Extreme Bush Derangement Syndrome
December 29th, 2007 at 01:43pm Mark Noonan
Just amazing:
MONTPELIER, Vermont (AP) — President Bush may soon have a new reason to avoid left-leaning Vermont: In one town, activists want him subject to arrest for war crimes.
A group in Brattleboro is petitioning to put an item on a town meeting agenda in March that would make Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney subject to arrest and indictment if they visit the southeastern Vermont community.
“This petition is as radical as the Declaration of Independence, and it draws on that tradition in claiming a universal jurisdiction when governments fail to do what they’re supposed to do,” said Kurt Daims, 54, a retired machinist leading the drive.
As president, Bush has visited every state except Vermont.
The town meeting, an annual exercise in which residents gather to vote on everything from fire department budgets to municipal policy, requires about 1,000 signatures to place a binding item on the agenda.
The measure asks: “Shall the Selectboard instruct the Town Attorney to draft indictments against President Bush and Vice President Cheney for crimes against our Constitution, and publish said indictment for consideration by other municipalities?”
You know what I would do, if I were President Bush? On January 21st, 2009, I’d head up there to answer the charges. He can’t do it while he’s in office for a variety of reasons, but once he’s out of office, it would be a great opportunity to show what a bunch of world-class fruitcakes his critics are. President Bush couldn’t get a fair trial in Vermont, so he’d have to argue for a change of venue - to a State which voted more closely to 50/50 in either 2000 or 2004. Ohio would seem the most likely place to get an impartial jury, though if the lefties insist on a place Bush lost narrowly, we can go with Wisconsin. Once a venue and date are set, then the real fun would begin.
There is nothing of any substance to any of the criticisms levelled against President Bush - but the leftwing loons who are pushing this measure believe the whole kit and kaboodle. I’m sure they are a grab-bag collection of “truthers” who think that President Bush had a hand in 9/11, lied to get us into Iraq and has worked diliegently to suppress freedom in the United States. Can you imagine what sort of kooks would be brought forward to testify against President Bush? Heck, we might even get Joe Wilson on the stand - and wouldn’t we all love to have him cross-examined? It’d be a great media circus, and it would expose the left for what they are - screwball, blame-America-first losers.
HAT TIP: Michelle Malkin via NRO’s The Corner
Entry Filed under: Democrats, Kook Left, President Bush, War on Terror
73 Comments
1. Casper | December 29th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Something you left out from the article;
“Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell, a Democrat whose office has repeatedly sued the Bush administration over environmental issues, said the move was “of very dubious legality.”
“I have not seen the proposal, and I’ve done no legal research on any of the issues,” Sorrell said. “But at first blush, if this passed, they’d have really uphill sledding trying to have it be legal and enforceable.”
Not going to happen Mark.
2. Eric T | December 29th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
I think alot of this garbage can be traced to moveon.org. These folks like kucinich, conyers need to self deport from office. They are at the line between free speach and treason.
Bush has successfully kept terrorism from our soil since the 911 attacks.
That is the one thing about Ron Paul that would make me pass him over as a candidate. It is that he is not for a strong military like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, or Duncan Hunter.
3. Bigfoot | December 29th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I’m sure they are a grab-bag collection of “truthers” who think that President Bush had a hand in 9/11, lied to get us into Iraq and has worked diliegently to suppress freedom in the United States.
The fact that these BDS sufferers can level these charges without being rounded up and jailed as a result is itself powerful evidence against the last charge, of Bush suppressing freedom. It is ironic that in their BDS, they can’t even recognize this.
4. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
Bush has successfully kept terrorism from our soil since the 911 attacks.
EricT, that is a fallacious statement, you cannot establish a causal relationship between Bush’s policies and terrorist attacks. The number of attacks worldwide have actually increased during his term, and the terrorists can just still be in the planning stage for another attack here. Your premise does not guarantee your conclusion, therefore your argument is invalid.
5. Mark Noonan | December 29th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Casper,
Of course its of dubious legality - but we’re not thinking of that; we’re thinking of having MoveOn cross examined…
Bigfoot,
True - the reason we know they are the brave fighters for freedom is that they tell us endlessly that they are…
6. Eric T | December 29th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Rana
The party of cut and run has not taken steps to squash the terrorists. In fact they voted to not fund Duncan Hunters fence recently. If i was President I’d sell oil out of the Reserves and build the fence. Today, The War on terror will still be going when Bush leaves office. We don’t need something like what happened with Bhutto happening here. We need to make sure. Al Qaida is not here. Dubia just bought into MGM Grand Casino’s. All it takes is them to be successful one time over here. for a disaster.
7. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
EricT-
So you don’t deny that your previous comment was fallacious, right? All red herrings aside…
8. Web Smith | December 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Ron Paul is for a strong military. He is for making it stronger and more efficient by not having it spread all over the world in 170 countries.
It is well known that more Al Qaida cells exist in the U.S. now than before 9/11.
If you are the President of the United States and know that two airliners have been flown into the World Trade Center and you are them told that the buildings have collapsed with a then estimated 7,000 people inside, and you learn about all of this from a very short sentence whispered in your ear by the Secret Service, how would you react? With a brief nod of the head? What did that nod mean? Mission accomplished?
Would you have gone to the school in the first place?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6372050699125873898&q=Bush+in+school+on+9%2F11&total=221&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
9. NeoClown | December 29th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Nancy Pelosi declared impeachment “off the table” due to a lack of votes in congress to achieve that goal. Even if the votes necessary to impeach Bush were available there would still be the inevitable presidential pardon by George Bush’s republican successor.
After the 2008 elections when democrats enjoy a super majority in both the house and senate and there is a democrat in the White House, congress will bring criminal charges against Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rove, and Rumsfeld.
Charges will be dropped against Rumsfeld due to his age and failing health.
Charges will be dropped against Rove after he accepts a plea bargain and agrees to testify against Bush and Cheney.
Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales will be found guilty of a myriad of charges and sentenced to lengthy terms in federal prison.
The international Community will petition the United States requesting extradition of Bush so that he may be tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression.
The United States will deny their request.
Bush being tried in a State Court is wishful thinking on your part and will never happen.
10. AAR | December 29th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
I would march up there with enough Marines to arrest the entire town see what the anti-American, Left-Wing lunatics want to do then!
AAR
11. Eric T | December 29th, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Neoclown-
Do you have a commie flag tacked up on the walls of your garage.
12. Kahn | December 29th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Rana, but he HAS stopped nuclear weapons development in three hostile nations. We CAN prove that.
And if the vague warning of attack can be taken as an indictment against him for not acting, then stronger warnings of attack that he has acted on can’t also be used for indictment. Thats what we call “damned if you do, damned if you don’t”. And that by the way proves our point.
It would be interesting to see how the Secret Service and the US Marine Corps would act towards the Police officer who tried to arrest him and then to the town. I’d kind of like to see him go there now.
Just what criteria do you need to meet to be considered “in rebellion”?
13. phnx | December 29th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“you cannot establish a causal relationship between Bush’s policies and terrorist attacks” Rana
So no attacks on US soil since 9/11 was what? Luck?
14. Huck Fillary | December 29th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Not going to happen Mark.
Correction for ya, Casspurr:
“It’s not going to happen, Mark.”
NeoKook, you have some imagination, for sure. Dream on, jerk…
15. neocon | December 29th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Clown,
Are you a litigator? If so, I am really curious as to how the charges and arguments supporting those charges would unfold.
Has anyone seen the following:
>>>So the future political map of America is likely to look as different as the much shrunken geographical map, with much of the so-called “red” state region either gone or depopulated.
There is a poetic justice to this of course. It is conservatives who are giving us the candidates who steadfastly refuse to have the nation take steps that could slow the pace of climate change, so it is appropriate that they should bear the brunt of its impact.<<<<<<
If not, go to the following link and enjoy the read. The hate on the left is unbelievable. It is juvenile and will be their downfall in ‘08. Take it to the bank.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/12/29/climate-optimism-global-warming-will-wipe-out-conservative-states
16. js | December 29th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
So why doesnt the AG of the US start procedings against the Mayor and/or City Council/managers for treason?
It has just as solid of a legal foundation as charging Bush and Cheney with War Crimes. (even more so because they are technically taking action against the USA, not Bush or Cheney, but the Office of the President and Vice President)
17. js | December 29th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
8. Web Smith | December 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“Ron Paul is for a strong military. He is for making it stronger and more efficient by not having it spread all over the world in 170 countries.”
Please, provide the list of the “170″ countries.
Thanks.
18. Almiranta | December 29th, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Froggy, it is simply silly to claim that “…(you) cannot establish a causal relationship between Bush’s policies and terrorist attacks…” when Bin Laden stated, with complete clarity, that the REASON he felt empowered to continue escalating his attacks on the US was specifically because of our failure to respond when he did attack—a statement followed by a strong response. It is not hard for non-BDSers to see the connection.
No response = attacks
Strong response = no attacks
(Why do you think Bin Laden has put out tapes which follow the radical Left program to the letter, even referencing the “pet goat” meme that had you all in stitches not too long ago? Do you remember my suggestion for an election year bumper sticker: HWOV, or How Would Osama Vote? Can ANYONE believe that he would not be tickled to have another Dem in the White House—especially another Clinton?)
In addition, remember the hysteria about the so-called “warrantless ‘wiretapping’ ” Bush was doing to track down terrorists operating within the US? There have been several reports on the number of planned attacks foiled due to the information gleaned from such surveillance.
No surveillance, no foiling of attacks.
As for attacks worldwide, we are talking about attacks on Americans, in the United States. Quit changing the criteria.
Clownie, your wish list is just goofy—as goofy as the rest of your clownish posts. Of course you would like to see all the ‘enemies’ of the Left hanged, drawn, and quartered. It would fit in so nicely with your overall pathology of blind irrational hatred and dedication to anything that supports it, no matter how fact-deficient it may be.
But merely wanting people you don’t like to be considered, and treated as, criminals is simply not nearly enough to make it happen.
Though you evidently live in a teeny tiny little universe of fellow travellers, immersed in the All Hate All The Time murk of Airhead America and the Daily Kos and their ilk, out here in the real world you are a very small minority, and one which is becoming increasingly distasteful to people of both parties.
I was hitting “search” on my car radio the other day and it stopped at a nasal singsong whine about Karl Rove. Yes, KARL ROVE!!!!!! It was Ranty Rhodes, of course, on one of her usual rants, but—-KARL ROVE?????? So it is no surprise that you suddenly resurrected him, as well. What’s poor Karl accused of this time? And Hillary is running against Bush, as far as I can tell from at least one of her recent ads.
Hey, rads—–try being FOR something for a change. And that means for something other than going after other people. Constant negativity might fulfill your pathology but it sure is tiresome.
19. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
I don’t feel like giving a logic lesson… so here’s a good page on that particular fallacy.
20. Almiranta | December 29th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Web, I’ve scanned some of your posts but don’t remember any as profoundly stupid as this one.
Yes, I know it is a favorite radical debate tactic to simply invent an action or a motive for an action, introduce it into a discussion as if it were factual, and then ridicule it. Nice try.
But absolutely NO ONE has ever hinted or implied that any such lengthy description of what happened in NYC was condensed into a very short whispered comment to the President on the morning of 9/11. How silly of you to claim that it did. Not just silly—silly covers the stupidity aspect, but doesn’t even touch on the toxicity of finding it necessary to make such a claim.
And when you radical hatemongers try to claim that Bush should, somehow, have acted any differently when he was given that message, you never follow through. So tell us, Webster, just what DO you think the President should have done?
Can you possibly claim that if he had lurched violently to his feet, terrifying the children, and dashed from the room in a panic, you would have found that preferable? Perhaps you were more impressed with the reaction of the man you probably wished had been elected, the estimable Senator from Massachusetts, who admitted to “being in shock” and having to be led from the Senate chamber, after which he sat, stunned, immobilized, for quite some time.
Yeah, that’s who I wanted to be running MY country…………
You guys get so caught up in tossing out insults that yo completely lose track of how abysmally STUPID you sound.
I often have to deal with emergencies. Certainly nothing even approaching the scale of what the President faced that day, but I have had a horse shear a tendon so its foot was dangling, for example, and had other veterinary emergencies that were dire, bloody, and even fatal. I’ve given first aid to people at a serious car wreck and helped remove, do triage, and transport injured horses when their trailer rolled over. At Macchu Picchu I gave CPR to a German tourist who had a heart attack. I have been complimented on the fact that I have been able to retain my composure, remain calm, and address the problem, even when others were near hysteria. So maybe it is my personal style which influences what I find preferable in others. Maybe if I were a hysteric, I would, like the radicals who have sneered at Bush’s composure when given this terrible news, have preferred a hysterical reaction.
But I was very proud of my President when he took such horrible news so calmly, carried on briefly in a manner designed to NOT inflict trauma on the young people who were, for those moments, in his care, and showed such presence and such resolve.
And what an abjectly silly comment to make at the end—-”Would you have gone to the school in the first place?”
If you haven’t got anything better to bring to the table than your rampant raging hysterical BDS obsession, maybe you should just stick to your own kind, who are guaranteed to find you witty and trenchant.
The only ones who ever will……………..
21. Almiranta | December 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Frogster, while correlation does not prove causation, nor does it deny it.
According to your definition, there is absolutely no way that anything Bush has done, should have done, could have done, or might have done, could possibly have PROVED “..a causal relationship between Bush’s policies and terrorist attacks…”
Which is damned convenient for you BDSers.
What’s YOUR take on why, after Osama admitted that the United States’ passivity encouraged him to attack, and we became less passive, the attacks “coincidentally” stopped? Jes’ one of those things, I guess.
I am more of an Occam’s Razor type………
And BTW, the day YOU try to lecture ANYONE on logic will be day pigs fly.
22. Rana Quijotesca | December 29th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Oh Al…
Not to be a stickler for history, but throughout the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton did go after terrorist, you righties discounted it a him trying to distract the public from troubles at home.
Also, the number of attacks against Americans have increased… they just happen overseas now. In fact, one of the terrorist videos (I think it was an OBL video, but I can’t remember for sure) cited the availability of US targets as a reason why they liked the Iraq War. Why would they fly to America when they can attack us in Iraq and save the plane fair?
I also never said that there was concretely no causation; I just said that he couldn’t prove the claim that he made. I’m arguing the negative… I don’t have to prove myself right, necessarily; I just have to show that your position isn’t necessarily correct based on your argument.
phx-
Could have been luck; could have been Bush’s policies; could have been a lengthened planning period… do you know which?
Kahn-
Didn’t the North Koreans also say that they were going to stop making missiles during the Clinton Administration? How did that turn out?
23. NeoClown | December 29th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I thought Almiranta might be in season but maybe she’s a rogue.
24. plainjane | December 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Web Smith | December 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Ron Paul is for a strong military. He is for making it stronger and more efficient by not having it spread all over the world in 170 countries.
Seems we will never know, that fair and imbalanced network, Fox News has stated he will not be allowed in Sunday’s debate. Looks like corporate media is taking a stand. Those who support the constitution will be flushed from the headlines.
25. phnx | December 29th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
As a matter of fact I’m sure that some of it was luck, for example the Ft. Dix 6, and the two muslims found with bomb making material near a Navy base, and the shoe bomber. However, other attacks were thwarted by the concerted efforts of our Homeland security forces, for example, the plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge, the plot to blow up the Manhatan subway, the plot to blow up the fuel storage area at JFK, as well as Jose Padilla, to name just a few.
All of this is no thanks to you leftists who have tried to block every effort to stop the terrorist.
I also have no doubt they still are planning attacks. If one happens we will all ask if it could have been stopped if you leftists hadn’t been instrumental in revealing tactics and methods so the terrorist could adapt.
26. phnx | December 29th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“but throughout the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton did go after terrorist” Rana
Uhhh yeah if you count destroying an asprin factory and some mud huts with cruise missles.
That was effective.
What a joke.
27. liberalT | December 29th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
Mark - perhaps you are in love with Bush. Maybe that is the reason that you cannot accept any criticism of him or his policies . It is the only thing I can make sense of your absolutely morinic position that anyone who disagrees with Bush or his policies has a disease.
28. Mark Noonan | December 29th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
LiberalT,
No, the problem lies with you - with your unquestioning acceptance of any criticism of President Bush. President Bush has made lots of mistakes - as a fallible human being, he can’t do otherwise. Some mistakes?
CFR. Going through the UN vis a vis the liberation of Iraq. Not putting enough school choice into NCLB. Not expanding the military soon enough.
I could go on - but there are asinine criticisms to be made (such as: President Bush lied to get us into Iraq); these criticisms are stupid, and only someone suffering under mental defect or are so woefully ignorant that they must not be listened to at all.
29. Webloggin - Blog Archive &hellip | December 29th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
[…] Flags Fly. : The Sundries Shack , It’s called treason , folks. | BitsBlog , A NEWT ONE , Blogs For Victory » Extreme Bush Derangement Syndrome , Sheehan Lives!!!!! — Pirate’s Cove Share Article impeachment, […]
30. liberalT | December 29th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
right right right Mark. Now - here is the step that you are missing. Just because you disagree with a criticism doesn’t mean that it is stupid or that people suffer mental defects.
Its just pathetic that you have to fall so low when you can not come up with a substantive reply. I am sticking to my account. Perhaps he has room for an intern so you can ML him?
31. js | December 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
24. plainjane | December 29th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Web Smith | December 29th, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Ron Paul is for a strong military. He is for making it stronger and more efficient by not having it spread all over the world in 170 countries.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please, if you have any concept of reality, list those 170 countries.
Thx vry mch, byby
32. Kahn | December 29th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Rana, I thought we weren’t supposed to bring up Clinton’s failures (as they are Hillary’s big claim to experience)?
33. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 1:14 am
My thanks to Almiranta for going to one of the most astonishing aspects of the cult of personality built around the person of President George Walker Bush. Unlike most (many? all?) here, I’ve lived in places where the man served in a high government position for almost 13 years. I believe that the person, George W. Bush, is a mixed bag as are all people, but I don’t have any idea that he’s evil or malicious. However, it is just simply weird to me that his admirers produce such an incredibly lame excuse for his response at 9:06 a.m. on September 11, 2001 when his White House chief of staff, Andrew Card spoke into his ear and said, “A second plane hit the other tower, and America’s under attack.”
For an absolute minimum of seven long minutes (as shown on videotape), he sits in the tiny chair in the classroom and listens to the schoolchildren. The standard defense, as expressed by Almiranta in this instance, is:
The fact that this basically insults the President of the United States by suggesting that was his only choice of response is simply ignored. How is it that he couldn’t have smiled warmly, help up his hand and announced perfectly calmly, “You know, as President, I have to do many, many things every day. I have loved being here with you the last few minutes. It has been a joy. However, sometimes I have to do other things unexpectedly and this is one of those times. However, I promise I’ll try to come back very soon. Thank you so much.” What would have prevented him from then calmly standing up, shaking the hands of the teacher, Sandra Daniels, and some of the closest students while smiling and thanking them and then strolling out to his motorcade which could have left in the same manner that they did at 9:16.
So, would those minutes that he didn’t use sitting in the classroom have saved any lives that day? Not a single one. How do we know that? Perfect hindsight.
Let’s consider the realities that surrounded the President of the United States when his chief of staff told him America was under attack:
1) He had been given a Presidential Daily Brief on August 6, 2001 (36 days before) entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” that had mentioned aircraft hijackings overseas as a possible threat.
2) He had been told of the first aircraft to strike the World Trade Center before entering the classroom, which he thought was probably an accident, but now knew that two aircraft had struck the same buildings.
3) He knew that the World Trade Center had previously been targeted by Muslim extremists in the bombing of February 26, 1993.
4) He did not know how many other aircraft might have been hijacked or whether any of the hijacked flights had been tracked either by the FAA or air defense.
5) He knew that his location, as the President, at Booker Elementary that morning was public information which could have been acquired with trivial effort by those responsible for whatever scale of attack was underway as he sat there.
6) If, in his position as President, he was being personally targeted by those responsible for the ongoing attack on the United States then his presence at Booker Elementary was placing every child and every adult in that room in MORTAL DANGER every second he remained there.
Was he being personally targeted that morning? No. How do we know that? Perfect hindsight.
It was a complete unknown that morning if Booker Elementary was about to be targeted by a hijacked commercial airliner (as he knew had already happened), a rented or stolen general aviation aircraft, a truck bomb like that used in Oklahoma City, a full-blown infantry-like assault or any combination of those things. If they had happened then not only might he be dead but so might all the children present in that school.
Why did he just sit there? I suspect that he went into a state of shock as might be reasonably expected of normal human beings under those terrible circumstances. However, to claim that he did it in order not to frighten the schoolchildren is simply and completely asinine. There is no other word for it.
34. Xango Annie | December 30th, 2007 at 1:28 am
Almiranta:
From one horsewoman to another, I thank you for your insisive posts. I think, however, you are far too kind…some of these people are just certifiable…
35. Mark Noonan | December 30th, 2007 at 2:26 am
Diana,
And do you have the video of FDR when he learned of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? Wilson when the Lusitania was sunk? McKinley when the Maine was blown up? Lincoln when Fort Sumter was fired upon? The most grossly unfair of all criticisms of President Bush is those minutes when he absorbed what was happening…as if there was any among us who didn’t stare flabbergasted as it unfolded. My mind didn’t start to click until about four hours after the attack - and upon my decisions that day not a single life turned.
In President Bush we have an entirely unique thing - a major world leader caught on tape just as the weight of the world got dumped on his shoulders. Watching that video should evoke feelings of love, and pity - love for a fellow human being who has a very large task to perform; pity for a fellow human being who has a very large task to perform. Instead, you on your side make fun of it and act as if anyone else would have reacted better…just absolute trash, this criticism.
36. Mark Noonan | December 30th, 2007 at 2:28 am
LiberalT,
No, it would really just be that the criticisms you level against President Bush have, without exception, been without substance (at best) and the paranoid ravings of a deranged mind (at worst).
There is plenty to criticise President Bush about - I’ll let you know when you finally make such a critique.
37. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Diana,
Your assessment and opinions of Bushs initial reaction to 9/11 reveals your ignorance and hyper partisanship.
How many other warnings from Al Qaida were there? Many. And like the others, the PDB you refer to was just another, in a long line, of possible threats. Had Bush locked down airports, started strict screening of passengers, etc, and nothing happened, YOU above everyone would be screaming about how paranoid Bush was.
You are one of the most dishonest, partisan hacks I can think of. Thank God you’re no longer in law enforcement.
38. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 9:56 am
>>>was placing every child and every adult in that room in MORTAL DANGER every second he remained there. - Mrs. Clinton (Diana)<<<
Talk about baseless fear tactics. And by the way, Mrs. Moron, aren’t you the one that lectures us on fighting a “tactic” and needing to understand the fundamental issues. Maybe Bush was taking those few moments to “understand” what was happening instead of knee jerk reaction, which is something else you criticize him for.
The above post of yours completely pulls back the curtain on what a complete moron you are.
39. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 10:00 am
And incidentally,
I have archived that post of yours and will remind everyone of your idiocy, BDS and uber-partisanship when similar subjects arise.
Have a lousy day
40. Huck Fillary | December 30th, 2007 at 10:23 am
It was Andy Card, dumbass, and what was he supposed to do, jump up and scream, “Everyone under your desks; we’re under attack!?”
This lame, redundant crap has been repeated, by morons on this blog, for as long as this blog has been active. Noone ever asked Andy Card what else he said to the President. Perhaps he said, “Stay calm, sir; we’ll notify you when the motorcade is ready to roll.”
Once again, I must clean up a mess created by a moron. Web, President Bush was at the school, reading with the children, when notified, by Andy Card, of the attacks. Are you under the impression that he was notified prior, and said, “F*ck it; I’ve got readin’ to do.”
You son, are a first-class moron, not even worthy of the oxygen you breathe. Do us all a favor, and set yourself on fire. The country would be better off for it.
…and the wisdom to know the difference…
41. Huck Fillary | December 30th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Those who support the constitution will be flushed from the headlines.
plaincow, this is far from true. Earbama, who snorted coke and smoked weed, is in the news all the time. Hitlery, who supports open borders, and open marriages, is in the news all the time. Silky Pony, who’s daddy “worked in a meal,” is in the news all the time.
I guess the Constitution doesn’t apply, when you’re a Donkaroach. Ask Fuss Reingold; he’s another “stalwart” when it comes to the Constitution, i.e., the left’s interpretation of it.
Plain, you are one dumb cow. Why don’t you go find yourself a nice bull to ride, or another cow, if that’s your preference…
42. MrGone | December 30th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Mark,
As usual on this forum, you continue to prove that Bush Derangement Syndrome is in fact the term which perfectly describes you and the other dead enders that still have any respect for 43.
It is not the people who see that have a problem, it is you who refuse to see. History has shown and will continue to show the damage that this administration has done.
So, keep up the good fight. Sis-boom-bah!
43. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Really MrGone,
Tell us more about that crystal ball you have.
And the recent history of Libya, NK, Iran & the economy would belie your assertion.
That’s what people “see”.
Not just your empty rhetoric. But I guess that’s all that liberals have, isn’t it? Empty rhetoric from empty vessels.
44. Huck Fillary | December 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Diana, this is an old, tired Donkaroach talking point, perpetrated by those who have no knowledge of the intelligence community. As one who worked in intel for fifteen years out of my twenty in the military, I will assert that such “warnings” have been issued to other Presidents in the past, especially from 1979-on. PDB’s are merely briefings, sort of a mini-NIE, which give forecasts of possible events. The intel community prepared these, and uses the information to concentrate their efforts on particular threats. I’m sure that the infamous PDB on Aug 6, 2001, was merely another threat forecast, and didn’t contain such specifics as which flights would be hijacked, when they would be hijacked, and what their targets were. What was Bush to do, shut down the airlines after 6 Aug, 2001? Prohibit internation flights into the U.S.? Given that more than 99 percent of threat assessments never pan out, he did exactly what Carter, Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton would’ve done. I realize that you are of the “buck stops here” crowd, so blaming Bush is normal for you. But you’re dead wrong, and have fallen into the parrot lemming trap, about this PDB. Let’s MoveOn, shall we?
Once again, and I’m stating this for the last time: When a president, any president, is at an event, and he must leave because of an emergency, he doesn’t drive the limo, and if not in any immediate danger, he waits until the motorcade is ready to roll, and then he leaves in an orderly fashion. I realize that “the buck stops here,” and he should’ve been clinging on to the WTC, ala King Kong, to swat those planes away. Having not been there to swat those planes down, I realize that you lefties would have expected him to immediately jump to his feet, and apologize to bin Laden for meddling in ME affairs, and to apologize for prior meddling by Carter, Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton. But he didn’t, so let’s impeach him, ‘kay?
What this all boils down to is the kooks are pissed because this didn’t happen on Clinton’s watch, to give Clinton a legacy other than a stained blue dress and a damp cigar. News flash for ya: We’re not glad that it happened on Bush’s watch. We wish it never had happened. And, truth be told, I wish it had happened on Clinton’s watch, if it had to occur at all. It might’ve helped to reduce the division in this country, which increased greatly during Slick’s tenure. Maybe, just maybe, we’d be more together as a nation, and wouldn’t have to rely on a bunch of lying a**hats in Washington, trying to steal our country from us.
I must agree with neocon, Diana. You’re starting to tilt back over into the loony category. I may have to put you into the pasture with jane the cow again…and I had such great hope for you. Your allegiance to Fuss Reingold is very telling…
45. Huck Fillary | December 30th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Vermont, NH, Maine, MA, CT, and NY should secede from the union, and become part of Canada. They can have MI, MN, WI, WA, OR, and CA, as well. The people of these states clearly want socialism. I say, let’s give it to them, ay?
46. Kahn | December 30th, 2007 at 10:59 am
MrGone -
1. The economy rebounded after the recession inherited from Clinton and made worse by 9/11.
2. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq led to the cessation of atomic weapons programs in three hostile nations.
3. We have thwarted several attacks against our nation since 9/11.
4. Democrats in Congress cheered when reminded by W that they thwarted Social Security reform. They have now been in control of Congress for a year and not even broached the matter.
But you know, he’s not running this time.
Let’s see, your candidates:
Clinton - I have experience! Never held a clearance received no intelligence reports and attended no security meetings. As she wasn’t actually part of the government. And also apparently wasn’t even the only woman sleeping with the president. And her ideas are socialist. Supposedly green, except fro the fleets of SUV’s, multiple huge homes, and constant use of private jets.
Obama- Comes from the infamously corrupt Chicago Democratic machine. Did drugs (it’s fair to mention since W has been attacked for it). Has had some shady real estate dealings. Not even one full term in Senate. And his ideas are socialist.
Edwards- Made his money with harassment and frivolous lawsuits against the medical industry. One term in Senate then voted out. Speaks socialism fluently from his mansion, fleet of SUV’s, or when getting a $1000 haircut. Supposedly green, except for the SUV’s, masions, private jets, etc. He speaks of “two Americas” from the comfort of the richest of the rich America.
Just what is their policy on Iraq? I mean really - definitively? Cut-n-run, despite success? Stay for years? What?
Tax and spend? All three seem to embrace that pretty well.
Social Security? Raise the taxes and the retitirement age? How progressive.
sis-boom-bah! you asswipe.
47. Huck Fillary | December 30th, 2007 at 11:38 am
neocon, MrGoon has no crystal ball. In fact, he has no balls at all. The only one on the left with balls is Hitlery–why do you think she always wears pants?
48. Huck Fillary | December 30th, 2007 at 11:41 am
neocon, these pukes have no agenda, so they have to run against Bush. And the sorry fact is that their lemmings are in lock-step–in plainjane’s and Diana’s case, a herd of cattle being led to slaughter…
49. liberalT | December 30th, 2007 at 11:42 am
ah Mark - so now it is your serious contention that you (one of Bush’s biggest supporters) gets to decide what constitutes a valid criticism or not. I will give you one thing - your stupidity never ceases to amaze me nor your utter and total hypocrisies. You will “let me know” - jesus its amazing that you call your self a Christian. If you really believe you are I suggest you go spend some time with your priest and figure out how failed your life is…
50. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Mark,
I believe you read my comment. I’m not sure that neocon or Huck did based on how they’ve worked to hysterically mischaracterize and attack what I wrote. As does virtually everyone in the United States today, I remember where I was when I began hearing the news of what was happening the morning of September 11, 2001. My oldest brother, who was then Director of African Affairs in the OSD, was at work at the Pentagon that morning and it was only until later in the day that I knew that he had survived. I have genuine sympathy for President Bush at that moment.
Contemplate it. It’s been less than 8 months since he was sworn into office. As President, he’s been given daily intelligence briefings which don’t tell him what to do, just provide him information. The August 6th PDB had specifically mentioned hijackings but only indirectly as a possibility overseas without any mention of using the hijacked planes as suicide weapons. However, at the moment Andrew Card said to him that “America’s under attack” he had to feel many emotions. I don’t know what they were and neither does anyone else here.
We do know that he was shocked because he has since recounted multiple times that he saw a plane hit one of the towers on television while waiting to go into the classroom, even though he did not have access to a television until later when he left the school. Is he lying? I don’t think so. People who are traumatized, as we all were, often have their memory of events spontaneously rearranged.
So, is he to be criticized for his very human emotions? In no way. George W. Bush is a human being and subject to every frailty that we all participate in. Can we question his actions at 9:06 a.m. that morning when he was told “America’s under attack”? Absolutely yes and I would speculate that he would agree with me. Why? He’s the current President of the United States. He’s “the decider”. He’s “the commander guy”. His job (he’s said) is “to protect America”.
Could he do anything to protect America at the moment he heard those fateful words? No. In fact, in retrospect only, we know that the only planes hijacked that day were already either destroyed or were heading towards their destruction. However, when he took the oath of office on January 20, 2001, he not only took on the responsibilities of his office but he took on the full apparatus of support that goes with that office. He was at Booker Elementary that morning with not only members of his political staff, but Navy Captain Deborah Loewer who was director of the White House Situation Room. He was accompanied by his Secret Service detail which is a large and elite group that constantly drills to respond instantly to threats to the President. As we know, the Secret Service at that moment had already physically seized Vice-President Cheney in the White House and taken him to a safe location even though they didn’t know if the White House or any building in Washington was a target.
No one who isn’t emotionally vested in denying it can rationally believe that the Presidential Secret Service detail wasn’t wanting to immediately move the President and was already prepared to do so instantly no later than when Andrew Card walked into the classroom and whispered into the President’s ear, “America’s under attack.” Did they know if an attack on the President was underway at 9:06 a.m. that morning? No. Did the President know if an attempt on his life was underway? No. In the seven minutes he sat there, a Boeing 757 at normal cruise speed could have travelled 60 miles. Did a Boeing 757 loaded with Jet A dive into Booker Elementary and incinerate everyone? No, thanks be to God. But, thanks to the hijackers turning off the transponders on the airliners they pirated, no one knew where any of the hijacked flights were for sure into they exploded in flames at their targets or in a field in Pennsylvania.
The clear implication of Almiranta’s defense and others who have tried to portray the supposed harm to the children in the classroom that would have ensued if the President had abruptly stood up and left is that George Bush decided to sit and wait instead of leaving. If, in fact, he made that conscious decision, then my criticism stands. In the face of the real possibility that he was being targeted for assassination by hijacked commercial aircraft he placed the lives of everyone at that school in jeopardy in the minimum of seven minutes that he sat there. As such, those who try to defend his actions on that basis are putting forth an asinine position.
However, my estimate is that he did NOT consciously decide to sit there and endanger the children. I think, Mark, as you suggested, that he was too shocked to respond in the correct manner because he is human.
51. Canadian Observer | December 30th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
In the hours and days following the attack on NYC and Washington, the world watched in disbelief the feeble and confused response from the leaders of the greatest military power the world has ever known.
No matter how you try to rewrite history; the events are on record and have been well documented. Your leadership failed you and continues to fail you, debacle after debacle.
In this age of instant communication, it is impossible to hide the facts. You may try to spin and distort them and no doubt there will always be those who will blindly accept the deceptions, but in the end, truth will triumph.
52. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
CO,
Please elaborate. What specific failures were there in the hours and days (not weeks) that followed 9/11?
I grow tired of your vague empty headed rhetoric. This time I want specifics.
Or are you being detrimental to the downfall of liberal talking points?
53. Mark Noonan | December 30th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Diana,
Nice try - but if the terrorists had enough advance knowledge of President Bush’s movements to have targeted that school, then they would have targeted it even if Bush had left minutes before. Those kids, if they were unders threat at all, were under threat no matter what President Bush did.
You’re just trying to rationalise your grossly unfair criticism.
54. Mark Noonan | December 30th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
LiberalT,
As far as you are concerned, the answer is “yes”. I’m willing to take the heavy burden of instructing you.
55. Ricorun | December 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
I will never own a pet goat. Pet goats are more trouble than they’re worth. Obviously.
56. liberalT | December 30th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Mark - pathetic just pathetic.
57. Canadian Observer | December 30th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
52. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
To refresh your memory, neocon, I refer to the fact that on September 11, 2001 the United States of America was attacked in NYC and Washington by a small group of terrorists while the greatest military in the history of the world left their country unprotected.
Following that, the government, instead of going after those responsible and bringing them to justice, abandoned the effort and instead, ridiculously, declared war on Iraq.
It is inconceivable, why, after such a terrible blow to his country, a President would give up on the pursuit of the instigator of the murder of thousands of its citizens and declare that the murderer, Bin Laden, is no longer of interest.
Why, neocon, would someone who holds the office of President in the number one democracy in the world do something so outrageous at that?
58. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
CO,
First of all your criticism lies mostly in the MONTHS that followed, not hours or days as you previously asserted. And these are the same criticisms that I have read from you for more than two years. Tedious. You need a new schtick.
Secondly, AQ had been noted to be a rather large extensive network, not the “small” group of terrorists you dishonestly refer to.
Finally, is the Taliban still governing Afghanistan? I think not. Are we still in pursuit of UBL? Yes.
Your assertions are so easy to refute because they are not reality based and are merely agenda driven drivel.
59. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Nice back peddle Diana.
60. Christian Wright | December 30th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
Canadian Observer: The Bush’s and the BinLadens have a business and social relationship that goes back three generations.
Osama waited for Bush to get into office before his second attack on the WTC because he knew Bush would give him a pass. Bush even let every member of the BinLaden famility leave the country during the no-flight period to protect them as well.
61. Canadian Observer | December 30th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
First of all your criticism lies mostly in the MONTHS that followed, not hours or days as you previously asserted
58. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Well, neocon, in the hours following the attack there seemed to be total confusion. The whereabouts of the leaders were unknown and the citizens were left in the dark. Did anyone have any idea of what was happening or who was in charge?
How long did it take the President to reassure the people that he was indeed at the helm and ready to lead?
62. liberalT | December 30th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
i particularly like Mark’s assertion that it is “unfair” to criticize Bush for his handling of 9/11. Yes he is human and made mistakes. That doesn’t mean it is unfair to criticize him. That is just ridiculous drivel from his little cs cheerleader of a friend Mark Noonan. Don’t criticize him. boo- hoo Mark
63. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
neocon,
I didn’t backpedal. You just didn’t read my original comment carefully. That’s why I had to restate and elaborate it.
Mark,
Okay, let’s take what you actually just wrote here and set it in the actual context and see how it looks:
Check. Got that. I’m sure that no one working for the Secret Service would have ANY problem with that thought process.
For that matter, let’s imagine something more cerebral…
Please.
64. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
CO,
Did you forget who was in charge? Bush was on AF1 within the hour and was in full communique with the appropriate powers to be. 10 hours later he held a National press conference.
What timeline did you have in mind? And don’t you live in Canada?
65. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
I just want to say this to our resident lefties. We may disagree on nearly everything but I admire all of you for the consistent debate. It needlessly gets ugly sometimes but it demonstrates your passion for the cause and that’s admirable. Like conservatives, I have no doubt that you all want a better future, but I can’t disagree with you more on how we get there.
God Bless and have a safe and happy New Year.
66. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
neocon,
Your words are very gracious and I second them. May God bless you and yours and I hope you have a safe, happy and prosperous New Year.
67. Canadian Observer | December 30th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
65. neocon | December 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
66. Diana Powe | December 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Yes, to each and everyone, a healthy and happy 2008.
Let’s hope in the coming year we can improve our understanding of those who hold different views from our own.
68. Huck Fillary | December 31st, 2007 at 4:35 am
We already understand you, CO; you’ve been coming to this blog for years with your anti-Bush rhetoric. But truthfully, what you mean by “understanding” is agreeing with your point of view, just as when Reidtard and Piglosi refer to bipartisanship, they mean “do it our way, and we’ll call it compromise.”
You’re an idiot, CO. You live in one of the most, if not the most, pussified nations in the Western Hemisphere, and it irks you that you have to rely on the greatest superpower ever to keep you safe.
So, to everyone except CO and his Kanadian Kommie friends, Happy New Year!!!
69. Almiranta | December 31st, 2007 at 5:43 pm
CO, you hoser, you——you seem to have a very bizarre and twised concept of the responsiblity of the president of the United States.
It is NOT to try to manage a national crisis in such a way as to generate some sound bites and some PR.
It is NOT to strut and posture to impress people with his courage.
It is to do whatever possible to ensure the continuity of government.
I didn’t know where Bush and Cheney were—and I was GLAD I didn’t know. It was none of my business where they were, and I was relieved that they were responsible enough to take the necessary measures to ensure the most likely path to maintaining continuity in our leadership.
Why don’t you radicals stick to current politics? I notice that on some other thread you are dragging out the old whine about Bush not serving in Viet Nam.
Get a grip………
70. Free Ohio Criminal Record&hellip | February 11th, 2008 at 6:24 am
What shows up on a criminal record background check?
A criminal record background check can throw up a lot of information on an individual including previous arrests as well as conviction and non-conviction information. The information is obtained from Federal Fugitive files, files from the Department of…
71. The Timeline Of A Panic A&hellip | April 4th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
The Timeline Of A Panic Attack
Interesting - because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.
72. www nancy agram com&hellip | April 23rd, 2008 at 7:27 am
www nancy agram com
73. code date hide login mysp&hellip | April 23rd, 2008 at 1:28 pm
code date hide login myspace
Your site regarding %TITLE% looks very interesting to me. I found it doing a search for %KEYWORD%.