Wednesday, December 30, 2009

You tell them Dick

Dick Cheney

 This article is semi-protected to prevent libelous additions.Cheney: Obama 'Pretending' We're Not at War

Former Vice President Dick Cheney accused President Barack Obama on Tuesday of “trying to pretend we are not at war” with terrorists, pointing to the White House response to the attempted sky bombing as reflecting a pattern that includes banishing the term “war on terror” and attempting to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center.

“[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe,” Cheney said in a statement to POLITICO. “Why doesn’t he want to admit we’re at war? It doesn’t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn’t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency – social transformation—the restructuring of American society.”


  1. Dick Cheney is a God Damned Liar.

    Dec. 30: Rachel Maddow holds Dick Cheney and Republican opportunists to account for their shameless hypocrisy, distortions and outright lies in criticizing President Obama's response to the attempted bombing of Flight 253 in the face of their abject, egregious failures to deal with terrorist threats to the United States when they were in power.

  2. Why is it OK for Obama to blame Bush for the attempted bombing but it is off limits to blame the man that is at fault? Mind you Bruce,we were safe after Bush put the screws to the terrorist and the nations that harbor them. Then Obama and the Democrats come in and take the screws away and then blame Bush for the outcome. Can't you see that this is another sighn of weekness? If you hired a CEO would you fire him for blaming the last CEO for everything after he was in place for a year? We told you that this guy is too green and inexperienced to run a large company let alone the most powerful country in the world. Just look at how stupid the people are that obama has surrounded himself with. I tell you one thing if I wouldn't hire Obama to run a dealershiplet alone the country. But I haven't lost hope yet.

  3. Chris, you crack me up. Bush and Republicans were blaming Clinton for terrorism, including 9/11 for years, because Clinton didn't do enough after the Cole attack.

    You conservatives, neo-cons always leave out the fact that the worst terrorist attack on American soil happened on Bush's watch, partly because he ignored warnings in his Presidential daily briefings warning al Qaeda planned to attack in the United States.

  4. That is a flat out lie, I never heard Bush Blame the previous administration for any of the problems that he was saddled with.
    But I cant count the amount of times I have heard this idiot Barry blame everybody but himself for his own failings and the failings of his own party. It is always someone elses fault

  5. Why lie bruce? Why do you blame W but not Barry? It sounds to me like you are a fool or just ignorant. Which one is it? Great blog topic.

  6. Bruce I have listened to MADCOW and then I turn on Sponge Bob Sqaure Pants!

    Bush KEPT us safe after 911 which he never BLAMED on Clinton,He could have BUT Leaders LEAD and others make EXCUSES!

    I was under the Impression the Former Vice President also had Freedom of Speech unless we have lost it and HAVE NOT been told YET! He has EVERY Right to ANSWER Allecations made by ANYBODY that are FALSE! Nobama still has not LEARNED he was NOT Elected to make EXCUSES but to make Descisions!

  7. The fact remains that in the 9/11 Commission report, a commission made up of Dems and Repubs alike deemed that Bill Clinton had MORE responsibility to stop the 9/11 attacks than did Bush. When you think about it possible for an attack of that nature to be plotted, planned, and carried out in less than 9 months' time? (That is how long Bush was in office before the attacks.) It is not. Blaming Bush isn't right at all. Blaming Clinton is.

    But that is neither here nor there. Cheney's points were spot-on. Obama acts as if we are involved in a "conflict" much like Vietnam (which lasted 15 years I believe) and that it's really no big deal. And it is.

  8. August 2005
    Bush Blames Carter, Reagan, Clinton for 9/11

    As his poll numbers sink, Bush is getting desperate. From his address today in San Diego:

    They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy… After September the 11th, 2001, we’ve taught the terrorists a very different lesson: America will not run in defeat and we will not forget our responsibilities.

    Bush sure as hell did and so did his entire administration try to push blame for 9/11 on Clinton and Carter.

    You can't have a "war" against a tactic. We are not at war against one country. al Qaeda is in over 100 countries. We need to be doing good law enforcement, not going in to every country al Qaeda operates and blowing the country to smithereens and occupying it for 10 years. We need to find the individuals conducting plots against our country and bringing them to justice, just like we did with Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, during the Bush administration. You remember him. He was tried in the United States, in a court of law and sent to prison.


  9. You neocons will not be allowed to say, except for 9/11 Bush and Cheney kept us safe.

    The fact is that 9/11 was carried out on their watch and they were warned by the intelligence agencies and DID NOTHING!!!!!

    You cannot leave out the attacks of 9/11 and say Bush/Cheney kept America safe. They did not keep America safe. They were miserable failures at keeping America safe.

  10. My God Bruce, you are SUCH an idiot. Don't you do ANY research before you open your FAT, STUPID mouth?!!? BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... you must be such an embarrassment to your family. I do like how you tried to sneak this in to an older discussion topic, but we're not having it BRUCE:

    Here, I'll let a HYPOCRAT make the point for me BRUCETURD:

    Webb: Criminal trials for 9/11 terrorists a bad idea

    Byron York at the Washington Examiner has Senator James Webb’s repudiation of the Obama administration decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other 9/11 figures in a New York City courtroom (emphasis mine):

    I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

    The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

    I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.

    That succinctly makes the case most of us have been making all day. Those who had committed any “crimes” within the jurisdiction of American criminal courts in connection to the 9/11 attack died in their suicide attacks. The “suspects” facing trial now committed acts of war, not crimes, and they committed them outside the jurisdiction of the US court system. Congress wrestled with this problem twice, and twice reached the solution: military tribunals or “commissions” for adjudicating the cases of KSM and his cohorts.

    Webb’s dissent is remarkable for a couple of different reasons. First, he’s the best the Democrats have in the Senate for national security. He served in the Reagan administration and had built a great deal of credibility on the subject, which is why Virginians felt comfortable narrowly electing him over George Allen in 2006 — with the help of the Washington Post and the “macaca” meme. His dissent on this topic will sting, and it should.

    It won’t change the trajectory of this case, unfortunately. After making such a public show of announcing the trials, there’s almost no chance that the White House will change its mind and return to the military tribunals for KSM and the other four “defendants.” Webb does demonstrate, though, just how far outside the mainstream on national-security thought Obama is now, and sets up a big I-told-you-so if something goes terribly wrong at the trial. No one can say that Obama didn’t get warned, even by his own side.

  11. Bruce FAILk, there have been more attacks during Obummer's first year than there were during Bush's entire 8 years. EPIC FAIL doesn't even begin to describe Obummer and his "defense" of this country.

  12. Obama Signs Pork-Laden Defense Bill that Cuts Successful Iraq-Afghan Counterinsurgeny Program

    “If a project doesn’t support our troops, we will not fund it. If a system doesn’t perform, we will terminate it. And if Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with that kind of pork, I will veto it.” -BARACK OBAMA, August 2009

    The President signed the $636 billion 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill into law, laden with $4.2 billion of pork.

    Congress added in 1,720 pet projects:

    ∙$5 million for a visitors center in San Francisco
    ∙$23 million for indigent health care in Hawaii
    ∙$18 million for the Edward Kennedy Policy Institute in Mass.
    ∙$1.6 million to computerize hospital records in Oakland
    ∙$47 million for anti-drug training centers around the country
    ∙$20 million for the World War II Museum in Louisiana
    ∙$3.9 million grant to develop an energy-efficient solar film for buildings
    ∙$800,000 for minority prostate cancer research
    ∙$3.6 million for marijuana eradication in Kentucky
    ∙$2.4 million for handicap access and a sprinkler system at a community club in New York

    Meanwhile, a study by the Center of Defense Information says earmarks in this bill, including those for the solar film, prostate cancer research, and the NY sprinkler system, mean less money for pilot training, supplies, repairs and ammunition.

    Todd Harrison, a budget studies fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, is especially disappointed Congress cut $300 million from a successful counterinsurgency program used by Army field commanders.

    “That money is used by commanders on ground in Iraq and Afghanistan to fund small projects that help win over the local population,” he said.

    The Hill reports on the bill:

    The defense-spending bill written by Congress ignores cuts to several high-profile Pentagon programs proposed by the Obama administration.

    The bill includes $465 million for the General Electric-Rolls-Royce alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and for 10 additional Boeing C-17 cargo planes. It also includes a lifeline of sorts for the VH-71 presidential helicopter, which the administration has canceled due to cost concerns.

    The Pentagon did not ask for money to continue any of these programs.

    Gates in October told Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and Bill Young (R-Fla.), the chairman and ranking member of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, that he would recommend Obama veto the defense-spending bill if it included money for the VH-71 and if funds for the F-35 alternate engine threaten to “seriously” disrupt the overall fighter program.

    As another campaign promise is broken by Barack Obama to sign a defense bill that supports our troops, suspicion grows that the President isn’t serious about fighting terrorism.

  13. Wow Bruce, speaking of being warned of an imminent attack, sounds like that is exactly what happened to Obummer. Looks like he left it up to a Danish guy to handle the security on this one. You Hypocrats are the biggest bunch of losers I have ever had the displeasure of dealing with.

    Obama Was Warned Of Holiday Terror Threats
    01- 1-10 08:15 PM


    President Barack Obama received a high-level briefing only three days before Christmas about possible holiday-period terrorist threats against the US, Newsweek has learned. The briefing was centered on a written report, produced by US intelligence agencies, entitled "Key Homeland Threats", a senior US official said.

    The senior Administration official, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive information, said that nowhere in this document was there any mention of Yemen, whose Al-Qaeda affiliate is now believed to have been behind the unsuccessful Christmas Day attempt by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to bring down a transatlantic airliner with a bomb hidden in his underpants. However, the official declined to disclose any other information about the substance of the briefing, including what kind of specific warnings, if any, the President was given about possibly holiday attacks and whether Yemen came up during oral discussions.

  14. Here's some facts on terror attacks during the Bush regime.

    Using the Bush Administrations own data regarding terrorist attacks worldwide provided by the National Counterterrorism Center, there have been an exponentially increasing number of terrorist attacks since Bush has taken office. Searching their database of terrorist incidents which have taken place since January 1, 2004 (Less than 3 years of data, which does not include the 9/11 attacks or the other attacks mentioned above), there have been 14,278 (FOURTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY EIGHT) terrorist incidents worldwide resulting in 22,319 deaths and 43,620 injuries and 40,866 hostages for a grand total of 106,805 victims of terrorist attacks.

    The number of terrorist attacks has been increasing steadily since Bush was elected but are especially shocking in the data from 2004 and 2005 (the only years the NCTC has figures posted for). The number of attacks increase nearly 200% from 2004 to 2005 and the limited data available shows that 2006 will be even more turbulent and violent than 2005.

    2004 -

    Terrorist Incidents - 3168
    Fatalities - 7717
    Injuries - 18,865
    Hostages - 6086
    Total Victims - 32668

    2005 -

    Terrorist Incidents - 11,110
    Fatalities - 14,602
    Injuries - 24,755
    Hostages - 34,780
    Total Victims - 74,137

    For some reason, the National Conterterrorism Center stopped posting data for 2006. I wonder why?

    I don't know if these figures include the 2671 military personnel who have been killed in Iraq or the nearly 20,000 that have been seriously injured.

  15. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... Bruce, you are SUCH a F**KING RETARD! Did BUSH have control of the WHOLE WORLD??!!? HOW was he supposed to stop terrorist attacks in OTHER FREE COUNTRIES YOU DUMBASS!

    More attacks in Barry Hussein's first year than the entire 8 years of the Bush presidency. FACT.

    And here are some other items that I predict you will now attempt to ignore and avoid, and pretend like you didn't know there was a response because you have NO answer to Hussein's lack of leadership on ANYTHING:

    Quotes of the day

    “Complacency, faux moralising and partisan shots at Republicans. It was a neat summary of where Obama is going wrong after the Christmas Day debacle when the Nigerian knicker bomber managed to waltz onto a Detroit-bound flight.

    “For a man who campaigned denouncing the politicisation of national security under President George W Bush, it is worth noting how intensely political Obama’s treatment of what might henceforth be known as Underpantsgate has been…

    “It’s a sure sign that you’re losing the argument when you have to research quotes from your boss’s speeches to prove that he gets it that America is at war. The problem for Obama is that people are now judging him by his actions as well as his words.”

    “[T]he White House’s response to last week’s attempt to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit could rank as one of the low points of the new president’s first year. Over the course of five days, Obama’s reaction ranged from low-keyed to reassuring to, finally, a vow to find out what went wrong. The episode was a baffling, unforced error in presidential symbolism, hardly a small part of the presidency, and the moment at which yet another of the old political maxims that Obama had sought to transcend – the Democrats’ vulnerability on national security – reasserted itself…

    “[T]he listlessness of an initial response remains a puzzle, coming as it did during the same week Obama rushed off of the golf course in the middle of a game, his presidential motorcade screaming down a Hawaii highway at top speed to deliver one of his golf partners to the house where the friend’s son had cut his chin on a surfboard.

    “Explanations of Obama’s low-key reaction in the face of a terror attack include the characteristic caution of a president who resists jumping to conclusions and being pushed to action. They also include the White House’s belief – disproven repeatedly in 2009 – that it can evade the clichéd rules of politics, which include a suspicion of Democratic leadership on national security. Only Sunday night, when criticism of the system ‘worked’ comment was not going away, did White House aides realize their approach was not working and that they needed to shift course.”

    “If Republican policies are now to be judged by Democrats as ‘too restrictive’ due to a single instance of someone slipping through the cracks, or conversely, if a Democratic administration is now to be judged by Republicans as ’soft on terror’ due to those same circumstances, and if Obama has joined the chorus arguing that any failure to connect the dots is, in his words, ‘totally unacceptable’ (a stance which David Brooks mocks here), Obama can satisfy the demand for after-the-fact action only by sticking his finger in the eye of the left. The cries of betrayal could be louder than after the Afghanistan surge decision.”

  16. Oh, and BRUCE, 2006 is probably the last year that compiled data is available, like MANY other studies. I don't know what 2006 would have to do with anything at all, other than showing what a Democratic Congress was doing. Dumbass.

  17. Hypocrats and Obummer Hussein: EPIC FAIL (See below). I hope Obummer has W and Cheney on speed-dial so he can find out how to deal with terrorists.

    And to think these guys think they can run our health care better too?!?! WTF!?!?!?

    White House Adviser Briefed in October on Underwear Bomb Technique

    Obama briefed on terror attacks 3 days before Christmas


Please keep it clean and nice. Thank you for taking the time to post you thought. It means a lot to me that you do this.