"No terrorist attack while Bush was president..."

[Bigmack]

I keep hearing that, anyway. I think people are missing the ongoing terrorism from the financial elite.

The old Woodie Guthrie song about Pretty Boy Floyd comes to mind. "...Some folks rob you with a six-gun... some with a fountain pen..."

The Taliban and Al Quaeda haven't cost us anything near what the banking and mortgage disasters have, and I suspect that more will die of increased incidences of suicide, domestic violence, exposure, and malnutrition over the next few years than died on 9/11.

And yet, those responsible - thru malice or stupidity - for the greatest act of economic terrorism in our time, go unpunished... and even rewarded.

The banks have shown that they cannot responsibly manage our financial affairs. Government may not be able to do a better job, but I say we give it a try. Nationalize the banks, mortgage companies, and any other entities that have the power to destroy our economy thru their actions. Put some CEOs, CFOs, and Board heads in the slammer.

How about a little domestic "War on Economic Terror", and the Terrorists out to destroy us.

[muntrv]

1. Bush was prez. on 9/11/2001.

[marmar]

2. But hey, that was only the largest terrorist attack ever on US soil......

.....out of sight, out of (empty) minds

[bemildred]

29. Largest AND most successful. nt

[Puzzler]

7. I'm always amazed that...

... when the "except 911" fact is pointed out, conservative pundits seem to brush it off as some kind of trivial gotcha point... and move on, with the same argument... as if the 911 point is irrelevant.

[RagAss]

3. Don't let them rewrite history like this. The man was in office on 9/11/01 !

[HughBeaumont]

4. "Bewsh kept us safe" is a logical fallacy.

Also, not only was he in office at the time of 9/11, he was also warned no less than 40 times by intelligence from 11 different nations of a planned attack by terrorists for months leading up to September.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5715113&mesg_id=5716564

They can save that loser cliche for the droolers who don't know better.

[krispos42]

5. **cough** anthrax attacks **cough**

O8)

[votingupstart]

9. good catch - most people had forgotten about that. n/t

[Tangerine LaBamba]

13. That pie graphic

is the GREATEST!!!

Just had to tell you that................

:toast:

[krispos42]

16. Fabulous!

[Tangerine LaBamba]

21. Honey, T LaB DEFINES fabulous .................

[EFerrari]

6. Katrina.

[votingupstart]

8. katrina - terrorist attack???? uh ..please explain......

please tell me how a hurricane is a terrorist attack??? - this is the same fringe stuff that the REP's just love to point out and kills the mainstream. let me guess it was Dick Cheney with KBR explosives surrounded by Blackwater directed by Rush himself that blew up the Levees. STOP WITH THE PSYCO-CONSPIRACY BULLSHIT - it sounds ridiculous and when you get infront of a TV camera and start spouting this shit it sidetracks us from REAL issues - Green Energy, Carbon emissions, Health care etc

[EFerrari]

10. Why are you shouting when you admit to not understanding my post?

Bush couldn't even respond to Katrina, let alone keep us safe from terrorist attacks.

[votingupstart]

11. so you are saying katrina WAS or WAS NOT a terrorist attack

i ask you again - yes or no

this thread is about terrorist attacks and you put "katrina" either you do not understand the english language or you are not good at typing or you have no idea what you are saying??

some people here try to have constructive discussions on topics - then we get yahoos and idiots who like to just post random crap and derail the discussion. if you have ideas, based on facts and realities we are all ears if you have PSYCO-BULLSHIT-CONSPIRACY go post on Rush's board i hear he is a fan

so again - do you belive that katrina WAS or WAS NOT a terrorist attack.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

15. OK, I already asked

if you were that obtuse.

This post tells me that you are.

And, believe me, I'm being very kind in my choice of words.................

[votingupstart]

25. are you refering to me or eferrari?

i cant speak for eferrari - however i was serious in my question to him/her (eferrari). the OP was discussing terrorist attacks not bungled/mismanaged/inept fed/state/local goverment actions in response to a humanitarian crisis.
- i will be the first one to support the claims of ineffectual response to katrina to continue through current actions, however that was not the discussion in the origional thread.

no need to be obtuse -

[QueenOfCalifornia]

38. I think you

are purposely being argumentative.

the Katrina reference was in honor of the LACK OF RESPONSE. And so you did figure it out.

No one here really thinks Bush caused Katrina... but he sure as hell acted like a total fucking idiot in its wake.

[EFerrari]

17. We? You've been here five minutes. Enjoy your stay at DU.

:)

[votingupstart]

23. nice logic - new information is always to be discarded

i may be new but i try to rely on facts, the thread discussed terrorist attacks not inept government responses - emotional arguments are fine for about 5 minutes or until the emotions change. still haven't answered the question.

sorry i'm new and the logic made me do it

[EFerrari]

27. Attacking other posters before you understand what they're saying

might not be the best way to get to know the board or the posters here.

[votingupstart]

33. you are probably correct -

i am used to a bit more "confruntational" style of discussion - perhaps i over reacted to the posting without letting you (or anyone else) fully explain the position you were advocating. i will say i am less concerned with being "know" than having arguments based on facts. i firmly believe that we (as Americans - and i speak for myself) get to caught up in the emotions and conspiracies of politics instead of engaging in actual fact based political discussions.

- so did you mean the katrina refrence as an example of ineffective response by the government or ..... ( i actually realy do want to know - you can pm/im me if you dont want to post it )


i am new so, i will learn -

[EFerrari]

35. My point was that George Bush not only didn't keep us safe from terrorists,

he couldn't even manage an anticipated event like Katrina. We knew when, where and pretty much how it would hit. He was completely unable or unwilling to deal with it.

While NOLA was drowning, Junior was eating birthday cake with McWar at a fundraiser in California:

[votingupstart]

39. so i jumped to conclusions about eferrari

Sir - i apologize - i thought you were going off on a tangent - you were not.

[EFerrari]

41. Oh, no problem. My response could have been less cryptic.

:)

[Zodiak]

32. Logic doesn't make people act like assholes

Please leave logic out of it. Logic itself has no emotion.

Outbursts are yours alone, not the province of "logic".

[Vickers]

20. "then we get yahoos and idiots who like to just post random crap and derail the discussion"

Do tell...

[votingupstart]

26. you are correct - i am new , does that change the facts

i understand the meaning and the use of sarcasm to get your point across - it was very well laid out, i would point out this thread as a perfect example - sidetracked because instead of explaining a position of a supposed related topic we are forced to assume or guess the relationships just because someone says they exist? i will have to take logic and proof over assumptions and guesses - however that is my choice and may not be suitable for everyone.
Katrina - ineffective governmental response, Yes -- terrorist attack, No

[Zodiak]

34. It does not change the facts

The facts are not in dispute. It is your tone.

You were given the explanation as to why Katrina was mentioned. If you wish to continue getting hot under the collar for that point, then by all means. But do not pretend like you are acting like anything less than an asshole here.

Proof and logic do not come with insults. That is your emotional baggage, and it is against DU rules. So clean it the fuck up. Got it? No one is going to consider you the champion of logic or facts when you act like a prick.

[Zodiak]

31. You are new here, so let me give you some advice

It is not wise to act like an asshole right from the get-go.

The point that person was trying to make was that Bush could not protect us from a natural disaster, much less terrorist attacks. And that poster has stated that was their intention.

But you have to go off half-cocked, invite them to post on Rush's website (accusing them of being conservative basically), and call their thoughts, "PSYCO-BULLSHIT-CONSPIRACY" (sic) without acknowledging their point at all. If anyone is acting like a bull in a china shop, it is you.

So if you want to have a sane discussion, knock it off with being a disruptive jerk.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

14. You're kidding, right?

I don't believe you're that obtuse. Too much caffeine, maybe?

No, really.

You're reacting to a perfectly valid and intelligent observation, but you missed the point.

I'm assuming you're joking.

The hurricane wasn't the "terrorist attack," but, if you expand your consciousness just a bit, you'll understand what the post meant - the lack of an appropriate/competent response to Katrina was the equivalent of a terrorist attack.

You're new here, I see............................

[votingupstart]

22. could be - i am new

i was not joking - i probably did have to much caffeine - perhaps i dont understand all the "politics" of posting, i am the first to say it. I was a little upset that when discussing a certain topic it appeared that people started posting random events as if to say yes they are all connected to the Original Post.

If we are discussing failed governmental responses to incidents then yes absolutely Katrina - but the OP was talking about terrorist attacks of which Katrina was not.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

37. The response to Katrina was, in my

opinion, a kind of terrorist act on the part of GWB.

Using "Katrina" is shorthand, since everyone here knows what it means.

See how that works?

You're gonna do fine here - it takes a bit of watching to pick it up, but you're gonna have a good time, and I am sure you've got a lot to contribute.

Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[PDJane]

12. I suggest that the biggest terrorists during the Bush admin.

Were the Bush administration.

The administration knew that the levees were leaking. They were informed. Those levees were leaking BEFORE the hurricane hit. That means that the levees were faulty, the workmanship was shoddy, it was done by the Federal government, and the damages are the fed's fault. They should have paid for every single life, every home, every park, every school, every pet, every lost belonging. They didn't. They refused help from Cuba and other countries.

They abused demonstrators, abused their own citizens, invaded and occupied two countries based on lies, and they still have no proof that will stand up in court that bin Laden is responsible for 9/11.

They emptied the treasury, allowed cronies to steal, and made corruption the norm.

Sorry, sounds like terrorists to me.

[Tangerine LaBamba]

18. No one outsiide the US needed to attack us

after 9/11 - which was a pretty big event, as I recall. And it happened when Chimpy Fucknuts was squatting in the Oval Office.

Why should they waste their time/energy/resources when Chimpy and his thugs were doing such a first-rate job of trashing our country? They lay waste to our economic status, to our military, to our infrastructure, to our standing in the world, to our civil rights, to our sense of security, to our pride in being American.

They invaded Iraq based on lies and subversions.

Chimpy and his cohorts subverted the Constitution when they weren't busy trying to make sure Roe v. Wade was being undercut in every possible way. They robbed stem cell research, and millions of sick people in this world, of eight years during which so much might have been achieved. They managed to appoint some unqualified and corrupt people to the bench, at all levels, and they tried to legalize torture.

Those are just the quickies, when I think of it.

Why on earth would anyone have wanted to interrupt the destruction of the United States of America when the people in charge were doing such a first-rate job?

Just consider this - as of today, more than 1,300 more people have died in our occupation of Iraq than died on 9/11.

Al Qaeda should send Chimpy Fucknuts a 'thank you" note .............

[opihimoimoi]

19. Them terrorists are our unseen enemies...these GOP dudes are in plain sight

trying NOT to act like terrorist but their damage is the same...or worse....

[Terran]

24. Iraq

That was little more than a giant terrorist attack on a nation who did nothing to us; and then of course all the real terrorist attacks on our soldiers since then.

[Marr]

28. No crashes for much of the Hindernburg's flight.

It really should get more credit. It kept those people aloft. Except when it didn't.

They saw the worst terrorist attack *ever* happen on their watch. That immediately excludes you from being a great protector on the terrorism front, sorry. Only an ideologically blind moron could argue otherwise.

Seriously-- lurking freepers, how do you overlook the 3000 dead when saying Bush "kept us safe from terrorism"? You think he should get one free one or something? You really think it's alright to be completely asleep at the wheel and negligent until an actual attack occurs?

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. But they are wrong

Anthraz attack that was terrorism

The DC sniper, that is terrorism

And I could go on

These people are idiots

[adigal]

36. Um,,,,,9/11???? Hello, rightwingers??? Scary stupid n/t

[Posteritatis]

40. Yeah, just some 61,000 dead and wounded Americans

And that's before getting into everyone else he caught or got underfoot.

Safety indeed...