “pursued”, captured, and prosecuted?
Oklahoma City bombing? Weren’t the idiots “pursued”, caught, prosecuted, and for one, executed?
And what about the “Millenium bomber”? Didn’t they “pursue” him before he actually committed a horrific terrorist attack?
Oh, and one other thing, dingledorf, crime in the 90’s was way lower than the 80’s, and significantly lower than now. So, I for one, look forward to the Clinton-style of the 90’s!!!!
.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:43 pmSome street smart customs agents stopped the attack not some surveillance operation by the FBI or CIA.
Wait, I’m confused… will good old police work stop terrorists then, better than “some surveillance operation by the FBI or CIA?”
I lived in Port Angeles when they caught him, Tracy… I know that there was no secret surveillance that the Government had to use, civil liberties be damned, to catch him… and yet, somehow, they caught him.
How does that square with your assertion that…
We cannot go back to the Clinton way of stopping major al Qaeda terrorist attacks. It didn’t work.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:51 pmI think we get it now. Clinton’s policies are to blame for a bombing in Kenya, but when federal border guards catch a terrorist trying to enter the country for an attack, that’s nothing to do with Clinton.
Gotcha.
But… you really don’t have an answer? I mean you seem reluctant to ascribe any fault to Bush for 9/11, so the logical conclusion is that you don’t think seven months in office is enough time to shoulder any of the responsibility for failing to stop the attack.
How much time do you think a president needs?
Thanks.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:01 pmI’ll tell you another secret, Tracy…
June 27th, 2008 at 3:02 pmThat ferry dock where they caught him hasn’t changed a whole lot since 9/11… the lines are longer and they now turn away soldiers from Ft. Lewis and grandma’s going shopping in Victoria for not having a passport but they don’t have high-tech body scans or surveillance installed… and they are no more likely than they were before to catch a terrorist- given the amount of red-tape they have to wade through, they might even be LESS likely to catch a terrorist.
And there you have it, folks, brought to you from Tracy:
When the Clinton administration policies and procedures for terrorism prevented horrific attacks, or caught those committing said acts, it’s someone else’s honor.
When the Bush administration policies and procedures fail to prevent the worst terrorist act ever, and have yet to capture the perpetrator (mastermind), it’s Clinton’s fault.
Seriously, it boggles the mind how Bush administration can never take blame, and those that agree with it!!!
June 27th, 2008 at 3:05 pmThat’s a shame, because the Florida-Tennessee game is on September 20th and Hugh is going to miss a great game.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pmSo Tracy doesn’t like the Clintons. Who cares?
June 27th, 2008 at 3:10 pmHey, I’m just trying to get a straight answer out of him, about how long we have after Obama’s inauguration that tracy and his buddies will cut President Obama some slack on terrorist attacks.
Apparently it’s at least seven months, but I have gotten it narrowed down any further than that.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:13 pmI’m just confused about what he wants…
he says that we can never go back to fighting terrorism as a crime and then he says that it’s good ol’ police work that caught Mssr. Rassam- those seem to be contradictory statements to me.
“Police work worked! But it can never work again!”
June 27th, 2008 at 3:20 pmralph you are wonder indeed. I myself have always been leary of dudes named Tracy. Hopefully Tracy5 isn’t a dude
June 27th, 2008 at 3:21 pmrhf,
June 27th, 2008 at 3:36 pmAlthough you and I will differ on Hillary and Obama, I must say, your post #97 just basically depleted any argument Tracy5(fingers) might deploy, rather nicely.
Well done!
RHF @ 97
I just walked to the closet to get a hat to wear just so I can take it off to you. Well said.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:42 pmI’m betting tracy is the same kind of architect that George Costanza is.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pmSaint Augustine Says:
RHF @ 97
I just walked to the closet to get a hat to wear just so I can take it off to you. Well said.
Yup. I agree.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:49 pmdbadass Says:
ralph you are wonder indeed. I myself have always been leary of dudes named Tracy. Hopefully Tracy5 isn’t a dude
I don’t know, but I’ll tell you a few secrets about Tracy. He/she doesn’t see color, but one of his/her best friends is black.
Also, he/she is against corporate welfare, but has vast stock holdings in oil companies, which receive billions of dollars in corporate welfare.
Tracy is quite an enigma.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pmRHF, Tracy was just trying to tell you that Democrats are lucky, and Republicans are unlucky.
The would make a great bumper sticker.
FEEL UNLUCKY PUNK
June 27th, 2008 at 3:56 pmVOTE MCCAIN 2008
“He’s not like anybody I’ve ever met. He’s like a riddle wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a vest.”
June 27th, 2008 at 4:10 pmlokidog Says:
In that same vein, another question for the Bush lovers:
What is a reasonable amount of time before a new president becomes responsible for what happens under his watch vis-a-vis an attack and the previous administration is not held responsible?
I’m curious what they would say – probably nothing, because it’s a serious, albeit simple, question and requires an honest answer.
You know what this means…?
THIS MEANS WE CAN BLAME ANY TERRORIST ATTACK ON AMERICA UNDER OBAMA — ON BUSH!!!
*snicker*
June 27th, 2008 at 4:43 pmTracy… are you waiting for everyone to leave again?
June 27th, 2008 at 4:52 pmWhile you’re waiting- finish Clarke’s book… it’ll explain why Bush policies are wrong-headed and doomed to failure and Clinton’s were better.
Note to bloggers: S_Mart has seen fit to start providing “dirty” links. Flag him and do NOT click on his links.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:34 pmIt is as plain as the nose on your face. republican = insanity!!
June 27th, 2008 at 5:54 pmCombating terrorism is first and formost a matter of national security which means to try and use the legal system as the “spearhead” of the policy, as with Clinton, is wrong.
It got results, and convictions… Bush? Not so much…
June 27th, 2008 at 6:16 pmI thought you were saying that Bush is more effective at combating terror than Clinton…
I thought you said that you had read Clarke’s book which says just the opposite… apparently I was wrong.
Thanks for the clarification, Tracy, but can you also clarify how long you figure a President needs to be in office before he can realistically be seen as responsible for stopping a terrorist attack?
I mean, you seem to assign no blame whatsoever to George W. Bush for 9/11, yet you hold Bill Clinton and his policies responsible for an attack in Kenya.
I’d just like to know who much time you’ll be willing to cut Obama some slack, should the worst happen on US soil in the early months of ‘09.
It’s clear that if it happens before September, he’s in the clear as your as you’re concerned, but I’d like to narrow down the time frame. Does he have until December? January? When?
Just looking for a clarification on your position.
Thanks.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:25 pmAlso Tracy, while Diana Dean doesn’t recall any specific alerts that doesn’t mean that there weren’t any… the Canadian law enforcement officials had alerted the U.S. Border Patrol that they had discovered bomb-making materials in Ressam’s hotel room in Victoria… that info. was relayed to the Port Angeles border station and they would have probably caught Mssr. Ressam even if he hadn’t panicked and ran from his car
June 27th, 2008 at 6:31 pmSee, I’ve spoken to the guards as well… have you?
No, I’ve been paying attention. I haven’t seen any blame being assigned by you to Bush on this thread.
What share of the blame do you suppose he shares?
Can we assume that an attack during the first few months of an Obama presidency would still stain Bush’s “legacy” in your opinion?
Thanks.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:33 pmAnd how do you expect a US President to issue orders that would protect a US Embassy on foreign soil from a truck bomb?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pmWhere’s Osama?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:35 pmYep, there’s the characteristic right-wing dependence on violence to settle an argument.
Does that usually work for you, T5?
June 27th, 2008 at 6:36 pmHow do you know whether I know “the first thing about the architecture business” or not? You don’t Doesn’t stop you from making the kind of snap judgments for which you criticize others.
And the judgment was based on your poor reasoning and deductive skills as displayed on this blog, and your lack of attention to detail.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:44 pmWell, T5, if you’re going to discount someone’s opinion because “it comes out in book that has paid him well”, despite his demonstrated expertise in the field, that doesn’t say much for your open-mindedness.
Color me surprised.
And as far as the thought that “Clinton’s policies produced multiple sucessful attacks by al Qaeda on American interests throughout the 1990s” seems like you could say the exact same thing about Bush in the last seven years.
So you’ve kinda run out of decent arguments there, Trace.
Or, more accurately, the arguments that you started with have shown their inadequacy.
I do like how you’ve moved the goalposts ever so slightly here: no major attack has taken place against American civilians . With Clinton, it’s attacks by al Qaeda on American interests. Now all of a sudden with Bush, it’s American civilians. Thus disqualifying all of the al Qeada attacks on American interests in Iraq and Afghanistan — you don’t consider contractors “civilians” do you, Trace? “Cause if you did, there goes that whole point, movable goalposts and all.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pmBush’s polcies haven’t led to a successful Al Qeada attack on U.S. interests since 9/11?
Now you’re just being silly, Tracy…
Civilians have died in Afghanistan at al Qaeda’s hands and, if Bush is to be believed, AQI is a major problem (we’ll discuss whether or not the to groups are at all affiliated later)
And this ‘major attack’ line is funny coming from a man who considers the theft of candy completely equal with the theft of a million dollars… after all, an attack is an attack, right Tracy?
June 27th, 2008 at 7:00 pmwe don’t even know if bin Laden himself is a live or dead.
Wouldn’t ya think this would be something important to find out, Tracy?
Or is not knowing good enough for you and Mssr. Bush?
June 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pmConsidering Clinton’s policies produced multiple sucessful attacks by al Qaeda on American interests throughout the 1990s,
They PRODUCED them? Does that mean that any sitting President is directly responsible for producing a terrorist attack on their watch?
Is the failure to prevent such an act tantamount to carrying it out in your eyes?
I only ask because, as ridiculous as the above sounds, you strict ‘moral absolutism’ has me concerned that you may believe that… as long as said President is a Democrat, of course.
June 27th, 2008 at 7:14 pmProblem is…….9/11 was likely an inside job. It would seem that the only people who can prevent such a crime would be those who are in on it although maybe only in the periphery. Just a thought.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:13 pmIt didn’t weaken the that network…
Again, Richard Clarke disagrees…
And they’re stronger thanks to Bush…
Do you have a link to news article that says that the Canadians relayed this info to the U.S. Border Patrol at Port Angles and when they received it?
I spoke to some agents myself and here is a link to a story the Seattle Times wrote at the time… it also explains how these guys got into canada BTW
Do you have a like to a article about a specific al Qaeda terrorist attack specifically directed at U.S. civilians in Afghanistan?
Here’s a pretty famous case of a civilian killed by al Queda… there are more, less well publicized examples.
Tracy- your argument is ridiculous, refuted by evidence from professionals, and really amorphous…
June 27th, 2008 at 10:06 pmYou dismiss Clarke because he made money offering his opinion- would you trust an architect who only worked for free over a paid architect?
You undoubtedly know about architecture… counter-terrorism is not your strong suit, leave it to the professionals.
I will be sure to use more specific and accurate terms when I am talking to you.
Will you now specifically and accurately answer Ralph’s question about the appropriate amount of time that must elapse before a new Administration can be blamed for failure to prevent a terrorist attack?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:11 pmThanks, Tracy!
Well when there are other experts that are just as qualified in the field saying that Clinton’s policies allowed al Qaeda to gain strength to the point of being able to pull off 9/11 again Clarke is but one man.
I’d be interested to see a link from a story or article about a genuine counter-terrorism expert who argues this… can you provide one, Tracy? Or a name?
June 27th, 2008 at 10:18 pm#133-
June 27th, 2008 at 10:38 pmthis whole post is unfair and petulant, Tracy…
Ralph has been very fair with you and everyone else on this site… and his deductive skills and reasoning and attention to detail are above reproach.
Your ‘you’re much worse’ attack is getting old…
It’s a tired defense for Bush and a tired defense for yourself.
Got a name for me re: 132?
Okay Tracy,
Pearl was captured and killed in Pakistan…
The alert never reached the border patrol agents…
And the 9-11 commission had several recommendations for improving security post 9/11…
But civilians are being killed everyday by al Qaeda… the citizenship of the civilians doesn’t disturb me as much as it does you.
June 28th, 2008 at 12:47 amIn the Ressam case, the system worked- law enforcement handled it… and I have reason to believe that had law enforcement been allowed to do their job in W’s White House there is a good chance that 9/11 could have prevented, but that is neither here nor there… it happened.
Why can’t you admit that these ‘reforms’ have failed and that terror is, if anything, a growing problem…
Is Hewitt aware Mrs Cleo went to jail for this sort of falsify scaming for a buck?
June 28th, 2008 at 1:04 amNo, Mr. Hewitt, attacking Iran will greatly increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack on the United States.
Didn’t you get the memo from Dick Cheney’s office?
First the attack on Iran, then the retaliatory attacks by Iran and Hezbollah on U.S. citizens and interests abroad and, more than likely, with attempts made inside the United States, followed by Bush and Cheney declaring a national emergency, imposing martial law, and shutting down our Constitution and our democracy, so they can finally establish their “permanent Republican majority” ruled by a “unitary executive,” which will look somewhat like what Hitler and the Nazis dreamed of for Germany and the rest of the world.
Republicans are crazy, or haven’t you noticed?
June 28th, 2008 at 1:30 amDon’t you have to pursue the terrorists before you can prosecute them? Idiot.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:03 amColin Powell opined not too long ago that the terrorists cannot destroy this country. They cannot take over this country. They cannot change our political system. Yes, he said, they can knock down buildings, but they will never destroy this country. Apparently idiots like Hewitt do not have any faith in our military or the resolve of his fellow Americans in protecting this country. It’s the same people who try to make us believe that this country will go to hell if a few flags are burned in public each year.
People like Hewitt like to talk about how much safer that Bush has made us since 9/11, yet turn right around and tell us that the terrorists will destroy us if given the chance.
As I have said before, we in America are at a much higher risk of being attacked by our own fellow Americans. It’s attacks like the one by the disgruntled employee in Kentucky this past week, who killed his supervisor and co-workers, that we have to be afraid of.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:35 amBreaking news from the British Journal of Nutsology.
June 28th, 2008 at 9:51 amIt is now a proven scientific fact that being republican is proof positive of insanity says Dr Elmwood Futherthom.
All republicans should be treated, and some can recover.
However die hard bush supporters are beyond help and should be quarantined as soon as possible for the greater good of humanity; these people have lost all signs of being human and have become a danger to themselves and others. If republicans are spotted in your area they should be pointed out to local mental health professionals. The sooner the better. That is all.
Either I am insane or the world is. It’s not the message in this case, it’s the medium. An anti-canidate children’s book with that kind of title? It screams of propaganda techniques employed during the last world war, the same techniques which we’ve employed to engineer the elections in quite a few countries. Are we now to fall prey to the ad campaigns we’ve pretended we didn’t know we’d been using?
When I visualize the target market, I see he’s going after children that are too young to vote in order to give them ammunition to become hatemongers later in life. He’s providing overwhelmed parents with something to fight the rising tide that Sen. Obama has brought forth. I tend to think it’s a fairy tale, but I haven’t seen the text yet.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:07 pm