More Americans killed by terrorists on George W Bush's watch than any other POTUS

FYI: There is no leadership in the GOP/RNC since the neoconservatives were removed from power with in the GOP in 2010.

Unlike the Democrats where diversity of thought is forbidden and it's required that everyone be goose stepping in lock step, kinda like a totalitarian political party, the Republicans are such a diverse political party where there's such a large diversity in opinions. Right now there's nobody in charge of the GOP unlike the Democrats who were hijacked by the radical left "New Left" and have been in control the Democrat Party since 1974.

Haven't you noticed that all of the Democrat Presidential candidates except for Jim Webb are old white burned out hippies of the radical "New Left" ?

FYI: The Republican neoconservatives use to be the Democrat's party liberal base before the Democrat party was hijacked by the radical "New Left."

Maybe it was a mistake for the GOP to allow these liberals to come under the GOP tent when they were fleeing the Democrat party during the 1970's and early 80's ? What the (*)(*)(*)(*), they did add a lot of diversity to the GOP.

 

Bush never bombed a hospital either.

 

Thanks for confirming that GOP lawmakers are a anarchic rabble incapable of responding to leadership.

 

Bill Clinton’s failure on terrorism
By - The Washington Times - Monday, September 1, 2003

Richard Miniter’s new book, “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror,” tells the sad, infuriating history of the number of opportunities President Clinton had to capture and imprison or kill the terrorist Osama bin Laden.

That reality is the sickening part of this remarkably well-researched and -sourced new book. Mr. Miniter — part of the reporting team that broke the “The Road to Ground Zero” story in the Jan. 6, 2002 London Sunday Times — has told how many real, actual and missed opportunities the Clinton administration had to capture and defang bin Laden. Why in the world would any U.S. administration not accept any and all offers to help dispose of one of the most vicious and well-financed terrorist leaders?

For several reasons, as the author points out.

The Clinton foreign policy was to get re-elected. Therefore, anything that might be controversial had to be avoided. So, from the beginning to the end of the administration, the Clintons “demanded absolute proof before acting against terrorists.” This high bar guaranteed inaction. At the beginning of his term, after the attack of Feb. 26, 1993, Mr. Clinton refused to admit that the World Trade Center had been bombed. Later, he referred to it only as “regrettable” and “treated the disaster… like a twister in Arkansas.” Earlier, he had “urged the public not to ‘overreact’ to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.”

That attitude was typical of the Clintonites. The president did not want to hear about bad news — such as our terrible losses in October 1993, when Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in Mogadishu, Somalia, or the even more terrifying losses in New York. That would require a strong response which might upset some of the strange group of advisors and officials Mr. Clinton had collected. So it was with all the other missed opportunities to get bin Laden. CIA Director James Woolsey rarely had any meetings with Mr. Clinton. The president never supported Mr. Woolsey’s urgent request for Arabic-language translators for the CIA in 1994. A separate feud between Mr. WoolseyandSen.Dennis DeConcini, Arizona Democrat, was allowed to run its course without direction by the Clinton White House, which further set back the CIA director’s appeal for Arabic translators. So, as the author concludes, “a bureaucratic feud and President Clinton’s indifference kept America blind and deaf as bin Laden plotted.”

The Sudanese would offer to let the U.S. see their intelligence files and all the data they had gathered about bin Laden and the associates who had visited him in Sudan, “and would be repeatedly rebuffed through both formal and informal channels. This was one of the greatest intelligence failures of the Clinton years as the result of orders that came from the Clinton White House.” Had the Clinton administration accepted and examined these files, countless terrorists could have been tracked. Sudan’s offer to arrest bin Laden and deliver him to U.S. officials was likewise refused.

The Clinton Administration did try to get Saudi Arabia to accept bin Laden from Sudan, but the Saudi government apparently had as difficult a time as Mr. Clinton in making up its mind. The issue finally resolved itself thus: “The Clinton Administration refused to work with the government of Sudan,” and so all the Sudanese efforts to help us by cooperating in the capture and delivery of bin Laden failed. Nothing more happens — even after Mr. Clinton won re-election in November 1996.

This is the long sad story of the Clinton Administration’s blind refusal to accept offer after offer to deliver one of the world’s terrorist leaders before and after his minions killed thousands in various terrorist attacks. The book is climaxed by a documented recital of the links between bin Laden’s al Qaeda units and Iraq that should convince all but the most extreme Bush-haters that these links exist and continue. In all of this, we should try to remember and be grateful for the brilliant military achievements of our forces in overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There have always been disputes within administrations. What is important is to contrast the methods President Reagan used to resolve these differences with Mr. Clinton’s indecisiveness. If Mr. Reagan had so feared taking any kind of position that might become controversial or might injure his chances for re-election, as Mr. Clinton did every day, we would never have won the Cold War. “Losing bin Laden” is a valuable history that should serve as a training manual in how not to run a foreign policy.


If Clinton had done his job and had taken bin Laden on the silver platter he was offered, 9-11 would not have happened. The US did not go into a peaceful sleepy Middle East and attack them for no reason. They had been attacking us for years and the US turned the other cheek and continued to let it happen. Instead of constantly playing defense like Clinton and not doing a good job of it, Bush went on offense backed by Congress. Democrats including Hillary, Biden, Harry Reid, Schumer, Kerry and many others voted for force.

 

George W. Bush would have been a terrific Commissioner of Baseball, but he was a terrible president. I knew it long before he was elected that he'd be not very good; I just didn't know how bad it would be. It was obvious from even before he was elected that he preferred schmoozing with the crowds, glad-handing and cracking wise, but doing the hard work of being president was not his thing. He was a lazy s.o.b. before he was elected and nothing changed after.

 

Obama is incompetent enough to get Ambassador Stevens killed and blame it on something else at least.

 

First you have to have a leader to respond too.

We see no leadership coming from the community organizer who's in the White House.

 

Obama could have the GOP lawmakers jumping through flaming hoops whenever he chooses to.

Obama has turned GOP lawmakers into lame ducks in the sunset of his administration.

 

What's your point?

 

Nah, too busy golfing.

 

For starters, he could have used the intuitive forethought of liberals... Apparently they can tell you what will and will not be a bomb or terrorist attack.

 

Thats hard to do with your eyes squeezed shut.

- - - Updated - - -

Yah, its all dem pagers.

 

I have very good reason to believe that half of the people we argue with about 9/11 are with liberals that probably turned 18 during, or after Bush's second term.

 

Yes of course. We know those days won't be over until another Republican gets in the White House. Then all this fail from obama will lay directly in his lap. Reading thoughts and predicting a person's behavior has never been easier under this new gaggle of Obamanite liberals.

 

Republicans and Democrats are a cancer on America. And their loyalists are like the cancer cells who help the disease sustain and spread itself. The more I read from Republican and Democrat apologists, the more I realize how hopelessly brain-dead they all are.

 

Or is it that the GOP lawmakers has Obama jumping through hoops that Obama has resorted to ignoring the Constitution and ruling by abusing executive privilege.

That's not the sign of competent democratic leadership, more in line of totalitarian leadership.

 

Democrats have slowly been replaced by liberals which have been replaced by progressives which have picked up socialists. And that's all since about 2006. Never has a destructive cancer on society grown so fast. Democrats were tolerable. What's taken their place, however, is repulsive, dishonest, and plum sickening. Bad enough to push even some liberals to the right.

 

I clearly remember teens and young adults reaction on 9-11-01 and for weeks after the AQ attacks on 9-11.

Very confused and scared because they were very uniformed of recent events going back over twelve years. They didn't read newspapers and or watched the news on television and the internet was only used to play games and watch porn.

They were introduced to funny sounding words, "Al Qaeda," "Taliban" and they thought the two were the same.

Now the Taliban weren't terrorist or never a threat to America or Americans abroad. They were Islamist fanatic loons. And anyone who was well informed already knew who Al Qaeda was and who the Taliban was.

Back in March of 2001 the Taliban got wide coverage on every major newspaper in the world and also on CNN, Fox News, BBC and the other three major news networks.

I also remember how liberal adults reacted. On 9-11-01 my son was in the Marine Corps and he noticed after 9-11 those civilians in town who use to give dirty looks towards Marines or any member of the military were now acting differently. Please Mr. soldier, protect us from the bad Taliban and Al Qaeda.

For the first time of my life I saw the stars and stripes flying from the homes of liberals, the same flag they use to hate and burn.

I wonder if Obama flew the American flag from his home after 9-11 ?

 

More Americans were killed by General Motors than terrorists.

What is the silly left gonna do about it?

Dumb, dumb, dumb, beyond repair.

 

Too quick, they are, to forget. Now it's burned and desecrated once again. I dare say this goes beyond liberals, and is more the result of progressives and socialists. Liberals make democrats tolerable, and progressives can almost make liberals tolerable. Now that's bad.

 

Buuuuuuuuussssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

 

And HIV/AIDS among the homosexual community... But progressives don't really care about gays dying as long as they have them for a voting bloc.

 

During the early 1970's the radical leftist and the leaders of the "counter culture movement" held a meeting and agreed to change their strategy. They would accomplish their agenda in our schools, colleges and universities and in government.

This is when the radical left (New Left) would enter the Democrat Party, basically hijacking the Democrat party. First they hid behind the liberal label and after they dirtied that label they moved over to the progressive label to hind behind.

Todays progressives aren't progressives, they are radical leftist, internationalist socialist, Marxist, red diaper babies and even a few Maoist.

I have studied the American progressive movement, it goes back to the late 19th Century. Basically using science to fix the ills of society was the agenda. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodward Wilson were both progressives. The American progressive movement was very nationalistic and they despised anarchist and internationalist socialist.

Now there were many socialist with in the progressive movement but they were nationalist socialist.

Progressives were found in both the Democrat and Republican party's. The Bull Moose Party was the progressive movement party but was rejected by most Americans. The progressives gave us prohibition ( Volstead Act) and introduced the first drug laws to criminalize cocaine and marijuana. They wrote America's immigration laws from 1900 to 1964 of very restrictive immigration policies.

Does the above sound like todays progressives ? No, because those who are hiding behind the progressive label are something else that's not American.

 

Totalitarian is the only type of leadership the GOP lawmakers respond to. Without Obama they would be practicing dictatorship of the proletariat and total anarchy.

 

Most of the VA Hospitals have terrible records for the past 30 years.. They also have a LONG history of whistle blowers.