Thanks To Bush The Bad Guys Are Getting Caught

The Patriot Act was enacted after 9/11 to provide law enforcement with a means to track those who would do us harm. There are many aspects to the PA and some of them are not very controversial. There are however, some items which remain controversial to this day (and some parts have been ruled unconstitutional). Democrats voted for the Patriot Act when Bush was President but later claimed that it infringes on the rights of American Citizens. Democrats are particularly worried about roving wiretaps which allow the government to monitor communications between suspected terrorists. The wiretaps (in various forms) have been used for decades by Presidents from both parties and the courts have ruled that they are legal and do not violate Fourth Amendment rights, a fact on which Al Franken was recently schooled.

Now that they are in charge of everything Democrats are taking a closer look and deciding that the things they opposed are not so bad after all. The Obama Justice Department has asked that three controversial items in the PA be reauthorized (they are scheduled to expire at the end of the year).

The three portions relate to roving wiretaps, seizing business records and monitoring suspected “lone wolf” terrorists.

“We also are aware that members of Congress may propose modifications to provide additional protection for the privacy of law abiding Americans,” Mr. Weich wrote. “Therefore, the Administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities.” Washington Times

Perhaps the Democrats had a change of heart now that law enforcement agencies have uncovered terrorist plots by using the techniques they long opposed. Because of the PA, terrorists were found and arrested. A few of them tried to detonate phony bombs (provided by undercover law enforcement officers) to blow up buildings. Imagine the hit this country would have taken had these guys been successful.

Maybe that was not enough to sway them. Perhaps it is the arrest of a nuclear engineer who was working at a nuclear research center. The 32 year old man was arrested along with his brother after it was discovered that he was passing lists of potential targets to al-Qaeda members in North Africa. The pesky PA helped to catch them:

US monitors picked up the exchange between the scientist and his contact in the militant group, known as al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. The north African group regularly targets government and security forces in Algeria, and occasionally attacks foreigners. Guardian

Whatever the reason, the Democrats seem more willing to reauthorize the PA, including the controversial portions, by the end of the year.

There is no guarantee that they will be reauthorized but members who opposed the re-authorization must now be considering it given the recent arrests.

Interestingly, most of them supported it and then opposed it later when people began complaining about violation of rights. The PA is specific about who may be surveilled and under what circumstances and the courts have ruled these methods legal but Democrats saw a way to bash Bush. Their actions are no different than with the war on terror. Most of them voted for it and later said they were tricked by Bush, a man they believe to be dumb. The switch was politically motivated and put their desire to win above the safety of the nation.

I am not worried about the PA. If they reauthorize it fine and if they do not, fine though they will be making us less safe. I do not live in an area considered to be a high value target so I will not likely be affected.

Those who do will suffer should plots like those that were recently uncovered be successful. Members of Congress have to see this but then again they have a skewed idea about safety. They work in secure buildings that are guarded by armed officers and the air space around them is guarded by anti aircraft systems.

They will likely not suffer should they decide to make America less safe.

And that, is a shame.

Perhaps Bush should have gotten that Peace Prize. Not only did he hope to make us safe, he actually did…

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

57 Responses to “Thanks To Bush The Bad Guys Are Getting Caught”

  1. Blake says:

    No, as we have seen, all prizes are demeaned and cheapened beyond all redemption by the intellectually challenged people these committees give them to- not a one of them has ever done anything substantial for actual peace.
    Carter? What a joke-Arafat? Why? The Mideast is still FUBARed- Gore? For all his lies about climate? Or perhaps because he invented the internet?
    Get Real- the only prize Bush will get is one I gladly give him- my eternal gratitude for helping keep us safe in spite of communists who belittle him and seek to tear down the US. every day, with the active collusion of our Socialist in Chief and hiz posse.

    • Darrel says:

      Blk: “I gladly give [Bush]- my eternal gratitude for helping keep us safe…”

      Obama has kept us safe longer than Bush did.

      • Blake says:

        Now, that is an interesting pretzel logic- tell us how?

        • Blake says:

          I mean, I know you’ll say 9/11 occurred, but in reality, if you are still blaming Bush in Nobama’s term this late in, then we, using YOUR logic, can blame Billy boy Clinton for 9/11- SAme rules apply, right?
          Or are you all SPECIAL, and need special rules to “level” the playing field, or you won’t be competitive?

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “if you are still blaming Bush in Nobama’s term this late”>>

          Nope. I was blaming Bush, for a national security failure (biggest ever), in his term.

          If we suffered an attack during Obama’s term, it would be on his watch, obviously.

          “The sorry national security legacy of the Bush administration can be measured in in the President’s failure to meet his own rhetorical objectives: “victory” in Iraq, an Afghanistan cleansed of terrorists, a Middle East transformed and democratic, a US military strengthened, a global economy rejuvenated and a world in which democracy and freedom are “on the march.” It can also be charted in the renewal of terrorism, religious extremism and violence emanating from Central and South Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia about which the administration can or will do little; the disintegration of our closest alliances and rise of states openly hostile to us in our own hemisphere. Perhaps most starkly it is marked in domestic and world public opinion, where President Bush plummeted from the highest – to lowest-ranked President in the history of public opinion research, and took global regard for the US to uncharted lows. This dramatic decline, the largest in history, can be attributed first and foremost to the President’s failed national security policies. While economic failure will undoubtedly mar the Bush’s legacy, it is his foreign policy which will define George W. Bush as one of the worst presidents in American history.”

        • Blake says:

          Nope- quit being dishonest- if we were hit by terrorists, you would find a way to blame Bush- because you are too busy being on your knees licking Hussein’s feet- they should be clean by now.
          It was Clinton and his crybaby staff that put firewalls in place that prevented the intel agencies from talking to each other and sharing info- but that is nothing new from the cowards that come out of Left field.
          Remember when they took all the Ws off of the WH keyboards?
          Oh that was adult behavior, wasn’t it? Typical Liberal crap.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Remember when they took all the Ws off of the WH keyboards?”>>

          Actually, that turned out to be a lie. I am not surprised you didn’t get the memo. Maybe if you didn’t isolate yourself so exclusively to your cultic right-wing sources you wouldn’t be so consistently misinformed.

          “…those closely detailed stories were largely bunk. Last week it was revealed that a formal review by the General Accounting Office, Congress’ investigative agency, “had found no damage to the offices of the White House’s East or West Wings or EOB” and that Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”

          The White House Scandal that Wasn’t –Salon.

          May 23, 2001

        • Blake says:

          Salon? You quote Salon? That’s good- the denialist’s favorite website.
          Their “Sub- Title” should be “Sssshhh- you can go back to sleep”, or,
          “Nothing to see here, move it along folks.”

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “Salon? You quote Salon? That’s good- the denialist’s favorite website. [snip insults]>>

          Notice Blake completely avoids responding to anything factual and substantive but instead resorts to his old hobby horse, the genetic fallacy. His complaint about Salon is rather weakened by the fact that it was two weeks ago he was only too happy to quote Salon extensively for one of his articles:

          “I’ll let Kate Harding, writing in take it from here-”

          See here:

          So apparently it’s okay when he quotes Salon.

          n : a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold [syn: dissembler, phony, phoney]

        • Blake says:

          I quote Salon to make you feel “included” in the discussion, D- you know, something familiar to make you feel comfy.
          The Ws did come off- regardless of what Salon claimed.

  2. Big Dog says:

    Good point Blake. Though we already know that 9/11 happened because of Clinton’s weakness (OBL told us that much) it has been blamed on Bush because people think that the Bush was supposed to know the exact date, time and manner of attack from a vague briefing that contained the same information that Clinton received and that Rhodes Scholar failed to discern it as well.

    But you are right, Darrel admits (unwittingly, I’m sure) that Clinton was to blame. He has allowed Obama to blame Bush this far in and has even joined in the blame game. Since Bush can be blamed well into October for Obama’s problems (even the laugher about not getting the Olympics. Bush was there when Chicago made the final 4 so he did better than Bambi) then Clinton can be blamed for the problems into September of Bush’s first term. And, if we can blame Bush for the bad then we can credit him for the good.

    No Darrel, Obama has not kept us safer longer. The policies of GWB have kept us safe. It was the Patriot Act, signed into law by him, that allowed us to capture the bad guys here. Obama did not like the PA and would be happy to get rid of it. Then again, he said he would be happy to get rid of everything Bush and then has followed in Bush’s footsteps.

    Regardless, Bush has kept us safe, not Obama. And we will likely be attacked during his term and it will be bad. Much worse than 9/11. See how safe you feel then.

  3. Jim says:

    Yes it was a good act by Bush after 9/11. It was necessary to do so.

  4. Barbara says:

    If people don’t have anything to hide then they shouldn’t oppose the PA; but if they do then I guess that is why they wouldn’t want it.

    • Big Dog says:

      I can certainly understand why people would be apprehensive about government power. I think government should have a lot less power and I understand why people who have nothing to hide would still be leery. I have nothing to hide but would not let the police inside my house to look around without a search warrant.

      The PA does not violate rights though, like Blake said, any law can be abused. I am thankful that it has worked as intended.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “The PA does not violate rights though…”>>

      Oh really.

        • Big Dog says:

          Yes Really. The PA requires laws to be followed. Have any of these things been ruled unconstitutional? If they have not then they do not violate our rights.

          There are parts of it that can be abused but law enforcement must follow certain procedures before doing any of those things.

          The ACLU is a sham organization that only files suits in order to get paid with taxpayer money. They were founded by a Communist and their goal is to have America become socialist. In fact, they compile a lot of private information about people in a manner similar to what they go after others for.

          I put little credence in them.

          But, all that aside, how will they act when the Democrats reauthorize the very things that the ACLU opposes (and many Dems opposed when Bush was president).

          I have yet to read about any abuse of the PA.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “I have yet to read about any abuse of the PA.”>>

          Maybe you should read a wider variety of sources.

          They’re not hard to find. Already provided below.

          Bigd: “how will they act when the Democrats reauthorize the very things that the ACLU opposes”

          They will oppose them. That’s what they do. Oppose abuses of civil liberties. And they are very, very good at it. They really are a fantastic organization. As usual, most of your beliefs about the ACLU (like other pet doctrines of your far right cult) are based upon misinformation, lies, spin or irrelevant baseless smears.


  5. Blake says:

    To be fair, every act like the PA has the potential for abuse- that is inherent, and we can see from this administration how they plan, for example, to abuse the IRS in medical insurance collections,
    But in Bush’s case, I have not found ANY case of citizen abuse regarding the Patriot Act- not a one.

    • Darrel says:

      BLK: “I have not found ANY case of citizen abuse regarding the Patriot Act- not a one.”>>

      There are certainly instances, and more than one, but they don’t seem to be all that earth shaking to me.

      And of course, since these abuses would largely be occurring IN SECRET, it wouldn’t be all that surprising that you “have not found” any. That’s kind of the point of the problem isn’t it. Lack of oversight.


      • Big Dog says:

        Alleged abuses. I imagine it might be in secret but COngress is supposed to have oversight. Shocker it would be if they are not doing their jobs.

        And did the agents follow the law. If so, no abuses, if not then they need to be punished.

        9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, fair enough but Clinton set the atmosphere for it. His weakness led to it.

        However, we can now blame the financial collapse on Obama and all the jobs lost belong to him. Bush might have put things in motion but the bad stuff is happening on his watch so everything from 1/20 belongs to him including the deficit that is higher than all other presidents added together.

        Bush failed to achieve what he said (so claims the quote) Obama has failed to achieve anything and got the Nobel Appease Prize. He should thank Bush for it. Obama only got it because he is not bush. He has never accomplished anything and certainly nothing to earn that prize.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “Clinton set the atmosphere”>>

          He “set the atmosphere?” What, by catching and prosecuting the guys who did the first attack on the Twin Towers?

          Bigd: we can now blame the financial collapse on Obama>>

          A recession that started in ’07 under Bush, and a collapse that happened under Bush while Obama was a Senator? Obama’s good, but I don’t think his abilities involve time travel.

          Bigd: and all the jobs lost belong to him.>>

          Let me draw you a picture.

          Bigd: Obama has failed to achieve anything>>

          Here’s a list of 30 things.

          Here is a longer list covering his 11 years in elective office.


        • Blake says:

          Clinton and his staff initiated the “Gorelik Wall”- or is it like most liberal things that suck- you don’t talk about your failures, or responsibilities?
          Well, one of the responsibilities was conceding that it was this impediment to communication between intel agencies that led to 9/11, therefore, it is Clinton’s fault.

      • Blake says:

        Wow- you could postulate that many things are done in secret- that does not mean that these things are real.
        Like your alleged abuses- when you can find me an example, we can debate that- until then you should stick with what you can verify.
        I could stipulate that Hussein is building concentration camps- but they are secret, so I have nothing to back it up.
        See how easy that is?

  6. Blake says:

    Don’t you mean his 11 years campaigning? He is laughable, not to be taken seriously, a LIGHTWEIGHT in every sense of the word.
    I would take the bum rambling on ad nauseum standing in the rain more seriously than Hussein the Liar.

  7. Big Dog says:

    Salon, oooh. Funny, the GAO report I have seen referenced reads like this:

    GAO: Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts. However, it was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may have been responsible for them. Further, with regard to stolen items, such as the presidential seal, because no one witnessed the thefts and many people were in the White House complex during the transition, it was not known who was responsible for taking them. Moreover, regarding other items reported missing, such as doorknobs, cellular telephones, and television remote controls, it was unknown whether all of them were thefts, and if they were, who was responsible for taking those items and when they were taken.

    Notice that it says removal of keys from keyboards were clearly intentional acts.

    The report also says that somethings cannot be determined and might just be wear and tear. The source for this is FactCheck, your favorite place.

    I guess you and Salon got the wrong memo…

    • Darrel says:

      As your own source notes:

      “…the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy,”

      Blake’s claim, is bogus. Please make a note of it.


      • Big Dog says:

        No Darrel, nice try with your deceptive tactics. Blake said remember when they took the Ws off the Keyboards. The report clearly states that the keyboards were missing letters and that they were deliberately removed.

        The source clearly states that the removed keys were reported as a practical joke and the GAO says it was deliberate.

        The initial investigation reported what you claim as a response to other allegations of widespread destruction and vandalism. The report said that while the deliberate acts took place the reports of widespread vandalism and destruction were exaggerated and THIS was consistent with what would be expected.

        So to recap, you cherry picked a quote and used it out of context. Blake said that it was childish when they removed the keyboard keys and the report clearly states they removed the keys.

        You claim is bogus, make a note of that.

        You do it all the time. Cherry pick to show what you want it to say. But you do have the audacity to say you will admit when you are wrong.

        So admit it.

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: “while the deliberate acts took place the reports of widespread vandalism and destruction were exaggerated”>>

          That is, lies.

          You want to defend lies Bigd?

          Let me know if you have any trouble understanding the following:

          “Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”

          Bigd: “you cherry picked a quote and used it out of context.”

          What quote? Be specific.

          Bigd: “Blake said that it was childish when they removed the keyboard keys”

          What Blake actually said:

          “…they took all the Ws off of the WH keyboards…”

          Care to show that? Didn’t think so.

          As the Salon article shows, this was a made up BS story from the Bush admin., their first one of many to come. It was practice.

          “And so, in my State of the—my State of the Union—or state—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—I asked Americans to give 4,000 years—4,000 hours over the next—the rest of your life—of service to America. That’s what I asked—4,000 hours.”
          —GW Bush, Bridgeport, Conn., April 9, 2002

          • Big Dog says:

            What part of deliberate acts are lies? George Bush did not want to make a big deal out of it because he did not want it to play unfavorably on another president. It is called class.

            You only quoted one item and it was about something different.

            I am not playing your games anymore. You make claims and then ask people to show you. You know what you did and it has been demonstrated to you.

            When you put quotes arounf my discussion of what Blake said you make it appear as if I quoted him. I told you what he said in other words and this is what he sad. The GAO report says the keys were removed from the keyboards and that there were deliberate acts of destruction. They could not determine if other acts were destructive.

            You can call it rubbish but it is true.

            • Darrel says:

              Bigd: “What part of deliberate acts are lies?>>

              I said the exaggerations were lies.

              Bigd: George Bush did not want to make a big deal out of it>>

              Then why did they make a big deal out of it? Not very classy. They took nothing, and spun it into a big scandal (as shown in the Salon article). Then they retracted the errors later, after everyone wasn’t watching. SOP.

              Bigd: “I am not playing your games anymore.”>>

              Why do you continually say things that aren’t true?

              “Bush’s own representatives had reported “there is no record of damage that may have been deliberately caused by the employees of the Clinton administration.”

  8. Darrel says:

    The title of the thread is:

    “Thanks To Bush The Bad Guys Are Getting Caught”

    Speaking of that, let’s not forget:

    “The Bush administration’s incompetence has cost the U.S. its best shot at catching Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda’s senior leadership. Seven years ago, American officials cornered bin Laden and his followers in the caves of Tora Bora. However, through a series of negligent decisions, President Bush allowed bin Laden to escape. The administration deemed that only three dozen Special Forces units were necessary for hunting down bin Laden, in spite of Tora Bora’s reputation for being dotted with miles of caves and tunnels. Just as damaging was the administration’s choice to rely on local militias to weed out bin Laden, as later evidence found that these groups colluded in his escape. Despite offers of assistance from the Pakistani government, the Bush administration refused to help the Pakistani military transport troops to the region to seal off escape routes to Pakistan. And President Bush allowed Gen. Tommy Franks to direct the operation from Tampa, Florida, rather than sending senior leadership into Afghanistan to confront the challenge directly. The result: Osama bin Laden, and a cohort of al-Qaeda’s leadership eluded U.S. capture, reconstituting a safe-haven in nearby Pakistan, where they continue to plot against the U.S.”

    Thanks Bush!

    • Big Dog says:

      Bill Clinton had 3 opportunities to take bin Laden out and decided not to each time. If he had pulled the trigger on any one of the occasions then 9/11 probably would not have happened.

      It seems that Clinton could only pull the trigger when the ammo landed on a blue dress.

      Thanks Clinton.

      ANd the NSN? They are a left wing organization. Look at the names of the people there. People who worked on Kerry/Edwards’ campaign, Wesley Clark (wasn’t he relived of command) and various other wingnuts.

      You should get your info from real organizations that actually know what is happening. Did any fo these folks mention Clinton not getting OBL on 3 occasions? Did they mention his cowardice in Somalia emboldened OBL (OBL’s own words)? No, they blame it on Bush.

      Darrel, you cite the wingnuts and expect to be taken seriously.

      • Darrel says:

        Bigd: Bill Clinton had 3 opportunities to take bin Laden out>>

        As you have been shown before complete rubbish.

        Bigd: “They [NSN] are a left wing organization.>>

        That’s nice. Try responding to the substance of the claim rather than always with the knee jerk genetic fallacy. Learn something new.

        Bigd: “…his cowardice in Somalia emboldened OBL (OBL’s own words)>>

        I really don’t care what that terrorist says. Perhaps you do. Let’s see the quote.

        Papa Bush got us in Somalia. Clinton got us out.

        Clinton never sent a soldier into battle that didn’t come back. Not one. Eight years. Bush’s wars have killed over twice as many American’s as Osama did on 9/11.

        “Osama bin Laden made reference to [My Pet Goat] in a videotaped speech released just prior to the 2004 U.S. presidential election, claiming that Bush’s reading of the book had given the hijackers more than enough time to carry out the attacks.”


        • Big Dog says:

          You have shown nothing to be rubbish. you have shown some person’s opinion and that person was NOT there. I prefer to take the word of a decorated military veteran who was there.

          Patterson told WND he recognizes the television production conflates several events, but, in terms of conveying how the Clinton administration handled its opportunities to get bin Laden, it’s “100 percent factually correct,” he said.

          “I was there with Clinton and (National Security Adviser Sandy) Berger and watched the missed opportunities occur,” Patterson declared.

          The five-hour drama is scheduled to air in two parts, Sunday night and Monday night, Sept. 11.

          As a military aide to President Clinton from 1996 to 1998, Patterson was one of five men entrusted with carrying the “nuclear football,” which contains the codes for launching nuclear weapons.

          I know you libs don’t trust the military but this guy was entrusted with the nuclear codes so someone had trust in him. If he says that this is the case then it is. None of your “sources” were there. As you say, this roasts you argument.

          As for Clinton not sending soldiers into battle who did not come home. The Rangers that were killed in Somalia were deployed in August of 1993 and that was well after Clinton was President:

          From August 26, 1993, to 21 October, 1993, Company B, a Platoon from A Company and a command and control element of 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, deployed to Somalia to assist United Nations forces in bringing order to a desperately chaotic and starving nation SuaSPonte

          Their mission was to capture key leaders in order to end clan fighting in and around the City of Mogadishu. On October 3, 1993, the Rangers conducted a daring daylight raid in which several special operations helicopters were shot down. For nearly 18 hours, the Rangers delivered devastating firepower, killing an estimated 300 Somali’s in what many have called the fiercest ground combat since Vietnam. Six Rangers died.
          Global Security

          As you can see, they were sent after Clinton was president, they had a mission to capture leaders and end the fighting and some of them died. your claim is bogus.

          The book quote is not relevant to the discussion.

          As for NSN, the substance is a report by people who have expressed their dislike of Bush. It is not unbiased.

          Bin Laden:

          Such a war requires our leaders to understand that our staying power, our will to win, is as important as any weapon in our arsenal. Our enemies doubt this. Saddam Hussein said before the first Gulf War that Americans wouldn’t tolerate “10,000 dead in one battle.” Osama bin Laden said he was emboldened to direct the Sept. 11 attacks because watching support wane for the American operation in Somalia “convinced us America is a paper tiger.” Heritage

        • Darrel says:

          DAR said:
          Let’s see the quote.

          Bigd responds: “Osama bin Laden said he was emboldened to direct the Sept. 11 attacks because watching support wane for the American operation in Somalia “convinced us America is a paper tiger.” Heritage”

          So are you dumb or dishonest? Clearly you try to pass off Heritage blather in place of the Osama comments you said you had. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?

          Your fantasy about Bin Laden being offered isn’t true, and as a bonus, even if it were true, it wouldn’t have mattered.


          “Key American players – President Bill Clinton, then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Director of Counterterrorism Richard Clarke among them – have testified there were no “credible offers” to hand over bin Laden.”

          All laid out here, now for the second time:

          Senator Al Franken also has an excellent debunk of this in his best selling “Lying Lies and the Liars Who Tell Them.”

          “So even if the Sudanese government really did offer to hand bin Laden over, the U.S. would have had no grounds for detaining him. In fact, the Justice Department did not secure an indictment against bin Laden until 1998 – at which point Clinton did order a cruise missile attack on an al Qaeda camp in an attempt to kill bin Laden.

          [isn’t that the one the republicans opposed? -Dar]

          We have to be careful about engaging in what historians call “Whig history,” which is the practice of assuming that historical figures value exactly the same things that we do today. It’s a fancy term for those “why didn’t someone just shoot Hitler in 1930?” questions that one hears in dorm-room bull sessions. The answer, of course, is that no one knew quite how bad Hitler was in 1930. The same is true of bin Laden in 1996.”

        • Darrel says:

          Bigd: As you can see, they were sent after Clinton was president>>

          That was GHW Bush’s war. He started it. He sent the US military into that battle. Clinton was wiping up the mess.

          And now Obama is doing the same for baby Bush. History repeating. Republicans don’t pay for their wars, and they finish them either.

          It’s what they humorously like to call “personal responsibility.”

          “…all of the U.S. troops were withdrawn in March 1994”

        • Blake says:

          Darrel, we (the CIA) knew how bad bin Laden was in 1996- but you couldn’t get a single Democrat to listen- there seems to be some genetic flaw in liberals where they don’t hear intelligence when it comes from people whose job it is to be “in intelligence”- kind of like a dog hearing different frequencies- perhaps we need a liberal whistle just to get them to listen up.
          Or perhaps take away the cigars and interns.

  9. Big Dog says:

    The GAO said it was deliberate, like gluing drawers and pulling keys off.

    As for Berger, he stole documents from tne National Archives. He was part of the cover up. Of those you named, none has the integrity of Patterson.

    I sent you a link to the source and Time did an article on it.

    I do not say things that are not true. You attempt to justify your distortions but it will not work.

  10. Big Dog says:

    Your claim was that Clinton never sent troops to battle that he did not bring home. i showed that was wrong. You also, in an earlier thread, said that if it happens on their watch it belongs to them. Somalia happened on his watch so it belongs to him.

    Besides, Bush sent them in at the request of the UN, your favorite organization. If he had refused you would be against that.

    • Darrel says:

      Your claim was that Clinton never sent troops to battle that he did not bring home.>>

      Somalia was papa Bush’s battle, he started it, Clinton didn’t start it he finished it. Similarly Iraq is baby Bush’s battle, he started it and all of the casualties *all of them* are due to his illegal actions.

      Bigd: Somalia happened on his watch so it belongs to him.>>

      Papa Bush started the Somalia battle, that baby belongs to him. All of the soldiers Clinton sent into battle (as in, the ones he started) came home. No exceptions.

      Bigd: Bush sent them in at the request of the UN, your favorite organization.>>

      Good point. They even do more good than the ACLU.

      Bigd: If he had refused you would be against that.>>

      You are right, papa Bush did the right thing (with the knowledge he had at the time, in retrospect it might not have been). But his action led to US casualties, which is the point in question.


      • Blake says:

        First, Iraq was NOT an illegal battle- that is your opinion, and not that of the Congress who OKed the action. Now, it is nobammas to finish if he can. Afghanistan is a war he will never win- he hasn’t the experience to listen to his generals, because he has always had contempt for the military mind. He thinks he knows better,
        But unless he received military training when he went on that mysterious trip to Pakistan, he has no training at all and if he was wise, he would just shut up and listen.

  11. Big Dog says:

    And, the Vietnam War was started by a Dem and ended by a Republican, Truman sent troops into korea and Eisenhower ended it, FDR got us into WWII (where over 400k of our troops were killed), and Woodrow Wilson got us into WWI so the BS about Republicans starting wars is not going to fly.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Vietnam War was started by a Dem and ended by a Republican>>

      All oversimplifications and roasted before. You know republican chicken hawks love their wars. They just like to have other people to fight them, other people pay for them, and other people finish them.

      “I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace.” —George W. Bush, June 18, 2002

      It doesn’t get more Orwellian than that.

      • Blake says:

        Actually it does, in a very literal sense-
        “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”
        George Orwell
        At least he understood, not like you pencil necked puds.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “…rough men stand ready…” –George Orwell>>

          Never said it.

          I like it best when you hit yourself in the head with the 2×6. Keep it up.

          ps. Careful readers will notice that Blake reveals in the above that he doesn’t know what “Orwellian” means. Precious.

        • Blake says:

          I do know when George Orwell did quote that- now if you wish to deny the truth, that’s OK D- we are used to your dishonesty- but do not try to rewrite other people’s words- that is beyond dishonest.
          Oh- I do know what Orwellian means- but I thought you would appreciate the real thing.
          I guess not.

        • Darrel says:

          BLK: “I do know when George Orwell did quote that”>>

          When I tried to verify this attribution to him, it quickly showed up as a well known “misquote.” He didn’t say it. Show otherwise by citing a verifiable source.


  12. Big Dog says:

    You never roasted anything about war. You demonstrated your ignorance. Chickenhawks? First of all that is a fierce bird.

    Second of all, it is the conservative group of Americans fighting the wars.

    What was Clinton since he dodged service and then sent people into battle? Not a chickenhawk, hmmm, coward

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Chickenhawks?>>

      “A person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it; particularly when that enthusiasm is undimmed by personal experience with war; most emphatically when that lack of experience came in spite of ample opportunity in that person’s youth.”

      Bigd: it is the conservative group of Americans fighting the wars.>>

      Your party is filled with chickenhawks. Would you like to see a list of them again?

      Bigd: What was Clinton…?

      As I said the last time you asked this question:

      “Nope. Not a hawk. You can call him a chicken, but no one but a partisan hack reaching for straws would label him a hawk.”

      Not a hawk = not a chickenhawk.


      • Blake says:

        Just a plain, flat out coward, a POS that lets others die, but stands sanctimoniously athwart the gates of freedom just so he can pee on our soldiers.
        What a guy.

  13. Big Dog says:

    Somalia was a peacekeeping mission for your beloved UN, not a war mission that Papa Bush sent troops into. The mission changed on Clinton’s watch and the casualties belong to him.

    The casualties in the current wars (both of which are absolutely legal) now belong to Barry. He told his base he would remove troops immediately and did not. He changed that when he began to show his inexperience but it all belongs to him now.

    You make these claims and act as if government starts over each time someone is elected.

    You are losing it goat boy.

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: Somalia was a…>>

      Bush got us in. His decision, his baby. Not Clinton’s.

      Bigd: The casualties in the current wars (both of which are absolutely legal)>>

      The Iraq war was illegal, internationally (that’s higher than national btw).


      Iraq war illegal, says Annan

      The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

      He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.”



      “In November 2008, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom, stated that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s advice to the British Government contained “no hard evidence” that Iraq had defied UN resolutions “in a manner justifying resort to force” and that the invasion was “a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law.”


      “Richard Perle, a senior member of the Bush Administration’s Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, conceded in November 2003 that the invasion was illegal but still justified.” LINK

      Good overview here Legality of the Iraq War.

      Bigd: He told his base he would remove troops immediately>>

      No he didn’t. In fact he specifically DID NOT say that. Last I checked, the withdrawal from Bush’s Iraq quagmire is running ahead of schedule and right in line with what he said.


  14. Big Dog says:

    Clinton sent men into combat and he worked hard to stay out of it himself. Chickenhawk.

    I know what a chickenhawk is so I don’t need a definition.

    Your definition includes people who actually joined the service but either did not serve in combat or served in the National Guard which, during the Vietnam era, would make it unlikely they would go to war. You obviously cannot read minds or know motive but at least the people joined something. They did not cower like Clinton.

  15. Big Dog says:

    Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could “refine” his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month. Politico

    Well, the Constitution gives us the authority to go to war if we need to. But you point out just another reason we need to be out of the sorry UN.

    We do not need permission to fight and we had every right under the resolutions that were not followed for 14 years. We had the right to go back and we did. And Anon, the guy in the oil for food scandal. Now that was a crime…

    • Darrel says:

      Bigd: “We do not need permission to fight”>>

      Actually, in many instances we do (and this was one of them). We have treaties and our treaties have the same force as law.


  16. Big Dog says:

    Darrel, the UN Resolutions allowed us to go back in if Hussein was not abiding by the terms of the cease fire. He kicked inspectors out and did not live up to the agreement.

    The war is not illegal.

    But, I think we should get out of all treaties that limit our Constitutional duties.