Terror plot on US soil, Obama and team stops it. No lives lost. Terror plot on US soil, Bush and team failed, over 3,000 lives lost. The Rep. think we would have all been safer under their governing? Bush failed where Obama prevailed. What more needed?

Comments

• yea he is absolutely clueless.

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 26th, 2009

• i hate when people post questions that really don't have a right answer. it just makes people argue.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 26th, 2009

• Where we you asleep during the last election? For more than a year all you could here from the right was that he (Obama) was too green and the Dems were too soft. That it was them (the Rep) that kept us from being attacked that if you went Dem. expect Al Qaeda to succeed. That is what I heard....if you heard something else MAYBE you might want to share that as a rebuttal? Since you didn't I guess you know it has to be true then.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 26th, 2009

• up until 7 months ago i wasn't even a US citizen. i pay absolutely no attention to politics because that was my mothers advice before i left. every bit of your american government is corrupt and full of lies. how do i know that terrorists even attacked your buildings? how do i know it's not your own government as an excuse to invade a country full of oil? it happened in ancient rome. one of the emperors burned down the central city in order to build a golden monument for himself, people started getting mad at him so he blamed the christians and killed all of them for greed. don't trust your government, trust what you see and what you see only.

  • Report
  

  by Anonymous on September 26th, 2009

• I am not going to come at you like some would do, I am bigger than that. While some would say (and I would bet they will) that you can't talk because you were not a citizen here or followed the election. They would also tell you (especially those from New York) where to put it. What I AM going to tell you is in part, you ARE RIGHT. I don't trust this government either on many things seeing how many times they got their hands caught in the cookie jar, and watering down my Constitutional rights off a Patriot Bill many did not even bother reading. Did the US pull a Franklin D. Roosevelt (for those who believed he provoked and then allowed Pearl Harbor to be attacked to get the US into WWII)? No one knows for sure, and if they do, they ain't talking yet. What is on the books is something was said to be true and it was proven less than by fact. You can't hide facts under BS.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 26th, 2009

• If your worried about your constitutional rights then you best take another look at Obama, he has as already violated our constitution on a massive scale and or attempting to do more damage than all presidents combined. BTW the Patriot act is still active, Gitmo still active, Iraq still active, bailouts of private institutions, Obama care violations of the tenth amendment. read the federalist papers.
  As far as your original question, this country has had issues with terrorist for very long time, the reason why we were attacked was a failure in communication between all out Intel agencies a wall placed by Torricelli (D-NJ)

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 26th, 2009

• BTW Obama is still doing rendition of captured terrorist..now that ought to really chap the leftist ass..

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 26th, 2009

• Sadly, it's a lot harder to kill bad legislation after it has already been enacted, as proven by the Patriot Act, than it is to get it passed. Torricelli was more of a follower than a leader. It was probably someone else's bill that led to the communications failure, Torricelli just signed on after another bill had already gained momentum. Torricelli sponsored a total of 201 bills between Apr 23, 1991. and Nov 14, 2002. Out of that total, 188 never made it out of committee and only 4 of those were successfully enacted.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 30th, 2009

• Your right Rufus Torricelli was the fall guy, that's why i was using his name. But the less didn't like him anyway, another corrupt NJ-D politician.
  Although made a excellent point in your rebuttal, and everyone should understand this, you said," Torricelli was just a follower" and your right. Do we elect a follower or a leader in regards to representing his or her constituents.

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 30th, 2009

• For me, the term 'representative' indicates agent or someone who is acting in my stead and while I would like my representatives to be intelligent and outspoken, I would certainly hope that the folks that I help elect, would act as MY agent or YOUR agent, rather than in their own self-serving interests. Otherwise, the necessary political and philosophical compromise that HAS to occur between constituents in order to peacefully co-exist, ceases to exist... and nothing ever changes.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 30th, 2009

Comments

• apparently the DR'ers are just as ignorant.

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 29th, 2009

• You are correct, deltabtry!!

  • Report
  

  by DixieRock on December 4th, 2009

Comments

• Max +s since cowards have hit you for this answer.
  
  Plus.....I agree with you.

  • Report
  

  by Mean Sixteen on September 27th, 2009

• Thanks mean. :)

  • Report
  

  by Thriftymaid on September 27th, 2009

• +6...

  • Report
  

  by Cowboy-Matter of Fact on December 5th, 2009

Comments

• I will be short and clear; during the election the Rep. said we would be attacked because the Dem. and Obama was too soft, green, inexperienced etc, to prevent terrorist from striking America. Quess what? They (terrorist) were stopped BEFORE they did any damage, so Obana and the Dem.s not only equalled them Rep, they did better. See the point now?

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 26th, 2009

• I see the point.

  • Report
  

  by Blackope-Knowledge is Power on September 26th, 2009

• Hypocrisy....So you think that because we got hit on 9/11 and one current plan has been thwarted, that the Dems are better at National security?
  
  That is a ridiculous notion. And a severe leap given the facts.
  
  Please don't forget that if Clinton would have taken Obama when he was handed to him 9/11 would, most likely, never have happened in the first place. Clinton was a Democrat.
  
  But I am surely not going to give Obama much credit because people in a position that he did not create did their job and foiled a plan.
  
  Obama has not finished weakening our defense yet. Give him time.

  • Report
  

  by Mean Sixteen on September 27th, 2009

• Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush could have done something about Bin Laden, as well, if they hadn't been so busy schmoozing, shaking hands and providing him with millions in funding. So, it's not a ridiculous premise or a 'leap' at all given the actual facts. There is no weakening of defense or of national security. That is an imaginary MacGuffin used regularly by the Republicans to trick the weak-minded into supporting their failing strategy. You obviously haven't been paying attention.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 27th, 2009

Comments

• Maybe, but the poof is in the pudding (or the missing buildings) he missed one that really counted.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 26th, 2009

• Obama still has a long time left in his presidency...how do you know he isn't going to miss one?

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 27th, 2009

• But not where it counted.

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on September 27th, 2009

• Next you will be saying Churchill is the worst PM ever because he let Operation Market Garden happen!
  In that case, if Obama was President at 9/11, would he automatically become the worst President in history?

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 27th, 2009

• Winston Churchill was a drunken, philandering racist, and the one major terrorist attack, which Bushco grievously and obviously missed the ball on, just happened to be a really freaking gigantic one, costing the lives of three thousand Americans and various other nationals. Most of the few terrorist plots that WERE foiled under Bushco fell into their laps without much real investigation at all.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 27th, 2009

• Churchill may have been what you said, but it was because of him the allies won the war when they did. If Lord Halifax (The second choie after Churchill) became PM it is widely agreed he would negotiate peace with Hitler, thus removing the great stepping stone for American troops to land in Europe (Britain), and the US would have to fight without the aid of the many hundreds of thousands (I don't have the exact figures) of British troops by their side.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 28th, 2009

• I'll ask again, if Obama was President at 9/11, would he automatically become the worst President in history?

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 28th, 2009

• No, I don't believe that ANYBODY would have dropped the ball as miserably as Bush did, before, during or after 9/11. Furthermore, after Hurricane Katrina, Obama wouldn't have left an incompetent in charge of FEMA, then immediately gone on vacation. Bush, in his limited wisdom, chose otherwise and the residents are still paying for his mistakes.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 28th, 2009

• Let me change my question slightly;
  Lets say that sometime through is reign, there is a terrorist attack that kills 5000 people. Is Obama then labeled the worst President in history? Or is that impossible because he is the saviour of all mankind?

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 28th, 2009

• Are you kidding me! Is this how idiotic that the left has become. The fact is that Obama's justice department found these cells by using the very same tools that Bush put into place. Remember the wiretapping that the liberals wanted Bush to do away with. Well thank God Obama is still doing it, because that's how these guys were nailed.
  The fact is that after 9/11 Bush built the protections in this country to fight a DIFFERENT enemy and Obama will most likely maintain those protections. To debate this type of thing is sick. So far Obama is doing just as good of a job as Bush did after 9/11 and hopfully no one dies if he fails.
  I don't care who was president during 9/11. No one expected what they did.

  • Report
  

  by Sodahead on September 29th, 2009

• It's not just those on the left, Payton. The right is showing absolutely no abatement of their perpetual ignorance, either. I'm just wondering why a sixteen year old Brit gives a shit when there are so many feeble-minded British politicians that she could just as easily rag on about.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 29th, 2009

• Rufus.
  Because people in Britian do not see 7/7 as Tony Blair's fault.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 30th, 2009

• You make two very good points Rufus.

  • Report
  

  by Sodahead on September 30th, 2009

• "I don't care who was president during 9/11. No one expected what they did."
  
  Oh really?
  
  WHITE HOUSE ADMITS PRE-9/11 WARNINGS; BUSH STILL DENIES IT
  http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x101816

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on September 30th, 2009

• And then Moongrim steps in to make our point....LOL

  • Report
  

  by Sodahead on September 30th, 2009

• There where warnings before Pearl Harbour. There where warnings before Hitler invaded Poland. There where warnings before Franz Ferdinand was shot in Sarajevo.
  If all warnings WHERE acted on, then there would have to be troops permanantly deployed in every city 24/7.
  And even if the US gvt knew of 9/11 beforehand, how would they stop it anyway?

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 30th, 2009

• QueenR says: Because people in Britian do not see 7/7 as Tony Blair's fault.
  ____________________
  
  Either way, what does 7/7 have to do with the question and even without Blair, there are still enough bozos and enough mistakes being made in your own government for you to be worried about.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 30th, 2009

• because 7/7 can be described as a mini-9/11. Nobody I know blames MI5, the Police, or the government for what happened. It was a suprise attack and nobody could have known about it.
  One of the bombers was even cleared by MI5.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 30th, 2009

• Sounds like some Brits have their heads in the sand. MI5 obviously made a grievous error in clearing one of the bombers. Why WOULDN'T you blame them for NOT doing their job correctly?

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 30th, 2009

• Come on Rufus, we've been watching the blame game every time Obama makes a public address, but where has it gotten us as a country? Apparently it makes some Americans feel better to blame somebody instead of fixing the wrong and moving forward.

  • Report
  

  by Sodahead on September 30th, 2009

• Oh come on, you believe that everyone is perfect and never makes a mistake? I have an update- sometimes people make an error. Can't blame anyone for that.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 30th, 2009

• I agree, but it's certainly NOT wrong to blame someone if they're NOT doing their job correctly. The problem lies in exactly how to correct the problem. If we only had some surefire way to force our elected representatives to do their jobs as WE would have them done, instead of how they choose to do them, we'd stand a chance. But, that's not what our current political system allows. I'm all for making positive changes that will benefit ALL and that allow cooler heads and common sense to prevail, but I'm afraid we've become too divided on which course of action is the correct one. Suggestions?

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 30th, 2009

• Thats representative democracy my friend. You have little choice but to accept it.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on September 30th, 2009

• Well... that's not exactly true, but the problem with a representative democracy is that it takes so long to keep successively voting someone else into that office until you actually find one with a working brain who doesn't break down under all the greed and corruption. A snail's pace seems to be the norm.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on September 30th, 2009

• "Power breeds corruption"
  It's going to be damn hard to find a politician who won't fall under that quote.
  Can't remember who said it, but a Frenchman once said of representative democracy, that you are only free every five years.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on October 1st, 2009

• @Rufus How you get those yah hoos to do what the people want and not special interest and political blocs is when electing someone you have it 3 tiered. #1, #2, #3. The public has the right to boot the bozo out if he/she is not measuring up in 100 days. After the 100 days you get a week's time to mail in your ax card and that person is sent packing and the #2 pweson is given a shot. If they don't act right within 100 days, they get the boot and maybr #3 will want to keep the job bad enough to act right. Also public servants would not pull a pay check. They would be paid once a year at tax time. You would have the choice to award 1 to 5 cents to elected official that is suppose to be representing you. If they are not doing any good you can award nothing or even debit them 1 or 2 cents. Those who are doing as the people want will get paid very, very well BY THE PEOPLE. Those who are very lousy might be paying the public back.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on October 2nd, 2009

• I'm sensing one or two problems with your three-tiered system. Firstly, it would send campaign financing costs through the roof. Secondly, there are 100 Senators and 435 members of the house; that's an awful lot of cards being mailed, tallied and debated, not to mention the amount of money you'd spend doing so and the further ineffectiveness of any representative who gets justifiably (or unjustifiably) caught in the cross-hairs. Thirdly, who in their right mind would willingly go through all that just to be a Senator or Congressman/woman? There ARE more possible problems than that, those are just the first three that come to mind.

  • Report
  

  by Rufus_T_Firefly on October 2nd, 2009

• Excellent point. As much as everyone would love to have that level of democracy, it just isn't practical in a large country such as the US or the UK.

  • Report
  

  by QueenR eats the Terminator for breakfast on October 2nd, 2009

• Politicians are by mature 80% egomaniac, 20% something unknown. It may not have been a perfect solution, or the cheapest, but what we have now is a horde of egomaniacs (many with deep pockets to foster their own campaigne) wo vie for a job that pays, in some cases, less than half their private sector pay. They are bought, traded and made by special interest they pimp themselves out to for a campaign endorsment, or contribution. The easy way no one can stomach. Depending on the level of government and the office EVERY candidate seeking that office gets X amount of money to spend NO MATTER WHERE its from. Say, Presidential campaign you get 30 million tops, no more. How its spent it is up to the candidate but they get no more than 30 mil if it all came from one donor, their own pockets, a lotto ticket, etc. No one wants to go in with equal cash because special interst would lose their grip, and the better person just might shine because the others would actually have to honest campaign.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on October 2nd, 2009

Comments

Comments

• yep your right amongst many other things. Terror plots where well known long before Bush's administration. Comminucation issues and interservice rivilaries and ignoring the warning signs for years was the main the cause. Obama foiling thes plots, he can take no credit, they where being watched long before he took office.

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 26th, 2009

• So you admit Bu$h was ineffective? The Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate for 6 of the 8 years of the Bu$h presidency.
  
  Epic Fail for rationalizations.

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on September 27th, 2009

• It's not about party's, this is just used as a political tool for both sides to blame each other. I don't admit either Bush, Obama, Reagan, Joe shit the ragman where either effective or not. It's our Government as a whole who are ineffective. Allowing each branch to operate as a separate entity is what the problem was and is now. Although communication between agencies has vastly improved and Bush can take credit for that. That said Obama and the congress currently are restricting these agencies from doing what they do best, So we will see what happens.

  • Report
  

  by deltabtry on September 27th, 2009

Comments

• The Rep. lied or were clueless. Over a year of campaigning the favorite cause celebrity of the Rep. was that if America voted Dem. Al Qaeda was as good as on the door step doing whatever they pleased because the Dem. were way less capable to protect America than they were. This was the test and Obama passed it. He was just as handy and even better, he got to it BEFORE the building fell or the subways collapsed.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 26th, 2009

• Well, you've damn sure got a good point on that, HC. I can't argue with it :)

  • Report
  

  by Phillis - Zacks little sister on September 26th, 2009

• Thanks. I knew all I had to to is smooth it out and you were more then capable to grasp it, the sign of true intelligence. I seen your other questions so I know you have skills. B=D

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 26th, 2009

• I got mad killz, baybee :)

  • Report
  

  by Phillis - Zacks little sister on September 26th, 2009

• I guess you didn't see the funny in that statement. Damn, I hate it when I'm the only one who laughs :)

  • Report
  

  by Phillis - Zacks little sister on September 27th, 2009

• Your powers of clairvoyance just failed you. I got a good chuckle from that. You just didn't see it. B-D

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on September 27th, 2009

• Damn......the batteries are running low again :D

  • Report
  

  by Phillis - Zacks little sister on September 27th, 2009

Comments

• A few short months? Do you own a calender?

  • Report
  

  by Wynper on July 26th, 2010

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• It is a showing of fact. All during the last election Chaney and company was saying we should vote McCain because Obama was not up to the task to keep America safe and stop another terrorist attack. Then around last Summer a major plot to hit targets here was foiled, UNDER the Obama banner, making all thar hype a lie. Because under Obama an attack was overted, under Bush 9/11 happened. Doesn't matter how many times you catch the chain saw in a juggling act, it is that one time you miss that a hand or finger is gone.

  • Report
  

  by Hypocrisy_Central on December 4th, 2009

Comments

Comments