Liberals for George Bush?

[Gregg]

Granted that these folks love Hillary and probably opposed Obama, but this blog is amazing. Especially their admiration for Dick Cheney! Read on.

http://hillbuzz.org/2009/11/10/thank-you-former-president-george-w-bush-and-former-first-lady-laura-bush/

[Bartholomew]

Sounds to me like they'd hate what they had no matter what.

[William Haskins]

this is the hillary branch of the democratic party looking to drain obama's political capital, nothing more.

they no more support push than rush limbaugh's 'operation chaos' people supporter hillary.

[Lyv]

I wouldn't call them the "Hillary branch." I supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries and I wish she'd won, but these people don't represent me or millions of others who backed her.

[William Haskins]

it's not a reflection on her. but they were certainly part of the hillary branch.

i understand your point, but it's political shorthand as much as saying the cheney or palin branch of the republican party.

[Lyv]

it's not a reflection on her. but they were certainly part of the hillary branch.
A small part. They themselves aren't "The Hillary Branch." That was my point. Can you blame me for wanting to make that distinction?

[William Haskins]

yes.

because you are claiming ownership of something you don't own. there are, for instance, many ron paul supporters who are pragmatic libertarians for whom he represents a move in a general direction they desire. but in a political discussion, there is a group that could be called the "ron paul branch" of libertarianism, and it would be easily recognizable as a distinct group of people who are dogmatically paul supporters.

[Lyv]

because you are claiming ownership of something you don't own.
Nope, just calling you out on a generalization. I added the last bit to lighten up my post. My mistake.

They do not represent any "Hillary branch."

[William Haskins]

if you say so.

[Gregg]

These are Hillary supporters, who don't like Obama, and now understand that George Bush was not an evil demon. Sure they disagree with most of his policies but they realize he's a decent and compassionate person who acted without regard to popular opinion.
Unlike the current President who cannot seem to make a decision.
They also realize that we've been spared,since 9/11, a terrorist attack on our soil until the Fort Hood attack. I don't know if Bush/Cheney get credit for preventing attacks and Obama if is to be blamed for Fort Hood. It is what it is.
Time may give us the answer.

[blacbird]

They also realize that we've been spared,since 9/11, a terrorist attack on our soil until the Fort Hood attack.

Riiiiiight. Nine months into the GWB Presidency, a concerted well-organized and frankly brilliant conspiracy involving dozens of individuals, planned for years, killed 3,000 people. Ten months into the Obama Presidency, a lone psychotic nutcase armed with a couple of handguns kills 13 people. Comparable "terrorist" attack.

Riiiiiiight.

I don't blame GWB for 9/11 (though it's clear that some warnings were in place that were ignored; but the situation was so unprecedented that chances are any President would have failed to comprehend what was really abot to happen, as we all did when it happened). But spinning Hasan's maniac and failed suicide attempt as a "terrorist" attack is . . . well, supply your own adjective. It was workplace spree violence, not much different from a fair number of similar regrettable incidents we've had in recent years ("Crazy Pat" Sherrill in Edmond, Oklahoma, the origin of the term "going postal"; Mark Barton in Atlanta; any number of similar workplace/school rampages). It differs little from the atrocities committed by Charles Whitman in Austin, TX,James Huberty in San Diego, George Hennard in Killeen, TX, Sun-Hui Cho in Blacksburg, VA, all of whom simply identified an enemy pool of everybody else on the planet.

caw

[rugcat]

Riiiiiight. Nine months into the GWB Presidency, a concerted well-organized and frankly brilliant conspiracy involving dozens of individuals, planned for years, killed 3,000 people. Ten months into the Obama Presidency, a lone psychotic nutcase armed with a couple of handguns kills 13 people. Comparable "terrorist" attack.
The attempt by some to label this a terrorist attack and to blame Obama for "failing to keep us safe" is a sad commentary on how far people are willing to go to justify their partisan views.

BTW, I agree that the 9/11 attack was so bold and unexpected that it's hard to blame anyone for failing to put the dots together and foresee it. It's all so clear after the fact, but it was pretty much unthinkable before it.

[GregB]

Unlike the current President who cannot seem to make a decision.

Yes, very unlike. I wonder how much different things would be if the former president had withheld a decision until he had an actual exit strategy, as this one is doing?

[nighttimer]

These are Hillary supporters, who don't like Obama, and now understand that George Bush was not an evil demon. Sure they disagree with most of his policies but they realize he's a decent and compassionate person who acted without regard to popular opinion.
Unlike the current President who cannot seem to make a decision.

Oh, you mean the decent and compassionate person who took this country to war against Iran because of his perpetual hard-on against the guy who "tried to kill my dad" and in the process sent over 4,000 soldiers home in flag-draped coffins so they could be buried by their dads and moms? That person?

That decent and compassionate person who decently and compassionately allowed the mastermind behind the worst act of terrorism against the United States to go uncaptured and unpunished for over seven years? That person?

That decent and compassionate person who couldn't find his ass with both hands while American citizens drowned like fucking rats in New Orleans? That person?

Evil demon? No. That was Big Dick Cheney's job. Incompetent bungling a-hole? That was Dubya's job. And he did his job well.

They also realize that we've been spared,since 9/11, a terrorist attack on our soil until the Fort Hood attack. I don't know if Bush/Cheney get credit for preventing attacks and Obama if is to be blamed for Fort Hood. It is what it is.

Yeah, we've been spared since 9/11. And when exactly did the Cheney/Bush Administration take office anyway? Was it September 12, 2001 because to hear the revisionists tell it, everything up until the day can be traced back and blamed on Bill Clinton.

And to call the shootings at Ft. Hood a "terrorist attack" before even one investigation has been concluded is a ridiculous rush to judgment and assessing blame upon President Obama based upon sheer partisan politics.

Time may give us the answer.

Time has already given us the answer as to who the indecisive and impotent president who failed America when it woke up to find airplanes turned into flying bombs as the Most Powerful Man in the World sat there looking dazed as he stumbled through a reading of My Pet Goat.

[Don]

We live in strange, strange times indeed.
indeed.

[billythrilly7th]

The attempt by some to label this a terrorist attack and to blame Obama for "failing to keep us safe" is a sad commentary on how far people are willing to go to justify their partisan views.

It is absolutely a terrorist attack.

The guy was a SOA.(soldier of Islam)

It was on his business card.

He screamed Aly Achabr as he commited the crimes. He spouted his views on America and the military and Islam and the wars all over the place. He was in contact with Al Queda operatives.

This isn't a mailman flipping out on Publisher's Clearly House day and killing people.

This was a Muslim fanatic who happened to be a soldier who committed a terrorist attack.

A guy who works for Best Buy, a Muslim who is in touch with Al Queda and has bought guns and calls himself a solider of Allah and screams aly achbar while shooting people on a subway train is a terrorist not a regular old guy who went nuts

Just because the guy was a soldier it doesn't mean he wasn't a run of the mill terrorist. He was.

Do I blame Obama? Of course not.

Do I blame the Army or someone for this absolute complete derelict of duty in dealing with lunatic?

Yes.

I look forward to the full investigation.

[Shadow_Ferret]

The guy was a wacko. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't elevate his status by calling him a terrorist.

[billythrilly7th]

The guy was a wacko. Nothing more, nothing less.

Don't elevate his status by calling him a terrorist.

All terrorists are whackos. "Nothing more, nothing less." What does that mean?

It's not really up for debate about this guy.

The definition is the definition.


ter⋅ror⋅ism <SCRIPT language=javascript>AC_FL_RunContent = 0;</SCRIPT><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "<img src=\"http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif\" border=\"0\" /> (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/\"http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/T01/T0167100\")", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdi ctionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FT01%2FT0167100.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.c om%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=4177f5fe&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');int erfaceflash.write();</SCRIPT><OBJECT id=speaker codeBase=codebase= height=15 width=17 align=middle classid=clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000 http: fpdownload.macromedia.com pub shockwave cabs flash swflash.cab#version='6,0,0,0"'>
























</OBJECT><NOSCRIPT>http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/speaker.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/lunaWAV/T01/T0167100)</NOSCRIPT> /ˈtɛrhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəˌrɪzhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəm/ http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation [ter-uh-riz-uhhttp://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm] http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA </P>
Use terrorism in a Sentence (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=Use+terrorism+in+a+Sentence&qsrc=2892&o=101993)


See web results for terrorism (http://ask.reference.com/web?q=terrorism&o=100049)


See images of terrorism (http://ask.reference.com/pictures?q=terrorism&o=100049)

–noun <TABLE class=luna-Ent><TBODY><TR><TD class=dnindex width=35>1.</TD><TD>the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

That's exactly what he did.

So...he's a terrorist.

Sorry he didn't kill 3000 people and fit better into an understanding of the term for many people.

[GregB]

By that simplistic definition, all war is terrorism. In a case like this, you have to look at the legal definition, as we did in the Ft. Hood thread. It doesn't appear this attack counts as terrorism based on what we know now. Of course it must be investigated.

[billythrilly7th]

By that simplistic definition, all war is terrorism. In a case like this, you have to look at the legal definition, as we did in the Ft. Hood thread. It doesn't appear this attack counts as terrorism based on what we know now. Of course it must be investigated.

It certainly does IMO. There's nothing else to be investigated regarding that. The only thing thats needs investigation is why this guy was still in the army.

A jihadist attacks, who has on his card a Solider of Allah and has been in contact with Al Queda and kills people while yelling "Ally Achbar" is a terrorist.

Simple.

It's not about Obama. It's not about politics. Its about common sense.

If he walked into the barracks and wore a suicide vest and blew himself up, that would give everyone a different feel on this.

But because he used a gun and started blasting like like lunatic at Virginia Tech its a crazy gunman and not a terrorist.

Ridiculous IMO.

Thank you.

[GregB]

So it's your belief that Hasan was acting as a "clandestine agent" of some subnational group? The authorities seem to think there's little evidence of that.

[billythrilly7th]

So it's your belief that Hasan was acting as a "clandestine agent" of some subnational group? The authorities seem to think there's little evidence of that.

First of all, yes. An agent of Al Queda.

Secondly..there are many more definitions of terrorism other than the one you chose to cherry pick from the CIA.

Terrorism Definitions:

http://werzit.com/intel/terrorism/definitions/

<TABLE id=table12 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="49%" bgColor=#bfebff>American Heritage Dictionary</TD><TD width="4%" bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD width="52%" bgColor=#bfebff></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%">

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
<TABLE id=table12 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="49%" bgColor=#bfebff>Boaz Ganor</TD><TD width="4%" bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD width="52%" bgColor=#bfebff></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%">

Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE id=table47 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="49%" bgColor=#bfebff>Department of Defense</TD><TD width="4%" bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD width="52%" bgColor=#bfebff></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%">

The calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<TABLE id=table8 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="49%" bgColor=#bfebff>FBI</TD><TD width="4%" bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD width="52%" bgColor=#bfebff></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%">

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<TABLE id=table32 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD width="49%" bgColor=#bfebff>USA Patriot Act</TD><TD width="4%" bgColor=#ffffff></TD><TD width="52%" bgColor=#bfebff></TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top width="49%">

"activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any state, that (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping, and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>


We can debate all day which definition of "terrorism" you want to use.

But we don't have to.

This guy is a terrorist. I've already stated why. I don't blame Obama. I blame the Army and political correctness for this guy being able to act out his whacko Jihadist SOLDIER OF ALLAH terrorist act.

[billythrilly7th]

I find it amazing the amount of liberals who are so worried about people being able to say "There was a terrorist attack on Obama's watch" that they've lost all perspective.

Just as amazing is the amount of republicans who want to label it a terrorist attack so they can say that.

THose people I have no time for.

This guy was a terrorist. A homegrown one yes. Didn't use a suicide bomb. But a terrorist all the same.

Obama, shmobama.
Thank you.

[GregB]

First of all, yes. An agent of Al Queda.

Secondly..there are many more definitions of terrorism other than the one you chose to cherry pick from the CIA.


First of all, can you link to evidence that he was acting as an agent of al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization? I'd really like to see it, because all the reports I've read indicate there is no such evidence.

Secondly, CIA? LOL? The legal definitions we were examining in the other thread were the ones from the U.S. Code and the Federal criminal code. Those seem relevant rather than "cherry picked," don't they?

[billythrilly7th]

First of all, can you link to evidence that he was acting as an agent of al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization? I'd really like to see it, because all the reports I've read indicate there is no such evidence.

Secondly, CIA? LOL? The legal definitions we were examining in the other thread were the ones from the U.S. Code and the Federal criminal code. Those seem relevant rather than "cherry picked," don't they?

There's 25 definitions about what "terrorism" is. You pick what you want. I pick what I want.

But it doesn't matter what the definition is because there are 50 of them! I don't care if he was an agent of Al Queda or wasn't. But I look forward to the investigation. Having multiple emails between him and top operatives is a little red flaggy for me. But maybe i'm just paranoid.

The fact is...you can tell me what the definition of blue is. And we can go back and forth and get a prism out and have scientists and interior decorators define it.

But most people when they look at the sky and are asked what color it is have no problem saying "Blue" because that's what it is.

What color is Hasan?

Terrorist.

Thank you.

[Millicent M'Lady]

But most people when they look at the sky and are asked what color it is have no problem saying "Blue" because that's what it is.

What color is Hasan?

Terrorist.

Thank you.

What?!

[Zoombie]

This guy was a nutcase, terrorists tend to be nutcases, but that does not necessarily mean that this man was a terrorist.

I don't know enough to make the call myself.

[rugcat]

I don't know enough to make the call myself.Well, that's the thing. Nobody does.

Maybe he was a Muslim who after joining the Army, grew increasingly radicalized and decided to strike a blow against the infidel US.

Maybe he was a disgruntled human being whom nobody liked, who never fit in, and he blamed it not on himself and his personality but on the fact he was Muslim. Then he snapped and "got even" with the Muslim haters.

Maybe he felt the army and his fellow soldiers had screwed him over and they had to pay.

Maybe a combination of these things, or something else entirely.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts."

-- Sherlock Holmes

[nighttimer]

Funny how it is the very next day after Ft. Hood, some asshole who lost his job walks into his former employer's office and shoots up the joint and that's not an act of terrorism. I'm sure the people who were ducking and covering were pretty damn terrified.

But it's as someone said, "When a White guy loses it, he's going "postal." When a Muslim does it, that's jihad." :rolleyes

[Gretad08]

Funny how it is the very next day after Ft. Hood, some asshole who lost his job walks into his former employer's office and shoots up the joint and that's not an act of terrorism. I'm sure the people who were ducking and covering were pretty damn terrified.

But it's as someone said, "When a White guy loses it, he's going "postal." When a Muslim does it, that's jihad." :rolleyes

Or it's more that it's considered terrorism when an act of violence is committed for a political purpose.

When a 'white guy' loses it b/c he's pissed at his employer, there aren't any political implications.

I don't know if this guy did it for political purposes or not, but the possibility is much higher for him than the psycho who shot up his former employer.

[blacbird]

As GWB has now been credited with preventing acts of terrorism since 9/11, and Obama has now been blamed (by some here) for allowing one, in the Ft. Hood crime, what makes what Major Hasan different from what John Allen Muhammad (a convert to Islam) did in 2002 in murdering (at least) 10 people in the D.C. area in some murky pursuit of "Islamic" motive? And who, exactly, was POTUS when that atrocity happened?

caw

[Gregg]

Gretad08: A+

When the guy yelled "Allahu Akbar" he left a clue.

Go be detectives and figure it out for yourself.

[Gregg]

As GWB has now been credited with preventing acts of terrorism since 9/11, and Obama has now been blamed (by some here) for allowing one, in the Ft. Hood crime, what makes what Major Hasan different from what John Allen Muhammad (a convert to Islam) did in 2002 in murdering (at least) 10 people in the D.C. area in some murky pursuit of "Islamic" motive? And who, exactly, was POTUS when that atrocity happened?

caw

This is what I wrote:
"I don't know if Bush/Cheney get credit for preventing attacks and Obama is to be blamed for Fort Hood. It is what it it is."

But there should be little doubt that Bush was decisive in his decisions and Obama, so far, hasn't been. An executive must make decisions, right or wrong, and live with the consequences.

When will the President step up to the plate and take a swing?

[blacbird]

This is what I wrote:
"I don't know if Bush/Cheney get credit for preventing attacks and Obama is to be blamed for Fort Hood. It is what it it is."

I don't have a clue what that means. Help me out here, people.

But there should be little doubt that Bush was decisive in his decisions and Obama, so far, hasn't been.

Re: the bolded. I don't have a clue what that means. Help me out here, people. Does it have something to do with deciding to read or not to read a children's book to a schoolroom when a crisis has just been reported?

An executive must make decisions, right or wrong, and live with the consequences. When will the President step up to the plate and take a swing?

He just made the decision to try the major captured 9/11 conspirators in a U.S. court of law, and you detest that decision. And he's clearly willing to "live with the consequences".

caw

[Gregg]

I shake my head.

[blacbird]

I shake my head.

As well you should. Perhaps something thoughtful will drop out.

caw

[Magdalen]

As well you should. Perhaps something thoughtful will drop out.

caw

[smirks "shoot" & leaves]

[nighttimer]

But there should be little doubt that Bush was decisive in his decisions and Obama, so far, hasn't been. An executive must make decisions, right or wrong, and live with the consequences.

Bush wasn't decisive. He was stubborn and inflexible. It's not the same thing.

When the Chief Executive makes bad decisions, he might live with the consequences, but others may die.

[clintl]

As that bastion of liberalism George Will recently wrote, when Cheney was complaining about Obama dithering over Afghanistan, we could have used more dithering from Bush when he was deciding to invade Iraq.

[William Haskins]

Well, that's the thing. Nobody does.

Maybe he was a Muslim who after joining the Army, grew increasingly radicalized and decided to strike a blow against the infidel US.

Maybe he was a disgruntled human being whom nobody liked, who never fit in, and he blamed it not on himself and his personality but on the fact he was Muslim. Then he snapped and "got even" with the Muslim haters.

Maybe he felt the army and his fellow soldiers had screwed him over and they had to pay.

Maybe a combination of these things, or something else entirely.

"It is a capital mistake to theorize in advance of the facts."

-- Sherlock Holmes

great post.

[ColoradoGuy]

This is what I wrote:
But there should be little doubt that Bush was decisive in his decisions and Obama, so far, hasn't been. An executive must make decisions, right or wrong, and live with the consequences.
We have a saying in my line of work describing that approach: "seldom wrong, never in doubt." (Depending on the individual, it can be modified to: "occasionally right, never in doubt.") We don't mean either one as a compliment.

[Romantic Heretic]

Doubt is the enemy of Truth. ;)

[Julie Worth]

Oh, how we RAILED against Bush in 2000…and how we RAILED against the surge in support Bush received post-9/11 when he went to Ground Zero and stood there with his bullhorn in the ruins on that hideous day.

Did they really? Then how come their archive only goes back to last year?