If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Congressman notes that five jihadists have reached their targets under Obama, quickly glosses over the fact he still 14 points behind Bush   (nation.foxnews.com) divider line 127
    More: Dumbass, Fourteen Points, United States, underwear bomber, Times Square bomber, congressman, jihadists  
•       •       •

1859 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Apr 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-25 10:44:24 AM  
It wasn't concerning until now.
 
2013-04-25 10:47:00 AM  
What is this, a farking ball game? They haven't had any terrorist attacks in North Korea for three regimes over 50 years -- does that mean all 'murican prezdints lose to them?
 
2013-04-25 10:47:28 AM  
American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.
 
2013-04-25 10:48:13 AM  
we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"
 
2013-04-25 10:52:57 AM  
In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?


Seems legit.
 
2013-04-25 10:53:00 AM  

Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.


well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.
 
2013-04-25 10:53:03 AM  
do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?
 
2013-04-25 10:53:08 AM  
while(FoxNews.exists()) {

~Reality(); //dispose

if(isRepubPrez() == false) softOnTerror = TRUE;
else softOnTerror = FALSE;

while(true) derp(); //soros

}
 
2013-04-25 10:53:45 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"


You didn't read the article did you?
 
2013-04-25 10:53:57 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


9/11 was Clinton, wasn't it?
 
2013-04-25 10:54:09 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"


It doesn't change the fact that the outrage is as manufactured as the hyperdrive on my ssssstarship.
 
2013-04-25 10:54:13 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.
 
2013-04-25 10:54:51 AM  
Couple points to note out to the (R)tard congressman:

1 - These jihadist that "reached" their target were NOT foreign nationals, but Americans.

2 - Did someone forget about the Beltway Sniper Mr. John Allen Muhammad?  Killed 11 people under Bush.

3 - Lastly, are you REALLY going to compare 9/11 to Boston?  Did Obama get 5 warnings that Boston was going to happen and still sat on his ass.

I love how all the Conservatives are saying AFTER 9/11 Bush keep us safe.  If that is so, doesn't Obama get a "reset" on the whole keeping us safe?

/Screw him and the entire GOP / Conservative Media making b.s. politics out of Boston.
 
2013-04-25 10:55:09 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


"I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration's counterterrorism policies and programs," said the freshman congressman from Arkansas. "Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state-the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?'"
 
2013-04-25 10:55:28 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"

You didn't read the article did you?


Doesn't stop him from derping around. Facts don't matter to derpers.
 
2013-04-25 10:56:16 AM  
Oh man, the comments are retarded.  They make tenpoundsofcheese look like only a halfpoundofcheese.

the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state-the Little Rock recruiting office shooter.

Underwear bomber?  The bomb that came from overseas and didn't go off?
Times Square Bomber?  You mean the guy who's bomb didn't go off...?
Fort Hood Shooter really count as terrorism?
Same with the Little Rock?
 
2013-04-25 10:56:36 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"


Wow, you're so very misinfromed. Keep watching FOX! You're doing great!


Link
I won't ask you what exactly Bush did about a certain memo that sat on his desk for a month.
 
2013-04-25 10:56:40 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.


And yet you voted for Bush... Twice.
 
2013-04-25 10:56:51 AM  
the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber,

What did they blow up?
 
2013-04-25 10:57:08 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


No, the assholes are those who point back to 9/11 and say "But at least it wasn't as bad as THAT."
 
2013-04-25 10:57:20 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


Which would be ironic considering how much they yelled at us to never forget.

So today he's weakbama on terrorists and tomorrow it will be dronebama and how ruthless he is to poor old terrorists.
 
2013-04-25 10:57:41 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.



False equivalence. You're not even trying today.
Hint: better than A does not mean worse than C-Z.
 
2013-04-25 10:58:20 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


That was Clinton's fault, don't forget.

Remember: "Clinton had eight years to prevent this. Bush only had eight months!!!!"
 
2013-04-25 10:58:31 AM  
jntaylor63:

3 - Lastly, are you REALLY going to compare 9/11 to Boston?  Did Obama get 5 warnings that Boston was going to happen and still sat on his ass.

'9/11' is the new 'Holocaust' analogy for things that don't involve an enormous amount of fatalities but are just as bad. A car crash is like 9/11. A bank teller being shot by a robber is 9/11.
 
2013-04-25 10:58:59 AM  

Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.


If that's your only metric, Washington, Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan are still ahead of both in terms of presiding over large-scale "terrorism-related events" that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Not to mention all the other wars against native tribes (in which natives were killed by the boatload, but Americans only killed by the wagon-load), and more minor wars against the Spanish, etc.
 
2013-04-25 10:59:31 AM  
Breaking news!: Republicans don't care about dead Americans if there is no political gain from said deaths. They'd happily dismantle our national security systems if it meant making Obama look bad.
 
2013-04-25 10:59:46 AM  
The underwear bomber boarded a plane in Amsterdam and unless his target was his own testicles he failed miserably

 The times square bomber was foiled by a couple of hot dog vendors and managed to kill nothing other than a Home Depot Card and a 20 year old Nissan....

 I really doubt there is any possible way to prevent morons from existing . If indeed such a thing were possible the congressman from AR wouldnt exist
 
2013-04-25 11:00:05 AM  

vernonFL: the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber,

What did they blow up?



Shhh, it's more important to show how Oblahma is a failure for stopping that threat, because he should have used his time machine to know when the bomber was going to strike, like such as.
 
2013-04-25 11:00:22 AM  

Yes please: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

No, the assholes are those who point back to 9/11 and say "But at least it wasn't as bad as THAT."


Right, not too long ago we had Rand Paul calling Benghazi the "worst tragedy since 9/11".

After that school massacre, no less, if I recall.
 
2013-04-25 11:01:51 AM  
If the Underwear Bomber counts, so does Richard Reid.
 
2013-04-25 11:01:52 AM  

Lord_Baull: Wow, you're so very misinfromed. Keep watching FOX! You're doing great!


Wouldn't "misinfromed" mean "informed"?  After all, "infromed" means "misinformed".....
 
2013-04-25 11:01:54 AM  
In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero!

It is unbelievable how many things are wrong with this sentence.
 
2013-04-25 11:02:06 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

If that's your only metric, Washington, Adams, Madison, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan are still ahead of both in terms of presiding over large-scale "terrorism-related events" that resulted in the deaths of Americans.

Not to mention all the other wars against native tribes (in which natives were killed by the boatload, but Americans only killed by the wagon-load), and more minor wars against the Spanish, etc.



Your mistake is in thinking I'm keeping score.
 
2013-04-25 11:02:33 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Fort Hood Shooter really count as terrorism?


Mass shootings count as terrorism if the shooter is a Muslim.

/I guess
 
2013-04-25 11:02:45 AM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Lord_Baull: Wow, you're so very misinfromed. Keep watching FOX! You're doing great!

Wouldn't "misinfromed" mean "informed"?  After all, "infromed" means "misinformed".....



My head just asploded.
 
2013-04-25 11:03:00 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about


I guess launching a shiatload of missiles into Afghanistan instead of getting into a land war in Asia falls under the category of "not doing much."
 
2013-04-25 11:03:10 AM  

hugram: tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.

And yet you voted for Bush... Twice.


And you know that...how?
 
2013-04-25 11:03:12 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.


Your English. It is very bad.
 
2013-04-25 11:05:12 AM  
Why doesn't shoe bomber  count on Bush's list if the underwear bomber count's on Obama's?

And why is he just focusing on jihadists terrorism?  What about the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly after?  The letters appeared to be jihadist, but maybe the guy was just crazy.  Or maybe we never figured out who really did it.
 
2013-04-25 11:05:32 AM  

Vodka Zombie: tenpoundsofcheese: well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about

I guess launching a shiatload of missiles into Afghanistan instead of getting into a land war in Asia falls under the category of "not doing much."



As does "sentencing the perpetrators to 240 years in prison."
 
2013-04-25 11:05:41 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: tenpoundsofcheese: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.

Your English. It is very bad.


"Your English." is not a sentence.

if you don't know the meaning of "second worse" in the context of Bush, then use your google and study it out.
 
2013-04-25 11:05:58 AM  

highbrow45: Satanic_Hamster: Fort Hood Shooter really count as terrorism?

Mass shootings count as terrorism if the shooter is a Muslim.

/I guess


I guess.  I mean, we've had a LOT of racists shooting up minorities.  Don't those count as terrorism?
 
2013-04-25 11:06:09 AM  
I do think its sad that even with all the surveillance, the warrentless wiretaps, the data mining, etc....They still couldn't stop these two - and they were on government watch lists and being followed and interviewed, etc...
 
2013-04-25 11:06:19 AM  

machodonkeywrestler: tenpoundsofcheese: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.

Your English. It is very bad.


It's the worserest English I've seen.  But, give the guy a break.  He's not a native English speaker.  He's not even an American citizen.

In other words, even Guatemalan prostitutes need hobbies.
 
2013-04-25 11:06:24 AM  

wingnut396: Why doesn't shoe bomber  count on Bush's list if the underwear bomber count's on Obama's?

And why is he just focusing on jihadists terrorism?  What about the anthrax attacks that occurred shortly after?  The letters appeared to be jihadist, but maybe the guy was just crazy.  Or maybe we never figured out who really did it.



Because liberals.
 
2013-04-25 11:06:39 AM  
My voting record:

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
George Bush
Bob Dole
George Bush
John Kerry
Barack Obama
Barack Obama

Getting a pattern here Republicans? There are lots of people like me. There is no freaking way I'll ever vote GOP again in my lifetime. No way. Not after what they did and how many Americans died because of George Bush's failed oil wars. The loser didn't even get the oil. What a failure. Now Republicans think we are so dumb they can rewrite history and make this war criminal some sort of hero. Sick.
 
2013-04-25 11:08:20 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.


241 dead Marines invite you to go fark yourself.
 
2013-04-25 11:08:29 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: hugram: tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.

And yet you voted for Bush... Twice.

And you know that...how?


Oh, I don't know... maybe the hate you have derped for years about Democratic candidates (both presidential and congress level) might be a hint to me that you have not voted for the Democratic choice in 2000 and 2004. But if you did not vote for Bush in 2000 and in 2004 (assuming you voted for the Democratic option), then why all of the sudden the hatred you have towards the current Democratic president?
 
2013-04-25 11:09:13 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: machodonkeywrestler: tenpoundsofcheese: Lord_Baull: American deaths under Bush vs. American deaths under Obama. Study it out.

well, then we should be happy that 0bama is only the second worse President.

your bar.  it is very low.

Your English. It is very bad.

"Your English." is not a sentence.

if you don't know the meaning of "second worse" in the context of Bush, then use your google and study it out.


I want to frame this internet comment.  "Second worse XXX" means nothing, perhaps you are referring to "second worst XXX". 2 word sentences are there to mock you.
 
2013-04-25 11:10:16 AM  

hugram: Oh, I don't know... maybe the hate you have derped for years about Democratic candidates (both presidential and congress level) might be a hint to me that you have not voted for the Democratic choice in 2000 and 2004. But if you did not vote for Bush in 2000 and in 2004 (assuming you voted for the Democratic option), then why all of the sudden the hatred you have towards the current Democratic president?


He's black?
 
2013-04-25 11:10:23 AM  

Granny_Panties: My voting record:

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan

George Bush
Bob Dole Clinton
George Bush
John Kerry
Barack Obama
Barack Obama

Getting a pattern here Republicans? There are lots of people like me. There is no freaking way I'll ever vote GOP again in my lifetime. No way. Not after what they did and how many Americans died because of George Bush's failed oil wars. The loser didn't even get the oil. What a failure. Now Republicans think we are so dumb they can rewrite history and make this war criminal some sort of hero. Sick.


I wasn't old enough to vote for Reagan, but yeah.  Count me in that group somewhat.  I wasn't thrilled with Kerry, but wasn't going to vote for Bush.
 
2013-04-25 11:11:00 AM  
I see 10lbsofderp can't stand by his Clinton comment, just moves on to get ridiculed by someone else. That never happens.
 
2013-04-25 11:12:51 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: hugram: Oh, I don't know... maybe the hate you have derped for years about Democratic candidates (both presidential and congress level) might be a hint to me that you have not voted for the Democratic choice in 2000 and 2004. But if you did not vote for Bush in 2000 and in 2004 (assuming you voted for the Democratic option), then why all of the sudden the hatred you have towards the current Democratic president?

He's black?


NO... that could not be it. I'm sure tenp0unds0fderp loved the Bush economy... you know, when we were losing 800K jobs a month during his last few months.
 
2013-04-25 11:16:25 AM  

hugram: NO... that could not be it. I'm sure tenp0unds0fderp loved the Bush economy... you know, when we were losing 800K jobs a month during his last few months.


I've been assured that the economy was perfect and only started to crash when Obama won the election.
 
2013-04-25 11:16:55 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?


Seems legit.


If you discount the most devastating terrorist attack in American history, it REALLY makes President Obama look bad!
 
2013-04-25 11:17:21 AM  

FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?


We will never forget about the 9/11 Benghazi attack
 
2013-04-25 11:17:28 AM  
Trust me, in 20 years they will tell you 9/11 happened under Obama and people will defend that statement.

I mean, he does have a time machine so he probably did that too.  Once he got in office he caused a swath of damage that was felt for 1000s of years.
 
2013-04-25 11:18:15 AM  

highbrow45: Satanic_Hamster: Fort Hood Shooter really count as terrorism?

Mass shootings count as terrorism if the shooter is a Muslim.

/I guess


img1-cdn.newser.com

Not when a Republican is president.
 
2013-04-25 11:18:27 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: hugram: NO... that could not be it. I'm sure tenp0unds0fderp loved the Bush economy... you know, when we were losing 800K jobs a month during his last few months.

I've been assured that the economy was perfect and only started to crash when Obama won the election.


I need to study it out. OMG, it is true. IMPEACH THAT ATHEIST-MUSLIN, FASCIST-COMMIE
 
2013-04-25 11:19:43 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: hugram: NO... that could not be it. I'm sure tenp0unds0fderp loved the Bush economy... you know, when we were losing 800K jobs a month during his last few months.

I've been assured that the economy was perfect and only started to crash when Obama won the election.


Don't forget that for the entire campaign McCain/Palin were going to trounce the empty suit, no contest.  And also remember that by July 2008 everyone knew Obama was going to win for sure, so that is why the economy starting going sour around August.
 
2013-04-25 11:19:45 AM  

Lord_Baull: Your mistake is in thinking I'm keeping score.


Keeping score is a mistake in itself, but that was more addressed to the room than to you specifically.
 
2013-04-25 11:22:09 AM  
next up: "apart from the holocaust, hardly any jews died under hitler!"
 
2013-04-25 11:23:20 AM  

Dr Dreidel: Lord_Baull: Your mistake is in thinking I'm keeping score.

Keeping score is a mistake in itself, but that was more addressed to the room than to you specifically.



Okay.
 
2013-04-25 11:31:42 AM  
Just to point out how much of a fatasy land Republicans live in, let me point out the reality...

2001 September 11: . The attacks killed nearly 3,000 civilians.

2002 July 4: 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, kills two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport.

October 2002 Beltway sniper attacks: During three weeks in October 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia. The pair were also suspected of earlier shootings in Maryland, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington state.No motivation was given at the trial, but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic jihad.

2006 March 5: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".

2006 July 28: Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Naveed Afzal Haq, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, kills one woman and shoots five others at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle. During the shooting, Haq told a 911 dispatcher that he was angry with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

/these are only the ones in Bush's watch that were solved, some bombings have not been solved and could have also been done by "jihadists" (not listed).
// the Fox news article even listed the "underwear bomber" as successfully making his target, that is a lie,he was stopped before the bomb exploded.
 
2013-04-25 11:37:34 AM  
Freshman Republican congressman from Arkansas can't count or remember recent history. Film at 11.

encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2013-04-25 11:38:45 AM  

Aldon: Just to point out how much of a fatasy land Republicans live in, let me point out the reality...

2001 September 11: . The attacks killed nearly 3,000 civilians.

2002 July 4: 2002 Los Angeles Airport shooting Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, a 41-year-old Egyptian national, kills two Israelis and wounds four others at the El Al ticket counter at Los Angeles International Airport.

October 2002 Beltway sniper attacks: During three weeks in October 2002, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo killed 10 people and critically injured 3 others in Washington D.C., Baltimore, and Virginia. The pair were also suspected of earlier shootings in Maryland, Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, and Washington state.No motivation was given at the trial, but evidence presented showed an affinity to the cause of the Islamic jihad.

2006 March 5: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar injured 6 when he drove an SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world".

2006 July 28: Seattle Jewish Federation shooting, Naveed Afzal Haq, an American citizen of Pakistani descent, kills one woman and shoots five others at the Jewish Federation building in Seattle. During the shooting, Haq told a 911 dispatcher that he was angry with American foreign policy in the Middle East.

/these are only the ones in Bush's watch that were solved, some bombings have not been solved and could have also been done by "jihadists" (not listed).
// the Fox news article even listed the "underwear bomber" as successfully making his target, that is a lie,he was stopped before the bomb exploded.



Those aren't terrorist activities. We had a republican president then.
 
2013-04-25 11:45:08 AM  

Makh: I mean, he does have a time machine so he probably did that too.


John Titor and Barack Obama have never been seen in the same room together. Think about it!
 
2013-04-25 11:45:30 AM  
Hey, looks like some farkers are bringing reality to a derpfest.
 
2013-04-25 11:48:01 AM  
He cites the underwear bomber as a terrorist who 'reached his target', and that after 9/11 there was no terrorism on US soil under Bush.

I suppose he forgot the shoe bomber and the two DC snipers.  For starters.
 
2013-04-25 11:56:56 AM  
Paging Ten Pounds of Cheese. Please return to the thread to back up your "Clinton did nothing after 1993 WTC" statement.
 
2013-04-25 11:57:56 AM  

WizardofToast: 9/11 was Clinton, wasn't it?


No, Al Gore had been elected by then.
 
2013-04-25 12:01:27 PM  
Bush kept us safe!


HURRRRRR
 
2013-04-25 12:01:30 PM  

Karac: I suppose he forgot the shoe bomber and the two DC snipers.  For starters.


Yeah, but those don't count because...  um...  because he doesn't WANT them to count!
 
2013-04-25 12:04:21 PM  
Also, countless American soldiers that died from IEDs don't count.
 
2013-04-25 12:12:11 PM  
It's funny how they always seem to start their counting the day after 9/11.
 
2013-04-25 12:14:17 PM  

Pincy: It's funny how they always seem to start their counting the day after 9/11.


They seem to come from the same stock that blame Clinton for the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootings.
 
2013-04-25 12:15:37 PM  

Pincy: It's funny how they always seem to start their counting the day after 9/11.


And that their math skills are so poor that even with that advantage they still can't count correctly.
 
2013-04-25 12:18:39 PM  

Sgt Otter: Pincy: It's funny how they always seem to start their counting the day after 9/11.

They seem to come from the same stock that blame Clinton for the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootings.


I've had someone tell me with absolute certainty that the Berlin Wall came down on Reagan's watch.  Absolutely refused to believe otherwise.
 
2013-04-25 12:21:07 PM  

Sgt Otter: They seem to come from the same stock that blame Clinton for the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootings.


Heh.  Actually had that conversation last year.  Same guy also claimed that Obama had killed the oil, gas, and coal industries, Obama was responsible for Medicare part-D, Clinton was responsible for Challenger, etc etc.
 
2013-04-25 12:26:33 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Heh.  Actually had that conversation last year.  Same guy also claimed that Obama had killed the oil, gas, and coal industries, Obama was responsible for Medicare part-D, Clinton was responsible for Challenger, etc etc.


I've often wondered what goes on in someone's head when they're presented with actual dates showing that X person was in the White House when Y event happened.  I mean, I know that right then and there they tend to dodge or change the subject, but afterward do they actually stop using the argument or do they wilfully say to themselves "well, I'm wrong but I'm going to keep arguing it anyway because if it were true (though it's not), it'd be to my benefit"?
 
2013-04-25 12:28:29 PM  

flondrix: WizardofToast: 9/11 was Clinton, wasn't it?

No, Al Gore had been elected by then.


This is actually true.
 
2013-04-25 12:32:39 PM  
If you ever want to compare the collective character of American liberals vs. American conservatives, all you have to do is look at what was said about Bush in the days after 9/11, and what was said about Obama in the days after Benghazi.

Bush's approval rating soared to 92% after 9/11.  Why do you think that is?  He hadn't yet taken any concrete actions, and he hadn't done anything extraordinary.  That number is the simple result of liberals, as a block, placing their country ahead of their party.  Compare that to republicans tripping over themselves to try and take political advantage of Benghazi, including Romney spouting off against the president based on incorrect information THE SAME DAY, while American service men and women were still being shot at.
 
2013-04-25 12:33:58 PM  
freshman congressman from Arkansas

Strike 1 and 2 your Tea Tarded Twat
 
2013-04-25 12:36:42 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.


We were at war. Most Americans just didn't realize it.
Cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan (August 1998)
 
2013-04-25 12:39:43 PM  

Vodka Zombie: tenpoundsofcheese: well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about

I guess launching a shiatload of missiles into Afghanistan instead of getting into a land war in Asia falls under the category of "not doing much."


I seem to remember Republicans going batshiat insane whenever Clinton attacked the Middle East.

Also:

This beguiling piece of fiction ["Wag the Dog"], which was nominated for numerous awards, assumes a topical dimension with the headlining of the Clinton-Monica Lewinsky sex scandal. At the height of Zippergate, President Clinton announced the U. S. attacks on "terrorist-related facilities in Afghanistan and Sudan." Editorials and cartoonists had a field day in linking Wag the Dog to the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
Some cartoon captions included:
    A White House reporter asking Clinton "How do we know these attacks aren't meant to distract us from distracting the country?"
    Clinton, with his pants down and draped in an American flag, saying "Rally Round the Flag."
    Clinton looking at a "Monica Tells All" headline, while a general tells him "The best form of defense is attack."
    A husband and wife watching CNN. When she asks "Do you want to watch Wag the Dog, he responds "I thought this was Wag the Dog."

 http://www.filmandhistory.org/documentary/politicalthought/wag-dog. php
 
2013-04-25 12:41:19 PM  

THX 1138: I've often wondered what goes on in someone's head when they're presented with actual dates showing that X person was in the White House when Y event happened. I mean, I know that right then and there they tend to dodge or change the subject, but afterward do they actually stop using the argument or do they wilfully say to themselves "well, I'm wrong but I'm going to keep arguing it anyway because if it were true (though it's not), it'd be to my benefit"?


In my experience, they respond with hostility and accusations of liberalism.  All they know is that anything bad it HAD to be a Democrat's/liberal's fault.  They treat political discussions like telling fishing/sports stories.  Just a contest to one-up the next person.

"Obama has destroyed the economy."
"Wish he was only that.  He's also a secret muslim who is planning to let the UN bomb Nascar events."
"Going to be a moot point on Nascar when the department of homo security under Obamas orders starts shooting people."

All they know is that liberals bad, bad things mean it was liberals fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL.
 
2013-04-25 12:45:49 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: THX 1138: I've often wondered what goes on in someone's head when they're presented with actual dates showing that X person was in the White House when Y event happened. I mean, I know that right then and there they tend to dodge or change the subject, but afterward do they actually stop using the argument or do they wilfully say to themselves "well, I'm wrong but I'm going to keep arguing it anyway because if it were true (though it's not), it'd be to my benefit"?

In my experience, they respond with hostility and accusations of liberalism.  All they know is that anything bad it HAD to be a Democrat's/liberal's fault.  They treat political discussions like telling fishing/sports stories.  Just a contest to one-up the next person.

"Obama has destroyed the economy."
"Wish he was only that.  He's also a secret muslim who is planning to let the UN bomb Nascar events."
"Going to be a moot point on Nascar when the department of homo security under Obamas orders starts shooting people."

All they know is that liberals bad, bad things mean it was liberals fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL.


Know a guy that blames the current situation on Clinton's handling of Mogadishu because since we didn't respond to the dragging of the body of the pilot around with carpet bombing, it showed the world we were a paper tiger.  He doesn't have much of response beyond a glare when I ask how our response to the Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon didn't do the same thing.
 
2013-04-25 12:46:43 PM  
GOP PRO TIP:

i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-25 12:47:29 PM  

Sgt Otter: Pincy: It's funny how they always seem to start their counting the day after 9/11.

They seem to come from the same stock that blame Clinton for the 1992 Ruby Ridge shootings.


Who could possibly be that dumb?  Oh, wait:

"Let me ask you a question. What was a more likely cause of the Oklahoma City bombing: talk radio or Bill Clinton and Janet Reno's hands-on management of Waco, the Branch Davidian compound, and maybe to a lesser extent Ruby Ridge."

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2010/04/19/clinton_rewrites_histor y_ shifts_blame_for_oklahoma_city_bombing
 
2013-04-25 12:49:59 PM  
Religious
Rightwing
Doesn't like America
Will commit terrorist acts

Perfectly describes the TeaParty


i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-25 12:55:01 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: All they know is that liberals bad, bad things mean it was liberals fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL.


Um..Check this out:

All they know is that  liberals Communists bad, bad things mean it was  liberals Communists fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Communists fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL COMMUNIST.

All they know is that liberals Jews bad, bad things mean it was liberals Jews fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Jews' fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL JEW.

All they know is that liberals Ni****s bad, bad things mean it was liberals Ni****s fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals Ni****s fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL NI****.

All they know is that liberals Irish bad, bad things mean it was liberals Irish fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Irish' fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL IRISHMAN.

All they know is that liberals Gaijin bad, bad things mean it was liberals Gaijins' fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Gaijins' fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL GAIJIN.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

They're just people who love liberty....
 
2013-04-25 12:56:40 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.


I suppose anybody who has to spend their entire administration cleaning up Bush's mess is going to look 2nd worst.
 
2013-04-25 12:57:44 PM  
It seems that the esteemed congressman from the great state of Arkansas suffers from a mental malady known as CRSWIC (pronounced "CHRIS-WICK").  CRSWIC stands for: Can't Remember Sh*t When It's Convenient.

This affliction tends to become widespread among members of the American political profession, particularly around the congressional mid-terms.
 
2013-04-25 12:58:21 PM  

Lord_Baull: tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"

Wow, you're so very misinfromed. Keep watching FOX! You're doing great!

Link
I won't ask you what exactly Bush did about a certain memo that sat on his desk for a month.


As you'll recall, when President Clinton bombed the shiat out of chemical weapons facilities in Sudan and in parts of Afghanistan, the GOP was determined to say that we were not at war with terrorists, that he was just doing it to take their minds off of his penis.
 
2013-04-25 01:05:48 PM  

wingnut396: Satanic_Hamster: THX 1138: I've often wondered what goes on in someone's head when they're presented with actual dates showing that X person was in the White House when Y event happened. I mean, I know that right then and there they tend to dodge or change the subject, but afterward do they actually stop using the argument or do they wilfully say to themselves "well, I'm wrong but I'm going to keep arguing it anyway because if it were true (though it's not), it'd be to my benefit"?

In my experience, they respond with hostility and accusations of liberalism.  All they know is that anything bad it HAD to be a Democrat's/liberal's fault.  They treat political discussions like telling fishing/sports stories.  Just a contest to one-up the next person.

"Obama has destroyed the economy."
"Wish he was only that.  He's also a secret muslim who is planning to let the UN bomb Nascar events."
"Going to be a moot point on Nascar when the department of homo security under Obamas orders starts shooting people."

All they know is that liberals bad, bad things mean it was liberals fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL.

Know a guy that blames the current situation on Clinton's handling of Mogadishu because since we didn't respond to the dragging of the body of the pilot around with carpet bombing, it showed the world we were a paper tiger.  He doesn't have much of response beyond a glare when I ask how our response to the Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon didn't do the same thing.


What Marine barracks?  The United States has never even BEEN in Lebanon.  And it's not like Osama Bin Laden (ever notice how close Osama and Obama are?) ever directly listed that as one of the main reasons he decided that America can be beaten.
 
2013-04-25 01:07:28 PM  

The Lone Gunman: tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.

I suppose anybody who has to spend their entire administration cleaning up Bush's mess is going to look 2nd worst.


You might say that Bush's legacy is trickling-down on Obama.

I prefer to say that he took a huge dump on the country and we are still trying to unclog the plumbing.
 
2013-04-25 01:07:52 PM  

firefly212: Lord_Baull: tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"

Wow, you're so very misinfromed. Keep watching FOX! You're doing great!

Link
I won't ask you what exactly Bush did about a certain memo that sat on his desk for a month.

As you'll recall, when President Clinton bombed the shiat out of chemical weapons facilities in Sudan and in parts of Afghanistan, the GOP was determined to say that we were not at war with terrorists, that he was just doing it to take their minds off of his penis.


The important take-away from all of this is the fact that the GOP's fascination with other men's penises dates back to at least August 1998.
 
2013-04-25 01:13:18 PM  

wingnut396: Satanic_Hamster: THX 1138: I've often wondered what goes on in someone's head when they're presented with actual dates showing that X person was in the White House when Y event happened. I mean, I know that right then and there they tend to dodge or change the subject, but afterward do they actually stop using the argument or do they wilfully say to themselves "well, I'm wrong but I'm going to keep arguing it anyway because if it were true (though it's not), it'd be to my benefit"?

In my experience, they respond with hostility and accusations of liberalism.  All they know is that anything bad it HAD to be a Democrat's/liberal's fault.  They treat political discussions like telling fishing/sports stories.  Just a contest to one-up the next person.

"Obama has destroyed the economy."
"Wish he was only that.  He's also a secret muslim who is planning to let the UN bomb Nascar events."
"Going to be a moot point on Nascar when the department of homo security under Obamas orders starts shooting people."

All they know is that liberals bad, bad things mean it was liberals fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL.

Know a guy that blames the current situation on Clinton's handling of Mogadishu because since we didn't respond to the dragging of the body of the pilot around with carpet bombing, it showed the world we were a paper tiger.  He doesn't have much of response beyond a glare when I ask how our response to the Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon didn't do the same thing.


Whadaya mean the U.S. didn't respond to the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon? We invaded Grenada two days later!
 
2013-04-25 01:14:24 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Check this out:


In other words, LIBERALS = ANYONE WHO'S NOT ONE OF US.
 
2013-04-25 01:15:59 PM  
"... reached their targets" and were often apprehended before they were able to harm anyone.
 
2013-04-25 01:17:50 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: Epoch_Zero: Check this out:

In other words, LIBERALS = ANYONE WHO'S NOT ONE OF US.


That, and the GOP is using tried and true jingoism in the styling of the most evil and bloodthirsty groups in modern history :D
 
2013-04-25 01:20:14 PM  
wingnut396:Know a guy that blames the current situation on Clinton's handling of Mogadishu because since we didn't respond to the dragging of the body of the pilot around with carpet bombing, it showed the world we were a paper tiger.  He doesn't have much of response beyond a glare when I ask how our response to the Islamic Jihad bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon didn't do the same thing.

Next time you see him, be sure to ask why over a decade of warfare hasn't proven enough of a deterrent.

Hint: he'll probably answer with the congressman's screed - that it did under Dubya, but as soon as Obama showed what a pansy he was the terrorists became emboldened again.  So be sure to have the lists of terrorist acts committed under Bush listed previously in the thread handy.
 
2013-04-25 01:27:51 PM  

Epoch_Zero: Satanic_Hamster: All they know is that liberals bad, bad things mean it was liberals fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL.

Um..Check this out:

All they know is that  liberals Communists bad, bad things mean it was  liberals Communists fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Communists fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL COMMUNIST.

All they know is that liberals Jews bad, bad things mean it was liberals Jews fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Jews' fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL JEW.

All they know is that liberals Ni****s bad, bad things mean it was liberals Ni****s fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all liberals Ni****s fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a LIBERAL NI****.

All they know is that liberals Irish bad, bad things mean it was liberals Irish fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Irish' fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL IRISHMAN.

All they know is that liberals Gaijin bad, bad things mean it was liberals Gaijins' fault, and that it makes them feel better to bullshiat about how bad things are and how it's all  liberals Gaijins' fault and that anyone questioning/correcting them is a  LIBERAL GAIJIN.

[encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 259x194]

They're just people who love liberty....


They love guns, not liberty... these are people who want the FBI to wiretap places of worship of religions they don't like, who want no due process for people of religions they don't care for, who think the government should regulate which sacraments you can take part in, and who believe in "you get what you can pay for" in terms of childhood education and food for needy kids. They hate the constitution, they hate freedom, what they want is tyranny... they just want to be the tyrants.
 
2013-04-25 01:29:08 PM  

jntaylor63: .

3 - Lastly, are you REALLY going to compare 9/11 to Boston?  Did Obama get 5 warnings that Boston was going to happen and still sat on his ass.

.


Boston news affiliate this morning (ABC or NBC) was reporting that Russian Intel had warned the FBI that the bomber had been radicalized. and later asked the CIA to investigate his overseas activity because they were concerned he was a threat.

If this is true, then our intelligence community would have had two warnings about this guy.  Does that count as a warning to President Obama?  What is the level of the 5 Warnings Bush had but sat on his ass?  Were they to his face, or to an agency he controls?
 
2013-04-25 01:30:15 PM  

firefly212: They love guns, not liberty... these are people who want the FBI to wiretap places of worship of religions they don't like, who want no due process for people of religions they don't care for, who think the government should regulate which sacraments you can take part in, and who believe in "you get what you can pay for" in terms of childhood education and food for needy kids. They hate the constitution, they hate freedom, what they want is tyranny... they just want to be the tyrants.


Republicans hate us for our freedoms.
 
2013-04-25 01:32:01 PM  

Tricky Chicken: jntaylor63: .

3 - Lastly, are you REALLY going to compare 9/11 to Boston?  Did Obama get 5 warnings that Boston was going to happen and still sat on his ass.

.

Boston news affiliate this morning (ABC or NBC) was reporting that Russian Intel had warned the FBI that the bomber had been radicalized. and later asked the CIA to investigate his overseas activity because they were concerned he was a threat.

If this is true, then our intelligence community would have had two warnings about this guy.  Does that count as a warning to President Obama?  What is the level of the 5 Warnings Bush had but sat on his ass?  Were they to his face, or to an agency he controls?


To be clear about the "conservative" position on due process, they don't care if you get thrown in prison without a trial, shipped off to guantanamo, or tortured by our government, so long as your second amendment right to purchase more guns is protected until you get the fair trial that is never gonna come.
 
2013-04-25 01:35:26 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: firefly212: They love guns, not liberty... these are people who want the FBI to wiretap places of worship of religions they don't like, who want no due process for people of religions they don't care for, who think the government should regulate which sacraments you can take part in, and who believe in "you get what you can pay for" in terms of childhood education and food for needy kids. They hate the constitution, they hate freedom, what they want is tyranny... they just want to be the tyrants.

Republicans hate us for our freedoms.


T-shirt/Bumper sticker. Now.
 
2013-04-25 01:36:28 PM  
Lets ask Osama Bin Laden and Muammar al-Gaddafi what they think about that.

There will be a lot of sandy vags in butt hurt sauce over the fact that President Obama got the guys that they couldnt, and stole thier "National Security" crown.

All the things that Republicans have run on in the past as their strengths have now become their weaknesses.
 
2013-04-25 01:52:17 PM  

Citrate1007: freshman congressman from Arkansas

Strike 1 and 2 your Tea Tarded Twat


Actually this guy was warned a few weeks ago that he'd better start derping it up or he was going to get a primary challenger.  Mission Accomplished.
 
2013-04-25 01:55:11 PM  
0.tqn.com
 
2013-04-25 02:01:20 PM  

firefly212: Tricky Chicken: jntaylor63: .

3 - Lastly, are you REALLY going to compare 9/11 to Boston?  Did Obama get 5 warnings that Boston was going to happen and still sat on his ass.

.

Boston news affiliate this morning (ABC or NBC) was reporting that Russian Intel had warned the FBI that the bomber had been radicalized. and later asked the CIA to investigate his overseas activity because they were concerned he was a threat.

If this is true, then our intelligence community would have had two warnings about this guy.  Does that count as a warning to President Obama?  What is the level of the 5 Warnings Bush had but sat on his ass?  Were they to his face, or to an agency he controls?

To be clear about the "conservative" position on due process, they don't care if you get thrown in prison without a trial, shipped off to guantanamo, or tortured by our government, so long as your second amendment right to purchase more guns is protected until you get the fair trial that is never gonna come.


Clearly you intended to respond to a different post.

If not, I will remind you that the VW beetle of the 1970s did not have a radiator.
 
2013-04-25 03:27:32 PM  

hugram: tenpoundsofcheese: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

Do you think that Bush is still President?

The point is how is the current President doing.  But okay, 0bama is only the second worse President.

And yet you voted for Bush... Twice.


Wow, you're assuming he was old enough to vote then. You give him far more credit than I do.
 
2013-04-25 03:37:45 PM  

Sgt Otter: Not when a Republican is president.


Mass shootings are all at once.  He was a serial killer.
 
2013-04-25 04:53:58 PM  

vernonFL: the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber,

What did they blow up?


Nothing...but they REACHED something they could have blown up!!!

What I want to know is why Obama was responsible for "stopping" the Tsarnaev brothers, since they "reached" their target when they arrived here from Russia. In 2001. Wouldn't that mean Bush didn't stop them?
 
2013-04-25 06:00:11 PM  

Sorry, libtards. I just found new and irrefutable evidence that Fartbongo supports terrorism. Study it out!


i28.photobucket.com

 
2013-04-25 06:21:18 PM  

Gyrfalcon: vernonFL: the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber,

What did they blow up?

Nothing...but they REACHED something they could have blown up!!!

What I want to know is why Obama was responsible for "stopping" the Tsarnaev brothers, since they "reached" their target when they arrived here from Russia. In 2001. Wouldn't that mean Bush didn't stop them?


Terrorists failing a mission is just pure blind luck. You cannot dismiss them as irrelevant simply because they screwed up and got caught after the fact. I personally don't "blame Obama" for terrorists getting lucky anymore than I blamed Bush for it, but since liberals would jump and down screaming like children over absolutely everything and it was ALWAYS Bush's fault then I'm going to have to ask them to apply their own damn standard to their guy now that they've got the White House.

Besides, the point they're making is that we entered a heightened state of awareness after 9/11. Pulling off a terrorist attack in this new environment is harder.

9/11 was completely unprecedented. Nobody in America, left, right or center, had terrorism on their mind in the months leading up to 9/11. I mean sure, it made a bit on the news now and then, but it was not at the forefront of peoples minds. Use the internet cache of your choice but Wayback machine... CNN, MSNBC, Fox... Do you see terrorism anywhere on those sites from July/Aug 2001?

"But... but... security memos! Bush's fault!"

Let go of the hate and stupidity and you will understand more clearly that nobody in our government let's these things happen and we're always trying hard to stop it.
 
2013-04-25 07:58:14 PM  

randomjsa: Gyrfalcon: vernonFL: the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber,

What did they blow up?

Nothing...but they REACHED something they could have blown up!!!

What I want to know is why Obama was responsible for "stopping" the Tsarnaev brothers, since they "reached" their target when they arrived here from Russia. In 2001. Wouldn't that mean Bush didn't stop them?

Terrorists failing a mission is just pure blind luck. You cannot dismiss them as irrelevant simply because they screwed up and got caught after the fact. I personally don't "blame Obama" for terrorists getting lucky anymore than I blamed Bush for it, but since liberals would jump and down screaming like children over absolutely everything and it was ALWAYS Bush's fault then I'm going to have to ask them to apply their own damn standard to their guy now that they've got the White House.

Besides, the point they're making is that we entered a heightened state of awareness after 9/11. Pulling off a terrorist attack in this new environment is harder.

9/11 was completely unprecedented. Nobody in America, left, right or center, had terrorism on their mind in the months leading up to 9/11. I mean sure, it made a bit on the news now and then, but it was not at the forefront of peoples minds. Use the internet cache of your choice but Wayback machine... CNN, MSNBC, Fox... Do you see terrorism anywhere on those sites from July/Aug 2001?

"But... but... security memos! Bush's fault!"

Let go of the hate and stupidity and you will understand more clearly that nobody in our government let's these things happen and we're always trying hard to stop it.


It's too bad you have to reach this state of satori NOW, and after such an awful event, and not ten years ago when it was so clearly evident that jumping into Iraq would not do jack shiat to stop terrorism.
 
2013-04-25 08:12:01 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).


Again, you are either lying or completely farking ignorant.

There were seven men involved in the conspiracy.  Four of them were caught nearly right-away, another one was captured in Pakistan a years or so later by the FBI.  Of those five, they were convicted and currently spending their time in Federal Max Security Prison where they will remain for life.

One was deported to Jordan to stand trial, where he was acquitted by died a few years later.  The one remaining suspect (the ONLY conspirator NOT captured by US authorities) turned out to being held prisoner in Iraq, where he had been since 1994, a few months after the WTC bombing.  (He was interviewed by 60 Minutes in 2002 still in prison, but was never heard from again as he was not in the prison when the Occupational forces seized the place later.)

So how the hell do you deduce that Clinton: "Thought it was not worth doing much about"?  The perps were caught, and convicted and you are an idiot!
 
2013-04-25 09:28:22 PM  

lawboy87: Again, you are either lying or completely farking ignorant.

There were seven men involved in the conspiracy. Four of them were caught nearly right-away, another one was captured in Pakistan a years or so later by the FBI. Of those five, they were convicted and currently spending their time in Federal Max Security Prison where they will remain for life.

One was deported to Jordan to stand trial, where he was acquitted by died a few years later. The one remaining suspect (the ONLY conspirator NOT captured by US authorities) turned out to being held prisoner in Iraq, where he had been since 1994, a few months after the WTC bombing. (He was interviewed by 60 Minutes in 2002 still in prison, but was never heard from again as he was not in the prison when the Occupational forces seized the place later.)

So how the hell do you deduce that Clinton: "Thought it was not worth doing much about"? The perps were caught, and convicted and you are an idiot!


He didn't invade random countries, there for he did NOTHING.
 
2013-04-25 10:39:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: hugram: Oh, I don't know... maybe the hate you have derped for years about Democratic candidates (both presidential and congress level) might be a hint to me that you have not voted for the Democratic choice in 2000 and 2004. But if you did not vote for Bush in 2000 and in 2004 (assuming you voted for the Democratic option), then why all of the sudden the hatred you have towards the current Democratic president?

He's black?


Blacker than sin. Blue gums even.
 
2013-04-26 12:48:52 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"


Just like every time a right-wing fanatic kills someone, he is instantly labeled insane and his politics no longer matter.

Just like how every gun owner is responsible...

until they aren't.  Then they were never a responsible gun owner, but instead they were mentally ill and shouldn't have been allowed to own a gun at all.

Republican logic. A real-life game of dodge ball.
 
2013-04-26 03:21:10 AM  
The underwear bomber and the Times Square bomber were successful? Really? As I recall, neither one of them succeeded. "Reaching your target" with something like this, means actually carrying out the attack successfully, not just arriving at your destination. What a moron. 15 people "reached their target" on 9/11(Since 4 died when the lane crashed short of its target), so Obama definitely has a long way to go.

Besides, when did these two guys officially become "jihadists"?
 
2013-04-26 03:25:33 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"


Yeah, the "President at the time" of the first WTC attack actually had people behind bars.

Unlike the guy after him who called OBL "irrelevant" after starting two wars under the pretense of fighting a "War on Terror" and OBL being enemy #1.

Remember that? Of course you do, but none of us expect you to actually ADMIT to that. Bush is the one who was unconcerned with terrorism. He was too busy trying to sell us on a missile defense system, and ignored early warnings on OBL. And after his wars got rolling, he ignored OBL as well. Are you sure that's the guy you want to lay your bets on? Seems pretty incompetent to anyone who has two brain cells to rub together...
 
2013-04-26 03:30:37 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: FlashHarry: do these assholes seriously think that we'll forget about 9/11?

"I rise today to express grave doubts about the Obama Administration's counterterrorism policies and programs," said the freshman congressman from Arkansas. "Counterterrorism is often shrouded in secrecy, as it should be, so let us judge by the results. In barely four years in office, five jihadists have reached their targets in the United States under Barack Obama: the Boston Marathon bomber, the underwear bomber, the Times Square Bomber, the Fort Hood shooter, and in my own state-the Little Rock recruiting office shooter. In the over seven years after 9/11 under George W. Bush, how many terrorists reached their target in the United States? Zero! We need to ask, 'Why is the Obama Administration failing in its mission to stop terrorism before it reaches its targets in the United States?'"


So the underwear bomber counts, but not the shoe bomber?

Here's what I'd like to know:
Benghazi is considered an act of terrorism.
People captured in Iraq and Afghanistan are not considered enemy soldiers, but "enemy combatants" and "terrorists".

If they're terrorists, then wouldn't all of the attacks and bombings in Iraq and Afghanistan be acts of terror, and not the result of war?

With Benghazi being an act of terror, that leaves it open for foreign attacks to count, and with fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan being considered terrorists, that leaves those attacks open. If so, then how many attacks and deaths under Bush AFTER 9/11?
 
2013-04-26 07:10:38 AM  

jntaylor63: 3 - Lastly, are you REALLY going to compare 9/11 to Boston?  Did Obama get 5 warnings that Boston was going to happen and still sat on his ass.


Early reports are that Tamerlan was all over various agency watchlists and was denied a citizenship application on account of being a terror threat.

So there's that.
 
2013-04-26 11:37:32 AM  

JusticeandIndependence: tenpoundsofcheese: we weren't at war with the terrorists before 9/11.
(well, they were fighting us, but after they bombed the WTC the first time, the President at the time thought it was not worth doing much about).

or did subby miss that?

oh, and when the guy killed those people at Fort Hood it was just a little bit of "workplace violence"

You didn't read the article did you?


Why start now?
 
2013-04-26 01:24:59 PM  

Pincy: It's funny how they always seem to start their counting the day after 9/11.


The levee systems in New Orleans worked after Katrina.
 
Displayed 127 of 127 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report