Have we loosened up on Terrorism

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Have we loosened up on Terrorism
17
Tue, 04-16-2013 - 1:42pm

God, I hope not but wonder if this latest act could have been prevented.  Not to drag in some recent history but there were absolutely NO terror acts after 9/11 under Bush's watch in the US, He held true to those promises too.  There are still questions to be asked and answers to be heard here and while this is a local incident there are local entities that have been feeling the pinch to cut back thanks to problems at the top  Obama needs to seriously slow down his social plans and agenda and rev up fundamental issues like national safety and security. 

A recent article from CNN I found interesting:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/20/opinion/inhofe-mckeon-budget-cut-military



 

 


 


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 04-20-2013 - 7:00am

Pres. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened.

Thank you President Clinton...There was no Bush policy for treating acts of terrorism as "workplace violence."  The status of what we now know as "homeland security" and the new "cooperation" between agencies was instituted under Bush.

As all Presidents do, Clinton left for Bush 43 the summary of intelligence about the al Quaeda threats.  Bush ignored them.  I guess Pres. Clinton should have sat down and read these letters to Bush during storytime.

Bush did NOT ignore them, in fact, he acted upon them with the establishment of new departments and agengies.  There was NO actionable intelligence preceeding the 9-11 attacks...and Clinton, himself, stated unequivocally, that there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq when Clinton left office.

Bush 43 was aware of the al Quaeda threat and chose to ignore it.

BS.  Bush had the same information concerning terrorists that Obama had...and yet you Opologize for Obama and try to blame Bush...pretty pathetic.   It's already been well establisheed that there was NO actionable intelligence in the intelligence briefings prior to 0-11.

Instead of avenging 9/11, Bush started 2 frivolous wars ~ Iraq and Afghanistan ~ which the US cannot pay for.  Bush and Cheney should be behind bars.

Wars that more than half the Democrats voted to support.   Should Hillary and Kerry and every other prominent Democrat be "behind bars" as well for supporting the war?  Obama himself said that Afghanistan was teh "good war" and decided to spend billions more and thousands of American lives to accomplish...nothing.  And the left is silent.  I hope the dead haunt you for your hypocrisy.

Obama on the other hand, finally brought the 9/11 masterminds to justice.

Laughable.  Which "masterminds" were those?

They're all dead or awaiting trial now.   Thank God for Obama.

You mean "thank God" for Obama killing people SUSPECTED of committing crimes but not having been convictied of actually committing crimes and killing multitudes of innocent people who happened to be in the same building as the "alleged" criminal.  Yes...thank God...that the horror can only last 3 more years

For the first time in history, major US cities and state/federal agencies are working together to quell terrorism.

Except under Bush...who actually instuted the policies you're referring to.

For instance, it's just a matter of time before the Boston bomber(s) is captured.

Done...thanks in large part to policies instituted by Bush...and with no influence at all by Ob...what's his name.  An idiot who's completely irrelevant and will be even less relevant three years from now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 04-20-2013 - 7:00am

Pres. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened.

Thank you President Clinton...There was no Bush policy for treating acts of terrorism as "workplace violence."  The status of what we now know as "homeland security" and the new "cooperation" between agencies was instituted under Bush.

As all Presidents do, Clinton left for Bush 43 the summary of intelligence about the al Quaeda threats.  Bush ignored them.  I guess Pres. Clinton should have sat down and read these letters to Bush during storytime.

Bush did NOT ignore them, in fact, he acted upon them with the establishment of new departments and agengies.  There was NO actionable intelligence preceeding the 9-11 attacks...and Clinton, himself, stated unequivocally, that there were WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq when Clinton left office.

Bush 43 was aware of the al Quaeda threat and chose to ignore it.

BS.  Bush had the same information concerning terrorists that Obama had...and yet you Opologize for Obama and try to blame Bush...pretty pathetic.   It's already been well establisheed that there was NO actionable intelligence in the intelligence briefings prior to 0-11.

Instead of avenging 9/11, Bush started 2 frivolous wars ~ Iraq and Afghanistan ~ which the US cannot pay for.  Bush and Cheney should be behind bars.

Wars that more than half the Democrats voted to support.   Should Hillary and Kerry and every other prominent Democrat be "behind bars" as well for supporting the war?  Obama himself said that Afghanistan was teh "good war" and decided to spend billions more and thousands of American lives to accomplish...nothing.  And the left is silent.  I hope the dead haunt you for your hypocrisy.

Obama on the other hand, finally brought the 9/11 masterminds to justice.

Laughable.  Which "masterminds" were those?

They're all dead or awaiting trial now.   Thank God for Obama.

You mean "thank God" for Obama killing people SUSPECTED of committing crimes but not having been convictied of actually committing crimes and killing multitudes of innocent people who happened to be in the same building as the "alleged" criminal.  Yes...thank God...that the horror can only last 3 more years

For the first time in history, major US cities and state/federal agencies are working together to quell terrorism.

Except under Bush...who actually instuted the policies you're referring to.

For instance, it's just a matter of time before the Boston bomber(s) is captured.

Done...thanks in large part to policies instituted by Bush...and with no influence at all by Ob...what's his name.  An idiot who's completely irrelevant and will be even less relevant three years from now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2011
Sat, 04-20-2013 - 9:17am

Right after Obama was elected... hmmm.

It might have taken near 28 months, but I seem to recall some sort of incident on 2 May 2011.

Someone played around with a story of aliens landing around the world. Of course no one would be so silly to believe it... unless the author added, 'Obama is in cahoots with the aliens'. Then, a whole lot of folks on the right would become fervent believers. Truth doesn't matter.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Tue, 04-23-2013 - 2:41am

Change "aliens" to "Muslims" or "Russians" and you'd have something. ; )

Avatar for xxxs
Community Leader
Registered: 01-25-2010
Thu, 04-25-2013 - 12:55am

  Ahh but they have.  being an armed nation will be a blessing in the future as war comes closer.  The terrorists will not stop so get ready.  most jihadists use bombs because they do not as yet have the population to make other forms effective.  Take a good look at insurgent actions and understand.

dragowoman

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Fri, 04-26-2013 - 1:38am

Pres. Bush was in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened.

And?

As all Presidents do, Clinton left for Bush 43 the summary of intelligence about the al Quaeda threats.  Bush ignored them.  I guess Pres. Clinton should have sat down and read these letters to Bush during storytime.

Exiting Presidents don't leave incoming Presidents intelligence summaries.  The incoming President gets briefed by the respective agency...unless you're Obama and you skip most of your intelligence briefings, which probably explains his failure at Benghazi and the incredible decline in homeland security we've seen during his reign.

And as far as Clinton is concerned, he declined an offer by Sudan to arrest Bin Laden and balked three times when presented with opportunities to kill Bin Laden...and he only "coincidentally" chose to bomb Iraq on the eve of his impeachment.

Bush 43 was aware of the al Quaeda threat and chose to ignore it.

With respect to Bush ignoring the Al Qaeda threats...I've asked this of many liberals and have never gotten a reply.  Prehaps you'll surprise me.  The "warning" Bush got was "Bin Laden determined to attack US"...with that information, what steps would you have taken to secure the country and/or stop the impending attack?  Specifically, please.

Instead of avenging 9/11, Bush started 2 frivolous wars ~ Iraq and Afghanistan ~ which the US cannot pay for.  Bush and Cheney should be behind bars.

Wow, what an uninformed comment.  First, I should tell you that Bush got Congressional authorization for both wars...with STRONG Democrat support.  Obama even called the Afghanistan war the "good war" and increased US involvement.  Clinton, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi, etc, etc, etc...all voted for the wars and all suported the deferred financing.  It was also Bill Clinton who made regime change in Iraq the US policy and stated unequivocally...

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

  Former President Clinton
    During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
    July 22, 2003

Here is also what DEMOCRATS were saying BEFORE Bush was a twinkle in the RNC's eye...


"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction.  If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future.  Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people.  And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction.  He will deploy them, and he will use them."

   President Clinton
   National Address from the Oval Office
   December 16, 1998

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities.  I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein.  ...  Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein.  Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."

    Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)
    Addressing the US House of Representatives
    October 10, 2002
    Congressional Record, p. H7777


"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Sincerely,

John Kerry, Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

   Letter to President Clinton
   Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
   October 9, 1998

There are many more, but I think this clearly establishes the Democrat's sentiment about Saddam Hussein and "Bush's war."  Obviously, they're all a bunch of unscrupulous d-bags.

Obama on the other hand, finally brought the 9/11 masterminds to justice.  They're all dead or awaiting trial now.   Thank God for Obama. For the first time in history, major US cities and state/federal agencies are working together to quell terrorism.

Excuse me, but I just threw up a little at that "thank god for Obama" drivel.  Again, while Bin Laden was coincidentally found and killed when Obama was President, the facts are the intelligence that led to Bin Laden came from Bush era interrogations and via intelligence networks and cooperation that were established by Bush after 9/11.  And like fellow Democrat Bill Clinton, Obama balked three times at killing Bin Laden before he was eventually pressured into making the right decision.

For instance, it's just a matter of time before the Boston bomber(s) is captured.

Interesting you should mention the Boston Marathon bombing...it is a perfect example of Obama's failure to fight terrorism and keep the country safe, not that we should be surprised.  Apparently, Russian intelligence actually contacted the FBI and the CIA to tell them to investigate the Tsarneav brothers because they're suspected radicals.  The FBI interviews the older brother but does nothing...then the older bro goes to a terrorist friendly area for a six month trip and when he comes back his is taken OFF the terrorist watch list...and this is a guy who has radical Islamist videos posted on his YouTube account.  Not only that, but when all those pictures were posted of the suspected bombers, it never occurred to the FBI that these were the same guys they interviewed before.  I'm sure there are a lot of people out there thanking Obama...for their new artificial legs.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2012
Sat, 04-27-2013 - 3:31am
I don't think any one party is going to prevent terrorism better than the other.  The Republicans were in office for 8 months by 9/11.  No one can blame the Democrats at that point.
I disagree.  The Democrats are considerably weaker on terrorism than Republicans.  Obama is loathe to even utter the word and is quick to deny or minimize it when it actually occurs calling it "workplace violence" and claiming the attack in Benghazi was a protest gone amok...and even with the Boston bombing, quickly declaring it to be "homegrown terrorism" by "two lone wolves."  His policies weaken US security at home and abroad and empower our enemies.
 

al Qaeda "on our soil before 9/11" ~ Are you talking about al Qaeda enrolling in flying schools in Florida, learning how to take off and fly a jumbo jet liner....but not learning how to land?   If so, I think if we want to render a President a lame duck, then we have to live with the consequences too.

A President being a "lame duck" doesn't strip him of power, nor does it render our intelligence and military agencies impotent.

It was amazing that Clinton ~ a Democrat ~ was able to leave office with a budget surplus.  Pres. Bush didn't.  Instead, he left behind 2 pointless wars we simply cannot pay for.

Regarding the surplus...there are a host of economists who claim it never existed...but even if we presume it did, here we see a distinct difference in conservative and liberal ideologies.  Democrats see your money as theirs, and consider themselves generous when they let you keep some of it.  Rebublicans, on the other hand, see your money as yours, with the government requiring the least amount of taxes possible to fund the smallest government.

Clinton was forced to balance the budget by Congressional Republicans and was the beneficiary of a huge economic boom due to the burgeoning internet, so the surplus can hardly be honestly attributed to Clinton specifically, or any of his policies.  Bush, on the other hand, saw a government surplus as evidence that too much of the people's money was being taken to over-fund the government, and instituted tax cuts to rectify the situation.

With regard to the wars...I mention again, that there was strong Democrat support for both wars and that it was Congress, not the President, who allocates the money.  If the wars were not paid for, it was their doing...and something that has continued unabated with Obama, even when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

Anyway, we are finally realizing that the federal government - the US Supreme Court and the Congress - cannot do everything we want.  Or anything (yesterday's gun control bill).

The gun control bill was a Democrat assault on the Second Amendment and rightly shot down.

Instead, the states, their agencies, the city agencies have had to root out terrorism and depend only on themselves.  What a waste to have such a huge federal defense budget.

States are left to depend on themselves due to the failures of Obama and the Democrats to provide adequate nantional security and to empower our enemies.

Pages