Cheney slams Obama in speech

[SleepingTiger]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/cheney.speech/index.html


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former Vice President Dick Cheney defended the Bush administration's national security record Thursday and argued that President Obama is weakening the country's ability to combat al Qaeda and other extremists.


Vice President Dick Cheney defends Bush administration policies during a speech Thursday in Washington.

Cheney argued that the Bush administration "didn't invent" the authority exercised in the war against al Qaeda and others. He said it was clearly granted by the Constitution and legislation passed by Congress after the September 11 attacks.

Cheney made his remarks during a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

He said the use of controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a success that saved thousands of lives. Watch Cheney deny torture took place »

At the same time, Cheney argued that Obama's decision to release Bush-era interrogation memos was a reckless and unfair distraction in the fight against terrorists.

He noted that Obama's CIA director, Leon Panetta, opposed the release of the documents.

Cheney reiterated his argument that if the public has a right to know about various methods of interrogation, it should also have a right to know what those methods achieved.


'Extreme Challenges'
Two wars, a broken economy and historic plans the president says just can't wait. Watch a special "AC360."
Beginning at 10 ET tonight

see full schedule »
Only detainees of the "highest intelligence value" were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, he said. Only three detainees, he noted, were waterboarded.

With thousands of lives potentially in the balance, Cheney argued, it didn't make sense to let high-value detainees "answer questions in their own good time." Watch Cheney defend post-September 11 efforts »

Cheney conceded that at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, a "few sadistic guards" committed illegal, immoral acts and therefore "deserve Army justice."

But he drew a distinction between the activities at Abu Ghraib and sanctioned interrogation techniques "conducted within the constraints of the law."

Don't Miss
Obama defends policies in speech
Poll: Favorable views of Cheney rise
CIA denies Cheney request
A total ban on certain interrogation techniques, Cheney said, is "recklessness cloaked in righteousness."

He ripped what he termed a "horrible precedent" to have an incoming administration "criminalize" the policies of its predecessor. Watch Obama describe going "off course" »

"I would advise the administration to think carefully about the course ahead," Cheney warned.

Cheney suggested that Obama draws comfort from being criticized from the right and the left, believing that he has found an acceptable middle ground.

But, "in the fight against terrorism, there is no middle ground, and half-measures leave you half-exposed," Cheney said.

"Triangulation is a political strategy, not a national security strategy. ... There is never a good time to compromise when [the lives of the American people] hang in the balance."

Cheney belittled Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility "with little deliberation and no plan." Watch Cheney say Obama has no real plan »

The former vice president asserted that the Bush administration's national security policies delivered numerous "blows" to extremists targeting the United States.

He said every plot for an attack in the United States since September 11, 2001, had failed.


"When President Obama makes wise decisions ... he deserves our support," Cheney said. "And when he faults or mischaracterizes the national security decisions we made in the Bush years, he deserves an answer."

Obama delivered his own speech earlier Thursday at the National Archives, touching on virtually every point Cheney would make.



Cheaney has a point. discuss

[TailgateNut]

Cheney has a point???

...and what would that be?

[peacepipe]

Cheney has a point???

...and what would that be?

No doubt,it's same crap he's been pushing since he left office.

[gyldenlove]

Cheney absolutely has a point, as long as someone is a suspected terrorrist they have no rights and no civil protection.

That is the difference between a free country like American and Iraq, in Iraq under Saddam you had no rights, and in America you do, unless the government thinks you shouldn't, then you don't.

[peacepipe]

Cheney absolutely has a point, as long as someone is a suspected terrorrist they have no rights and no civil protection.

That is the difference between a free country like American and Iraq, in Iraq under Saddam you had no rights, and in America you do, unless the government thinks you shouldn't, then you don't.this is one of the most simpleton comments I've ever read.

[TailgateNut]

That is the difference between a free country like American and Iraq, in Iraq under Saddam you had no rights, and in America you do, unless the government thinks you shouldn't, then you don't.


:rofl:

[Rohirrim]

Cheney knows that prosecution is coming down the road and he's trying to get out ahead of it and taint the jury pool.

[Rohirrim]

this is one of the most simpleton comments I've ever read.

You haven't been here long.

[Smiling Assassin27]

anybody here actually read the text of the speech?

he claims that we have only half the story because only half of the memos have been released. he's right. obama used selective release with the excuse that it'd compromise security--riiiggght.

As a practical matter, too, terrorists may lack much, but they have never lacked for grievances against the United States. Our belief in freedom of speech and religion … our belief in equal rights for women … our support for Israel … our cultural and political influence in the world – these are the true sources of resentment, all mixed in with the lies and conspiracy theories of the radical clerics. These recruitment tools were in vigorous use throughout the 1990s, and they were sufficient to motivate the 19 recruits who boarded those planes on September 11th, 2001.

this is also true. terrorists don't require photos or memos to be hardened anti-American zealots. they just need a heartbeat and a gun.

The enhanced interrogations of high-value detainees and the terrorist surveillance program have without question made our country safer. Every senior official who has been briefed on these classified matters knows of specific attacks that were in the planning stages and were stopped by the programs we put in place.

This might explain why President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate. What value remains to that authority is debatable, given that the enemy now knows exactly what interrogation methods to train against, and which ones not to worry about. Yet having reserved for himself the authority to order enhanced interrogation after an emergency, you would think that President Obama would be less disdainful of what his predecessor authorized after 9/11. It’s almost gone unnoticed that the president has retained the power to order the same methods in the same circumstances. When they talk about interrogations, he and his administration speak as if they have resolved some great moral dilemma in how to extract critical information from terrorists. Instead they have put the decision off, while assigning a presumption of moral superiority to any decision they make in the future.



this is spot on as well. obama sets this argument on moral ground and then reserves the right to do the same immoral things Bush did when he deems it ok. Given Obama's inexperience and Cheney's large body of experience, a comparison of the two speeches today was a laugher. not that anyone would actually listen or read the speech around these parts. too many here see dick cheney and their knee involuntarily jerks for some reason.

[TailgateNut]

too many here see dick cheney and their knee involuntarily jerks for some reason.


...and a few here see Dick and they start salivating.

[gyldenlove]

this is one of the most simpleton comments I've ever read.

Explain to me then how an American citizen ended up being held prisoner by the American Government for more than a year with no trial, no charges and no evidence. That trickling sound you are hearing is Dick Cheney taking a big fat leak on habeas corpus.

[TailgateNut]

this is one of the most simpleton comments I've ever read.


Maybe it's the translation program.

[gyldenlove]

anybody here actually read the text of the speech?

he claims that we have only half the story because only half of the memos have been released. he's right. obama used selective release with the excuse that it'd compromise security--riiiggght.



this is also true. terrorists don't require photos or memos to be hardened anti-American zealots. they just need a heartbeat and a gun.



this is spot on as well. obama sets this argument on moral ground and then reserves the right to do the same immoral things Bush did when he deems it ok. Given Obama's inexperience and Cheney's large body of experience, a comparison of the two speeches today was a laugher. not that anyone would actually listen or read the speech around these parts. too many here see dick cheney and their knee involuntarily jerks for some reason.

Just because Obama hasn't grown the gonads to correct these clearly blatant violations of civil and human rights, doesn't make it any less detestable what the government did under Cheney. A wrong doesn't become right just because someone repeats it.

[Hotrod]

were ****ed

[Garcia Bronco]

The controversy is around the term enemy combatant. Which these people is Gitmo are labeled as.

[mhgaffney]

Probably Pelosi is correct and the CIA lied to her.

The agency has been lying for so long about so many things -- I'd be surprised if they DID tell her the truth.

If Cheney's comment that the US never lost its moral bearings after 9/11 is true -- it's only because we didn't have any to lose.

[frerottenextelway]

Cheney has a point???

...and what would that be?

"buy my book".

[watermock]

Every CIA agent takes the Boy Scout Oath. Didn't you know that Gaff?

Pelosi still thinks she has balls. Dumb Biatch.

[mhgaffney]

I hate Pelosi too --

Nonetheless, I believe she is telling the truth in this case.

The CIA lies to everyone -- esp Congress -- as a matter of course. Incredibly, few here seem to get this. Americans have been seduced by the mythology of the secret agent man --- 007.

Believe it -- the CIA worked hard to foster this seduction from the beginning. No doubt, the CIA spends millions (probably tens of millions) every year on their PR program to help their image.

Curious that the James Bond phenomenon started soon after the emergence of the national security establishment in the 1950s. Hollywood has cranked out how many Bond films? Every couple of years there is another one.

[SleepingTiger]

I hate Pelosi too --

Nonetheless, I believe she is telling the truth in this case.

The CIA lies to everyone -- esp Congress -- as a matter of course. Incredibly, few here seem to get this. Americans have been seduced by the mythology of the secret agent man --- 007.

Believe it -- the CIA worked hard to foster this seduction from the beginning. No doubt, the CIA spends millions (probably tens of millions) every year on their PR program to help their image.

Curious that the James Bond phenomenon started soon after the emergence of the national security establishment in the 1950s. Hollywood has cranked out how many Bond films? Every couple of years there is another one.

so the CIA paid hollywood to make these great bond films to further their agenda. got it. :thumbsup:

[watermock]

so the CIA paid hollywood to make these great bond films to further their agenda. got it. :thumbsup:

The Elite OWN Hollywood. Just like they own our government.

It's not just James Bond films.

The current fare at the box office makes the " Outer limits and The Twilight Zone" tiresome and boring. Look at current films and shows!

Apocalyptic themes are so common we don't even notice.

The fact is that the elite not only own governments, but the media itself.

If fact, thru some sort of divine luck, we have been given a window thru the internet that the elite is furiously trying to regulate.

Google, for example, has allready collaborated with data on Americans with the Chinese, and you can rest assured, anything you post or see on the net is at least scanned for keywords. If certain keys are repeated, surveliance begins.

It's called the NSA, or Homeland Security for a feelgood name.

[Odysseus]

Cheney knows that prosecution is coming down the road and he's trying to get out ahead of it and taint the jury pool.

Cheney has already poisoned the jury pool. Obama told Pelosi to walk around this fight but she wouldn't. She got burned. The prosecution is tainted because no matter what they do they are forced to bargain with Cheney. The problem remains that America will suffer for his action when the truth comes out but in the end he never will.

[Rigs11]

If cheney keeps saying how unsafe we are does not that invite an attack?

[Hotrod]

If cheney keeps saying how unsafe we are does not that invite an attack?

No because he is not a democrat

[TailgateNut]

No because he is not a democrat


:thanku:

[Hotrod]

:thanku:

That was my one and only serious post for the day.

[Rohirrim]

Cheney has gone insane.

[gunns]

I thought America felt our freedoms and rights are for people the world over. Isn't that why we went to Iraq to fight and to other wars?

[frerottenextelway]

If cheney keeps saying how unsafe we are does not that invite an attack?

He's certainly banking his legacy and his Party's future on there being one.

The CIA may want to keep his phone tapped in the interest of the nation's security.

[peacepipe]

Cheney expects that their will be another attack and wants to be able to say i told you so.

[broncofan7]

Dick Cheney is a dirty scumbag, but he is actually correct regarding the need for 'enhanced interrogations'. Obama really sounds like a Vagina when discussing that this practice doesn't fall in line with American principles. As DICK stated in his afternoon story telling session on Thursday(he really doesn't give a speech very well)--the terrorists just have to be succesful ONCE for them to win. IF we are attacked in the next 4 years, O will go the way of Carter. Book it.

[broncofan7]

If cheney keeps saying how unsafe we are does not that invite an attack?

What? Yeah, the terrorists are motivated by CNN reports that Dick Cheney says we are vulnerable.........I bet they subscribe to DICK's twitter feed for all the latest updates on our national security.......

[peacepipe]

Dick Cheney is a dirty scumbag, but he is actually correct regarding the need for 'enhanced interrogations'. Obama really sounds like a Vagina when discussing that this practice doesn't fall in line with American principles. As DICK stated in his afternoon story telling session on Thursday(he really doesn't give a speech very well)--the terrorists just have to be succesful ONCE for them to win. IF we are attacked in the next 4 years, O will go the way of Carter. Book it.

You're starting to sound like a vagina calling torture 'enhanced interrogation's'. Don't buy that for a second, torture has never been in line with american principles & never will be. boo-hoo! they only need to be successful once?! that sales pitch is for the birds. If there is another attack it will not matter wether torture is used or not cuz the info is not reliable. The truth is their will probably be another attack & it will not matter which party is in control.

[The Lone Bolt]

Cheney has a point???

...and what would that be?

Underneath his hat.

[Spider]

:rofl: I just saw mancow get waterboarded ........ he lasted 4 seconds and claimed waterboarding as nothing but pure torture , and Mancow went through a very tamed down version of waterboarding ........ so you right wingers just shut the hell up about what CHENEY SAYS

[Spider]

Oh on countdown with Kieth Olberman.........Mancow is a pussy BwAAAAAAAAA

[elsid13]

Cheney really is an idiot. What he says is requirement doesn't work. There are times to use enhanced techniques (when you are in the field and **** hitting the fan) and there are times to use long term methods to break the assholes.

[frerottenextelway]

:rofl: I just saw mancow get waterboarded ........ he lasted 4 seconds and claimed waterboarding as nothing but pure torture , and Mancow went through a very tamed down version of waterboarding ........ so you right wingers just shut the hell up about what CHENEY SAYS

Lasted 4 seconds? Sounds like my early highschool days.

[frerottenextelway]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Video/Ridge-1.jpg

<embed width="600" src="http://i9.photobucket.com/player.swf?file=http://vid9.photobucket.com/albums/a81/kos102/2009/Video/ridge-2.flv" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="400" wmode="transparent"></embed></p>

[Odysseus]

Cheney expects that their will be another attack and wants to be able to say i told you so.

It's pretty easy to be scared when you are in the middle to two wars that YOUR administration started.

Saddam attempted to kill Bush Senior and failed. I don't know why but in my thinking it seems everything is connected to that. Why would Saddam risk that? What was Saddam's motivation? What was Bush's motivation? Who else was involved. The only way you can KNOW that Saddam had WMD is if you were involved in the sale of those WMD to him. There is a lot to this is not making sense.

[Rohirrim]

Simple question: Where was Cheney before 911? He was personally put in charge, by Bush, of dealing with terrorism. That was his personal responsibility, assigned to him by the commander in chief. The outgoing NSA director had personally warned him that terrorism would be the chief concern of his administration. He received numerous warnings, from Clarke and others, for months that an attack was coming on our soil. What did he do about it?

Absolutely nothing.

Didn't hold a single meeting about terrorism until one week prior to 911. He had nine months to do something about it. What did he do? He held a secret meeting with energy companies to give them a free ride on the government gravy train. That's where his focus was.

Here's Cheney:

Imagine the captain of the Titanic didn't go down with the ship. He gets jobs running other vessels and after seven years goes around the country bragging, "For seven years, I didn't sink a single ship I commanded."

That's great, buddy. But the one you did sink pretty much symbolizes the meaning of UBER-FAIL! Ha!

[elsid13]

Cheney has gone insane.

I believe that you are wrong with that assumption, because that would mean at one point he was sane.

[barryr]

Hmm, so it used to be that Cheney was telling Bush what to do for 8 years because he was so stupid(though I think Bush could remember what Gates' first name was without screwing it up 3 times in speeches like the so smart Obama has done so far), but now when the argument changes and needs a different ending, now it's Cheney did nothing for 8 years. I just love this "logic" and "truth."

Strangely while the Bush admin. was trying to figure out ways to prevent another 9/11 attack, which was successful last I looked, and actually show the world we would not take such crap anymore with weak responses which had been the case the last 20 years, the democrats, including Obama, had no solutions other than the usual status quo and sit on their asses and hope it would just all go away. And now bitch how we weren't attacked. The sheep need more leading Obama, make another speech. It's ROBERT Gates by the way messiah.
<!-- / message --><!-- controls -->http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

[Spider]

Hmm, so it used to be that Cheney was telling Bush what to do for 8 years because he was so stupid(though I think Bush could remember what Gates' first name was without screwing it up 3 times in speeches like the so smart Obama has done so far), but now when the argument changes and needs a different ending, now it's Cheney did nothing for 8 years. I just love this "logic" and "truth."

Strangely while the Bush admin. was trying to figure out ways to prevent another 9/11 attack, which was successful last I looked, and actually show the world we would not take such crap anymore with weak responses which had been the case the last 20 years, the democrats, including Obama, had no solutions other than the usual status quo and sit on their asses and hope it would just all go away. And now b**** how we weren't attacked. The sheep need more leading Obama, make another speech. It's ROBERT Gates by the way messiah.
<!-- / message --><!-- controls -->http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

Man Barry , the statement was he did Absolutely nothing in respects to stopping 9-11 ........And if you read on , the poster stated Cheney did do things , but totally screwed up ...............Barry if the republican party is made up with people like you , no wonder they are crashing ....... And just to show you barry , I have a 9 th grade education , and I picked up on his post better then you ...........

[broncofan7]

You're starting to sound like a vagina calling torture 'enhanced interrogation's'. Don't buy that for a second, torture has never been in line with american principles & never will be. boo-hoo! they only need to be successful once?! that sales pitch is for the birds. If there is another attack it will not matter wether torture is used or not cuz the info is not reliable. The truth is their will probably be another attack & it will not matter which party is in control.

but the PERCEPTION will be that Obama was not willing to go to the lengths that the BUSH admin was willing to go to protect the American people......and Obama does sound like pussy on this issue.

[Spider]

but the PERCEPTION will be that Obama was not willing to go to the lengths that the BUSH admin was willing to go to protect the American people......and Obama does sound like p***Y on this issue.

good thing for you there isnt a stupidity ban here on the mane ........

[gyldenlove]

Hmm, so it used to be that Cheney was telling Bush what to do for 8 years because he was so stupid(though I think Bush could remember what Gates' first name was without screwing it up 3 times in speeches like the so smart Obama has done so far), but now when the argument changes and needs a different ending, now it's Cheney did nothing for 8 years. I just love this "logic" and "truth."

Strangely while the Bush admin. was trying to figure out ways to prevent another 9/11 attack, which was successful last I looked, and actually show the world we would not take such crap anymore with weak responses which had been the case the last 20 years, the democrats, including Obama, had no solutions other than the usual status quo and sit on their asses and hope it would just all go away. And now b**** how we weren't attacked. The sheep need more leading Obama, make another speech. It's ROBERT Gates by the way messiah.
<!-- / message --><!-- controls -->http://www.goldtalk.com/forum/images/misc/progress.gif

The only president in the history of the USA that failed to prevent 9/11 was Bush, EVERY single other president didn't have a 9/11.

Cheney and Bush failed to prevent 9/11, they failed to apprehend Bin Laden, they were wrong about Iraq. Every single major event in the war on terror has been a failure led by Cheney and Bush.

[peacepipe]

but the PERCEPTION will be that Obama was not willing to go to the lengths that the BUSH admin was willing to go to protect the American people......and Obama does sound like p***Y on this issue.



Poll: Dems Reaching Parity On National Security
By Eric Kleefeld - May 19, 2009, 11:58AM
A new Democracy Corps (D) poll finds that the Democratic Party could be reaching parity or perhaps even overtaking the Republicans on national security -- an issue area that has benefitted the GOP for decades.

President Obama has a 64%-31% approval rating on national security, and a 61%-31% rating on fighting terrorism -- both higher than his overall approval of 58%-33%. In addition, likely voters say by a 55%-37% margin that Obama's policies are increasing America's security -- rejecting the alternative statement that he's undermining security.

Indeed, a 51%-44% majority agreed with this statement: "President Bush's foreign and national security policies undermined America's security."

On national security overall, the Republicans have a statistically insignificant edge of 43%-41% over the Dems, and it's a dead-even tie of 41%-41% for the War on Terror. The GOP maintains a 53%-35% advantage on "ensuring a strong military," but the Dems have a 52%-35% lead on "foreign policy," a 44%-32% lead on Afghanistan, and a 47%-37% lead on Iraq.
The Democratic gap on defense originated in large part because the Dems launched a failed war in Southeast Asia, then collapsed in partisan infighting over it. The GOP could perhaps be suffering from the fact that they launched two mismanaged wars in the Muslim world, and now stand resolutely by to declare that nothing was wrong.

perception is in obamas' favor.

[Miss I.]

Dick Cheney is a dirty scumbag, but he is actually correct regarding the need for 'enhanced interrogations'. Obama really sounds like a Vagina when discussing that this practice doesn't fall in line with American principles. As DICK stated in his afternoon story telling session on Thursday(he really doesn't give a speech very well)--the terrorists just have to be succesful ONCE for them to win. IF we are attacked in the next 4 years, O will go the way of Carter. Book it.

Let me translate your mysoginistic rhetoric for the people with brains and the actual ability to communicate without resorting to inflamatory remarks, to understand it (being weak is not the same as Vagina, nor does a Dick equal strength, take a look at most meltdown threads on the OM to see where the real limp noodles are...hint most of them have penises...):

So I can fit into what I perceive as your mainly liberal discussion base and prove I am unbiased, I am going to preface my argument with "Dick Cheney is dirty scumbag," but it is unlikely I really believe this." There is a need for additional torture and violations of civil liberties to give the perception to the world we are tough on terror and not afraid of anything including violating our own citizen's basic civil rights and urinating on what our founding fathers believed in, specifically liberty. Obama is perceived as weak because he believes not just in the idea of liberty, but that in violating rights we nullify the reality of the existence of liberty (that is to say, violating the spirit of liberty destroys it). Instead, he should speak like that moron Cheney, who during 8 years, while not an effective speaker, effectively restrained our civil rights while completing ignoring basic human rights when dealing with the world. To win, the terrorists just have to take away our civil rights (most effectively by getting our own government to turn in on itself), our real freedom of choice and turn us into dependents on other nations (in other words France).

[TDmvp]

The only president in the history of the USA that failed to prevent 9/11 was Bush, EVERY single other president didn't have a 9/11.

Cheney and Bush failed to prevent 9/11, they failed to apprehend Bin Laden, they were wrong about Iraq. Every single major event in the war on terror has been a failure led by Cheney and Bush.

what a ignorant statement ... on so many levels ... I'll start with no other President had a 9/11 on their watch ... Might I direct you to F.D.R.
And to blame one side for 9/11 to prove righteousness of a political side is gutless and trashy .
But hey that's the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt


Edit ... go figure you live in Denmark ...

[gyldenlove]

what a ignorant statement ... on so many levels ... I'll start with no other President had a 9/11 on their watch ... Might I direct you to F.D.R.
And to blame one side for 9/11 to prove righteousness of a political side is gutless and trashy .
But hey that's the game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt


Edit ... go figure you live in Denmark ...

Do you want to give Bush and Cheney credit for preventing another 9/11? because there has only been one, ever, and it happened on their watch.

I forgot how religious terrorrists leveled the original world trade center under FDR, good point.

Bush and Cheney ignored intelligence reports warning against such an attack, they failed to respond to the incidence once it was known and they even failed to protect the pentagon. But at least Bush got to read a childrens book.

Who should we blame for failing to defend the States? John Q Democrat? or maybe we should blame the people who were in power, the people who control law agencies and the military, because it sure seems like if anyone could have done something to prevent it, it would be the President.

[watermock]

Now the Halbituron is being thrown out after wasting/pocketing billions, what's a Dick to do?

[barryr]

In '93, we got lucky that the truck bomb didn't go off as planned, or else that would have been far worse than anything we had before. That happened under Clinton and I hardly think Clinton should be given credit for a bomb that was able to be put in position to kill thousands, but just didn't go off as planned.

[Miss I.]

In '93, we got lucky that the truck bomb didn't go off as planned, or else that would have been far worse than anything we had before. That happened under Clinton and I hardly think Clinton should be given credit for a bomb that was able to be put in position to kill thousands, but just didn't go off as planned.

**** it all. I actually may agree with you on this. Could be the wine and beer of course. But the diff I think lies in that Bush knew there was the possibility of an attack and knowledge of Obama and failed to do anything. But on the other hand, Clinton also had knowledge of these things, it just happened under Bushie boy. Now, I do blame Bush for his inability to effectively act after the attack. Obama is still free, but Sadamm is dead? WTF? that I don't get, but it is what it is.

[Spider]

**** it all. I actually may agree with you on this. Could be the wine and beer of course. But the diff I think lies in that Bush knew there was the possibility of an attack and knowledge of Obama and failed to do anything. But on the other hand, Clinton also had knowledge of these things, it just happened under Bushie boy. Now, I do blame Bush for his inability to effectively act after the attack. Obama is still free, but Sadamm is dead? WTF? that I don't get, but it is what it is.

I was in Manhattan when that happened , unloading frozen cow parts at DeBagga and splitter , I never thought it was an explosion until I saw the news latter that day ......Truth be told , that ship slamming into the Willis Bridge in NYC was much louder ;D

[Miss I.]

I was in Manhattan when that happened , unloading frozen cow parts at DeBagga and splitter , I never thought it was an explosion until I saw the news latter that day ......Truth be told , that ship slamming into the Willis Bridge in NYC was much louder ;D

Spider, I meant to tell you, I am sorry about the marriage stuff, I hope you work it out. I love happy endings, umm, notI in the massage parlor way ya know. Also, don't know if you noticed but a few of us missed your smartass ways and punch throating.

On 9/11 I was just waking up in AZ, walked in to see on TV the second plane hit the tower. It was surreal.

[Spider]

Spider, I meant to tell you, I am sorry about the marriage stuff, I hope you work it out. I love happy endings, umm, notI in the massage parlor way ya know. Also, don't know if you noticed but a few of us missed your smartass ways and punch throating.

On 9/11 I was just waking up in AZ, walked in to see on TV the second plane hit the tower. It was surreal.;D I have no choice to make the marriage work , I made a commitment , I got to stick around until the trips are at least 16 ;D 13 years to go ......... I was in Manhattan in 93 , not for 9-11 ......sorry for any misunderstanding ;D

[Miss I.]

;D I have no choice to make the marriage work , I made a commitment , I got to stick around until the trips are at least 16 ;D 13 years to go ......... I was in Manhattan in 93 , not for 9-11 ......sorry for any misunderstanding ;D

not your fault, I blame the Merlot I drank and the two bottles of British ale I drank...I feel no pain right now...you are good man Spidey...best of all to you and the family.

[Spider]

not your fault, I blame the Merlot I drank and the two bottles of British ale I drank...I feel no pain right now...you are good man Spidey...best of all to you and the family.

;D thanks .......... I wish I still drank some times ............

[SleepingTiger]

**** it all. I actually may agree with you on this. Could be the wine and beer of course. But the diff I think lies in that Bush knew there was the possibility of an attack and knowledge of Obama and failed to do anything. But on the other hand, Clinton also had knowledge of these things, it just happened under Bushie boy. Now, I do blame Bush for his inability to effectively act after the attack. Obama is still free, but Sadamm is dead? WTF? that I don't get, but it is what it is.

i certaintly hope Obama is still free, he is our president after all ;D .

[cutthemdown]

;D thanks .......... I wish I still drank some times ............

sniff some glue

[Miss I.]

i certaintly hope Obama is still free, he is our president after all ;D .

Damn wine..I meant Osama...damn it... From now on I must say Bin Laden and also No more wine for me...;D

[Odysseus]

In '93, we got lucky that the truck bomb didn't go off as planned, or else that would have been far worse than anything we had before. That happened under Clinton and I hardly think Clinton should be given credit for a bomb that was able to be put in position to kill thousands, but just didn't go off as planned.

Clinton was the closest to getting Osama than anyone and is never given credit for that. I am starting to think Osama is dead. When was the last time anyone has heard from that guy?

If you want to know the list of opportunities Bush blew militarily let me know how you want it broken down. Do you want it be campaign, year, war, or magnitude?

Obama fired a standing General on his watch. The last time that happened was when McArthur was sacked. Nobody on this board seems to get how radical a shift that is. I have not read one reliable post about his replacement.

Every President makes their own luck. If 911 had not happened who would George Bush be?