"the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years"
"I hope my old friend Leon was misquoted," Cheney said, in a written statement to FOX News. "The important thing is whether the Obama administration will continue the policies that have kept us safe for the past eight years."
Do you enjoy seeing wingers foam at the mouth? Point out that if Bush gets credit for the lack of (foreign) attacks (on homeland soil), then by the same reasoning Bill Clinton should get credit for keeping us safer for even longer.
The first time Al Qaeda attacked the WTC was in 1993. There wasn't another terrorist attack (on American soil) (not counting attacks from right-winger terrorists) until Sept 11, 2001. That's 8 years, 6 months and 16 days without a (foreign) attack (on American soil). Or if we only count the time while Clinton was President, that's 7 years 10 months and 25 days.
From 9/11/01 until Bush left office was 7 years 4 months and 9 days. Or counting until today, that's 7 years 9 months and 4 days.
Either way you count it, if you start out with the bogus analysis favored by the wingnuts then you have to conclude that the policies of Bill Clinton kept us safer longer than the policies of George Bush. Kept us safer without the legal gyrations to justify torture and advertise to the world that we torture. Kept us safer without drawing attention away from the actual attackers in order to start a war against a tinhorn dictator who was uninvolved in the attack, and thereby giving al Qaeda the best recruiting tool it's ever had. Kept us safer without setting up a prison in Cuba and advertising to the world that we are holding Islamic suspects without trials, even in cases where it becomes painfully obvious that we're holding the wrong people. Kept us safer without anything like the Patriot Act that exploited the fears of voters and policy makers in order to sacrifice freedom in the name of false security.
Point this out and watch any wingnut who hasn't voided the warranty on their moral compass turn their brains inside out trying to hold onto the assumptions that let them think Bush kept us safe, without reaching the logical conclusion that Bill Clinton did an even better job of keeping us safe than Bush.
Advertisement
bbff,?
Pop goes your "cherry"... let me know if you can't figure out what I mean.
June 15, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
bbff,
NOW... for your post. Dick Cheney wants to say
"I told you so" so bad his dick hurts!
June 15, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROTFLMAO. That's brilliant! I want to recommend it twnety times so it gets to #1 fast and stays there. This ought to be repeated anytime the Reich declares Bush kept us safe. WJClinton did a better job and he did it without sacrificing every democractic value ever instilled in this nation.
Thank you!
June 16, 2009 3:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not a Clinton vs Bush thing. They both had attacks during their administrations.
I don't take any issue with what Cheney said. He considers "safe" to mean no attacks on US soil, and there haven't been any for about the last 8 years. Well if you're going to attack him for rounding and not being as precise as you, I guess that's your right.
But I'm really not sure what your point is. I guess you're trying to say that we'd have been just as "safe" from 2002 to today if we hadn't gone into Iraq, hadn't detained suspected terrorists, etc.
But the circumstances during the 90's and during this decade are different. So I'm not sure it's a logical conclusion that if Bush had followed Clinton's policies during this decade that we'd be just as safe as under Clinton.
We have no idea how Clinton would have responded to a 9/11 type attack. To say that Bush's actions weren't necessary because Clinton didn't do them is pretty illogical. That's like saying that Tiger Woods doesn't need to change his swing after surgery to continue winning major championships. He won lots of championships with his old swing before surgery, so if he just keeps doing it the old way, he'll be fine and keep winning.
June 16, 2009 6:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, we do know how Clinton would have responded. HE had a history of attacking people that attacked us, not other countries or people. He might have gone into Afghanistan, (almost suredly) but not Iraq.
Terrorism is terrorism, bozo. And the Republicans made it a "Clinton versus Bush" thing when they tried to blame 9/11 on Clinton, when they were clearly asleep at the switch. So nice try; FAIL.
No, Bush's actions are illogical because we've never had to do what Bush did to overcome much more well-organized and supported enemies throughout the 20th century. And because he pounded on Iraqis when the support people to the group that nailed us were in Afghanistan. Bush was, to tell the unvarnished truth, a moron surrounded by people who thought that they were geniuses, and weren't even above average.
You can try and talk this shit all day, it doesn't make you any less full of shit.
June 16, 2009 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
The more important questions, to my mind:
- Would Clinton have dramatically curtailed anti-terrorism as a priority for his administration upon taking office in January 2001?
- How would Clinton have responded to a Presidential Daily Briefing entitled "Bin Laden determined to strike in US"?
Given what we already know about the Clinton admin's warnings and admonishments to the incoming Bush administration - I think it's fair to question whether 9/11 would have happened at all, and if it had, whether it would have been a successful attack.
Clinton had demonstrated a willingness to attack both Iraq, and al Qaeda's facilities regardless of location.
June 16, 2009 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you being so hostile? Can't people debate points on here without the personal attacks?
June 16, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Come on, Bill. You're embarassing yourself already. Cheney knows what he is saying and he will repeat it regardless of the cold hard fact, he was 9 months shy of 8 years.
Cheney does more then round up. He does not round to the nearest year. He rounds to the most convenient year. The year that would suggest we were safe for the entirety of the Bush/Cheney Administration. 9/11 was on their watch, nine months into their watch.
What kind of difference can nine months make? We can actually change the population of the planet by one. We can create an entire human being in 9 months. Do yourself a favor, Bill. Figure out which battles are worth fighting and which are not along the criteria of facts rather then party affiliation. Suggesting Cheney is merely rounding is absurd. You look like a fool when you do it and I want to think better of you. I know you make some good points from time to time. This ain't one of them...at all.
June 16, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not embarassing at all. Cheney is saying that we were "safe" on 9/11. But if you have something that says he thinks that, please show me.
He's saying we've been safe since 9/11, which is roughly 8 years.
June 16, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I guess when you're eager to spot the man 9 months and 3000+ dead, you would not be embarassed about it. Sorry to have wasted my time. Thought you actually had a desire to be objective. Guess I was wrong.
Seriously, do you think no one else can do the math that when rounding, the "years" of safety are much closer to 7 then to 8? Are you convinced you are fooling anyone else but yourself? Are you also convinced people are so stupid they will believe Cheney is bad at math when he was the CEO of a multi-billion dollar enterprise. The guy does math with more zeroes in his head then I'l ever see. Oh, sorry, there I go again.
The End
June 16, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK - so next time if he says that it's important to continue the policies that have kept us safe since 9/11, then it's an OK statement?
There's no way that he's including 9/11 as part of the time that we were kept safe. He's saying that we've been safe for the last 8 years: 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009
June 16, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB,
Tiger don't... Dammit...I'm a Jack fan, and Jack didn't have the technology. However Tiger is amazin to watch when he's on. I have golf envy, his golf is WAY bigger than mine...
Anyways back to the real issue
Iraq was a veer into the twilight zone for "Bumble" (read W or Dick it really is no different).
Other than 9/11 what is really so different between the 90s and early 00s? Not much I can see.
Face Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld et al.. were asleep at the switch and it cost 3000 people their lives. Becuase if Clinton had missed a PDB with that title Newt would have started the impeechment hearings the same day as the attacks.
I just heard that the bass player for AC/DC is 63... GOD I AM DEPRESSED!
June 16, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the difference between the Clinton and Bush years is that 9/11 happened - an attack of size and impact that I think doesn't have a comparable other than Pearl Harbor. So to speculate how Clinton would react to 9/11 is just that, speculation. We really don't know if Clinton would have done much differently with respect to Iraq, Gitmo, wiretaps, etc.
The original poster's point wasn't about who would have prevented 9/11 - it was that the Clinton policies kept us safer longer than the Bush policies. And his other point is that Clinton did a better job at keeping us safe. I just think that's a silly statement to try to compare them.
June 16, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
w's administration kept the economic oligarchy safe from any meaningful examination. That is about it. And Government contracts safe for their friends.
June 16, 2009 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Egg zackly - with apologies to Bawack. Spot on, as usual Dick.
And the whole point of Poppy's cronies buying him the baseball team, putting him in place as Governor, God whispering in his ear- or should that more 'properly' be god whispering in His ear? (okay crossing myself)- after a family barbecue, or whatever, chat with Billy Graham. Goodness, if it led him to being "saved" by substituting the addiction of Rethuglican religiosity for drinking and what not, could it be all that bad for the country?
June 16, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink