Comments for Please Go Away »
Posted By tehranchik 11 months ago in Political NewsLet's leave aside the fact that if Dick Cheney and his alleged boss had been more vigilant--if they had listened to the Clinton appointees like Sandy Berger who warned about Al Qaeda, if they had paid attention to their own intelligence reports (notably the one on August 6, 2001)--the September 11 attacks might never have happened. Actually, I can't leave that aside...but in any case, it is sleazy in the extreme for Cheney to predict another terrorist attack. For several reasons:
Read Full Story at swampland.blogs.time.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 71
-
100%
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dickies been playing that "We're going to be attacked again" fear card since 2002. Played it against Kerry in 2004. Played it against all Democrats last year too. So it's no suprise.
Reply
What is suprising is the psuedo-cons who forgot their own mantra on another terrorist attack in this country. "Not if, but when...." -
17%
b-happy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"f they had listened to the Clinton appointees like Sandy Berger who warned about Al Qaeda, if they had paid attention to their own intelligence reports (notably the one on August 6, 2001)--the September 11 attacks might never have happened."
Reply
If we do get hit again by a terrorists just remember that line I quoted and just change a few names around. THat quote is basically saying that 9/11 was Bush's fault because he didn't do all he could do to stop it. So we can safely say that if we do get hit again then it will Obama's fault because he didn't listen to advice from Dick Cheney. And because he didn't listen to the advice, Obama didn't do all he could, just like this guy is saying Bush didn't do all he could. Works both ways.-
75%
dunkirk11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To torture and eavesdrop on everybody? We got attacked on 9-11 because Dumya ignored ALL warnings of terrorist activity. Its very clear the REPUBLICANS actually believed that terrorism wasnt as big a problem as Clinton said it was. When Dumya took office he had a list of top priorities, fighting terrorism wasnt ON that list, instead he wanted to revive Star wars from the ronnie raygyun era. We then had them spinning the attack into a terrorist behind every Bush (that actually may heave been true given the events that followed with that administration). What appears to really gnaw at the REPUBLICANS tho is Obamas refusal to break the Constitution and follow the law of the land. It seems they are more interested in trying to e able to say He's doing it too then upholding the Constitution.
Reply
-
-
100%
jovial11 months ago
-
100%
StevieGee11 months ago
-
Neutral
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"This undermining of a new President by a former administration is unprecedented."
Reply
No kidding, the democrats would never try to undermine a Republican administration. They'd never do anything like that. They never have and never will, It's just plain wrong isn't?
I can hardly beleive that the Republicans would be critical of the new democrat administration. What the hell are they thinking, it's simply crazy...-
Neutral
StevieGee11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's good to find common ground. I'm not talking about Republicans I'm talking about a Vice President. He WAS the administration. When we have a change of power the out going admin should and does give the incoming admin their support. This has always happened throughout our history and is essential to the smooth operation of our democracy. This is the USA not Zimbabwe.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Sorry man, it doesn't work that way.
Reply
This type of thing is NOT a two way street. We are not allowed to blame the Democrats for any wrong doing. Anything and everything that goes wrong under Obama's watch is clearly the fault of Bush. You may as well just get use to that and accept it. I understand that it's sick and wrong, but it is what it is.-
100%
crespi11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You CAN blame the Democrats for what they do wrong.
Reply
As long as you accept what Bush/Cheney did WRONG
THAT'S the part ultra-conservatives can't handle.
Every Democrat agreed that Blagojevich was in the wrong (except Blago, and that made him a psycho in the eyes of the public.)
But it is just like the House vote.
NO Republican will bend an inch on admitting their own malfeasance.
Many countries that are our allies want to try Bush and company for their criminal behavior, if we don't. Should we attack our allies now to cover for him?
It was stated by every analyst that wasn't a Neoconservative pundit or stooge before Bush was out of office that the proplems he created would take years to fix.
Cheney is trying to UNDERMINE America's recovery for his own twisted purposes.
ACCEPT SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DISASTERS YOU HAVE WROUGHT.
Denial is getting you nowhere, haven't you noticed?
-
-
100%
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Before you start blaming the new administration better look into the reasons we might be attacked again.
Reply
If somebody from Iraq goes postal in a suicide attack here becuase an innocent family member was blown away during the invasion or occupation, who's fault is that going to be?
Or what if a family member of somebody who was rendered to another country and tortured or held at Gitmo and tortured goes postal, who's fault will that be.
Or, because the resources were pull from the fight in Afghanistan/Pakistan to Iraq and Al Queda regenerates itself and launched another attack, who's fault will that be?
Obama's ?-
0%
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, 9/11 must be Clintons fault then, right? Clinton was in office for 8 years before 9/11 happened. The attacks took years to prepare, it was all prepared under the watch of Clinton. So, obviously Clinton did something to tick off the terrorists that led them to attack us on 9/11. Or is your BLAME a one way street with you?
Reply-
100%
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Reply
Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts
http://www.truthout.org/article/clinton-911-and-fa... -
Neutral
ADAGUY11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"obviously Clinton did something to tick off the terrorists that led them to attack us on 9/11"
Reply
Since you don't know, I'll inform you. The reason that Bil Laden really decided to go after us, (keep in mind that he hated us anyway) the thing that really put this icing on the cake, the one straw that really broke the camels back was when Saudi Arabia asked us to defend them from the likelihood of an attack by Saddam Hussein. (this was during the 1st Bush administration.)
We agreed to help them. Then Bin Laden called for a meeting with the senior officials in Saudi Arabia, and asked them to "keep the US out of Muslim business." It was his wish that they would let him take on Saddam Hussein. But they told Bin Laden he was no match for Saddam. Dessert Storm followed a year or so later. Bin Laden has hated our guts ever since. Now, who do you blame for that?
-
-
-
-
100%
rightfromwrong11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Cheney should be on trial for war crimes and the extra money he made from his affiliation with Haliburton in a non-compete contract for them should be taken away from him and given to support those soldiers he sent over to Iraq on a phony war and have come back him injured and broken people. Haliburton should be fined for leaving the USA for Dubai.
Reply
The likelihood of an attack happening in America is much higher simply because of the invasion of Iraq and even moderates now hate the USA-
0%
b-happy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The likelihood of an attack happening in America is much higher simply because of the invasion of Iraq and even moderates now hate the USA"
Reply
I completely disagree. Even though they may hate us now for taking the battle to their homeland, it's safe to say that Bush has put Al Quaeda into hiding. When Bin Laden has to live in the mountains of Afghanistan because he fears for his life, I would think that it's a sign of Bush kicking ass on his terrorists friends. Financially, Al Quaeda is doomed. Without money there is no way of financing attacks like 9/11.
If Obama sits back and takes it easy on the terrorists then there will be more attacks. If he keeps the pressure on them then we will be safe. Easy as that. So far, Obama is turning out to be Al Quaeda's buddy.-
-
-
100%
GWHayduke11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Go back to the summer of 2001 dozey.
Reply
At lease archive ANY major newspaper from that summer.
The headlines from them ALL focus on the Bush / Cheney "Star Wars" missile defense shield to protect us from a non-existent threat with a completely unproven and ineffective strategy!
All this after the REAL threat had been clearly identified through previous attacks and current intelligence.
Bush / Cheney, in one of a plethora of strategic failures, chose to go their own way and show then damn commies in China and Russia that there was a new Sherrif in town and he talked the talk.
Too bad the W administration never got it right. -
33%
slate11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Like the PANIC that Pelosi keeps saying that if we don't just rush this latest Bill through without taking the time to make sure it would work or cut the excessive pork out of it we'd lose more jobs than there are people living in US by 200 million?
Reply-
100%
cleare11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
what do you mean by "taking the battle to their homeland"? The al quaeda criminals who attacked us were from saudi arabia, not afghanistan.
Reply
if bush and cheney had any ba!!s at all, they would have gone into tora bora in FORCE and captured bin laden then. instead they tried to do it on the cheap and failed.
almost anybody could have done a better job protecting us. if the bush administration had tried to deliberately muck up the "war on terror", they couldn't of done a better job.
...and then there's the price tag. 4 trillion so far, over 4000 american service men & women killed, about 4000 coalition troops killed, tens of thousands of american and coalition forces injured and perhaps hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and afghanis killed. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
67%
slate11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
They just happened to pass on the ONE that would come back and attack us under Bush's watch so you'd have a chance to say "At least Clinton and his administration caught and punished those responsible for the 1993 attack on the Towers" and give Clinton a pass as you do your usual round about to get on the subject that you hate Bush..
Reply -
50%
soeze_keyser11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe if the Clinton administration had paid more attention then 9/11 would not have happened? There will be more attacks on the US the WTC was attacked in 93 by Islamic extremists and they just regrouped and waited. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch and he took action. But it was planned under Clinton's watch, so it really doesn't matter who is president, they will attack us.
Reply-
-
-
100%
dunkirk11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROFLMAO, maybe you need to review a little. It seems under Clinton terrorists that attacked the US were caught and were tried and were imprisoned. The ONLY exception to that was the USS Cole which happened in October of 2000 a few months before Dumya was installed by the Supreme Court. Bush promptly did what he qqalways does when faced with a crisis, he went on vacation, Under Bush that hasnt happened. Under Clinton world-wide terrorism declined. Under Bush with his "war" on terror its increased over 600% and that number is from HIS administration. Under Bush we had 6 separate attacks on US soil more then ALL past Presidents combined. The facts kinda state the one who screwed the pooch was your boy.,
Reply-
0%
soeze_keyser11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The ONLY exception to that was the USS Cole which happened in October of 2000 a few months before Dumya was installed by the Supreme Court.
Reply
1998 bombings of two US Embassy's in Africa, so I guess you will have to take ONLY out now.-
-
0%
soeze_keyser11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am sorry, I was waiting for a retraction on the ONLY remark. Still your biased is readily apparant, I don't agrre with everything President Bush did, but he was still President. I didn't vote for President Obama, but he is still my president. I would only refer to him as Obama or President Obama. And speaking of success, President Obama hasn't had much in vetting his cabinet choices.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
100%
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
But it was planned under Clinton's watch, so it really doesn't matter who is president, they will attack us
Reply
Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.
In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al-Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Senators Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.
Clinton, 9/11 and the Facts
http://www.truthout.org/article/clinton-911-and-fa...-
Neutral
soeze_keyser11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Thwarted? come on...Clinton administration and Les Aspin refused to send armor and an AC-130 to support TF Ranger in Somalia, the 1998 bombings of US Embassy's in Tanzania and Kenya, the USS Cole...he wasn't supposed to plead his case in the media, he was supposed to act. Launching a few Tomahawk cruise missles and hoping they hit UBL is not acting and IS just "wagging the dog"
Reply-
Neutral
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Launching a few Tomahawk cruise missles and hoping they hit UBL is not acting and IS just "wagging the dog
Reply
I guess you don't realise the extent of the effort.
The Covert Hunt for bin Laden
Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=...-
-
Neutral
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So are you now agreeing that Clinton did more than just launch a few Tomahawk cruise missiles?
Reply
I do not blame Bush for the 9-11 attacks. I blame him and those in his administration for ignoring, as if the previous administration was beneath them, the experts advice in the Clinton administration about the major threats we were facing. Then of course I was against the morphing of the effort to get bin Laden into the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
It was the Bush policy of Missile Defense as the only way to secure us from external threats-pre 9-11. Also, the policy of aggression with regards to Iraq after 9-11 that I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration on.
Clinton was thwarted by the opposition party in passing the omnibus anti-terrorist bill, which included many of the same provision passed after 9-11 in the patriot act. -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
89%
TheNewsseeker11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can only strongly agree to everything said in this article! Panicing is always much easier than finding solutions. Weapons seem to be stronger than arguments, but, in fact: they aren´t!
Reply
Dick Cheney really seems to be unteachable ... -
-
40%
jimdoze11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Joe Klein is a blowhard who would have castigated Bush-Cheney for fear-mongering if they had taken extraordinary measures to act with force on any one of a multitude of intelligence leads that an administration absorbs daily. And, of course, had that administration the foresight to pre-emptively and forcibly avert that terrorist attack, the likes of Klein would have trumpeted "See people, it was all a tempest in a teapot. Nothing happened. The administration was fear-mongering."
Reply -
38%
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Let's leave aside the fact that if Dick Cheney and his alleged boss had been more vigilant--if they had listened to the Clinton appointees like Sandy Berger who warned about Al Qaeda, if they had paid attention to their own intelligence reports (notably the one on August 6, 2001)--the September 11 attacks might never have happened."
Reply
EXACTLY,
How come Bush didn't listen to Clinton's appointees who clearly told Bush that Al Qaeda was going to use jet airplanes on September 11th 2001 and fly those planes into the twin towers at around 8:00 AM. Clinton also told Bush that another plane was going to be slammed into the Pentagon on September 11th 2001 at around 9.15 AM. How come Bush didn't listen? Clinton told Bush the exact details of the attack, right down to where it was going to happen and at what times. But Bush did nothing. Clinton also told Bush that another plane would be used to fly into the White House. But Clinton told Bush not to worry about that plane because the passengers will take that plane down before it reaches Washington. Clinton somehow knew all the attack details and he warned Bush, and Bush did nothing, WHY?-
-
100%
dunkirk11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah I guess that was the big difference betwenn the Clinton and Bush approaches to fighting terrorism,. Clinton was developing an intelligence network to garner the facts while Bush dismantled it all. It seems what your saying is unless Bush was given the exact plans including which seats the terrorists had he was totally unable to stop them. No increased security on check in., No strengthening of cockpit doors to avoid terrorists access to the cockpit. No listening to FBI agents noting a number of arabs wanting to learn how to fly jumbo jets and most noticeably a few who indicated they really didnt care much about take off ior landing just flying the planes,
Reply
-
-
-
50%
Spadecaller11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In May 1945, Winston Churchill, Harry S. Truman, Joseph Stalin and Charles De Gaulle agreed that an international military tribunal should try the leaders of Nazi Germany for war crimes. It was decided to charge the men and women on four counts: crimes against peace (planning and making war); war crimes (responsibility for crimes during war); crimes against humanity (racial persecution) and conspiracy to commit other crimes.
Reply
Cheney and GWB would have to be found guilty of at least 3 out of 4 of these.-
Neutral
jimdoze11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Maybe, Maybe Not. I think you are stretching things a bit here, Spade.
Reply
But, let's say that is the case. Then did Neville Chamberlain tragically opt for "peace for our time" and, by default, condemn tens of millions so as to avoid the possibility of committing a "war crime"?-
100%
djn3nunez311 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well since you brought up Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement where Hitler promised to stop German agression with the concession of the Sudetenland. Could Russia, China and France be similar to Neville when they conceeded to UNSCR 1441.
Reply
Consider this joint statement by Russia, China and France in 2002.
"Resolution 1441 (2002) adopted today by the Security Council excludes any automaticity in the use of force. In this regard, we register with satisfaction the declarations of the representatives of the United States and the United Kingdom confirming this understanding in their explanations of vote, and assuring that the goal of the resolution is the full implementation of the existing Security Council resolutions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction disarmament. All Security Council members share this goal."
"In case of failure by Iraq to comply with its obligations, the provisions of paragraphs 4, 11 and 12 will apply. Such failure will be reported to the Security Council by the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC or the Director General of the IAEA. It will be then for the Council to take position on the basis of that report."
"Therefore, this resolution fully respects the competences of the Security Council in the maintenance of international peace and security, in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations."
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/iraq/unscr1441.htm
Who was lied to and who was the aggressor in 2002/2003?
-
-
-
50%
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In response to my above post, it just now came to me.
Reply
How did Clinton know all the details of the 9/11 attacks before it happened? Clinton must have had inside information from Al Qaeda. I didn't know that Clinton was in the Al Qaeda information loop, that's weird!? -
33%
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Another thing just came to me.
Reply
If Clinton warned Bush of the attacks before hand, then why do some many lefties say that Bush did the attacks himself? Clinton is GOD to the Democrats and lefties, the lefties beleive everything Clinton says. So if Clinton warned Bush that Al Qaeda was going to attack us, then doesn't that prove that Bush was not behind the attacks. Boy, you lefty dems sure do send out contradictive messages.-
-
20%
Endoscopy11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What a garbage story. What else can you expect from Time and CNN. Super liberal bastions of media.
Reply
Paid attention to Sandy Berger who pilfered the papers and just had a hand slap. The memo only said that there might be an attack on the towers. Did not specify what kind of attack. Taking planes and suicide into buildings was done for the first time on 9/11. Responding to that would have meant putting more guards on the buildings. Stupid liberal rant.
1. No attacks in the US since because of the corrected way that the intelligence agencies now share information instead of having the Clinton firewalls. The patriot act procedures are another line of defense. Just what liberals want to change. Could that possibly be what Cheney is talking about?
2. LOL This story just tried to blame Bush for ignoring that report. Ignoring the fact that there has not been a successful attack since.
3. The enhanced interrogation techniques were told to the leaders of both parties in congress and many other Congress people including Pelosie etc. The observers are unanimous in that only one person was somewhat hesitant about the techniques. The rest either said nothing or asked if these techniques were harsh enough. Your precious Democrats in congress backed those techniques at that time. Now they have amnesia.
4. The very liberal bias of saying he mismanaged Iraq and Afghanistan and calling Donald Rumsfeld the worst Secretary of Defense is just a super liberal rant of people who believe we should never use our armed forces. This is just an adhominem attack without anything really specific. Just a liberals way to disagree with people. Attack the person not what they said or did. No specifics just attack the person.
-
-
-
60%
crespi11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Dick Cheney has been a puppet master in most of the things that led to our country's current crises.
Reply
He is now trying to wrap those strings around the American people's neck, but instead they are starting to twist around his own.
He should live out the rest of his unnatural life in prison. -
50%
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'd like to know when is Sandy Berger going to take that lie detector test that he promised he would take? That was part of the deal Sandy worked out. He promised he'd take the test to prove his innocence. We're still waiting there Sandy. And we will be waiting forever, because Sandy knows he's screwed if he does take the lie detector test. I think they should force him to take it. After all, that was part of the arrangement. Yet once again, the Dems get a pass!
Reply -
-
-
33%
4thchance11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I do beleive there is a thing called REVENGE. If you consider just how awful the dems were towards Bush, all the made up lies and everything else they did in an attempt to tear Bush and his administration to pieces...One could only conclude that someone somewhere is planning revenge on the Democrats.
Reply
There's an old saying that goes like this...
"Revenge is a dish that's best served cold"
Give it some time, you must understand that revenge is coming in one form or another. It will come when they least expect it. BIG OUCH! -
-
-
100%
cleare11 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
not revenge...retribution. you conservatives are the ones spouting "personal responsibility" all the time, yet you let the bush administration off the hook over and over and over again. where the heck does your buck stop???
Reply
bush and cheney and rumsfeld et al need to own the responsibility for the dismal condition they left this country in...for their abject failure in capturing bin laden, even in securing oil for the future. -
-
loading ...
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.