2668 Days Without an Attack, I'm Having One Now

January 22, 2009 11:13 AM

After the Obama party, the Bush team continues to spin. "Whether Barack Obama is standing on the Capitol steps to be sworn in a second time depends on whether he succeeds in replicating Bush's achievement." "If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."
posted by Xurando (129 comments total)

Dicks.
posted by box at 11:15 AM on January 22, 2009 [3 favorites]

and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation.

I guess it'd just be the Greens and the Libertarians left, then.
posted by enn at 11:17 AM on January 22, 2009 [28 favorites]

Once again Obama's way ahead of these guys: he's already been sworn in twice.
posted by rokusan at 11:17 AM on January 22, 2009 [45 favorites]

There is an elephant in the room. Not to worry: it is weak, impotent, and unable to act in a way becoming dignified.
posted by Postroad at 11:18 AM on January 22, 2009

Oh, do shut up Mr. Bush.
posted by Space Kitty at 11:18 AM on January 22, 2009

Remember when the Republicans could weren't unelectable for a generation?
posted by chunking express at 11:19 AM on January 22, 2009

Did the Onion infiltrate the New York Times?
posted by orange swan at 11:19 AM on January 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Sigh...who didn't see this coming? I mean, the WTC was completely destroyed and the Pentagon (the fucking pentagon) was successfully attacked under their watch, but they, they, are the ones who are keeping us safe. Give me a fucking break already.
posted by milarepa at 11:20 AM on January 22, 2009 [29 favorites]

All right, that's it, I'm throwing BOTH SHOES.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:21 AM on January 22, 2009 [8 favorites]

From the article in the second link:

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Mr. Bush’s singular legacy.

....It never rained fish during Bush's administration, either. Is that also part of Bush's legacy?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:21 AM on January 22, 2009 [13 favorites]

"If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place..."

Ah, see, here's your problem right here: it's like warning against selling any of the unicorns Bush got for the White House.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:22 AM on January 22, 2009 [16 favorites]

Remember when the Republicans could weren't unelectable for a generation?

This dude needs to learn how to read and write.
posted by chunking express at 11:22 AM on January 22, 2009

Yeah for a president to have knowledge of the fact that Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S. but not to take any action to prevent it, that would make that president pretty pathetic. Good call Bush.
posted by ND¢ at 11:23 AM on January 22, 2009 [6 favorites]

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Mr. Bush’s singular legacy.

Weren't there anthrax attacks? I seem to remember anthrax attacks.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:25 AM on January 22, 2009 [23 favorites]

You know, come to think of it, I haven't been attacked by a hippopotamus after 9-11 either... Thanks, Bush!
posted by aftermarketradio at 11:25 AM on January 22, 2009

When President Bush left office on Tuesday, America marked 2,688 days without a terrorist attack on its soil.

It's kind of hilarious how these guys seem to conveniently forget who was in charge 2689 days before Bush left office, and what happened on that day. You know, the day 19 terrorists killed more Americans than the entire Japanese navy did when they attacked Pearl Harbor.

And by "kind of hilarious" I mean "not fucking funny at all you revisionist dickbags."
posted by dersins at 11:26 AM on January 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

Losers.
posted by Guy_Inamonkeysuit at 11:28 AM on January 22, 2009

"If Obama weakens any of the defenses Bush put in place and terrorists strike our country again, Americans will hold Obama responsible -- and the Democratic Party could find itself unelectable for a generation."

"Oh, sorry, did I actually publish that? Goddamn. Karl, cancel Operation Fireworks."
posted by fleetmouse at 11:29 AM on January 22, 2009

All these people know how to do is spin. They'll bring a new meaning to the phrase "spinning in their graves."
posted by blucevalo at 11:29 AM on January 22, 2009

Tomorrowful - so the government stole all the unicorns. And I thought they died in the great flood. I now have another reason to dislike Mr. Bush Jr.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:30 AM on January 22, 2009

It never rained fish during Bush's administration, either.

Cloudy With a Chance of Terrorism?
posted by uncleozzy at 11:31 AM on January 22, 2009

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,

The mental image is of barn doors being slammed, locked, nailed shut, and wired with explosive triggers -- long after the horses are gone. Pathetic.
posted by aught at 11:32 AM on January 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Mr. Bush’s singular legacy.

What about the Anthrax attacks? I call bioweapons being delivered to high-ranking government leaders and killing several Americans a "terrorist strike on American soil".

Also I would note that no American cities have been destroyed since Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans. Thank you President Bush!

No major banks have collapsed since WaMu was folded into Chase. Thank you President Bush!
posted by mr_roboto at 11:34 AM on January 22, 2009 [10 favorites]

The darkness is all around, many people are piling negative crap on Obama's every move.
posted by stbalbach at 11:34 AM on January 22, 2009

Say what you will about Bush, but there was only ONE terrorist attack during his administration.
posted by Damn That Television at 11:35 AM on January 22, 2009

"Whether Barack Obama is standing on the Capitol steps to be sworn in a second time depends on whether he succeeds in replicating Bush's achievement."

It's all good. This is just the conservatives saying that Obama gets a free pass on one major attack on American soil with thousands dead, dismantling constitutional protections, bankrupting the economy, starting a war under false pretenses, and destroying our reputation throughout the world. Thanks, conservatives! If Obama can't succeed to at least the standard of Bush's achievements, I too, will not vote for him a second time!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:37 AM on January 22, 2009 [11 favorites]

No major banks have collapsed since WaMu was folded into Chase. Thank you President Bush!

coughCITIBANKcough
posted by spicynuts at 11:37 AM on January 22, 2009

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Mr. Bush’s singular legacy.

Weren't there anthrax attacks? I seem to remember anthrax attacks.

Yes, there were anthrax attacks. There were also sniper attacks.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:38 AM on January 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

This post reminds of this paragraph from a Fox article about Obama's executive orders:

The executive order says everyone in custody should be questioned under the Army Field Manual, which is intended for honorable combatants, meaning POWs in a military conflict. The rule would prevent trained interrogators at the CIA from using lawful interrogation techniques against terrorists who have been trained to withstand Army Field Manual techniques.

Stay classy, Fox.
posted by nooneyouknow at 11:42 AM on January 22, 2009

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

This guy managed to plant 18 bombs.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:44 AM on January 22, 2009

Say what you will about Bush, but there was only ONE terrorist attack during his administration.

Say what you will about Bush, there were only THREE terrorist attacks in the US during his adminstration. And worldwide? There were only, um, how many worldwide? Oh yeah: A lot more.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:46 AM on January 22, 2009

Say what you will about Bush,
Don't mind if I do!

but there was only ONE terrorist attack during his administration.
Resulting in thousands of deaths, and thus ranking his administration dead last, historically speaking, in terms of preventing terrorist attacks on America.

But I'm just playing along. This entire flavor of dialog is dishonest and unfair.
posted by Bokononist at 11:47 AM on January 22, 2009

Setting the record straight? O.K.

America was indeed attacked again after 9/11 -- anthrax. How many people died, six, seven? How much money did it cost, with all the additional security in the delivery and handling of mail that October? Or is it a terrorist attack only if almost 3,000 people die? Or is it a terrorist attack only if Arabs do it, instead of Pentagon scientists, as seems to be the case in the still -- and possibly forever -- unsolved anthrax case?

America has been attacked twice under Bush's watch -- twice. If we're really counting, then Obama only has to take one terrorist attack to do better than Bush. Or, you know, not drown an entire major city. Obama's bar, if we play this game, has been placed incredibly low by Bush's own actions. And if anything, since 9/11 is the reason behind Bush's (very close, and possibly fraudulent) win in '04, it's a fact that terrorist attacks do wonders, politically, for US Presidents (the Republican ones, at least).

You know, the Republican ticket didn't want Bush around during the campaign, McCain himself during the debates made clear that he wasn't Bush, GOP congressional candidates slammed No Child Left Behind and got big ovations on the campaign trail, they even used a cartoon character, Joe the Plumber, instead of their actual, sitting, two-term President -- Bush is not even another Carter circa 1981, he wishes: he's Hoover, and his men are now radioactive, they should realize that and look for real jobs instead. I'm sure a lot of them have law degrees, go practice law and get the fuck out of politics, you're part of Herbert Hoover's team (with war crimes and Katrina on top), get the fuck out of politics, if not out of the newspapers op-ed pages. You're apparently safe from various prosecutions you so clearly deserve, at least have the good grace to get the fuck away. There's a whole economy to rebuild after you've plundered it.
posted by matteo at 11:48 AM on January 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

Oh, Fuzzy Monster, the DC Snipers weren't Arab, and the postal service doesn't make for dramatic images, so those don't count.

It's only a terrorist attack if calling it that can advance an agenda.
posted by Navelgazer at 11:48 AM on January 22, 2009

Political advice from a Bush crony. Priceless. And what advice: If you want to get re-elected, don't make the morally correct choices. I would prefer Obama make the morally correct choices regardless of political consequences.
posted by effwerd at 11:48 AM on January 22, 2009

They are pretty much begging for a conspiracy theory, aren't they?
posted by fusinski at 11:50 AM on January 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Uh-oh. Looks like someone's jealous of those big inaugural balls!
posted by mannequito at 11:51 AM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Replace the following names with political figures of your choosing:

Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's spacious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
[Lisa refuses at first, then takes the exchange]
posted by blue_beetle at 11:52 AM on January 22, 2009 [15 favorites]

My reasoning is more spacious than all y'all's! There's room for everybody here!
posted by Navelgazer at 11:54 AM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

[NOT SPECIESIST]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:00 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Sometimes my daughter in casual conversation will say a fact (like the sky is blue). My son, to be ornery, will argue that fact (like by saying, "No, everybody knows the sky is orange"). My daughter then begins arguing with her brother and getting quite upset about his obstinacy, which of course, was his goal along. I admonish him, but I also point out to her that she fed into his nonsense by becoming emotionally invested in a senseless, unproductive heated exchange.
shorter version: This isn't anything other than an attempt to create a tempest (in a tea pot), by floating a balloon in the hopes that it gains "legs" so that the ensuing discussion will feeds into the appropriate (and probably pre-planned) talking point themes.
(apologies for mixing metaphors)
posted by forforf at 12:00 PM on January 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm finding this whole "George Bush kept us safe" line of defense to be pretty damn insulting - obscene, even - given how many people died in Iraq on his watch, soldiers and civilians alike. He sent lord knows how many people to an early grave, and yet him and his crew strut around as if he's some sort of savior.

It makes me want to puke.
posted by jal0021 at 12:00 PM on January 22, 2009 [3 favorites]

Did anyone really honestly think that the Republican's weren't going to say this? This strikes me as the #1 in the politician's playbook: ignore some of the facts while super emphasizing others in order to put yourself in a better light and to make the other guy look bad. If anyone thinks that the Dems aren't going to do this, then they're in for a rude awakening.
posted by ob at 12:03 PM on January 22, 2009

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Mr. Bush’s singular legacy.

Anthrax? Hello? Plus tons of Americans died overseas, "fighting them over there rather then here", so if you're strategy is just hand Americans over to the Terrorists then obviously you have to count them.
posted by delmoi at 12:04 PM on January 22, 2009

As opposed to the Dems, what, being electable before Obama showed up?

That said - Marc Thiessen is a piece of shit propagandist.
“Bush left him with a stabilized Iraq,where al-Qaeda is in retreat ”?
Horseshit. AQ wouldn’t be there in the first place if it wasn’t for that monkey jag off.

And 2,688 days? Tell me how the mothers and widows and sons and family of the troops who have died in Iraq feel about that.
They’re Americans. (And many many others have died - but since were talking Americans and ‘on U.S. soil’ - U.S. embassies are technically U.S. soil. What about U.S. interests? What about Americans put in jeopardy for no reason other than Bush’s fucked up policies?)

“Many of these terrorists, including Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, refused to talk -- until Bush authorized the CIA to use enhanced interrogation techniques. Information gained using those techniques is responsible for stopping a number of planned attacks -- including plots to blow up the American consulate in Karachi, Pakistan...”

Yo, Mr. Current Events - 12 people did die in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Karachi in 2002.
Matter of fact 8 Americans (34 civilians in all) who died from suicide bombers in the housing compounds in Riyadh in 2003.
22 folks died in an attack against foreign oil workers in Riyadh in May of 2004.
Paul Johnson Jr., his staff and some BBC cameramen were shot down in Riyadh in June of 04.
5 state workers were killed in Riyadh when AQ stormed the U.S. consulate in Dec of 04.
And what about the hit on the Radisson, Days Inn and Hyatt hotels in Amman Jordan that killed 57 people in 2005?

I’d say the folks working at the U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece in 2007 felt they were ‘under attack’ when people started shooting anti-tank missles at them.

Or the 60 people in Algeria in December that year who were killed by two car bombs (not even by real Al Qaeda - just guys calling themselves Al Qaeda because they’re against us). Happened near the U.N. offices. 11 of those killed were U.N. workers.

Ok, yeah, not really ‘Americans’ per se, and sure, the U.N. is a big albatross around our necks, which is why we sent milk mustache boy out there, but ok - just last year, Iraqi suicide bomber on a motorcycle kills six U.S. servicemembers and injures 18 of ours in Tarmiya.

In June, another suicide bomber kills 20, three of them Marines, at a logistics meeting in Karmah (just west of Baghdad...or perhaps it was in the north, and the south, and the east, somewhat) with some sheiks and reps of the U.S.

Just last september in Yemen, U.S. embassy staff was ambushed by a coordinated car bomb and rocket attack - killed 16, four of them were civilians who didn’t have anything to do with dick.

And what about that stuff in India just recently?
Those were commercial hubs popular with American tourists. About 190 people dead, at least 5 were from the U.S.

Meanwhile the war in Afghanistan is heating up because of Bush’s policies and lack of leadership - not being pacified.
Just this past july you had the worst attack against U.S. troops in 3 years against a base in Kunar province (on the border with Pakistan).
That was followed up in August by a cocktail of 15 (!) suicide bombers and a bunch of guerrillas hitting camp cookie (Salerno) in Bamiyan overnight.

And this prick has the temerity to insinuate anything has gotten BETTER? That we’re actually fucking safer because of Bush?
Fuck this prick and the neo-cons funding him preying on the sacrifices of others (willing or otherwise) to make cheap political points.

Jesus Fucking Christ, where do these people come from?
posted by Smedleyman at 12:05 PM on January 22, 2009 [55 favorites]

Sometimes my daughter in casual conversation will say a fact (like the sky is blue). My son, to be ornery, will argue that fact (like by saying, "No, everybody knows the sky is orange")

Just tell her not the feed the trolls.
posted by dersins at 12:12 PM on January 22, 2009

BUSH LIED, FISH FLIED.

Just before last New Year’s Eve, Carl and Kathy Hennige of Folsom, California e-mailed their local newspaper to report some strange weather. It was raining fish.
posted by designbot at 12:15 PM on January 22, 2009

*sigh* I remember when I felt like this: powerless, lost in a country whose moral and political bearings I did not understand, afraid for what news the next day would hold...

However, for me that ended two days ago. They can moan on the internet for the next four years if they want to, I'm gonna go sit outside and enjoy the sun, personally.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 12:15 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

(Given the small sample I posted - it goes without saying that ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ didn’t do shit to stop dick...but I’ll say it. And these sadistic pricks are just jerking off to ‘24’ and their secrecy fetishes. But it’s guerilla 101 - one of yours gets captured - you change tactics, rewrite operations and cancel anything and everything that guy could have known. Hell, it’s why you have the whole cell structure in the first place.
There is no interrogation technique on Earth that can overcome compartmentalization of information. Someone cannot possibly spill something they don’t know. Which is why most intelligence gathering is proactive - like recon, not reactive like interrogation.
But I can see why something like that would appeal to jagoffs like this motherfucker. I mean, God forbid they get too far from out behind their desks. And just to reiterate the point - There is no interrogation technique on Earth that can overcome compartmentalization of information.)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:17 PM on January 22, 2009 [9 favorites]

For further insight google "The Big Lie".
posted by scheptech at 12:17 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I believe the rule is that he who smelt it dealt it.
posted by mattbucher at 12:18 PM on January 22, 2009

(and pardon the language, guys like this really get my goat)
posted by Smedleyman at 12:18 PM on January 22, 2009

The Right's New Stab in the Back Myth
posted by homunculus at 12:19 PM on January 22, 2009

Mr. Thiessen, in The Washington Post, focused his argument on the fact that terrorists never struck American soil again after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, calling that Mr. Bush’s singular legacy.

If Marc A. Thiessen hasn't been entirely discredited by this point in the thread, let me shine some factual light on his partisan ignorance:

D.C. sniper John Allen Muhammad was convicted of, among other counts,"capital murder under Virginia's antiterrorism statute, for homicide committed with an intent to terrorize the government or the public at large"-- AKA a terrorist attack.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:19 PM on January 22, 2009

OH SHUT UP
posted by DU at 12:20 PM on January 22, 2009

How can we miss them if they won't go away?
posted by Legomancer at 12:21 PM on January 22, 2009 [3 favorites]

Bush Tours America To Survey Damage Caused By His Disastrous Presidency
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:21 PM on January 22, 2009

OH SHUT UP

That was directed at Thiessen, right? Not at me?
*eyes DU warily*
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 12:27 PM on January 22, 2009

Even if you accept the premise of being "attack-free" for 2,688 days, the Bush administration did its best to make sure we were not "terror-free". We always had the Homeland Security Advisory System there to make sure we were sufficiently cowed, with timely bumps up to threat level Orange.
posted by mach at 12:31 PM on January 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

The disgusting thing about this is that its only function is to set Obama up for a fall in case a terrorist attack does happen. This line of argument is useless unless we get attacked. So we've got this guy just hoping that we'll get attacked again, because it would be bad for Democrats and therefore prove that Republicans were doing things right.

Hey, thanks guy. Did you also hope your mother would die because it would make the schoolgirls girls love your broken heart?
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:36 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Well, with Limbaugh hoping that Obama fails (which is kind of a dick thing to hope for, seeing as that means he wants We The People to suffer), it should be no surprise that there are right-wingers hoping for another terrorist attack too. But who even cares what they think anymore -- isn't the Republican Party just a regional party now? I mean, when you limit your demographics to white, religious, racist, sexist, straight war-mongers, well, winning national elections seems pretty problematic. I guess they noticed that during this last one.
posted by jamstigator at 12:45 PM on January 22, 2009

(and pardon the language, guys like this really get my goat)

Yeah, these guys really get My Pet Goat, too.
posted by papercake at 12:46 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

mr_roboto : What about the Anthrax attacks? I call bioweapons being delivered to high-ranking government leaders and killing several Americans a "terrorist strike on American soil".

So did Bush when he called them a "second wave of terrorist attacks upon the United States."

These people keep saying that they'll NEVAR FORGET!!1!, but clearly that's all just rhetoric, because they seem to forget shit like this all the time.
posted by quin at 12:52 PM on January 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

And just to reiterate the point - There is no interrogation technique on Earth that can overcome compartmentalization of information.

Psychic viewing. And you say you were in the military. *shakes head sadly*
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:54 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

AZ, let's give credit where credit is due. Before Bush came around, terrorists had to plan for months and killed innocents and often die themselves in the process in order to strike fear into the hearts of their enemies. Bush revolutionized the whole process by being able to do the same thing to his own constituency and at the drop of a hat with just a change in colors.

(He also killed a lot of innocents, of course, but there's no point in giving up entirely on what's worked in the past, and at least he was able to entirely discard the "planning" phase of operations.)
posted by Navelgazer at 12:55 PM on January 22, 2009

No terrorist attacks on US soil since 9/11!

Well, except anthrax. So, no terrorist attacks except anthrax!

Well... and pipebombings in the midwest. So, no terrorist attacks except anthrax and pipebombs!

Well... and the shooting at LA International Airport at the El Al ticket counter. So, no terrorist attacks except anthrax, pipebombs, and airport shootings!

Well... and the DC Sniper. So, no terrorist attacks except anthrax, pipebombs, airport shootings, and the DC sniper!

That gets us to the end of 2002. I'm tired of typing now. More reading.
posted by backseatpilot at 1:09 PM on January 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

It's kind of hilarious how these guys seem to conveniently forget who was in charge 2689 days before Bush left office, and what happened on that day.

I remember. I also remember a big huge part of that was an administration that trivialized work that had been done by a previous administration because of political and ideological differences.

I think it's true that many of the Bush administration's policies have ranged from sketchy to counterproductive. In particular I've argued before that in its haste to throw off restraint the Bush administration also seems to have cast off discipline that might have made it more effective. And I recognize the rational argument that just because we've had no attacks for the last 7 years doesn't mean that Bush policies are the reason.

But I'd be awfully cautious about stating that none of them have contributed to our safety, and I hope that an Obama administration is equally cautious. And as much as I think the Bush administration bears a big responsibility for failing to prevent 9/11 attacks by treating casually what they should have seen as blaring warning beacons, I think if you accept that viewpoint, you also have to accept the idea that some of the work done by the executive branch under the Bush administration deserves careful examination and potential recognition.

It is true, however, that it's silly and rather inconsistent to immediately begin discussing how Obama is fully and solely accountable for anything that happens from yesterday on, and yet somehow neglect the question of Bush's responsibility for 9/11 itself. In a world where certain pundits are talking about the "Obama recession" for 3-4 months before he took office and how Democrats actually masterminded the economic collapse in order to take power and impose capital-S Socialism on the country, perhaps that kind of consistency is too much to expect.
posted by weston at 1:14 PM on January 22, 2009

The entire Bush Administration, from start to finish, was a terrorist attack on the United States.
posted by Forrest Greene at 1:16 PM on January 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

let me suss-out this logic.

Sooo an 9/11 was Clinton's fault. Buuuut a new attack AFTER Bush will be Obama's fault. 'K.

Rush Limbaugh said he wanted Obama to fail. Therefore, amongst wide scale unemployment and homelessness, he desires innocent Americans be murdered in a successful terrorist attack on American soil.

Bush's war in Iraq cost about 100X as much and had far more casualties as he said it would. Iran is now the dominant power in the region and defacto controls a large portion of southern Shia Iraq. Because of the fall in oil prices (partially due to the war and unregulated speculation in the markets) and the unexpected continuation of social and economic unrest Iraq will likely be a client state with US troops present for decade. Or more.

But if Obama pulls out our troops HE lost the war. Got it.

Bush essentially abandoned most of major our efforts in Afghanistan to use those soldiers to mount and invasion and occupation of Iraq—based on "faulty intelligence" and false pretenses. Afghanistan is now BACK in the control of Taliban forces in most of the country - especially at night. Due to the ongoing instability of the region brought about by the failing US military extremists, funded by CIA trained Pakistani Intelligence, are firmly entrenched in neighboring Pakistan and have murdered a major political candidate (Benazir Bhutto ), staged an unprecedented terrorist attack and siege in India, and have been also been traced to selling nuclear secrets to north Korea. And in the same region, Bin Laden, promoted to god-like folk hero, is alive and well.

If Obama refocuses out efforts BACK to Afghanistan he is weakening America's defenses? Interesting.

Is it possible that these Right Wing nutbags are so stupid that they will eventually forget to breath?
posted by tkchrist at 1:20 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Interesting, if you check out Wiki's page on 2008 terrorist incidents, there was a suicide bombing. In Georgia. The state. In America.

Good thing all that intelligence we've been collecting prevented that one.
posted by backseatpilot at 1:21 PM on January 22, 2009

The republicans can go fuck themselves.
posted by mike3k at 1:24 PM on January 22, 2009

I still hate this country. Nothing has changed. We still have the same undercurrent of racism. I still hear just as much anti-Obama talk, and these people will continue to work against him every step of the way.

No matter what Obama does, the same backward attitudes will still remain in this country and it will continue its decline. Once a racist always a racist.
posted by mike3k at 1:28 PM on January 22, 2009

America was indeed attacked again after 9/11 -- anthrax.

I think I read just the other day that it was an American who sent the anthrax letters. So, no, not a second attack there.

As for the OP... Just shows that Bush and his administration can make me furious even after they're gone. Which is sickening.
posted by opsin at 1:35 PM on January 22, 2009

I think I read just the other day that it was an American who sent the anthrax letters. So, no, not a second attack there.

So when Americans commit acts of terrorism, what do you call it? A hug?
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:37 PM on January 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

I still hate this country.

If you hate something, you surely are not going to feel like fixing it. On the other hand, if you love something, but hate what has been done to it by a) other people, b) circumstances beyond your control, or c) capitalism, then you will actively try to fix it, because you love it. If you don't love your country, then what's the point in engaging in intellectual debate on what's wrong with it? You're not going to fix something you hate. I would suggest the word you want here is not hate.

HATE is the problem itself. Too many people don't know what love really is. And they let frustration turn to hate. Shame, really. Same goes for relationships.
posted by spicynuts at 1:38 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think one of the first steps Obama should have taken is to officially rename the Iraq War the George W. Bush War.

Also, considering the right wingers seem to feel that a terrorist attack would be in their own best interests, that should make them eligible for wiretapping and rendition.
posted by troybob at 1:39 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I think I read just the other day that it was an American who sent the anthrax letters. So, no, not a second attack there.

Soooo bombing abortion clinics is what, exactly?

And BTW they don't know for sure who did the Anthrax attacks. They just decided, without much evidence, it might be this guy who killed himself. Which awesomely convenient.
posted by tkchrist at 1:49 PM on January 22, 2009

I still hate this country. Nothing has changed.

Then leave already. We don't need more fucking haters.
posted by tkchrist at 1:50 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

So, no, not a second attack there.

I'm pretty certain that the tongue was planted pretty firmly in the cheek on this one, but it does speak to the fact that for a lot of Americans, if it ain't an 'A-rab' doing it, it's not "terrorism" as they define it.

My point with the Bush quote above is that even if they discount the abortion clinic bombings, and the DC sniper, and all the other things that a rational person would consider an act of terror, they can ignore them, but the fact of the matter is that Bush himself said that the anthrax attacks were terrorism.

They can spin this shit any way they want to, but I'm sick to death of hearing the "no attacks since 9-11" shit. There were attacks. Bush said it was terrorism. End of story.
posted by quin at 2:00 PM on January 22, 2009

ROU_Xenophobe, look, psychic viewing is as much bunk as those goofballs from ConSec who believe they haveeeeEEEE! *head 'asplodes*
posted by Smedleyman at 2:11 PM on January 22, 2009

So when Americans commit acts of terrorism, what do you call it? A hug?

Only if they are right-wing. If they are left, then they are either eco-terrorists or liberals.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:15 PM on January 22, 2009

Their statement has a completely different meaning if you believe that the Bush administration either Let it Happen or Made it Happen.
posted by Espoo2 at 2:15 PM on January 22, 2009

Bush is not even another Carter circa 1981, he wishes: he's Hoover

Hoover, for all his failings in dealing with the events of 1929 and after, was actually a well-regarded public figure prior to being president. Successful mining engineer who invented some useful mining tools, author, US Secretary of Commerce--don't insult Hoover by comparing him to Bush.

You might make a case for Bush as similar to Warren G. Harding, but Harding did far less damage to the country. And only served one term. Maybe Grant? But Grant was a great general before he was a corrupt President.

So..no. Actually, Bush is the nadir of the US Presidency so far, and let's hope, for all time.
posted by emjaybee at 2:20 PM on January 22, 2009

everybody knows the sky is orange

It is at sunset... just sayin'
posted by robot at 2:38 PM on January 22, 2009

January 20, 2009 was:

• 2,688 days since September 11, 2001
• 2,622 days since the last anthrax letter was discovered
• 2,282 days since Malvo and Muhammad were arrested
• 320 days since this

But, hey, if it's inconvenient to admit that it's terrorism, just reclassify it as vandalism.
posted by oaf at 2:52 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm not worried about Obama not prosecuting any of the Bush scumbags. If he is as sharp as he appears to be he will spend the next three years assembling evidence to go after them just about the time the republicans begin their campaigns to nominate each other for president.
How nice it will be to see the crap hit the fan week after week while they campaign.
posted by notreally at 3:22 PM on January 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

And maybe 18 hours since this.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:23 PM on January 22, 2009

How nice it will be to see the crap hit the fan week after week while they campaign.

I hadn't thought of this.

But damn, that would be cunning and truly evil on Obama's part. Which is to say, it's brilliant and he should totally go this route.
posted by quin at 3:25 PM on January 22, 2009

I still hate this country. Nothing has changed.

Then leave already. We don't need more fucking haters.

*2001 flashback*
posted by ersatz at 4:21 PM on January 22, 2009

The whole "Bush kept us safe for seven years after 9/11" is such a boneheaded position to take. It's a Rorschach test, because it's believable either way, depending on how you view the Bush administration; if you're a Bush supporter, then it's obviously true--we haven't been attacked and it's because of Bush's policies. If a Bush detractor, we haven't been attacked in spite of Bush's policies.

Personally, as an extreme Bush detractor, I think there is a tiny nugget of truth to his claim, but I just don't think he can fairly take credit for it. The enormous increase in security in the U.S. since 9/11--from the local cops in small towns to wholly new federal agencies--these have almost certainly given "them" at the very least pause. For better or worse, if you want to cause harm to the U.S., it's more difficult to do due to a general sense of heightened paranoia in America. But I think that would've happened with any president at the helm.

Basically Bush's argument reminds me of a joke (that I think I read here on MeFi) about the crazy New York City homeless guy who carries a big rock around with him.

"Why do you carry around that big rock?" a stranger asks him.
"This is my magic rock. It keeps the tigers away," crazy homeless guy replies.
"But this is New York. Apart from the zoo, there aren't any tigers," thestranger says.

The homeless guy grins triumphantly. "See? Works pretty damn good, don't it?"
posted by zardoz at 4:32 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Look, every political party spins. I've given up on hearing anything nonpartisan from any mouth connected from any political party, pundit or news source.

It's just that the spinning is much easier to see if you are standing across the aisle from it.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 5:00 PM on January 22, 2009

*2001 flashback*

Oh. C'mon. He didn't say he was critical of a system or a policy.

He DID says he hates the entire country. He said he hated YOU.

I mean, really? What kind of person lives someplace where he hates everybody and everything around him?

The only rational response is to leave.
posted by tkchrist at 5:53 PM on January 22, 2009

It sure is nice to think that Mr. Bush is... well... Mr. Bush. Former President Bush. Just another citizen again.

(I wonder if he knows the old flamin' turd bag trick?)
posted by markkraft at 6:04 PM on January 22, 2009

"Bush is not even another Carter circa 1981, he wishes..."

I hope that the next few years will help to rehabilitate Carter, because he got a bum rap, largely based on the Iran hostage crisis... which Reagan "solved" by arming the Iranians.

Who was right about increasing CAFE standards and U.S. energy efficiency, which, if kept enacted instead of gutted by Reagan, would've saved the country countless billions of dollars by now?

Who appointed Paul Volcker to the Fed... the guy generally viewed as responsible for ending inflation and bringing about the "Reagan" economy of the early '80s?

Who brought about peace treaties in the Middle East, that are still in place to this very day, forcing both sides to sit down and keep negotiating?

Carter might've had his faults, but the fact is, he had considerable foresight and put this nation on the right path on many, many different levels.
posted by markkraft at 6:22 PM on January 22, 2009 [6 favorites]

Jimmy Carter was a terrible, terrible president on so many levels I cannot even enumerate them. I was a (young) adult during his term and believe me, four years of his administration were four too many. And the Iran hostage crisis was just the cherry on top of the sundae.

And he had all the charisma of a turnip.
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 7:40 PM on January 22, 2009

You think dipshit partisan hacks like that would get fired from their jobs if everyone on MeFi was to post a very short, handwritten letter to his employer?

The majority of Americans aren't so fucking stupid as Thiessen and his ilk. The majority can and should marginalize these dipshits.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:03 PM on January 22, 2009

I agree with the sentiment that Obama should wait to go after Bush and Co. But I prefer that he do it the day after beginning his 2nd term. Doing it during the campaign would destroy him, no matter how much fun it would be for all of us to watch.
posted by ChickenringNYC at 8:17 PM on January 22, 2009

Jimmy Carter was a terrible, terrible president on so many levels I cannot even enumerate them.

But surely you could come up with a few examples and a rough explanation of how they're representative, right?
posted by weston at 8:17 PM on January 22, 2009

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House.
posted by vibrotronica at 8:48 PM on January 22, 2009

You know who else was a terrible president? Anyone who the right has smeared for the past half decade, for reasons I have never bothered to think about. And the fact that there was an scandal that may have been in part manufactured by the right and was eventually solved by Republicans breaking American and international law is just the rhetorical cherry on top of the partisan sundae.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:52 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

And by half-decade of course I mean quarter-century.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:53 PM on January 22, 2009

St. Alia must know some awfully charming turnips. I won't act like I'm an expert about his term of office, but when I met President Carter? He couldn't have been a more gracious gentlemen, and I truly admire the work he's done since then. /derail
posted by Space Kitty at 8:58 PM on January 22, 2009

When Carter lost, I didn't really care. I figured they were all about the same(!). It didn't take too many years of Reagan to realize I had been mistaken. I was old enough to remember the changes Carter attempted to make. Good ideas that the powers that be hated. The then Democratic congress acted as you would imagine they might- they trashed him. As for the press, the incident that brought it clear for me was when his translator mis-translated something while he was in Poland. The press crucified Carter over it as if it had been his action.
posted by pointilist at 9:04 PM on January 22, 2009

Don't forget that Jimmy Carter backed down from a swimming rabbit. And that any man who would find himself the least bit ruffled by an irrationally aggressive woodland creature can't be the kind of powerful, confident, and resourceful leader America needs.
posted by weston at 9:43 PM on January 22, 2009

Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the White House.

One of Ronald Reagan's first acts as President was to have them taken down.
posted by adipocere at 9:46 PM on January 22, 2009

This thread sure spun off in an unexpected direction.
posted by paisley henosis at 9:57 PM on January 22, 2009

Repubs always get back to how bad Clinton was, or they just overshoot him and go for Carter.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:33 PM on January 22, 2009

Jimmy Carter was a terrible, terrible president on so many levels I cannot even enumerate them.

Then naming a couple of levels must be really easy...?
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:39 PM on January 22, 2009

Jimmy Carter created the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. Bush can't even pronounce "nuclear", for fuck's sake.
posted by secret about box at 3:54 AM on January 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

If I had to choose between a third Bush term and a second Carter term, I'd choose Carter in an instant.

What scares me is that in electing Obama, we might have done just that.
posted by dinty_moore at 5:23 AM on January 23, 2009

Then naming a couple of levels must be really easy...?

Let me take a stab at the reply:

"Do your own research!"
posted by absalom at 5:32 AM on January 23, 2009

[Because I agree Carter was not that good of a president, and seeing the call out for an explanation, I'll explain the reasons for my opinion]
The seminal impression I have of Carter is the whole "malaise" speech. My remembrance of it and the reaction I remember of it was one of a collective wtf? People wanted leadership, and the leader of the nation came across as saying he understood Americans wanted leadership, but people were struggling because America/Americans are in a malaise, and his solution will be to fix the energy issues. I went back and looked at the text of that malaise speech, and it reinforced that wtf feeling I recall. I give Carter kudos for two things, trying to stop our dependence on foreign oil, and his commitment to peaceful diplomacy (though, I think his personality was better suited as Sec of State than as POTUS). But he was rather ineffective at motivating others toward a common goal, and this may be the primary reason he is not remembered fondly. To put a bit of perspective on it, imagine the old sports movie cliche, where the scrappy underdog heroes are being defeated in the most important game of the season, and the coach comes in and says, well I guess it makes sense we're losing, given our backgrounds, so to get us back on track I have these new uniforms, and I know that wearing them will be a bit uncomfortable at first, but trust me, once you break them in they'll be a second skin.
posted by forforf at 6:57 AM on January 23, 2009 [2 favorites]

Why are we still listening to Karl Rove - can't we just ignore him now?
posted by Capt Jingo at 7:01 AM on January 23, 2009

Honestly, you need to be either a special kind of retarded or have been living in a sealed box this past few months if you think Carter and Obama are comparable. When did Carter ever draw million-man crowds? Make speeches that brought tears to people's eyes? Sit down and sign five nation-changing executive orders in a day?

Come on, you reprobates, make some effort at making sense.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:57 AM on January 23, 2009

The seminal impression I have of Carter is the whole "malaise" speech.

That's the best you can come up with? An unsuccessful speech?

That's not even as bad as Enron - and we still have 9/11, Gitmo, Iraq, etc. etc...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 9:02 AM on January 23, 2009

You know, I agree that Carter is underappreciated, but forforf makes a good point. In retrospect, Carter knew a lot about the troubles America would be facing, and from purely a policy perspective was a much better president than Reagan. He even had the balls to tell the nation to it's face what the cause of those problems was, two decades before Bush's "addicted to oil" line.

Yet, a significant part of being president is inspiring the masses with leadership. It's getting those who may agree with you, but feel disempowered, to join in your cause. He failed on that count. In the end, he was a modern day Cassandra.
posted by heathkit at 10:15 AM on January 23, 2009

Carte's malaise speech was actually well recieved.

As to a crisis of leadership, Carter mapped out very specific policies for addressing the energy crisis, including an end to dependence on foreign oil. Text of the speech.

Sorry if that made Carter a bad president in your eyes. In mine it made him a hero.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:29 AM on January 23, 2009

Only neo-cons could get hindsight wrong.
posted by fullerine at 11:04 AM on January 23, 2009 [4 favorites]

He DID says he hates the entire country. He said he hated YOU.

I mean, really? What kind of person lives someplace where he hates everybody and everything around him?

Reading the whole comment, I see disappointment at the lack of instant change, perhaps a case of great expectations dashed by understanding that Obama doesn't have a magic wand that'll transform people. That's why Obama said that Americans must step up to the task and take responsibility. mike3k seems to me to hate racist ideas and people trying to retain the status quo.

He may be too pessimist for your liking, but love it or leave it is the Bush way of discourse. Obama has supported working together and trying to bridge differences. In his words:

Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

I'm Greek, but I've heard a fair share of "Greece sucks".
posted by ersatz at 11:47 AM on January 23, 2009

The newest fear-mongering campaign from the Right and the media
posted by homunculus at 12:41 PM on January 23, 2009

“ And the Iran hostage crisis was just the cherry on top of the sundae.”

Yeah, I used to think Carter was a lousy president. And, really, he wasn’t that great, but that Iran hostage thing wasn’t his fault. Say, did you know Ollie North was the OiC at a refueling point for the helicopters during the Eagle Claw op?
I mention that, in part, because compartmentalization of information can lead to serious failures as well. That operation is a classic example. No one got a reality check from the outside. All branches of the service wanted a piece of it. Everyone but the Boy Scouts were in on it.
But...
I mean, you can blame Gen. Secord, but I have trouble thinking anyone’s that stupid.
Especially with his buddy Albert Hakim and North later trading serious hardware for letting the hostages go.
It’s not like Richard Werthlin was the only guy who knew that if Delta rescued the hostages before the election Carter would win. (And I know officers who were given orders to

So I don’t lay those dead troops at Carter’s feet.
Rumsfeld (who, funly, was a player at that time too, or do we not remember who he was shaking hands with in 1980?) and his ilk have a long track record of regarding troops as ‘fungible.’
I’d be happy to die for my country. I would have been proud to go on that mission (were I old enough) and rescue those hostages or die trying.
Being stabbed in the back so one party can elect their guy tho’ - not so much.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:59 PM on January 23, 2009

Sorry if that made Carter a bad president in your eyes. In mine it made him a hero.

You know, I stand corrected. I was born in 1980, and I have only vaguest impression of what the Carter years were like. I've never seriously researched them, so my only insight comes from the imprint that the media consensus on those times has left me. That consensus is that he was a well-meaning country bumpkin, and that he was somehow responsible for the worst economic climate since the great depression. The Carter years were marred with runaway stagflation, which Reagan saved us from with tax cuts and free trade. Of course, I have no idea what that's like, but it sounds bad.

Anyway, it feels to me there's been a lot of rewriting of history with regards to the Carter years. I'd appreciate it if someone could help set me straight.
posted by heathkit at 3:15 PM on January 23, 2009

That consensus is that he was a well-meaning country bumpkin, and that he was somehow responsible for the worst economic climate since the great depression. The Carter years were marred with runaway stagflation, which Reagan saved us from with tax cuts and free trade

That's pretty much how I remember it, actually.

Many of you here are way too young to remember how horrible the economy was during those years, with rampant inflation (prices literally going up week after week after week after week) and jobs hard to come by...and after a series of presidents (Carter was simply the last one ) who had been ineffectual, Ronald Reagan swept in and did what those of us back then thought was impossible-with runaway inflation ending and HOPE coming back to the land.

Actually, I can see some parallels between him and Obama-only for Reagan the hope came swelling in AFTER the election. Before of it many of us feared Reagan as a warmonger (I voted for the third party candidate John Anderson in 1980.)
posted by St. Alia of the Bunnies at 8:20 PM on January 23, 2009 [1 favorite]

I hope you remember that the economic problems you see now began with and are the result of stupid and greedy decisions made by George Bush Jr, whose honour you steadfastedly defend through thick and thin.

Of course, you will instead blame skyrocketing unemployment rate, crashing markets, and devalued dollar on the new guy.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:10 PM on January 23, 2009

And I'm gonna call you out on this:

Jimmy Carter was a terrible, terrible president on so many levels I cannot even enumerate them. I was a (young) adult during his term and believe me, four years of his administration were four too many. And the Iran hostage crisis was just the cherry on top of the sundae.

George Bush was The Worst President Ever by at least two orders of magnitude more than Carter.

Bush was a complete, unmitigated disaster of a President who has destroyed America's credibility, ruined America's economy, killed hundreds of thousands of people in a war fought on false pretenses; actively disregarded important information about terrorism, climate change, and crumbling infrastructure; made the decision to be a war criminal by personally approving the use of torture, despite it being an ineffective practice; and, oh, so very much more (we can only be thankful he spent more than a third of his terms on vacation.)

It takes a lot of gumption to cast stones at Carter while supporting Bush. Gumption, blindness, or a whole wack of crazy.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:28 PM on January 23, 2009

Ibrahim: Al-Qaeda wants to Hit the US Again and turn Obama into another Bush
posted by homunculus at 9:48 AM on January 25, 2009

A photo essay on Guantanamo by Paolo Pellegrin
posted by chunking express at 6:38 AM on January 26, 2009

Ronald Reagan is an evil man that killed (indirectly?) a shit load of people in Latin America. And he sold weapons to Iranians and Iraqis so they could kill each other for 10 years or so. Fuck that dude.
posted by chunking express at 6:43 AM on January 26, 2009 [1 favorite]

Former Bush Speechwriter: CIA Torturers Are ‘American Heroes’
posted by homunculus at 4:00 PM on January 26, 2009