Stuck on Stupid
posted at 9:03 am on June 18, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Susan Rice appeared on MS-NBC’s Morning Joe, which presumably originates out of either New York City or Washington DC, both attacked on 9/11 by al-Qaeda terrorists almost seven years ago. In fact, they were the last American cities attacked, as the Bush administration has managed to foil terrorists enough to keep them from hitting us, which no one predicted on 9/12/01. Everyone assumed that we would be hit again and probably often.
That track record speaks volumes to everyone — except Rice and the Barack Obama campaign. She says that the war has been fought “stupid” by George Bush and John McCain:
First off, John McCain hasn’t fought the war on terror; George Bush has. McCain had the correct strategy to fight the Iraq war, but had no opportunity to implement it. Bush adopted McCain’s approach in late 2006, more than two years after McCain privately and then publicly demanded the adoption of the current counterinsurgency strategies that have succeeded. If Susan Rice can’t tell the difference between the two, then it isn’t John McCain who’s stupid. That’s nothing more than perhaps the lamest attempt to tie George Bush to John McCain, a big non-sequitur from a campaign that has already specialized in them.Second, I’ll take a “stupid” strategy that results in zero terrorist attacks any day over a return to the Clinton-era strategy of prosecuting terrorists after they kill lots of people. Barack Obama suggested that we return to the posture we took in 1993 of simply arresting people after they commit terrorist attacks, blithely ignorant of the series of escalating attacks al-Qaeda committed during the 1990s after the conviction of the Blind Sheikh and his henchment for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. Apparently, Americans need to die before Obama will take action to stop terrorists rather than stop them before they attack.
If that’s what Susan Rice calls “smart”, then it explains a lot about Barack Obama’s ineptitude on the campaign trail. (via John McCain Report)
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Well written, Ed. A lot of Americans take for granted that we have not been attacked on American soil in nearly seven years.
txsurveyor on June 18, 2008 at 9:08 AM
I saw some of this earlier and she turned my stomach…
singlemalt_18 on June 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Somewhere…Hillary Clinton is gnashing her teeth.
swami on June 18, 2008 at 9:09 AM
All right I’ll say it….STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES….
twiggman on June 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
One Dr. Rice is not like the other. One Dr. Rice doesn’t belong…
If this is how they are going to run, things are looking better already for McCain.
Ordinary1 on June 18, 2008 at 9:13 AM
I know a lot of people who think that way, Ed, that our military folk being killed overseas is somehow much worse than those killed in terrorist attacks. Their view is that innocents being killed still gives us the moral high road–in that we’re not the aggressors, and let’s face it: many believe that we really do deserve it. If a few terrorist attacks killing a few innocent Americans salves their consciences, then it’s way better than brave men and women forestalling an attack in the first place, right? They can feel all noble that they “did all they could” to appease enemies and when the unthinkable happens (as it will), they can tsk-tsk and go on with their narrow little lives.
It’s a strange worldview, but it’s not an uncommon one.
Bob's Kid on June 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM
vs.
Ok. I get it. Bush is credited with preventing another terrorist attack on our country, and at the same time any attempt to tie Bush to McCain is lame.
Seems like Dems aren’t the only ones to throw people under the bus.
JiangxiDad on June 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM
During the 2004 presidential campaign, served as a foreign policy adviser to John Kerry.
Change? Oh I guess not.
TroubledMonkey on June 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM
I thought the D’s were dead in the water after 9/11 unless they adapted a platform that took national defense seriously for once.
They did not adapt that platform and are not only viable, but have a hell of a good chance of owning the house, the senate and the POTUS.
It’s chilling.
AntonDomi on June 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM
So, Barack Obama’s plan is to “change” back to the strategy of the Clinton Admin to wait for the next attack to occur and then track down those pesky terrorist and put them on trial so the rest of the world will see that we can “play fair”. Does history not sink into this mans pathetic excuse for a brain?
It’s Susan Rice’s stupidity along with Obama’s that will result in another attack. A lesson I “hope” this nation does not have to learn again.
Rovin on June 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM
Just because you are clueless as to what is really the issue does not obligate you to prove it.
CommentGuy on June 18, 2008 at 9:20 AM
That’s what the Left does…say “Bush=McCain”.
But since when have facts ever gotten in the way of a leftist tirade?
JetBoy on June 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Obama’s soon-to-be National Security Advisor thinks that Winnie the Pooh is a brilliant text on foreign policy.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2139573/Barack-Obama-aide-Why-Winnie-the-Pooh-should-shape-US-foreign-policy.html
p0s3r on June 18, 2008 at 9:21 AM
This will backfire like Bubba Clinton judging a Chili cookoff.
The fools on the left who continue to tar McCain with Bush’s brush…are doing the job Republicans won’t do. Meaning that President Bush has done a fine job, an amazing job, has been a great President during very dangerous times. He hasn’t simply occupied the Oval Office, he has been a Leader.
McCain can’t be bothered to reach out, embrace Conservatives-he’s too busy hugging tree huggers. He should WISH that he could be mentioned in the same breath as President Bush. Conservatives might feel less queasy about the man we are stuck with if he were more like President Bush.
Doug on June 18, 2008 at 9:23 AM
What do Madeleine Albright, Warren Christopher, William Perry, Jamie Gorelick, Tony Lake, Susan Rice, Greg Craig, Eric Holder, Richard Danzig and Jim Steinberg all have in common?
They were all in the Clinton administration and are lined up to be in Obama’s administration.
Change!
JammieWearingFool on June 18, 2008 at 9:24 AM
I’ll take a “stupid” strategy that results in zero terrorist attacks any day over a return to the Clinton-era strategy of prosecuting terrorists after they kill lots of people.
They just can’t stand to be proven wrong, they’d rather see us get hit again than to admit that Bush was right.
O/T: Staff, is there any chance we’ll get a thread from Laura’s new show on Fox?
Tony737 on June 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Geez, so the Dems wanted Clinton-era people back in the WH, just not Hillary Clinton, huh?
terryannonline on June 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
If nothing else, I think the pre-9/11, post-9/11 mindset issue resonates with the American people. I think embracing the law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism is the last nail in the Obama coffin. I am starting to think the guy actually doesn’t want to win, even if it’s at a subconscious level.
TheBigOldDog on June 18, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Saw Hussein being interviewed on his plane, saying that Bush’s strategy in the war has been “a total failure.” I wonder who told him to say that.
Akzed on June 18, 2008 at 9:29 AM
Obama’s not going to be elected.
I don’t know how much more proof the hand-wringers need.
It’s pretty obvious that the Democrats have taken to heart and completely internalized the idea that they really had the better message last time but John Kerry lost for not standing up to those big ol’ meany Swiftboaters.
So this time it isn’t happening. Oh no. This time they’re going to be tough and smart and right out and front and hit hard.
But what they just don’t get is that it’s the message that sucks. And poor ol’ Barry O, he’s so completely of the Left that he wouldn’t know how to reach out to the right if he tried.
He’s supposed to be all about changing the tone and bringing us together and here’s a mean-faced woman who would likely hold some key post in the Barry O administration smugly telling any and all who would listen that everyone who does not share her worldview is “stupid.”
Barry gets a beatin’ November 11th.
McGovern-sized.
Typhoon on June 18, 2008 at 9:30 AM
That’s what the Left does…say “Bush=McCain”. – Jet
That’s more of an insult to Bush than it is to McCain.
‘Zactley right, Doug!
Tony737 on June 18, 2008 at 9:33 AM
I’m not throwing McCain or Bush under the bus — I’m stating fact. McCain has not run the war on terror, and most of the time, his advice wasn’t getting taken.
Ed Morrissey on June 18, 2008 at 9:36 AM
I believe Ms. Rice needs to read a book called 1000 YEARS FOR REVENGE, INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AND THE FBI by Peter Lance to refresh her memory how well Clinton handled the militant Islamists during his time in office. After reading the book she might want to add Billy Jeff to the dumb list for his effective ways of fighting terrorists.
ic1redeye on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Is this the same Susan Rice was John Kerry’s chief foreign policy adviser, who serviced umm, I meaned served in the Clinton administration and who claimed OBL was involved in attacks on US forces in 1992?
http://www.sudan.net/news/press/postedr/125.shtml
The one who said Obama was not ready for the three am call – http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_adviser_c.html
Yes we can screw the American people with four more years of corrupt Clinton staffers. Not to mention other notables like:
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Anthony Lake, Clinton administration national security adviser
Sarah Sewall, Clinton administration deputy secretary of defense, counter, insurgency czar
Richard Clarke, Clinton and Bush administration counter, terrorism czar
Susan Rice, Clinton administration Africa specialist and NSC member, Brookings
Bruce Riedel, former CIA officer, NSC Near East and Asian affairs, Brookings
Now that’s change!
PatriotPete on June 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Great strategy: Wait for terrorists to kill again and then we should react.
In Gore’s recent speech announcing his support for Obama he said, “George Bush has been preying on our fears.”
And this coming from a man who was preying on the world’s fears of global warming.
Another great strategy: Respond to global warming now before Florida goes under water.
How many people died in one day on Sept 11th? How many people has global warming killed?
“Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?” -Frasier
shick on June 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Scarborough asked her what was the main thing Barry would bring to fighting terrorists that would be superior to McCain’s strategy, and, naturally, Susan Rice replied, “Judgement.”
Right…
Rev. Wright
Rev. Phleiger(sp?)
Ayers
Rezko
James Johnson
Eric Holder
etc….
Yeah, deciding who he surrounds himself with really, really makes me trust this guy’s judgement.
TC@LeatherPenguin on June 18, 2008 at 9:41 AM
One of the articles you linked to is about Susan Powers not Susan Rice.
terryannonline on June 18, 2008 at 9:45 AM
Believe Obama and his gaggle of incompetent nutroots at your own risk . . . then be afraid, be very afraid.
rplat on June 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM
+1
JiangxiDad on June 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM
Jeez, how are the poll numbers even close, still? This is a senior adviser to a presidential campaign, someone who is supposed to have some brains.
“They are stupid, we are smart, they are stupid….”
What exactly is Barack’s plan (on anything)? What exactly is stupid about the way we’ve been stopping terrorists at home around the world, oh, and with cooperation from other countries even though it doesn’t make for good liberal news.
I’m now hopeful that in addition to losing the Democrat seniors vote, the die-hard Clinton vote, the Lieberman-Democracts vote, Obama has to lose the Democrats with half a brain vote.
“Stoopid”. What an embarrassment.
reaganaut on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM
I’m not so sure of that. I was greatly surprised how many people voted for Kerry who aided and comforted our enemy. These same people who hate the incredibly stupid yet fear mongering plotter, George W. Bush, will vote for Obama who attended a racist church for 20 years, who’s policies are pure socialism, etc, etc.
I think we are witnessing the fall of a great nation.
shick on June 18, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Anyone else getting the impression that Obabma’s people sound like a bunch of fifth-graders?
I wouldn’t want these people in charge of doing my laundry.
fogw on June 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM
I was using sarcasm here.
shick on June 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM
“I see stupid people but they don’t even know they are stupid.” – modified quote from the movie, The Sixth Sense.
shick on June 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM
No, but John McCain’s son has. That little piece of information is constantly overlooked by those on the left. It kind of defuses the whole chicken hawk, war monger narrative and is salient in light of the recent Move On ads.
Just A Grunt on June 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Susan Rice is an extraordinarily abrasive person in the way she keeps brazenly asserting false things with absolutely no facts to support her statements. She just tosses these things out that are patently false and doing so with a very nasty tone. Sen. McCain has to win this election because sitting around for the next 4 years listening to people like and watching them place the country at risk is going to drive me crazy.
Jill1066 on June 18, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Great clip. This kind of attitude is not going to play well – especially in the most critical states. I’d like to see Luntz running his opinion meter thingy with this clip on undecided voters from OH, MO and PA.
It’s amateur blundering, and I expect to see more of it from Obama’s people. What Rice doesn’t seem to understand is that that kind of talk and attitude might go over well with Obama’s base, but it’s going to drive off millions of people who voted for Hillary in the primary, and also convince the right to put on the ol’ nose plugs and go vote McCain.
Keep it up!
forest on June 18, 2008 at 10:00 AM
This whole Obama/National Security topic makes my brain explode. Americans can’t possibly believe that Obambi would be any good at security???
Mojave Mark on June 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I have to add that we don’t know if the time and situation was right to implement McCain’s surge recommendations until we did. The surge might have failed if we had done it too early.
Patience is one of the toughest warfighting skills to learn.
James on June 18, 2008 at 10:01 AM
These Kool-Aid drinkers are not interested in security. We wouldn’t have these problems if America wasn’t such a mean country. We have to sit down and hug and talk to our enemies. Then they will appreciate us and all will be bliss. /sarcasm
shick on June 18, 2008 at 10:12 AM
If the Democrats really wanted to criticize Bush on solid ground, it would be for supporting Rumsfeld’s continued efforts to create a “high tech” Armed Forces with fewer boots on the ground, an effort begun before 9/11 and continued into the Iraq occupation period. That effort was fought internally by Army leaders in the Pentagon, who eventually were proven at least partially right by the change in strategy to the surge and Rumsfeld’s ouster after the ‘06 election.
The problem is, McCain beat them to the spot four years ago when he began voicing support of increasing U.S. troop deployments in Iraq to cut down on the terror attacks. And, unlike John F. Kennedy in 1960, who got to the right of Richard Nixon on missile defense in the run-up to the election, Obama and his people can’t stomach the idea of trying to get to the right of McCain on the issue, because that would mean admitting the surge worked, the war was justified and the U.S. military is being used as a force for good in the Middle East.
The fact that they’re so far gone now as to be sending people out like Susan Rice saying we should return to our pre-9/11 containment policies shows that as much as Obama wants to invoke JFK, he and his staff are too stupid to realize Kennedy did not beat Nixon by running George McGovern’s campaign on national defense, let alone Adalai Stevenson’s.
jon1979 on June 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Video blast from the past: Bill Clinton’s NSC advisor on, ahem, RWANDA, Susan Rice says “They [Obama & Hillary] are both not ready for that 3 AM phone call.”
Cuffy Meigs on June 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Bravo, Ed.
America has been through these MSM polls too many times and such a poll has already determined that Americans do not trust the MSM. So it only amounts to blow hard democrat supporters prefering Obama/Michelle to McCain/Cindy. Poll republican supporters and find the opposite. duh.
Speaking of stupid corruption track records of the current political Countrywide Mortgage VIP $candal, Gateway Pundit notes today:
maverick muse on June 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Well, to be fair, the “Bush” way of handling this problem has left us with over 4100 military deaths. The problem with the Obama/Rice stance here is that they are speculating against not having done what we have done.
Let’s say we didn’t do it the “Bush” way. Would we have been attacked again? How many would have died in that case? Who knows.
One thing that speaks for the “Bush” way is that terrorists have been flocking to Iraq, not the US, and getting their asses handed to them by our military’s finest instead of being crushed within the cockpit of a plane hitting a building full of civilians.
Then again, how many deaths has this produced in Iraq among Iraqi civilians? Have we simply displaced all the carnage that would have happened in the US to Iraq? Maybe.
In the end result, though, the “Bush” way is actually getting at the roots of this problem. Bush is draining the swamp, instead of swatting the flies that come from it. Doing so requires more sweat, blood, and tears up front, but in the long term it will be worth it.
Which is what narrow-sighted Democrats hell-bent on winning elections do not want to and will never understand.
Seixon on June 18, 2008 at 10:23 AM
Great analogy.
txsurveyor on June 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM
JiangxiDad,
You’re making the same mistake a lot of the Demos make – equating the war in Iraq with the overall struggle against terrorism/Islamists.
exhelodrvr on June 18, 2008 at 10:32 AM
The Cuban Missle Crisis was a defining moment in our history and was also basically the last time a Democrat “leader” stood in the face of tyranny and would not relent. At the tender age of eight, I still see the picture in my head of those Russian ships listing just miles from the Cuban shores. With that in mind, one could ask—”what would Obama have done”? or “what would John McCain have done”?
Rovin on June 18, 2008 at 10:35 AM
I feel the “stupid” one here is her.
Doesn’t she know that this war on terror may not have happened if it hadn’t been for the policies of our 1st black president…Bill CLinton?
He did nothing to keep us safe..as President Bush has done.
becki51758 on June 18, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Damn well said Seixon ! I’m going to “steal” your whole comment and post it to my site. (I will also send an invoice to Associated Press to re-imburse you) :-)
Rovin on June 18, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Come on folks, you all gotta get real here!
McSame is right
betweenin Bush’s back pocketswhen it comes to the War in Iraq.To say anything different is as; “serious as a heart attack”.
As for AQ, their scope of planning and execution is measured in years even decades. Lil George’s, Great Adventure into Mesopotamia is doing absolutely nothing to disrupt or deter their operations and planning in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of eastern Pakistan.
In fact lately, we’re getting served as our own lunch in Afghanistan.
To soon olde, to late smart!
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Its a no win situation no matter what policy the Demoncrats put in place.
If another attack(s) occurs, its in retaliation for the illegal war in Iraq and for all of our evil past offenses.
If another attack doesn’t occur, it was the right policy all along (regardless that the current plan, Bush’s plan, has worked for 7 years).
Slimy Demoncrats will *never* face the music for their failed policies.
Geministorm on June 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Nice clip. Does she her mouth out ahead of brain all the time? I want to see more of Susan Rice! Maybe she will star in some McCain ads?
forest on June 18, 2008 at 10:51 AM
J_Gocht’s sarcasm tag got left off inadvertently—-either that or some one’s slipping Kool-aid into his/her Malto Meal or Bosco……
Rovin on June 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Yes, exactly Seixon.
The Democrats in general and Obama in particular have painted themselves into a bit of a corner by going with the “Bush is evil and wants to eliminate our civil liberties so he’s scaring you to death” route. The problem for Obama is that he’s unable to express his plan for doing it a better way- or the right way, the one that isn’t evil but will really work. Clinton’s didn’t really work, plus it included extraordinary rendition.
If the Dems/Obama had started out approaching the WoT and Gitmo with the idea that Bush is facing tough choices but making the wrong ones, they’d be better off. They have to admit, at some point, that it isn’t easy, or they should be able to easily come up with some plan of their own.
MayBee on June 18, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Lets see what happens when someone states Barack’s ideas are stupid, I expect a response of “OMG your saying all black people are stupid, your a racist”
I know everyone says the buck stops with the President, but he doesn’t write up the war plan, he listens to what his generals and staff tell him. You can blame him for choosing the wrong people to run the war, but you can’t blame him for how it was run.
He had the guts to clean up the mess of his father and of Clinton, but he just gets trashed, someone has to do the world’s dirty work since the spines of everyone else have been turned to jello.
Rbastid on June 18, 2008 at 10:55 AM
“Early Times”…! :)
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 10:59 AM
When they blow themselves up along with thousands of innocent Americans, we can’t arrest them, can we Susan? We got lucky in 1993 that the terrorists were stupid and left the WTC and also left a paper trail that allowed us to arrest and prosecute most of the conspirators. We STILL don’t know for sure when exactly the 9/11 attacks were ordered, or how all the perps were recruited, assembled, and trained.
rockmom on June 18, 2008 at 11:07 AM
We are not as stupid as she says we are.
Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 11:09 AM
My bad…there is just so much there to trash http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/obama-aide-neither-candidate-ready-for-3-am-call/
PatriotPete on June 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
But who cares about security? Obama has a great smile! He’s for Hope and Change! He reads a great speech!
/sarcasm
cannonball on June 18, 2008 at 11:11 AM
And I still want to know when someone is going to have the balls to ask why the terror attacks on America stopped after Saddam Hussein was taken out. After all, Osama is still around; Zawahiri is still around; the Saudi Wahhabi sheiks who have funded Al Qaeda are still around. Who isn’t around? It’s the dog that isn’t barking.
rockmom on June 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM
And you know this how?
Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Think of it this way………..
When are friends, relatives, neighbors, and loved die in terrorist attacks under President Obama, at least they will have died “smartly”.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Remember folks,
Jamie Gorelick was on the 9/11 Commission, too. Conflict of interest? You decide. She established the wall to block intelligence sharing between the CIA and FBI.
She’s in line to Obama’s Attorney General. Be afraid. Be very afraid if this incompetent. She’ll make Al Gonzalez look like a choir boy.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on June 18, 2008 at 11:22 AM
The former may be found at Iraq Today, scroll down to Afghanistan.
The latter is from personal experience…”been there, done that”.
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 11:27 AM
Had to clarify. Some that agree with her might have read that.
shick on June 18, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I will say this one more time…the surge would not have worked 4 or 5 years ago. The climate in Iraq was one of mistrust of the americans and everyone else. It took this long for Iraqis to believe…Understandably.
tomas on June 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM
Was Scarborough having a segment on how to sit in your office with your thumbs up your @$$ while a million Rwandans get hacked apart with machetes and at least two neighbor states are destabilized?
No?
Then who the hell invited Susan Rice?
DrSteve on June 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM
This next election has nothing to do with “smart”, it has to do with “change”.
This is a civil war being fought with the vote, which I believe the Crackers that founded this country had in mind when they invented it.
Hening on June 18, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Here is what I would like to see happen.
A large number of liberals step forward to propose and form the Civilian Liberals Uniformed Enclave of Leaders Espousing Sacrificial Safety [CLUELESS].
This group would volunteer to set up and inhabit a target area within the US that would openly invite terrorists to attack said site so that all others, and especially members of the military, would be spared.
Yoop on June 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I actually was attempting not to be sarcastic above, really.
My druthers; Early Times and oatmeal and it’s not too early for oatmeal, is it? :)
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 11:35 AM
I wish I could interview this shrew. I’d crucify her.
D2Boston on June 18, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Thanks for the info about Susan Rice playing the role of Nero with Rwanda. Here’s some more scary stuff:
Buy Danish on June 18, 2008 at 11:42 AM
So, to review, the overall Obama strategy seems to be to call just about every American racist, stupid, corrupt, gun-toting religious zealots. . . and how many people experience quasi-orgasmic reaction to him/them doing so?
Niiice.
The fact that he’s made it this far, with this as his basic message, speaks volumes about the mindset of the ‘active’ segment of today’s Democratic party – and if his ’success’ extends through next November, it will be an indication that this nation has had a serious break with and from reality.
Wind Rider on June 18, 2008 at 11:52 AM
“I will say this one more time…the surge would not have worked 4 or 5 years ago. The climate in Iraq was one of mistrust of the [A]mericans and everyone else. It took this long for Iraqis to believe…Understandably.”
Indeed…!
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 12:02 PM
“This war is lost.” One of Harry’s finest moments.
a capella on June 18, 2008 at 12:04 PM
More on Susan Rice (from a Hillary supporter):
And
I guess that “dramatic action” only applies to the African continent. But wait! She also said this:
So, she’s only kinda sorta against the Iraq War?
Buy Danish on June 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
is she any relation to Condi Rice?
james23 on June 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Al Qaeda has taken a break from hitting us again. My question is why would they even want to attack us? They are sitting pretty in Pakistan. They have successfully provoked us into attacking not just them, but their regional rivals. Why would you take the spotlight off of Iran? They were happy that we attacked Iraq. We are spending ourselves into poverty, overstretching our Armed Forces. What benefit would Al Qaeda have from striking again?
So yes Bush has successfully prevented an attack by caving into Bin Laden and eliminating his regional rivals. As long as we keep doing that he will probably leave us alone. Al Qaeda is very careful with their resources and planning. They also seem to understand Sun Tzu’s Art of War and the tenets that it teaches, especially divide and conquer, unlike these mouthpieces who spout ignorance. You don’t win by being dumber than your enemy.
And yes they were all rivals, Iraq, Iran, and Al Qaeda. They were all fighting for the “Al Sharpton” of the region niche where they can decry the occupation of the West and serve as a leader to harness those frustrations. Warmongering ideologies use religion most of the time, but leadership goals are completely political. You cannot be an adequate leader in any geopolitical area and actually believe in the old wives tales you preach otherwise you could not kill people for expansionist reasons or have the alcohol tolerance of a Saudi Prince. Religion is a useful tool, just ask Michael Ledeen.
LevStrauss on June 18, 2008 at 12:14 PM
No attacks on US soil since 9/11 is a GREAT thing. But lets not forget that Al Qaeda hit the Twin Towers first in 1993; they did not come back for a second try for nearly 8 years. I am sure that we have defeated numerous plots(many we never hear about) since then. AQ operates on a different time frame than we do. They are patient, deviously so. They are waiting for us to take our eye off the ball. Electing Barak and his ilk is just the opportunity they are waiting for. Clinton et. al. viewed terrorism as a law enforcement problem, Obama does as well. That is the environment the AQ cells that are probably already here, are waiting for, an Obabma win in November is probably their green light.
Lunkinator on June 18, 2008 at 12:14 PM
Your post my dear!
Oh and BTW; despite what you may think..?
“Experience can often be the best teacher”!
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM
Rovin,
“Democrat “leader” stood in the face of tyranny and would not relent. ”
You mean not relenting other than taking the US missiles out of Turkey.
exhelodrvr on June 18, 2008 at 12:19 PM
You know, I’m really tired of hearing this from people who should know better. Yes, there were no attacks of the same scale as 9/11, but only a week after 9/11 began a series of anthrax terror attacks, resulting in five dead and $1 billion in damage, which was three times the damage of and only one fewer fatality than the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. It’s quite impressive that there have been no domestic attacks since October 2001, but please be sure to get the facts straight on this.
calbear on June 18, 2008 at 12:34 PM
Since those attacks occurred a week after 9/11, at which time Bush did not have his anti-terrorism policies in place, what’s the relevance here vis a vis his strategy to fight terrorism versus Obambi’s boneheaded ideas?
Buy Danish on June 18, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Sadly I think that A LOT when it comes to Democrap positions.
VikingGoneWild on June 18, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Flashback to 2004, from Joan Swirsky:
Buy Danish on June 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM
Where is her expertise from? She sounds like a person who couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.
oldelpasoan on June 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
The left wants American law enforcement agencies to take point in going after terrorists, which would require an unprecedented level of intelligence-gathering on every level: local, state and federal. This assumes we want to be proactive, rather than simply reactive to terrorist attacks. In the next breath, however, the left attacks Bush on the Patriot Act and its alleged violations of civil rights. This is an amazing double standard.
sgt_rich on June 18, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Why you might ask…”not in place?”
Hell well, multiple members of his own cabinet and personal staff at the time have written “tell all” books; documenting the disgraceful lack of attention to detailed security issues here at home.
They were totally consumed with planning their attack on Sadden and never considered the possibility of airplanes flying into buildings; even though NIE’s provided by Clinton’s Administration suggested just that possibility, B_D!
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 1:12 PM
uh, I’m referring to the policies established with the Bush Doctrine and the Patriot Act, which could not have been law prior to 9/11, which have kept us safe, and which twits like you continue to mewl about.
As for this, this is just a great, big, leftist lie which I refuse to waste my time rehashing, except to say that any idiot could have imagined that “possibility” since Bin Laden publicly declared war on America in his numerous fatwas, but without intelligence and specifics, the info was vague and useless:
Buy Danish on June 18, 2008 at 1:20 PM
To follow up on jon1979’s statement on Rumsfeld’s plans, they weren’t developed simply because he thought they were the best method, but because after 8 years of Clinton, the military was so short on manpower, materiel and equipment that we COULD NOT fight a multi-front war in a traditional way.
This is what the Press won’t let people remember with their braying about the subject, as Rumsfeld said repeatedly, “you don’t go to war with the Army you want, but with the Army you have.”
The fact that we’ve been able to build up our forces AND not completely trash the economy even with the huge damage done on 9/11 is practically a miracle – by all predictions, we SHOULD have been in a recession years ago, and yet we’re still hovering above that benchmark.
Even with the entire press corps beating the drums for a recession.
Merovign on June 18, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Feeding trolls seems like kindness now, but you’ll regret it later when they crap all over your porch.
Merovign on June 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM
The grandson is there now and that is not what I am hearing.
Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Did I miss a TPS memo regarding GWB’s grand tour plan for Iraq pre 9/11?
VikingGoneWild on June 18, 2008 at 1:41 PM
And what did Clinton do about it? Oh yeah,I forgot Monica.
Johan Klaus on June 18, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Oh well…
“Before 9/11, we never imagined planes flying into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon; we once never dreamed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City would be blown up with bombs made with fertilizer,” … Condi Rice
Indeed…!
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 1:45 PM
My very best to him and Godspeed! I sincerely thank him for his service to our great country, please send my thoughts.
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 1:50 PM
The 20th century saw US military casualties AVERAGE 6000 per year for the entire century.
Under W, we have averaged 600 per year.
Obviously, much worse years are coming.
Pythagoras on June 18, 2008 at 1:58 PM
General Tommy Frank’s whole “Shock and Awe” exercise was done with President Clinton’s military legacy.
Thank you President Bush…?
J_Gocht on June 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I thought that one main reason Hillary wasn’t nominated was because the dhimms didn’t want the Clintons for another term. So why is it ok for Barry to pick everyone that worked for Bill? The dhimms are simply bizarre.
4shoes on June 18, 2008 at 2:01 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »