These quotes make me so happy! For months you col Gene have cried how we went to war in Iraq on lies told by the President. Now you stated twice that based on a very few reports the President should have gone to war and invaded Afghanistan and gotten AQ and because he did not he should be impeached for it. We had the same type of reports of AQ in Iraq and the same type of intel telling us of WMD in Iraq. The President acted and you say he should be impeached for it.

You have proven my point that you are a political hack that does not care for the facts only the attack of the President. Yet you don’t seem to care that during Mr. Clinton’s administration, we were attacked and he did nothing. Let’s see what Mr. Clinton missed. There was the attack on the World Trade Center, the USS Cole, two embassies, the black hawk down incident, kobar towers and the planning and staging of his people for the second attack on he World Trade Center buildings and others all of them traced by the CIA to AQ and bin Laden. All before Mr. Clinton left office, all the information presented by the same CIA Director and all of it ignored.

Since Mr. Bush took over we had the 9/11 attacks and that was it. No ships, no embassies in short no attacks on US soil.




This was documented on 9/11 that the president did not know of the wall when he asked CIA Director what information they passed to FBI, it was then that he found out how high and thick the wall was and ordered it ended. That was three or four hours after the attack.

Even I'm surprised you fell for that. One of your many mistakes is that you think I'm defending Bush when in fact I'm challenging you. You made the bald-faced assertion that Bush & Rice should be impeached for an imaginary crime and you can't support your allegation with any facts, only factoids.* Denouncing people for defending something they are not is the equivalent of "Your mother wears army boots," what you do when you can't win the argument on merit.

*Selectively sifted aspects of events, which may be technically true, but which fail to convey the entire story and are selected solely for their perceived prejudicial content, not for scholarly assessment, and which are further chosen because they dovetail with a pre-existing bias or prejudice.

Your blog title is an oxymoron, one you're too stupid to figure out.

Once again an excuse.  I see you just cannot put any blame on a democrat no matter what.


 

This so-called warfooting was not going to stop the attacks.  It's incredible that people who criticize Bush for wiretapping terrorism suspects, wanted expanded searches, etc. are the exact same ones who now complain Bush didn't do "enough".  What a joke.

Reply By: danielost Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
WAR FOOTING!



what is a war footing.


and how does that help in the country.


us troops are not allowed to do anything inside the country. police connected. so again we go on red alert for what, when, where,


by the way it is the job of the police to be looking for the strange things people do. the president shouldn't have to tell them to do their job.


First it brings together all law enforcement and the public to report actions that appears suspicious. We would have ended anyone from coming into the country across our borders and made out port of entry process more stringent. The general knowledge of the threats could have caused people who were aware of the flight training of the terrorists to the FBI etc. More scrutiny of financial transactions might have captured information from which more actionable intelligence would have been developed. By IGNORING the warning NONE of this took place and we did not do all we could have done to thwart the 9/11 attacks. Just the public knowledge of the CIA warnings could have deterred the terrorists from the 9/11 attacks. We will never know because Bush and Rice fiddled while New York and Washington Burned!

Yes military troops can be employed within the U.S. if there is a security issue and Bush could have used the National Guard to seal the border. We still had a National Guard before we invaded Iraq!

You seem to operate completely in theories and pass them off as facts.  You have completely ignored everything posted to you and just keep making excuses to blame Bush.  How pathetic.

So what you are saying I all the things you want to impeach Mr. Bush for now are the things he should have been doing before we were attacked? How would the public react if he had done this prior to September 11 2001? As it stands now he is doing all those things and you want to impeach him and this is after we were attacked, he is using the justification of the attack to do them and it is not enough for the liberals because he is breaking the law in their eyes right now! Prior to 9/11 with no attack on our soil and no dead Americans in our streets he would have been called all manner of vile names because he was breaking the law without any justification, just some vague threats from some nut thousands of miles away.

The terrorist boldly stated before the attacks that they were coming and it was published in the news yet no one seemed to care about that. When Mr. Clinton killed the Ghost program, in the face of that threat, the CIA and DIA had no way of stopping the terroris. It took three years to get the program up and running quietly and was successful for 9 years, what are the chances that Mr. Bush would have been able to get it up and running again in the 8 months he was in office without the NYT blasing it around the world as they have done on every covert operation they got their hands on?

There are literally thousand of plots that were smashed prior to 9/11 by the previous administration, and thousands more after 9/11 they got through on 9/11 because the previous administration allowed it to happen. The wall set up by the democrat congress in the 1970’s and reinforced by the Clinton administration prevented the CIA from telling the FBI that bad guys being watched over seas went off the grid and were headed to the USA. Keep in mind that the FBI at the time was not into preventing crimes that was the purview of the CIA. The FBI only tracked and arrested people that have already committed the crime. So if the bad guys had not committed a crime they could not be arrested or even interrogated. The first time the FBI could step in would be when the hijackers killed the flight attendant just before they took over the airplane. Don’t you think that is a little late? It was John Ashcroft that directed the FBI to arrest and watch suspected terrorist and all the liberals screamed about rights being violated.

Reply By: Island Dog Posted: Thursday, August 30, 2007
“Just the public knowledge of the CIA warnings could have deterred the terrorists from the 9/11 attacks.


You seem to operate completely in theories and pass them off as facts. You have completely ignored everything posted to you and just keep making excuses to blame Bush. How pathetic.” YES YOU ARE PATHETIC!!!!!

Here is a FACT

Our President Ignored warnings from the CIA over a period of six months that we were about to be attacked by al-Qaeda. On September 11, 2001 that attack we were warned about took place and Bush did NOTHING between March and Sept 2001 to act on those warnings. WHY are we spending 14 Billion per year to acquire Intelligence for a President that ignores that very same intelligence?

WHy are you so full of crap? That same money was spent over 8 years of Mr. Clinton and he ignored the same evidence but he was attacked 6 times during his watch and each time he did nothing to stop the next attack. Mr. Bush was attacked once and slamed the door on the terrorist. HE used that same intelligence to attack Iraq and you scream that it was all bogus and we should not have gone into Iraq. Same Intelligence same Director of CIA two different results, in both cases you want the man impeached. YOU ARE A POLITICAL HACK!

You are way too kind, Paladin. He's a monomaniacal fruitcake, an irrational loon. And those are kinder than he deserves.

That's not a fact.  You act like nothing at all was being done about terrorism, while completely ignoring everything else that is being told you to.  Sept. 11 was planned up to five years beforehand, I don't see you complaining about that.  What a joke.  Do you anything but blaming Bush?

Keep ignoring what everyone else is posting, it's just hilarious.

no he did something. he said he was sorry for having that destroyer in the way of that boat. i know this because i watched the his speech on it.

Hey!!! all you guys!! Stop trying to CONFUSE GENE with facts!!! I will not stand by and allow this!!!!!

Look out, MM might grab you by the neck. (Sorry MM, couldn't resist)

He's a monomaniacal fruitcake, an irrational loon.

We're feeding the need, people. We're COL Gene's enablers. ::

True enough, but what the hey. I used to think ignoring him was the best policy but he's no less nuts when he's ignored.

Do you think he "needs" vilification? Maybe he's Opus Dei?