"The attack on 9/11 occurred on the President's watch" - General Wes Clark

[CarolNYC]

Wes Clark appeared on Fox News with Neil Cavuto this afternoon and did a brilliant job of swatting away all of the shit the screwball Cavuto tried to throw at him. He opened with "The attack on 9/11 occurred on the President's watch" and got better from there...Really most excellent.

Link to youtube video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTeKZBD-ZIU

CCN link is here:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8308

Check it out...Dems should keep pointing that out....9/11 happened on Bush' watch....

[Monkeyman]

1. Yep stop blaming Clinton and read the 9/11 Commission report

[Thoreau-Ly]

33. There's More Concise Analyses, Too.

Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The news networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" while reporting on his warnings, to accentuate the idea that everything the administration said was contrived fakery.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006">083006J.shtml

For example, we now know from the 9/11 commission that the chief law enforcement officer appointed by President Bush to be in charge of counterterrorism, John Ashcroft, was repeatedly asked by the FBI official in charge of protecting us against terrorism, repeatedly asked to pay attention to the many warning signs that were being picked up by the FBI throughout the summer of 2001.

Former FBI acting director Thomas J. Pickard, the man in charge of presenting these warnings to General Ashcroft, testified under oath that Ashcroft angrily told him he did not want to hear this information anymore and shut down the discussion.

Now, that is an affirmative action by the administration that's very different from simple negligence. That is an extremely serious error in judgment that constitutes a reckless disregard for the safety of the American people.

http://www.thinkingpeace.com/pages/arts2">arts261.html

Let us imagine the day when the NeoCon scourge is locked away, safely, for good.

[erknm]

51. Was Clinton completely without fault?

At some point some among us have to stop passing the buck. We get irate when we witness the republicans doing this, yet we are doing the same thing. I see alot of people here blindly circling the wagons, refusing to accept reality. Is there blood on W's hands? Of course. Is there blood on Clinton's hands? Of course. Responsible citizens and voters must stop denying this. Simple minded analysis such as "It happened on W's watch" is completely meaningless.

Allow me to ask my fellow DU readers a simple, honest question: The return of the Iranian hostages happened on Reagan's watch. Are we willing to give him the credit for their return? Certainly brain-dead republicans wanted to do this at the time. Of course Carter's measured response and disregard for those hawks who screamed to sacrifice the hostages had much more to do with their return than Reagan's election. I hope that most DU readers would agree. Things are not always as simple, nor always as clean as we would like to believe.

Returning to the scandal at hand. There is no disagreement about a few things.

1. The plans for 9/11 were developed during Clinton's term.
2. The implementation of the attack, including implanting the would-be terrorists in the U.S., and their training as pilots began during Clinton's watch.
3. Clinton decided not to go after Bin Laden as a measured response to avoid controversey among our Arab friends.

As far as W's responsibility, republicans claim that he could do nothing to stop it.

4. He cut spending on programs designed to infiltrate terrorist cells.
5. He refuses to investigate the role of Saudi Arabia in 9/11. Further, his family affiliation with the Saudis means that they get a complete pass, get out of jail free card.
6. He would willingly pay with the lives of others to retain the republican majority in the congress.

I may be wrong, but I think that little could have been done under the circumstances. Even killing Bin Laden would likely not have stopped the attacks, at best it would have delayed them. Most of the Monday AM QBing going on here and elsewhere is filled with suggestions made by people living in a post 9/11 world. A great example, in my mind, is the absolutely stupid suggestion that we should have shot down the planes. Certainly, it would have been great had we done that. However, who, in his right mind, would have shot down a passenger jet when no such attack had every occured outside of the imagination of fiction writers? Certainly now we would likely do that, but before such an attack had ever occurred? (And don't talk to me about a cessna crashing into a building, there is no comparison. Additionally, the knowledge that such an attack could occur does not mean that anyone would anticipate such an action with a particular plane before it had ever happened.)

I love about 50% of the posts here, but I fear I see alot of kool-aid drinkers here who are more focused on laying the blame on the other side than discovering the real truth. The funny thing is that I honestly believe that if you exchange the word "democrat" for "republican", then you could scarcely tell the difference between the DU and the Rush Limbaugh show.

FH

[specimenfred1984]

54. I Can't Tell The Dif Between You and Gush Limpballs

So I guess you're right!

[janx]

55. 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

That is not opinion; that is fact. Going back to the previous president may provide speculation, yes. But it does not change the fact.

[Qutzupalotl]

58. You may be wrong.

Little could have been done? How about meeting with the counterterrorism czar ONCE before September 2001?

The August 6 PDB says Bin Laden plans to use hijacked planes to attack landmarks in the U.S. Intercepting planes in such circumstances is and was SOP.

Cheney was in regular meetings with the CIA, and they had intercepted Bin Laden's phone conversations in early 2001. Cheney was well aware of the PDB warning. Yet he scheduled no less than five NORAD training exercises for the week of September 11, 2001, leaving the eastern seabord defenses compromised. What a remarkable coincidence. It's almost like he wanted the attacks to happen.

[The Wizard]

59. Then there's the matter of

increased airport security. How did known terror suspects get on airliners with box cutters? Why wasn't an evacuation plan in place for tall buildings in NYC and other big cities? After the first tower was hit the second tower and all other structures in the vicinity of the known path of the hijacked airliner should have been immediately emptied. Gulianni failed in that regard as he had advanced warning of such a terrorist attack. But Condi said no one could have imagined blah blah blah yak yak yak, and would have been charged with perjury, but there was no stained blue dress.

[Bridget Burke]

61. Your President ignored specific warnings before 9/11.

He entered a photo op after the first tower was hit & sat looking like an idiot while people in the WTC decided between jumping to their deaths & burning.

Then he fled like the coward he is--until he reappeared to stage a pep rally on the smoking ruins.

And he's used 9/11 as an excuse for every sorry thing he & his henchmen have done since.

I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan, so I can't correct your last comment.

Edited to add: If you come to DU looking for The Bush Love--learn to live with disappointment.

[gully]

65. Back up your claims.

Most of the things you assert are wrong.

[ProudDad]

72. I'll give your provocative post

a reasonable answer (more than it deserves).

Watch this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTeKZBD-ZIU


The answers to your parroting of the right-wing party line are there. You sound just like that piece of shit propoganda the "Path to 9/11" that will be airing on ABC. Hmmm, just a coincidence?

[TankLV]

73. The Iranian hostages were returned a ONE MINUTE PAST NOON

on the day that ray-gun - your hero - was sworn in - so it any credit BELONGS TO CARTER SINCE IT HAPPENED ON HIS WATCH!

But don't let facts get in the way of your repuke spew...

I'd go thru each one of your lies, but it becomes tiring dealing with YOUR KIND...

WE know who you are and YOU are no "WE"...

[sutz12]

77. Nice Republican talking points....

The Iran hostages could have been freed much ealier, but were delayed until after Reagan took office. Consiracy? You tell me.

Perahps little could have been done, but the plain fact is that NOTHING WAS EVEN ATTEMPTED!

9/11 happened on Bush's watch and he was asleep at the wheel, as in his other major disasters.

[returnable]

78. Methinks you've been the one drinking the "kool-aid"

Hope you enjoyed your stay here. Now run along back to littlegreenfootballs. Or ABC's corporate offices.

[PegDAC]

80. Clinton

had to deal with a Repuke Congress.

[CarolNYC]

2. Raw Story

Raw Story has a piece up here, along with a partial transcript...
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Gen._Wesley_Clark_blasts_Bushs_0905.html

[IndianaGreen]

3. Clark also said that Bush wasn't interested in counter-terrorism

and that the Bush people declined to be briefed by Clinton's counter-terrorism team. Condi was more interested in the upcoming neocon PNAC wars than some minor thing like Bin Laden planning to attack the US.

[MrSlayer]

4. Wow. The General tore him to shreds.

This was a particularly good one.

[PegDAC]

81. See below

I :loveya: Wesley Clark!

[jumpoffdaplanet]

5. Why do they said we weren't attacked after 911?

The people who died or became sick from anthax would beg to differ.

And the WH doesn't give a shit about finding that person.

[ginnyinWI]

12. maybe because they know that was an inside job? n/t

[Jo March]

24. I was yelling the same thing at the screen

The anthrax murders were used to further scare the crap out of everyone. That's an act of terrorism in every sense of the word. :banghead:

[Brotherjohn]

34. Anthrax aside, what about Bali / Madrid / Morrocco / London / etc...?

Seems to me like Al Qaeda has been much more active world-wide, including in countries who were part of the "coalition of the willing", than before. I guess we're fighting them over there so they can't attack us here... instead, they'll attack us everywhere else in the world!

If they're attacking in London and Madrid, why the HELL do Republicans think they can't attack us here?

What Repubs have to understand is that the Muslim world (particularly the people we're busy inciting every day in Iraq right now) has a VERY long memory. They care not if they strike at GWB's America today. They're in it for the long haul... in much greater part thanks to our actions in Iraq.

Wasn't it GWB himself who said in his initial debates w/ Gore that if we go in and tell someone "here's how you do it" (re nation-building and troops), that they will RESENT us?

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Just posted on a related thread about that video

But it fits here just as well:

So many great lines by Clark, he repeatedly reminded viewers that The Bush Administration showed no interest in protecting America from known terrorist threats when they took office. Clark managed to bring up Bush's vacation in August immediately after being warned that plans were afoot for attacking America. OK, it's great that he stayed on message, but Clark to his credit probably planned those comments.

I really loved it when Cavuto sprung the Republican talking point about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here on Clark, when Cavuto asked where would the thousands of Al Quada jihadists be fighting Americans if we weren't fighting them in Iraq. Cool as a cucumber Clark nailed him "They probably wouldn't be fighting Americans anywhere" and went on to explain that these mostly young men are being recruited because they now think they are defending Islam from an American attack. There is a lot more I am tempted to repeat but it is better to just watch the video yourself if your computer can handle it.

[bleever]

8. 9/11 happened on the president's watch.

Well, actually it happened on his vacation. He wasn't really watching at all.

[CarolNYC]

10. Well, yeah, he mentions that too....

From the Raw Story transcript:

CAVUTO: Can I ask you, General. Wait a minute. We didn't respond to the U.S.S. Cole in any measurable way. We didn't respond to the '93 attacks on the World Trade Center in any way. So, is it just because this president is a Republican, that you're bashing him and prior one is not?

CLARK: No. It has nothing to do with that. In fact, the people who attacked us at The World Trade Center , we arrested them. We broke up that ring. As far as the Cole attacks are concerned, a complete plan was worked up. By the time they had worked the plan up it was December of 2000. The administration was about to go out of office. A Republican was going to come in. I think, Richard Clark has told the full story of passing along a 20 page plan along with all the details to the National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. They never got a hearing. This president went on vacation in August of 2001 despite the warnings that al-qaeda was trying to attack us without ever summoning his cabinet offices together.

[bleever]

13. The general was great, again. He says it straight, right to their faces.

I'm surprised he still gets air time on Fox.

It's going to take people of his caliber to fix this global mess the neocons have brought down on us.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

17. seriously.

the odds of anything happening while he's on the clock are so slim. . .

[bdamomma]

83. and was clearing brush

clearing brush is hard work!

[autorank]

7. I love this guyl..he just takes it right to the thugs! Thank you Clark!!

Iraq was a cover for the command failure of 911...that's another statement he made, in Texas no less.

And people wonder why Clark supporters are so passionate. This is why, he's a fighter.

Please send the General to Virginia to support our "born fighting" Senate Candidate Webb, another
...t kicking Democrat.

[bleever]

19. autorank is right

again.

:thumbsup:

[Donna Zen]

87. Wes and Webb

Coming soon. From his latest email, he will be in your neighborhood soon.

[KeepItReal]

9. Wes Clark is the one and only reason why I'd watch anything from Faux News

The General sets the record straight each and every time. Sweet.

He's got an extremely high tolerance for the b.s. Cavuto keeps spewing.

[CarolNYC]

11. extremely high tolerance for the bullshit...

Doesn't he though? Cavuto kept getting more and more frustrated as the interview went on but Wes stayed so cool yet tough....I think it was a carry over from the last time Wes was on his show...Cavuto was mighty frustrated then too...I don't think he enjoys those Wes appearances so much. hehe

[SlavesandBulldozers]

18. i don't watch faux. but i really don't know how he does it.

One thing I've always noticed about Clark is that he definitely has that one trait that makes a brilliant military mind - that ability to bottle emotion and impulse waaaaay waaaay down deep and stick to the mission or task or whatever. Definitely not one of my strengths, and I find it an admirable quality so rare in this day and age of Twilight Zonian sort of outbursts from the dimson.

[capi888]

14. This is the Wes Clark you will see from now on!!!

He will not let anyone spin what he says, he will set the record streight! This is the man who will fight til the end to save this country and knows damn well what this administration is trying to do to the people of this country and all over the world. The next two months should be very interesting to watch. He has his sights set, and his strategy is working. He is helping the Dems, to understand foriegn policy, to best serve our country, as well as the world. What is happening now to our prestige all over the world is breaking his heart.

[Donna Zen]

16. He will fight til the end.

So true. General Clark has made is so easy to support him. In fact, not to sound dumb, but I now understand leadership, because watching what he is willing to do, makes me work all the harder, dig a deeper into my pocket, and put more of myself on the line.

He has said that if we don't win at least one house in November, we won't recognize this country. This election is that important.

Yes, this is breaking his heart. The General tells a story of attending a conference in the 'stans where speaker after speaker took the podium and bashed the United States. And then there are the troops. Without fanfare, he visits hospitals all over the country. He doesn't intend to lose in November.

[wiley]

15. Excellent. Thanks!

[FrenchieCat]

20. IS Wes trying to stifle a laugh at Cavuto's expense on this pic?

[Donna Zen]

21. Can you blame him?

Oh, and I think that the answer's "yes."

[FrenchieCat]

22. I will add that Wes summed it up nicely and in a tidy paragraph.....

When asked by Pompadour Cavuto the following: General, we haven't had an attack in almost five years. That's not bad is it?


CLARK: Well, I'm delighted that we haven't and I hope we will never be attacked. The attack on 9/11 occurred on the president's watch. He took us into a war that we didn't have to fight. It's been used to incentivize recruiting al-qaeda. The number of people that are affiliated with al-qaeda world wide has more than doubled since 2001. Our armed forces are bogged down in Iraq. We haven't been able to effectively engage with North Korea. We're hearing the tom-toms beating for war with Iran. I think the American people can judge. This administration's policy has been a mistake and he's not made us safer. He's left us more vulnerable.


Hell, that's a 15 second commercial for election 2006 right there! :headbang:

More....
Cavuto asking questions based on the GOP faxed-to-Fox Talking Points...and Clark kicking ass with smackdown answers each time!
------------
CAVUTO: Let me ask you, General, the folk we're fighting in Iraq right now, if we weren't fighting them in Iraq right now, where would they be? (GOP tired ass Talking point)

CLARK: A lot of those folks wouldn't be fighting at all because what we did is, we incentivized a whole generation of young radical people to come and defend Islam against the United States. That the foreign terrorists that are there. Anywhere from a 1000 to 2000.

CAVUTO: So General, who incentivized the U.S.S. Cole attack? Who incentivized the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center? (GOP tired ass Talking point)

CLARK: You changed the question... you changed the question. We did not have to attack Iraq. What we could have done is focused on Afghanistan and finished the job in Afghanistan but, Neil, we didn't do that. You realize, when we went into Afghanistan, we left Afghanistan again in a few months. We left 8000 combat troops there. We did none of the reconstruction. We didn't help the Afghan people recreate their economy. It had been devastated by the Soviets.

CAVUTO: Can I ask you, General. Wait a minute. We didn't respond to the U.S.S. Cole in any measurable way. We didn't respond to the '93 attacks on the World Trade Center in any way. So, is it just because this president is a Republican, that you're bashing him and prior one is not? (GOP tired ass Talking point)

CLARK: No. It has nothing to do with that. In fact, the people who attacked us at The World Trade Center , we arrested them. We broke up that ring. As far as the Cole attacks are concerned, a complete plan was worked up. By the time they had worked the plan up it was December of 2000. The administration was about to go out of office. A Republican was going to come in. I think, Richard Clark has told the full story of passing along a 20 page plan along with all the details to the National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. They never got a hearing. This president went on vacation in August of 2001 despite the warnings that al-qaeda was trying to attack us without ever summoning his cabinet offices together.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Video_Gen._Wesley_Clark_blasts_Bushs_0905.html

[Lasher]

40. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard Cavuto mention the USS Cole

Clark must have been overjoyed when Cavuto repeated that lame talking point, as well as the one about the 1993 WTC bombing, both of which were exposed as lies back in 2001 by Snopes. These right-wingers are so predictable. They just keep repeating the same things over and over. Clark was obviously loaded up and ready for that.

I wish Clark would have made just one more point about the USS Cole: He showed that it was Bush's place, not Clinton's, to retaliate for that attack. Then why didn't he? Junior told Condi at the time that he was "...tired of swatting flies..." even though he had not swatted any. A more revealing answer was provided by Richard Clarke: "Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, 'Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration's watch.'".

Way to go, General Clark! :applause:

[Greyhound]

23. If we don't make him President (and I think we should), he has to be the

next Secretary of State. :patriot:

[bdamomma]

84. or Secretary of Defense

[CJCRANE]

25. First WTC attack in 1993

Second in 2001. That's an 8 year gap. Why do the Republicans keep congratulating themselves for no more attacks in 5 years?

[Thoreau-Ly]

31. They Also Conveniently Ignore

The anthrax attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki">2001_anthrax_attacks

[krkaufman]

39. Exactly. I chuckle over this frequently (at the irony)

The Rethugs are a good 3 years shy of the timeframe between "attacks by foreign terrorists on US soil." The only other terrorist attacks on US soil during that period were by right wing extremists... McVeigh et al's bombing in Ok City and the bombing of clinics providing abortion services.

As for attacks on US entities globally, during that period, you've got the Cole and Kenya bombings; and what else? Ask the civilians in Madrid, London, Bali, Iraq and no attacks on US soil" metric?

[noahmijo]

43. Also forget that the one responsible for '93 attacks is locked up

Sits rotting in a prison in Florence Colorado.

Also the minor inconvinient fact that neo-cons are the true bed buddies of Islamic terrorists-name one pro-choice, pro-democracy liberal that has profited handsomely from dealings with the likes of The Taliban.

I can name a few neo-cons though.

[mwb970]

26. Cavuto is such a tool.

An empty suit shilling for Bush with nothing but right-wing talking points to bring to the table. Here we see little Neil up against a real man with real brains, and look what happens. He is worthless.

[9119495]

27. How did we respond after the bombing in Lebanon during Reagan's

tenure?

Jesus Neil, I don't suppose you'd care to tackle that one. If the whole point is to say Clinton did not nuke every Muslim country after some terrorist attacks in the 90s then, well, shit...you got us. Clinton did not nuke any country after those attacks.

But then he also did not attack North Korea because they were enemies of freedom that were not connected to the Cole attack. See how that sentence makes no sense? What a world we live in.

[emmadoggy]

47. That's the thing about this administration's response to everything that

drives me nuts. For every thing that is done to us, we must respond with a war or military attack, invasion or occupation of another country. But terrorists are individuals acting independently of any national government or military (at least in most cases, I believe??). It's an international crime issue. It should be responded to and addressed the way the Clinton administration was addressing it. Investigating, tracking down the suspects, trying and convicting them (or attacking the terrorists directly). If the government of another country is aiding and abetting or otherwise protecting the terrorists (that are suspected of the incident being investigated) then some action should be taken against that country (with military action being the last resort). But this cabal does all of that in the reverse order. Shoot first, ask questions later (preferably much later, when we, the Bush admin, are long gone). It's that whole stupid mentality of "hey, if anyone does anything to me or pisses me off, then I'm just going to blow some shit up!! I'm a big, tough, manly man!! Who needs to use their brain when you can just shoot stuff??!! That'll learn 'em!!" And worse, they attack countries that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[9119495]

48. Dig

the Iowa flag. That is actually where I'm at. There are some good posts in the Iowa forum on local issues/upcoming elections. Check it out.

I couldn't agree more and you put the problem in focus better than I could have. Thanks.

[emmadoggy]

53. Thank you.

I'm a proud Iowan. I've checked in on the Iowa forum a few times, but haven't joined in yet. I'm much more in tune with national politics than the local scene - probably should remedy that.

Thanks for your comment about my post. I'm so spittin' mad at the state of our nation!

:hi:

[sutz12]

79. An old saying I learned a few years back....

When your only tool is a hammmer, all of your problems start to look like nails.

[Clark2008]

28. I hope the fact that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch is FINALLY

sinking into the more intelligent Faux-ites.

But, it depends, I guess on the strength of the Kool-aid.

Clark did a great job - as usual.

[ComerPerro]

29. "If those folks weren't fighting us in Iraq, where would they be"

does Cavuto honestly believe that these people in Iraq, had we not invaded, come here to the US to fight us in the streets?

how would they accomplish this?

[Brotherjohn]

35. Balsa wood drones, silly! (nt)

[ComerPerro]

30. WTF? Why do they think its an accomplishment that we

haven't been attcked again?

Attacks like 9/11 are called spectacular attacks for a reason. They don't happen everyday.

If attacks like that are so common and are being planned all the time, then Bush is even more incompetent than I thought for even allowing one of those attacks to slip through.

[emmadoggy]

42. Yep, this always bugs me too...

The WTC was attacked in '93 and how many years went by before it was attacked again?? Hmm??

It's exactly like you say - "Attacks like 9/11 are called spectacular for a reason. They don't happen everyday."

They take years of planning. Drives me nuts. :grr:

[garthranzz]

Cavuto=cavil at and veto the truth

First time I'd seen Cavuto. Wish I never had. What a jerk! There's not even a pretense of honesty.

[garthranzz]

32. Cavuto=cavil at and veto the truth

First time I'd seen Cavuto. Wish I never had. What a jerk! There's not even a pretense of honesty.

[Imagevision]

36. Clark did an excellant job making his points, Cavuto got shut down bigtime

[filer]

37. Well done, General Clark!

I voted for you in the Oklahoma primary in 2004 and I'll vote for you again! One piece of advice though, stay out of the clutches of the DLC. Just steer clear of them. They cost Democrats elections. Just my opinion.

[davidwparker]

38. Precisely the reason Clark needs to be on the ticket in 2008. He

speaks with authority on national security issues. The republicons can't touch that and the pundits can't challenge him.

[liberal N proud]

41. Does anyone know where the 20 page plan from Dec 2000 can be found

I would love to throw that in some repukes faces, figuratively of course.

[ComerPerro]

44. I am more of a literal person

as in, I would like to print out all 20 pages, literally throw it in their faces, and yell, "Read this and shut the fuck up, you stupid, lying shit!"

[emmadoggy]

45. General Clark did a great job.

He is very impressive. If Dems win the WH in '08 he definitely needs to be involved in some way - as VP or Sec. of State (I have other faves for Pres, but would be happy with Clark too).

RW media whores make themselves so obvious when they say shit like, "Would it have killed any of you (to acknowledge that the administration has succeeded in preventing any new attacks since 911). It's like they're whining that "you NEVER say anything nice about me!! Waa, waa!! You never pay me any compliments!! Waa, waa!!" I mean, WTF?? When's the last time you heard a Republican or wingnut or anyone from this administration pay any sort of COMPLIMENT to a Dem or liberal??? I hate that whiny crap. And Cavuto or whatever his name is, saying it in that way is just totally unprofessional and biased and obvious. Yuck.

:puke:

[Stevepol]

46. I'm tired of the talking point: They haven't attacked us here!!

Why in God's name would they attack us here, when we've got 150,000 troops with targets on their backs IN THEIR BACK YARD?

An Al Qaida memo found by American troops a couple years ago said just that. Al Qaida doesn't intend to attack here in America or to focus their interest here now that we're in Iraq. Whey should they??? We've made the game easy for them. We're surrounded by Islamic countries, by borders that cannot be sealed off, by an entire populace that hates us.

Put yourself in their shoes. Why should they try to plan and carry out some difficult terrorist attack here when we've made it easy as pie for them by coming to their back yard to play in their sand box?

This is one point I agree with the Repubs about, but the reason for it is ignored.

As soon as we get out of Iraq, they will start trying to carry out attacks within our shores again, not because the Repubs are such great guardians of our shores but because IT WILL MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO DO SO THEN. I wish some Dems would talk about this. It's pretty obvious, and it's a good way to turn the tables on these Repubs who keep congratulating themselves that there have been no terrorist attacks since 9/11. There have been thousands of them in Iraq. Every day there's another terrorist attack because we were immoral enough and stupid enough to attack a country that didn't attack us.

[intheflow]

49. I love Wes Clark.

What a true American patriot he is! :patriot:

[Auntie Bush]

64. I love your plaque and it's so true.

[janx]

50. Thanks for the reminder, General!

:hi:

It can't be stated enough.

[KansDem]

52. Ouch!

The truth hurts!

[librarycard]

56. It occurred on Cheney's watch, too

Bush put Cheney in charge of the terrorism task force within FEMA in May 2001, and it's been downhill for the US ever since.

Where's the accountability?

[cpass]

57. "The attack on 9/11 occurred on the President's watch" - General Wes Clark

Does that mean that 12/7/41 happened on Roosevelt's watch?:shrug:

[FrenchieCat]

60. Doesn't matter what happened under FDR at the present.....

or didn't you know.

We won that war, so your point is moot!

[cpass]

68. But...

FDR was a democrat so I assume ww2 was a democratic war.

[FrenchieCat]

70. And like I said......We won....so that should tell you who's more

effective at kicking some ass when it is required.

WWII was a world war.....

A war against Japan, who attacked us....and Nazi Germany who attacked most of Europe, our allies.

Under a Democratic Administration and a Commander in Chief who told us we had nothing to fear but fear itself, we were able to win in 4 years.....

Reconstruct the broken losers nations, and make them lasting Allies.

So...yeah?......Democrats won that war! period!

[Bridget Burke]

91. Bush's Uncle helped finance the Nazis....

His financial interests were siezed by the US Government for "trading with the enemy"--in October, 1942.

Bush the Smarter did serve in the War. He was called a "hero"--even though he bailed out of his plane & left his crew to die.

[Tom Rinaldo]

62. Yes. Clark believes in accountability and "the buck stops here"...

That doesn't mean that any President of the United States will be able to prevent all bad things from happening on their watch, but it does mean that seriously evaluating their performance on the job when significant events happen is always essential. Realistically, should FDR have had the United States better prepared for the possibility of a Japanese attack? Clark would consider that question not only to be fair, but necessary to ask. The answer might be yes, the answer might be no, and whatever the answer is you draw the needed conclusions and move forward from that point. But in Clark's book a leader is always accountable for what happens on his/her watch, and that is the standard he personally lived by in the military.

If you read much of the transcript or watched the video of Clark you will see that this quote was not said in a vacuum, rather Clark ran down the ways in which the Bush Administration was clearly negligent in it's duty to protect our nation against a known threat.

[KamaAina]

69. Did FDR have a memo on his desk titled "Japanese Determined...

to Strike Within U.S."?

Actually there is a theory that calims he did -- but it is generally the province of far-right FReeper-type conspiracy theorists. :tinfoilhat:

[agincourt]

76. Roosevelt didn't blame the GOP for WW2

Try another RW talking point somewhere else.

[JI7]

89. that's so fucking pathetic

Roosevelt actually did something about that against those who actually did attack us rather than continue playing partisan politics and attacking a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11.

[returnable]

90. What is it with the GOP and WWII analogies?

Obviously cpASS got the latest Mehlham memo.

Too bad he logged onto DU instead of althouse to try and pitch it as an original thought.

Beat it, clown.

[jen4clark]

63. Besides General Clark

pointing out to talking-points boy cavuto that 9-11 happened on jr's watch, I especially liked the end -- parrot boy sounded worn down, and General Clark flashed that smile that just cracked me up!

Thanks CarolNYC!

[CarolNYC]

75. Yeah, wasn't poor little Neil

just about as frustrated as he could be? Had to love it...

[gully]

66. Awesome!

Bravo to the General!

[Higans]

67. ANTHRAX!!!!!!!!!

A terrorist act Perpatraited by:



I started this in it's own thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2814432

[PresidentWar]

71. It did? Oh my GOD why hasn't someone said this before??

*rolls eyes*

[CarolNYC]

74. I quite liked the commentary....

from America's Least Wanted

http://least-wanted.blogspot.com/2006/09/owned-neil-cavuto-bear-with-me-on-this.html

Especially this last paragraph...

"I make an effort to rarely watch Fox News and more than likely could not pick Neil Cavuto out of a lineup on any given day, but I'd like to thank General Clark for showing up in the viper's pit of Fox and being able to hold his own, not by out-shouting a condescending loudmouth, but by out-facting him. Cavuto got owned today and General Clark cannot be praised enough for his masterful performance."

[bdamomma]

82. of course it was on Bush's watch, and they were warned

numerous times about the Al Queda organization.

just in case, did anyone catch PBS special The Man Who Knew Too Much"

John O'Neill, was quite aware about Al Queda, and was working on the USS Cole incident until he was pulled. He perished in the 9/11 attack. Great documentary

link here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/view/

[Chazbo]

85. Response to 5 years since Al Qaeda attacked us

The repugs like to continually throw at us that Bush has prevented an Al Qaeda attack for 5 years now. Well, big deal! Wasn't there a 7 year hiatus in the Clinton Administration between the WTC bombing and Bush's inaugural.

[chaska]

86. Somebody go kick that SloppyJoe's ass in the comments section under...

the Youtube video. He made two comments.

[AX10]

88. Bush was not interested in dealing with terrorism.

Bush is making this country less safe!

[Sparkly]

92. I am almost positive I heard the General's voice on the radio this morning

"We went into a war we didn't have to fight," etc., but he wasn't credited by name.

I can't remember which radio news network the particular channel uses. CNN maybe?

(Edited to explain: It was a brief news story about the 5-yr anniversary of 9/11, what Chimpy's saying, what Democrats are saying...)

[JNelson6563]

93. I just marvel at the fact

that Cavuto couldn't concede a single point Clark made. haha It must really pain him to address Clark as "General", giving him all that credibility on the topic.

Clark did a great job and Cavuto is such an ass. One wonders why the big head? It's obviously not to accomodate an over-large brain.

Julie