Althouse: "Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts."

September 11, 2010

"Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts."

"... These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat. But they have failed. Our country is strong."

"... Today, our nation saw evil -- the very worst of human nature -- and we responded with the best of America.... This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world."

72 comments:

Methadras said...: Thank you President Bush for your strength, confidence, and leadership of this country to fight that which is evil. It's to bad that this terrorist attack brought out the cowardice and dhimmitude in some Americans.; 9/11/10, 11:08 PM
Rialby said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/11/10, 11:18 PM
lucid said...: It does make you appreciate Bush.

Imagine Obama trying to handle the situation. Faculty-lounge attitudes and platitudes would obviously be of no use. Nor would apologies for the US or national self-condemnation be appropriate. What would he have to say? Something about his grandmother?; 9/11/10, 11:19 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: .--; 9/11/10, 11:21 PM
sunsong said...: 9/11 tribute - amazing grace; 9/11/10, 11:22 PM
miller said...: Good grief people.

Can't you give a compliment to Bush w/o giving a slam to Obama?

It's like there are only two possible sides in this universe and everyone must pick a side and then always attribute the other sides' actions to the devil.

Bush did a fine job leading this country. I voted for him twice, and would have voted for him again.

Obama's the head guy now. He's not Bush. I realize that. But this isn't about Obama being EVIL and Bush being GOOD. It's about the simple decency of Bush. Let it be just that.

Enough already.; 9/11/10, 11:31 PM
Fen said...: miller Good grief people.

People? One person of 6 comments.

You're over-reacting.

Why?; 9/11/10, 11:37 PM
dick said...: All I can say is that at that particular time I was so happy that Bush was in office rather than Gore. Just cannot imagine Gore handling the situation half so well.; 9/11/10, 11:42 PM
lucid said...: @Miller

Because Bush is now a memory. But Obama is now the problem.

And-----Obama and the Dems are running against Bush. they use his name and attack whenever they can.

Turnabout is fair play.; 9/11/10, 11:53 PM
Anonymous said...: So 9/11 has now been hijacked by Republicans.

According to people like Ann, Democrats are not allowed to commemorate 9/11. Only Republicans are true patriots.

Here's news for you. More people who died in 9/11 were Democrats than Republicans. What a slap in the face to ALL who died on 9/11.; 9/11/10, 11:59 PM
LouisAntoine said...: "...and with that said, let's go out and invade an unrelated country and kill hundreds of thousands of people and thousands of American soldiers."

Thanks W.; 9/12/10, 12:02 AM
miller said...: No, turnabout is not fair play.

It's childish.

this is a post about a very good man (Bush) in a very difficult and chaotic situation. Our government was functionally tested. I don't think there was any danger of the government failing, but there was a chaotic time where the President was removed from danger and from communication.

His essential goodness and decency comes out in this speech.

That's what I'm focused on.

For some reason some people like to be distracted.

So focus, people.; 9/12/10, 12:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Plus, Downtown, some people who died on 9/11 were gay and no states would recognize their gay marriages.

On a note of seriousness, the reason that people compare this to Obama is that Obama is such a trifle. Bush was and is a serious man for serious times. He understands that there are many people in the world who would do the United States great harm. He also understands that the world is not about him.; 9/12/10, 12:06 AM
LouisAntoine said...: Conservatives have made ordinary remembrance on 9/11 into a grotesque joke.; 9/12/10, 12:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Montagne -- Iraq is our beach head in the Middle East. Bush understood what you cannot grasp: we'll never win a war in Afghaistan because there is nothing to win. We can only send soldiers there to chase people around, and to die, until the rich Arab boys of Al Qaeda move somewhere else. To impose our will, we need to take over infrastructure in a lasting way.

Also, would that any speech by Obama could stand up a fraction as well in 2020 or so.

But, anyway, you don't care about these things, and you are not serious about issues. If you were, you would admit that Obama is a disaster instead of trying to make the previous administration look bad at every opportunity, two years, five years, and nine years on.

Sad, dude.; 9/12/10, 12:12 AM
Chase said...: Conservatives have made ordinary remembrance on 9/11 into a grotesque joke.

No Monty - not conservatives. Start with Michael Moore and work your way down from there.

Hitting a nerve, is it?; 9/12/10, 12:13 AM
Anonymous said...: Montagne -- Is it a ha-ha funny grotesque joke or more a joke like the way Obama and the Democrats have managed to turn away independents and Reagan Democrats?

Sweet November. I think it's all a plot by Karl Rove.; 9/12/10, 12:14 AM
Luke Lea said...: From Updike's Rabbit Redux:

"Bully for you. You're what made America great. A real gunslinger."

"He's silent majority," Janice says, "but he keeps making noise,". . .

"He's a normal product," Stavros says. "He's a typical goodhearted imperialist racist." . . .

But Rabbit is locked into his intuition that to describe any of America's actions as a "power play" is to miss the point. America is beyond power, it acts as in a dream, as a face of God. Wherever America is, there is freedom, and wherever America is not, madness rules with chains and darkness strangles millions. Beneath her patient bombers, paradise is possible. He fights back, "I don't follow this racist rap. You can't turn on television now without some black face spitting at you. Everybody from Nixon down is sitting up nights trying to figure out how to make 'em all rich without putting 'em to the trouble of doing any work." His tongue is reckless; but he is defending something infinitely tender, the low flame of loyalty lit with his birth. "They talk about genocide when they're the ones planning it, they're the ones, the Negroes plus the rich kids, who want to pull it all down; not that they can't run squealing for a lawyer whenever some poor cop squints funny at 'em. The Vietnam war in my opinion ‑ anybody want my opinion? -"

"Harry," Janice says, "you're making Nelson miserable."

"My opinion is, you have to fight a war now and then to show you're willing, and it doesn't much matter where it is; 9/12/10, 12:16 AM
lucid said...: Wow--the lib-blibs are crawling out of their dung piles tonight. The increasingly unhinged left is driven absolutely insane by anything good about Bush or Palin.

All Obama has to do is to make 9/11 his own by acting like a middle-of-the-road American president. But he can't do it because he is too far left and too ironic and pseudo-sophisticated to think or say something that all those poor hicks, who are clinging to their guns and religion and distrust of anybody different, would respond to.; 9/12/10, 12:20 AM
LouisAntoine said...: As long as you're not the guy getting shot or bombed, Machos, your word is your bond. "We" all appreciate your brave efforts. Ah, 9/11, the day when a fighting keyboarder remembers fondly the golden age...; 9/12/10, 12:21 AM
Anonymous said...: Just cannot imagine Gore handling the situation half so well.

Pretty sure Gore wouldn't have ignored the report that was issued in August of 2001 that said "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.". Bush was too busy with his vacation in Crawford.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb080601.pdf

But hey - there's no way Bush could have realized what Bin Laden was preparing. It was a very vague, complex report. Slightly over one page! And in very big font!

And the second to last paragraph of the report said:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicales patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of at1acks. including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Yup - Thank goodness Gore wasn't President at the time. Then we wouldn't have been able to use 9/11 as a fund-raising tool for Sarah Palin. And we probably couldn't have gotten tax cuts for the rich pushed through either.

But remember - liberals (which includes most New Yorkers) aren't real Americans. New Yorkers have no right to commemorate 9/11. Only REAL Americans, like those who live in Alaska, truly understand the meaning of 9/11.

But what do I know. I was only living and working in New York City on 9/11/2001. My company had thousands of workers in the twin towers. I remember what it is like frantically trying to get in touch with your friends who worked there, having no idea if they were dead or alive.

So of course there's no way that I could EVER understand 9/11.

Idiots.; 9/12/10, 12:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you, W.

I still feel that "quiet, unyielding anger." I hope to live up to it every day of my life.; 9/12/10, 12:30 AM
sunsong said...: budweiser 9/11 tribute; 9/12/10, 12:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you President Bush for your strength, confidence, and leadership of this country to exploit 9/11 and start a pointless war in Iraq to avenge your father's inability to finish a fight.

Your focus on Saddam Hussein, rather than Bin Laden, is a true point of genius. It will take scholars hundreds of years to understand the sheer intellectual brilliance of that decision.; 9/12/10, 12:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Downtown -- When will scholars begin to understand why the United States invaded North Africa to fight Germany after Japan attacked Hawaii?

When will scholars begin to understand why the United States invaded Vietnam and Korea during the Cold War with the USSR?

Perhaps you are just a simpleton. Of course, you will be a substantially less happier simpleton in November. So enjoy this interlude of serene stupidity.; 9/12/10, 12:51 AM
LouisAntoine said...: After the November election comes the 2012 presidential race, in which Obama will be reelected, and the ODS brigades will spontaneously combust from anger and disillusion. Can't say I don't look forward to it.; 9/12/10, 12:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Montagne -- Obama is Hoover.

You are, of course, so dense and shallow that you assume that Obama's presidency is somehow like Bill Clinton's presidency. Obama doesn't have a fraction of Bill Clinton's political instincts. He doesn't have any of the conservative of free trade bona fides. He can't give a speech. All that electricity of 2008 will be empty air in 2012.; 9/12/10, 12:56 AM
dick said...: Downtown,
You keep trying to peddle that POS about the briefing. GIven that AQ is going to attack with a plane sometime in the first couple of weeks of September, which is what the briefing said, what would you have done. Remember your intelligence sources cannot talk to each other thanks to Goralnik and Reno and NYC alone has over 4K flights per day. Where would you put your resources. What city is the flight coming from and on what exact day. What will the target be. Remember that the briefing just said attack with planes and a two week window. Be specific in what your plans would be and remember you cannot coordinate the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, ACSI intelligence since they cannot communicate.

Bet the end result if you seriously look at it is that you really have nothing to work with. Any hint that you might get more info is stymied by the DOJ wall so you can stop bloviating about how Bush shoulda done or shoulda known.; 9/12/10, 12:56 AM
Anonymous said...: It's going to be a sad day for Bush haters in November 2012. Not only will a new Republican president be coming into office, but their sorry and pathetic loathing for the world will need to find a new outlet.

Some of them, of course, will just transition into loathing the new president. But others will face terrific psychic torment.

Luckily, there's always Karl Rove.; 9/12/10, 1:00 AM
Synova said...: Bush understood clearly that a terrorist act has a purpose other than immediate destruction. The essence of a terrorist act is to accomplish a second goal... to force a stronger force to act in a way that serves the terrorist's purpose, to multiply force to give the terrorist more power than they'd possibly have.

The purpose on 9-11 was to frighten us into chaos, retreat and... over-reaction.

The purpose was to cause the war-like Bush (and this was part of the "narrative" from our own intellectuals prior to 9-11, when they explained the intricacies of US politics to European reporters) to lash out blindly at Muslims, Islam, and perhaps even Mecca... to give Bin Laden his army because there was no other way for Bin Laden to get one.

So Bush spoke in harsh terms, black and white terms, militant terms... no wishy washy talk of understanding evil or making excuses... but also that Muslims were good people and we should all go shopping... to deny Bin Laden his army and to deny crippling chaos and fear. In that respect Bush made certain that the attack on 9-11 failed.

All in all the Islamic world was remarkably neutral, if not cooperative. We transported our troops and supplies, our whole war apparatus over Islamic territory, got us use of air bases in some of the most unlikely Afghan neighbors, (which was kept so quiet we only heard about it when they kicked us out after Obama was elected) ran caravans overland through Pakistan and only Turkey denied us staging access in 2003 to Iraq, (no doubt on account of their own issues with the Kurds).

Bush accomplished that and it's remarkable.; 9/12/10, 1:14 AM
LouisAntoine said...: "new Republican president"

HA HA. Who? Newt? Sarah? Pawlenty? Romney? Huckabee? Pastor Terry Jones?

Ya got nothin'; 9/12/10, 1:25 AM
gk1 said...: This speech only makes me long for an adult as president again, not some thin skinned,petulant, child. Did you see obama's speech today? I think a 3rd grader wrote it, it was that bad. Sigh, November can't come fast enough for me.; 9/12/10, 1:26 AM
Anonymous said...: Montagne -- Have fun with Hoover. It's going to be a short, bumpy ride.; 9/12/10, 1:28 AM
Indigo Red said...: "Obama is Hoover."
That's ridiculous! Obama is definitely not Hoover. Obama sucks!; 9/12/10, 1:45 AM
Gene said...: Why are we making such a big deal out of the ninth anniversary of 9/11? Did we do this for the eighth and the seventh? Isn't the 10th anniversary more appropriate? Or has the Ground Zero Mosque just got everyone all fired up?; 9/12/10, 1:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Gene -- Prime number anniversaries are really the best ones. That's just one more thing that's going to make 2012 special.; 9/12/10, 2:01 AM
Clyde said...: Funny thing; that period after 9/11 was the last time I watched CNN. I heard too much of the Christiane Amanpours' "Ask yourself why they hate you" baloney. Then I discovered Fox News, a network that actually was on America's side. Imagine that! Never went back to CNN.; 9/12/10, 3:04 AM
Anonymous said...: Clyde -- I felt the same way except I stopped watching television news altogether.

I don't even know where those channels are on my cable any more. It's fabulous.; 9/12/10, 3:06 AM
AllenS said...: Put me in the no tv news category.; 9/12/10, 5:54 AM
Cedarford said...: Bush? He had a few good months after 9/11. Then slowly but surely he was captured by the Neocons and went all Wilsonian about liberating noble Muslim Freedom lovers, extolled the Religion of Peace, held two state dinners to honor his special friend and head drug dealer Ahmed Karzai.

A trillion was spent, we took 40,000 casualties and America is a weaker nation than when Bush took office. Weaker still with Obama in charge.
We have little to show for our 8 years in Afghanistan and Iraq after the initial demolition of the enemy phase. The first thing the noble freedom lovers of Afghanistan did was consolidate drug smuggling. The 1st thing the noble freedom lovers of Iraq did on independence was announce they were signing a mutual defense treaty with their Shiite friend in Iran, and start eviction proceedings to get the US out of the 18 billion in modern bases Rumsfeld had built there.

While domestically, Bush ignored illegal immigration, the collapsing American financial and industrial infrastructure because he was more interested in school playgrounds being built for "noble Iraqis".

We also know besides domestic neglect, the Bush "noble neocon spread Democracy and Freedom!!!" years came at horrific expense elsewhere as everyone knew the US had blundered into a strategic tarpit. N Korea, Sudan, Venezuela had a free hand. So did Iraq. China began modernizing it's AF and Navy with no funds left for the US to reassert Pacific dominance. All our allies peeled off. Even Australia and Singapore, rock-solid allies, told us that we can no longer count on them standing up to China with us, if Taiwan is attacked.
China and Russia formed the Shanghai Compact, which was to rid the US from central Asia like security rids a piss-soaked wino from a shopping mall. By 2007, that had suceeded. The Orange, Rose, Cedar Revolutions of the neocons were laughable jokes that faded away.

John Mccain lost his bid in part because even the conservatives had soured on Johnny and Sarah and the neocon's plans to start a 3rd major war by bombing Iran.

But yes, while sowing some seeds for his eventual failure (like The Religion of Peace, "finish the job" in Iraq), Bush had a 3-month stretch following 9/11 where he soared to an articulate level of speechmaking.

(But Obama is worse!); 9/12/10, 5:55 AM
Cedarford said...: I think of that old comedy movie "Stripes" when I think of the Muslim dialogue:

2001-2008:
Fawadd the Muslim:

"Look at our women, we will kill you!"
"Bring your evil Bible to our lands, we will kill you."
"Touch our Koran, we will kill you!"
"Apologize for the Crusades, or we will kill you!"

American response - "Oh, we are so sorry Fawadd!" "We love the Religion of Peace and only want to find the root causes of your anger and offense!"

2009-2010
Muslim Fawadd continues:
"Touch me, and I will kill you!"
"Touch my stuff and I will kill you!"
"Offend me by not letting me build a Mosque where and when I want, I will kill you!"
"Say mean things about my veiled women or programmed children, I will kill you!"
"Last warning, or I will kill you"

American response:

"Lighten up Fawadd, or else."; 9/12/10, 6:21 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Bush understood clearly that a terrorist act has a purpose other than immediate destruction. The essence of a terrorist act is to accomplish a second goal... to force a stronger force to act in a way that serves the terrorist's purpose, to multiply force to give the terrorist more power than they'd possibly have.

The purpose on 9-11 was to frighten us into chaos...and... over-reaction."

If Bush understood all this, why did he react exactly as the terrorists wanted him/us to?" (Your remarks are a pretty accurate summary of what terrorism and bin Laden experts have said about the purposes of such terrorist acts...except for the part you invented about them wanting us to "retreat." You threw that in to justify the primary "overreaction" by America to the attacks: our baseless attacks on two countries.)

Among terrorism experts, it's virtually unanimous that we reacted exactly as bin Laden hoped we would, and that our grotesque overreaction has done exactly as you state: given the terrorists more power than they would otherwise have had.

Bush was exactly the wrong man and the people behind the scenes who were making the decisions were exactly the wrong people to be in power at the time. What a disaster they have unleashed, what a tragic orgy of slaughter and torture and destruction, accompanied by greater and more intrusive government police powers domestically. And Obama dutifully continues the butchery and devastation.

One is tempted to say bin Laden played Bush and his handlers like puppets, and it is not untrue, but, given the desired objectives that were achieved by the power elite as a result of our going to war--the eager willingness of the American people to surrender our Constitution to the cause of "fighting terrorism," the accrual to the President of virtually unchecked authority, the huge transfer of taxpayer dollars from taxpayer pockets and from domestic programs into the pockets of well connected war profiteers and into budgets of the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies, the expansion of American military might into a strategic part of the world, etc.--one can say bin Laden and the American Empire were mutually served by what has transpired.; 9/12/10, 6:27 AM
Anonymous said...: From a strategic standpoint, attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. The US had troops, including female soldiers, in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was using that as a recruiting and money raising point. It was a good one, because many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and most of Bin Laden's money as coming from Saudi-government-backed, Wahhabi-spewing Imams and their flocks.

It was less than 6 months after we started our attack on Iraq and our troops were out of Saudi Arabia and Yemen (don't forget the USS Cole attack in 2000).

Personally, I would have preferred a US pull-out of the Middle East, let Saddam's tanks roll into Mecca, and then tell France and Russia to fix the mess they created by secretly selling arms to Iraq through the UN's Oil-For-"Food" program. But, Americans would not vote for an non-interventionist President. "F*ck off and fix your own problems" doesn't sound very like US.; 9/12/10, 6:32 AM
Robert Cook said...: "...I discovered Fox News, a network that actually was on America's side. Imagine that!"

Yes, imagine that...a "news" organ that is on "America's side" rather than on the side of serving the truth, whatever it may be.

Well...similarly functioning "news" organs have been imagined before...and even made into reality...PRAVDA and IZVESTIA come to mind.; 9/12/10, 6:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Well...similarly functioning "news" organs have been imagined before...and even made into reality...PRAVDA and IZVESTIA come to mind.

Cookie, some of the other commenters on here are just plain crazy.

You're just plain evil.

Cold blooded Stalinist. That madness will always have its adherents.

You're apparently rather intelligent, too. But, you are a cold blooded, evil Stalinist.

I know that you think you are something else. The Stalinists never think they're Stalinists.; 9/12/10, 6:53 AM
Cedarford said...: that-xmas said...
From a strategic standpoint, attacking Iraq was the right thing to do. The US had troops, including female soldiers, in the holy land of Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden was using that as a recruiting and money raising point. It was a good one, because many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis and most of Bin Laden's money as coming from Saudi-government-backed, Wahhabi-spewing Imams and their flocks.

It was less than 6 months after we started our attack on Iraq and our troops were out of Saudi Arabia and Yemen (don't forget the USS Cole attack in 2000).
========================
Maybe, but then the trillion dollar nation-building and the 8 years of slow bleeding as the "noble freedom-loving, purple-fingered" Iraqis bushwhacked us at every opportunity soured the nation on Bush and his neocons.

Had we just busted the hell out of the place, then left as soon as we gave the Kurds and Shia arms to defend themselves leaving the Iraqi gov't intact except for Saddams inner circle...we would have left strong, 150 billion in the hole, but with under 1,000 casualties instead of nearly 40,000.

We wouldn't have marched ourself into a strategic tar pit that allowed N Korea, Venezuela, Pakistan, Burma, Iran, and China a free hand for the last 8 years while Iraq had trapped us.

What we left, after the Worshipped David Petreaus "Surge victory" - is a Shiite government with ties to Hamas and Hezbollah, that declares their closest friends are the Iranian Mullahs, a country where no American is safe walking around without being surrounded by security.; 9/12/10, 7:11 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Cookie...You're just plain evil.

Cold blooded Stalinist."

I wonder how stating a plain fact--that Fox News Corp. is a straight up propaganda organ, (whose exclusive viewers are less well-informed than those who obtain their news through other sources)(*)--can be considered "evil."

Oh, well.

(*) http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/16/daily-show-fox-knowledge/; 9/12/10, 7:14 AM
Anonymous said...: I wan't even commenting on Fox News.

I've been reading your comments for some time.

You're a cold blooded, evil Stalinist.

One of the most evil I've encountered in some time. And I spend my time in Greenwich Village and Woodstock.

Believe me, I've met plenty of your kind.; 9/12/10, 7:40 AM
Anonymous said...: I won't defend Fox News, because I have no investment of any kind in that organization.

I like the O'Reilly program, although I often find myself disagreeing with O'Reilly. It's an entertaining program. O'Reilly routinely pits a leftist versus a rightie on whatever issue he's discussing.

I've watched several other programs on Fox News. I can't see that the network is doing any harm. Just can't see anything to get excited about there at all.

I do understand that the committed left, and especially the Stalinist left that Cookie represents, sees Fox as some sort of threat. The only sense I've ever been able to make out of this is that the presentation of conservative views is so toxic that news organizations should have the sense to not even present those views.

Fox has broken some new ground here, and it has been fantastically successful doing it. The huge financial success of Fox tells a story. The old networks, which refuse to even present conservative views, are taking a beating at the hands of Fox.

It goes without saying that a committed Stalinist like Cookie would find Fox threatening.

As I said, I'm not a partisan of Fox. It's surprising that such an inoffensive news organization that really appeals to the majority of Americans, who just happen to be somewhat conservative, could be perceived as such a threat.

The real threat to our liberties and our lives is the Cookies of this world.; 9/12/10, 7:53 AM
traditionalguy said...: We are commenting here without fear of arrest and being disappeared only because the USMC is still in business. That truth makes one serious about the next election.; 9/12/10, 8:19 AM
Clyde said...: @ Cookie

Would that the be same "truth" that CNN was withholding in order to stay in Iraq?

I don't know exactly how truthful Fox News may be, but they're certainly more honest than the alternatives. I KNOW that CNN and MSNBC are trying to bullshit me.; 9/12/10, 9:13 AM
jr565 said...: Downtown Lad wrote:
Here's news for you. More people who died in 9/11 were Democrats than Republicans. What a slap in the face to ALL who died on 9/11.

Hey didnt' Michael Moore make this exact point with his " “If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes' destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!”
Because Al Qaeda was mad about Bush stealing the election apparently. They were similarly mad that he was selected and not elected.; 9/12/10, 9:22 AM
jr565 said...: Downtown Lad wrote:
Pretty sure Gore wouldn't have ignored the report that was issued in August of 2001 that said "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.". Bush was too busy with his vacation in Crawford.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb080601.pdf

But hey - there's no way Bush could have realized what Bin Laden was preparing. It was a very vague, complex report. Slightly over one page! And in very big font!

And the second to last paragraph of the report said:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicales patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of at1acks. including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

For the last time the report has no actionable intelligence! There is no when, where or how in the memo. All it says is there is intent. Since Al Qaeda has been attacking our interests since the 90's I think that intent is pretty well known.
Was the WTC a federal building (ie they were surveilling federal buildings) and is the Pentagon in NYC?
You're also aware that the Feds had over 20 investigations going about possible terrorist attacks right?; 9/12/10, 9:31 AM
jr565 said...: To Downtown Lad:
Sorry taht should have said 70 investigations, not 20.
And to put this smoking gun note into context, lets quote a bit from it:
"Clandestine, foreIgn government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladln since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Ladin implied in us television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his lollowers would follow the example 01 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Youse! and "bring the lighting to America,"

Intent since the late 90's to attack us on our soil. Does the headline (Al Qaeda determined to attack us) dispute this? Does it reveal any detail that they will attack us on a specific date? What would you have bush do with this info that would stop 9/11 from occuring?
A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks,
We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (redacted) in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd ai-Rahman and other US-held extremists.
If they haven't been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting that means that it's simply sensational threat reporting, right? In 1998 Bin Laden wanted to hijack a plane to gain the release of the Blind Shiek. DId that happen? Was that part of the 9/11 plot? When the report says they were determined to attack us is that what they mean? Since it has nothing to do with 9/11 and could not be substantiated anyway, what is the point of suggesting that therfore this info should have been enough for Bush to head off the attacks?

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks. including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

Again, is the WTC a federal building? Was it even one of the targets that was being surveilled? And it mentions preparations for hijackings but doesn't say when or how or where. You'll note that the planes that attacked the WTC flew in from different states. So tell me how Bush should have known which planes from which states on which date would be hijacked?
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughoullhe US thai it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in Ihe UAE in May saying Ihat a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in Ihe US planning attacks with explosives.
Other than investigation potential attacks what was Bush to do? If the FBI conducted 70 field investigations and didn't turn over this plot why would Bush somehow have this information, since he is relying on his intel to provide him details. It even says that the FBI investigated a call that we were going to be attacked with explosives, something again which didn't happen. (But even here, there is no detail as to when such an attack would take place, or what state it would be in etc.).
All that the FBI had was chatter. There was no actual details about any specific attacks. If you have details that suggest otherwise, please provide them, otherwise please end this insipid talking point, which only makes you look like a partisan jackass.; 9/12/10, 9:49 AM
jr565 said...: Today Michael Moore said we should put the Cordoba Towers on ground zero and not just near ground zero.
His quote:
"I want it built on Ground Zero. Why? Because I believe in an America that protects those who are the victims of hate and prejudice," Moore writes in an open letter on his website. "I believe in an America that says you have the right to worship whatever God you have, wherever you want to worship.

"And I believe in an America that says to the world that we are a loving and generous people and if a bunch of murderers steal your religion from you and use it as their excuse to kill 3,000 souls, then I want to help you get your religion back. And I want to put it at the spot where it was stolen from you,"

A lot of peoples religions were stolen that day, along with their lives. Families were destroyed, health ruined, and all of them were simply living their lives. We don't have to prove again and again tthat were are a loving and generous people, nor that we prevent people from worshipping the god of their choice. That would be the Islamic world, Mike. THis has to be the most insensitive jackass on 9/11 we've ever had.Now he wants to overwrite the pain Americans felt of all religious persuasions and replace it with a sop to Islam and again make a point about American intolerance. Screw him.

The imam weighed in with the following on Larry King:
"If we move from that location, the story will be the radicals have taken over the discourse,"
"The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack."

Islam is at war with itself. There is a moderate kind and a radical kind. If though this IS a moderate imam and he is renouncing extremist Islam I don't think that opening the mosque will have the intention he wants. Because radicals will find a moderate mosque to be an assault on Islam as they see it, and it's extremists who would act extremely anytime Islam is targeted. Whereas, by their very nature moderates (such as they are in the Islamic world) aren't up in arms at the slightest provocation towards Islam. So extremists will not be assuaged by our gesture of outreach. Rather, they will either view it as America trying to twist Islam into something it's not or as an example of how they were able to get a mosque right at the heart of their greatest victory.; 9/12/10, 11:44 AM
jr565 said...: Robert Cook wrote:
I wonder how stating a plain fact--that Fox News Corp. is a straight up propaganda organ, (whose exclusive viewers are less well-informed than those who obtain their news through other sources)(*)--can be considered "evil."

And CNN and MSNBC (in particular) are not propaganda organs of the democrats? Really?; 9/12/10, 11:46 AM
jr565 said...: Downtown Lad wrote:

According to people like Ann, Democrats are not allowed to commemorate 9/11. Only Republicans are true patriots.

Who is denying democrats the ability to commemorate 9/11? What kind of drugs are you smoking?; 9/12/10, 11:48 AM
jr565 said...: Montagne wrote:

As long as you're not the guy getting shot or bombed, Machos, your word is your bond. "We" all appreciate your brave efforts. Ah, 9/11, the day when a fighting keyboarder remembers fondly the golden age...

Are you bring up the chicken hawk argument again? What about those who said that Bush diverted from the real war on terror? That presupposes that we will send troops into that war zone to occupy a country and fight its inhabitants (some might call them The Minutemen). So what about all of those fighting keyboarders? Are they somehow exempt from the chicken hawk charge?; 9/12/10, 11:56 AM
jr565 said...: Downtown lad:
But hey - there's no way Bush could have realized what Bin Laden was preparing. It was a very vague, complex report. Slightly over one page! And in very big font!

Since you provided the report that shows that AL Qaeda was determined to attack us, please provide the text from that document that shows we were aware of an attack on 9/11 or should have been.
I'll provide a link for you too.
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/pdb080601.pdf

It's ok, we'll wait.; 9/12/10, 11:59 AM
jr565 said...: Further downtown lad:
Fareed Zakaria and Michael Moore both echoed the same argument, namely that we overreacted to terrorism. ("There is no terrorist threat").
Yet you also have to get your digs in that Bush should have known ahead of time, and most likely backed Richard Clarke's view that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat we faced. The implication was that Bush ignored Clarkes warning, and is thus incompetent or worse. Yet, aren't the two positions held by liberals opposed to one another. If libs believe that we overreacted to terorrism, then is it really all that big a threat. I've heard plenty of libs suggest that more people die in car accidents, and that it wasn't an existensial threat. So clearly, those liberals don't believe that Al Qaeda really poses that great a threat.
Where do you fall? Because I'm geting tired of you libs arguing that Bush should have known, despite 70 investigations to the contrary, despite the FBI and CIA not knowing about an attack (or do you believe they were in on it and planted charges at 6 WTC for some nefarious purpose) and ignored the BiGGEST THREAT WE FACE and then turning around and treating the threat as no big whoop. Stick with one narrative please.; 9/12/10, 12:05 PM
jr565 said...: Dick wrote:
You keep trying to peddle that POS about the briefing. GIven that AQ is going to attack with a plane sometime in the first couple of weeks of September, which is what the briefing said, what would you have done. Remember your intelligence sources cannot talk to each other thanks to Goralnik and Reno and NYC alone has over 4K flights per day. Where would you put your resources. What city is the flight coming from and on what exact day. What will the target be. Remember that the briefing just said attack with planes and a two week window. Be specific in what your plans would be and remember you cannot coordinate the FBI, NSA, CIA, DIA, ACSI intelligence since they cannot communicate.

While I would agree with you that there is no way to possibly determine where an attack will occur or even what type of attack it will be (or what the target will be) thus there is no way to actually head off such an attack, where are you getting the two week window of opportunity quote? We didnt' even have that.

Here is the last few paragraphs of the note and any mention of attacks by planes. Nowhere does it mention time, date, target or anything that suggests an actual attack was imminent:

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (redacted) in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd ai-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks. including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in Ihe UAE in May saying Ihat a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in Ihe US planning attacks with explosives."
None of those are even suggestive of the actual attack that occurred. In one Al Qaeda is talking about hijacking a plane to rescue the blind sheik which never happened (and which was discussed way back in 1998). in another the FBI is investigating attacks planned with explosives, which never occured. (Unless it was Al Qaeda that put the squibs in 6WTC since fire doesn't melt steel). In the third case it mentions potential hijackings OR OTHER TYPES OF ATTACKS whatever that means and that Al Qaeda was surveilling federal buildings in NYC. To be attacked with explosives? Was the WTC a federal building and even a target being surveilled? In any case, there is no there there. Nothing that says when, or how, or where. Without such information you cannot stop an attack.
And if the FBI is going through 70 investigations, why are libs blaming Bush and not the FBI for not stopping said attacks since Bush only knows what his intelligence agencies tell him?; 9/12/10, 12:22 PM
Methadras said...: Indigo Red said...

"Obama is Hoover."
That's ridiculous! Obama is definitely not Hoover. Obama sucks

Obama = Dyson, Miele, Nilfisk, or Kirby?; 9/12/10, 1:42 PM
Methadras said...: As I said, cowardice and Dhimmitude.; 9/12/10, 1:43 PM
kentuckyliz said...: I think Michael Moore is in no position to offer any American territory to the Cordoba Initiative imam for the GZM. Isn't he Canadian? Build the freakin' mosque in Canada then, where they can abuse the HRC system to prosecute those who disagree.; 9/12/10, 3:07 PM
Robert Cook said...: Clyde asks, in re: my assertion that news organs should serve "the truth" rather than "being on America's side":

"Would that the be same 'truth' that CNN was withholding in order to stay in Iraq?"

Who said CNN was not, as is FOX, as are the other mainstream news outlets, also serving the propaganda interests of the war machine? This simply points up the absurd article of faith among right wingers that the "mainstream media" is leftist; in fact, to the extent the mainstream media promulgates propaganda--which they do, to a significant degree--they serve the interests of the entrenched power structure.

FOX is simply more overt in fulfilling this propaganda function.; 9/12/10, 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Who said CNN was not, as is FOX, as are the other mainstream news outlets, also serving the propaganda interests of the war machine?

Jesus, Cookie, you really are forever stuck in the SDS mode of the 60s!

When did your brain die? 1971?

"... propaganda interests of the war machine..."

Are you able to make a living?; 9/12/10, 3:50 PM
Fen said...: Libtard: This simply points up the absurd article of faith among right wingers that the "mainstream media" is leftist

Its not an article of faith; its direct experience. Everytime the media has reported on something I've been involved in they have 1) gotten it wrong and 2) favored the Left over the Right.

Every. Single. Time.; 9/12/10, 4:35 PM
lucid said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9/12/10, 9:14 PM
lucid said...: I don't think it is worth our time to "debate" with Robert "half-baked" Cook. It is very unlikely that he can earn a living, and the Communist analysis of things is not very interesting, and he isn't cognitively flexible enough to engage in a real discussion.

The question that I think we should start asking repeatedly, everywhere, as often as possible is:

Where are the moderate Muslims?

Why don't we hear from them?

What speeches have they made to commemorate and mourn the events of September 11, 2001?

Rauf is just threatening us and telling us that the Muslim world will make things "very, very, very dangerous."

Where are all these supposed moderate Muslims?

Is is possible that most of Islam is NOT a moderate religion?; 9/12/10, 9:18 PM
madAsHell said...: Obama: "ummm...we....ummmm....find....ummm....these....ummmmmm....people"

Do they include the ummmmm's in the teleprompter??

w/v serfisem = ....serfisem will make you free; 9/12/10, 10:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Robert Cook thinks CNN and MSNBC aren't far enough to the left and he believes that there is some American law that allows a foreign court to try a sitting American president for war crimes.

This man is obviously quite insane. It's fun to see him act all crazy, though, kind of like it's fun when you are a little kid to watch a bug die.; 9/13/10, 12:11 AM
// Trill said...: It was "terrorists", it was all America!; 11/19/10, 5:04 PM