Lest we all forget, 9/11 happened on Bush 43’s watch.

…under Clinton’s CIA director (George Tenet), and after Bush had had less than 8 months to compensate for 8 years of Clinton gutting national security; failing to warn anyone or respond effectively to the al Qaeda attacks of 1993, 1996, 1998 and 200; etc.

Now in 2009, it’s different. 9-11 already happened, the nation has been warned, Bush has successfully protected the nation, and yet Obama is gutting national security anyway, in his first week! Any terrorist attacks that happen on his watch, Obama should and will receive the true blame for.

Lest we all forget, 9/11 happened on Bush 43’s watch.

Lest we all forget, the 9/11 commission blamed 9/11 on the “wall” that prevented the FBI from talking to the CIA — you know, the wall expanded by Clinton hack Jamie Gorelick, the same woman who is partly to blame for destroying Fannie Mae and the financial industry by giving herself multi-million dollar bonuses for the more bad loans she forced banks to accept?

Lets not also forget that the planning was all taking place during the Clinton administration right here in America, that the terrorists were learning to fly, but not land, commercial aircraft during the Clinton administration, right here under their noses in America, that the terrorists were detained and released while Clinton was president, that Bin Ladens head was offered to Clinton on a silver platter and refused, multiple times, lest it make Billy boys approval ratings go down, that Clinton criminal crony Sandy Berger stole and destroyed top secret national security documents that belong to the American people to prevent the people from learning the full extent of Clintons incompetence, negligence and liabilty…

and lets not also forget that unlike Bush’s transition to Obama which he handled with unprecedented grace and cooperation, Al Gore and the Clintonites delayed Bush’s transition for weeks in their attempts to steal Florida, and their subsequent trashing of the White House.

the internment of “enemy combatants” and now infamous “torture memo” were not the result of a deliberation regarding how to best defend our country, but rather the sad result of power-hungry President who governed from a “my way, or the highway” perspective.

Given that Bush allowed Ted Kennedy to write the education bill and caved on the McCain-Feingold incumbent protection act, if he was a “power-hungry President,” he certainly did a good imitation of the opposite.

I do not know just how much deliberating the Justice Department did with regard to the “Torture Memo,” however I can state with confidence that Bush did act with the security of the United States and the destruction of al Qaeda in mind, and not the enlarging of his own power. It is pure Bush Derangement Syndrome to suggest otherwise. (Which contradicts the “Reasonable” in your moniker, doesn’t it?)

You put the term enemy combatants into scare quotes. Why? What the hell do you think they are? Misunderstood peace activists?

People who take up arms against us are enemy combatants. We can detain them — and try them for war crimes — under the law of war. You should have known this fact before writing your little screed.

I suggest you change your pseudonym to Unreasonable Republican. That title suits you much better.

Lest we all forget, 9/11 happened on Bush 43’s watch.

This tells us nothing, Reasonable Republican. Bush was a very new president, trying to get the nation and its political leaders to take al Qaeda seriously after the foolishness of the Clinton years.

it is beyond the capacity of reason to imagine that information obtained under extreme physical duress and psychological malaise somehow made us safer.

No,it isn’t. And it is pure bullsh*t for you to assert otherwise.

There is no a priori reason why information obtained under physical or mental duress is automatically bad information.

Whether you think waterboarding is torture or not, or think it is a proper technique for use on terrorist or not, the fact is that info obtained from waterboarded terrorist leaders did help foil terrorist plots.

You can argue about the morality and ethics of interrogation techniques all you want. You have no right to invent your own facts, however.

more accuratly the “War on the Constitution” is over

My dear gillie (whether you be he, she, or it),

When the Democrats stop their promotion of judicial activism to maintain the fictional constitutional right to abortion and other leftist tropes, then the War on the Constitution will have ended. Not before.

It would be great for the black people of the U.S. to have a black president. But this is not the guy!

And torturing innocent people made us safer?
Double weird.

So I guess Chairman Obama’s going back to fucking interns as a form of protecting our country?

Double fucked.

And we all know what a swell job Bush did with tracking down Osama Bin Laden.

Can’t help but notice that the “messiah” hasn’t produced him yet. Thanks for the underhanded slap of our soldiers, Pamela.

Reasonable Republican

Now that’s beyond the capacity of reason.

Lest we all forget, 9/11 happened on Bush 43’s watch.

Looks like you chose to forget that the beloved lord BJ didn’t do a damn thing to stop bin Laden or al-Qaeda for 8 years and left it for somebody else to worry about. Where’s your “capacity of reason” on that one?

Was lord BJ absolved of any responsibility when he poked his finger at Chris Wallace, or was it after Sandy Burglar removed incriminating evidence from the National Archives?

I still maintain that the only thing he has said right was to address the young men of America by saying “Pull up your pants”.

Sheesh.

Feel free to walk about the country. No terrorism. No economic turmoil. The candy man just made a rainbow. Cow flatulence is now beneficial to the climate and cures arthritis, little twisty light bulbs will power our airplanes and there is religious unity among the bagworms and in the temples of secular Hollywood pre-Scientologists. It is Easter morning for the little letter people.

“[torture] damaged our ability to

Note gillie’s interpolation in the square brackets. Translation: It didn’t say that. I know that gillie is capable, in principle, of substituting “torture” for some completely different word.

And, by the way, the report is wrong even if it did say exactly that. I don’t have authority figures, or wannabe-authorities like Senate Democrats, do my thinking for me. Only crypto-fascists, who are generally America-hating people as well such as gillie, do.

Were you, gillie, opposed to torture, you would have argued for the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Ditto.

gillie, I’ve called on you again and again to demonstrate one half-ounce of geniune concern for victims of torture. I’m still waiting.

You’re right; anti-Bush bigotry, such as you exhibit, comes from all portions of the spectrum. However, that doesn’t make it right, and the fact that you indulge in it makes it obvious that you have nothing reasonable or rational to contribute to the discussion.

See you later, moby.

the notion that a president can circumvent long-standing U.S. laws simply by declaring war was halted by executive order in the Oval Office.

So more accuratly the “War on the Constitution” is over.

Gillie,

I’m sorry, you truly are an ignorant idiot. LAWS cannot change the Constitution. It doesn’t matter how long a law has been around, only a constitutional amendment can change the Constitution. The president’s constitutionally mandated powers do not change because congress writes a law, and they dont change depending on whether we are at war or not. And that you think they do only proves how very much smarter President Bush is than you.

ILC is right. Were you, gillie, opposed to torture, you would have argued for the removal of Saddam Hussein. You in fact argued against it and denied that what Saddam was doing was torture. That alone demonstrates the twisted and convoluted nature of your definition of torture, making it painfully obvious that your only concern about torture is when you can attempt to use it to bash Bush.