CNN - Why Won't Cons Admit Bush Did - NOT - Keep Us Safe on 9/11?

[kpete]

Run time: 09:56 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjqR9jjK6Ng   Posted on YouTube: April 21, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: April 21, 2009 By DU Member: kpete Views on DU: 3413

 
I appeared on CNN yesterday to discuss President Obama's CIA speech, and his decision to release CIA torture memos. You can watch the clip here - and make sure to watch all the way to the end, because the debate gets really heated. Specifically, we delve into a historical question about 9/11 that now has more relevance for American foreign policy than ever.

David Sirota

[go west young man]

1. David Sirota kicked some good ass there.

He handles the 9/11 question at the end quite well!

[hadrons]

2. good vid

[tomm2thumbs]

3. He was good - SHE was akin to 'some unnamed girl sitting on the right side of the View'

annoying, and without real substance. how GOP

[KansDem]

19. Yeah, she reminded me a lot of Elisabeth Hasselbeck

...who still maintains Bush did nothing on 9/11 because "he didn't want to frighten the children"...:eyes:

I wish this woman was asked why Bush sat and did nothing on 9/11 when informed we were under attack. I'd liked to have heard her "reasoning."

[JDPriestly]

24. These folks are being hatched in some kind of school that instructs

them on how to argue over another person without losing the edge and confidence that convinces Joe Public that you know what you are talking about. Watch the video. Reduce your IQ about 40-50 points, forget what you think about what they are saying and listen with your emotions only. Although wrong, although spewing lies and illogical arguments, she is more persuasive. He sounds frustrated. He needs to learn how to speak on TV when angry.

[AlbertCat]

4. Bottom line

If by 9/11/2009 thousands of American civilians have not been murdered in one day, I will consider Obama's presidency to be a greater success than George W. Bush's. Period.



We haven't been attacked (here at home) again simply because the 1st attack was so successful. It polarized the population into an us vs them mentality. It caused the stripping away of our freedoms, 2 wars which greatly aided in bankrupting the country and created a 1st class recruitment tool for al Qaeda. It helped "reelect" the same lousy president so the damage could continue until deep rooted. What more could Bin Laden want? Mission accomplished. Why waste time and money repeating 9/11 until it's needed again?

[aquart]

15. Not to mention how difficult it is to plan and execute a mission

with a larger kill than 9/11 had. Anything less and they'll look like failures.

[Wetzelbill]

18. and they don't necessarily need to do it

because our troops overseas and various allies on that side of the earth are easier targets. Terror attacks since 9/11 went way up around the world, so much that out of embarrassment State quit issuing their annual report on them. We might not have had one here in the U.S. again, but they exploded all around the world. That can hardly be considered a success.

[Turborama]

32. Exactly!

This is a point that needs to brought to the table whenever wingnut neocon's bring up this fallacy about Bush keeping *us* safe. Having been in Bali & London at the same time the terrorist attacks that happened there, I can say for sure that Bush made the WORLD a much more dangerous place while he was in office.

As for what happened in Iraq re the thousands of dead soldiers/several aid workers who were kidnapped (and beheaded) and the subsequent recruiting and 'in the field' battle hardening of Islamic radicals after the illegal invasion...

[Wetzelbill]

38. a few more notes to this

They always say in response to terror actions going up that terrorism happened before the Iraq War existed. The point that needs to be consistently made though, is yes, it did exist, but not on the same level. The Iraq War and subsequent actions, like torture etc, has exacerbated the problem considerably. They always want to try to make it sound like any rational analysis of why terrorism exists is an attempt to blame America. That needs to be shot down with historical facts from the overthrow of Mossedegh in Iran, to our support of fundamentalists in Afghanistan etc etc. It's not blaming to point out a rationale for it. I don't agree that it warrants terror personally, but evidently the people who flew those planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon did etc etc. Thats just a fact.

Also, the RW likes to have a double standard. They want to count everybody and their mother in Iraq as a terrorist and have done so ever since the run up to the war and in their reasons for staying, but then they want to also say in their next breath that we haven't suffered any terrorist attacks. Well our troops get attacked and killed daily over 4500 of them when Bush was still in office, that's bigger than 9/11. Do they not count? They either have to admit that those attacks are terrorist attacks or they're not. They have to count Iraqi's as terrorists or not. They can't say no terrorists have attacked Americans yet say in the same breath that we invaded and have to stay in Iraq to fight terrorists.

[Lorien]

43. We haven't been attacked again because the CIA and others have been

allowed (more or less) to do their jobs since then. The attacks on 9/11 could have easily been thwarted if Cheney and Co. hadn't stood in the way.

I still wonder how "Al-Qaeda" went form small homemade bombs in a single van and on a tiny fishing boat to such an organized and perfectly executed attack using four commercial aircraft. Quite a jump, wasn't it?

[90-percent]

5. Thank you, David!

Hammer these willfully ignorant talking heads with facts, logic and reason.

It's amazing how much bogus propaganda is out there in the "liberal main stream media"

Oh yeah, the MSM is yet another one of our American Institutions that is failing us.

My fellow DU'ers; please continue to pick up the slack left in the wake of our self destructing corporate MSM.

-90% Jimmy

[SlingBlade]

6. Great Piece

He got this Neo-Con to change her rhetoric from
Bush kept us safe to Bush kept us safe SINCE 9/11

[Chorophyll]

20. Exactly. nt

[Puzzler]

30. Yep... interesting how her argument changed...

... I supposed she hoped that nobody would notice. However, David would not let her off the hook.

[Amonester]

7. That bushbot repeatedly REFUSES to answer a very CLEAR question.

Why is she so afraid of answering it by a yes or a no?

Because the true answer is no.

[DUlover2909]

8. HELL YEAH!

Thanks David! Keep hammering the point home. That puke woman has been coached well to avoid answering yes or no questions that lead to an admission of the Bush/Cheney failures.

Did Bush keep New Orleans safe after 9-11?

[Enthusiast]

33. The more competent members of the cabal

always say that Clinton gutted the intelligence agencies resulting in 9/11. Of course this is ridiculous on its face. She just momentarily forgot her official talking points. Maybe she should have brought up tea bagging and how millions of Americans are sick of President Obama's tax and spend policies. :rofl:

[underpants]

9. Sirota is the best. About "popularity"

Obama is popular because people like him. PERIOD. They like him, his story, and juxtaposed to Bush anyone would do well in that respect

she states twice that Bush was "the most popular President EVER" throwing in "...in the history of the world..." the second time. Yes he had 85 or 90% approval rating at one point-that point was when we were scared out of our skins and anyone would been popular, "Do what you gotta do!" was what everyone was saying. The problem is that what they did was disasterously wrong but they also just tried to keep people scared (and did) that is not popularity that is blackmail.

[Enthusiast]

34. And they wanted it that way.

They allowed 9/11 to happen, not taking the warnings serious, because they wanted to make Jr. a 'war president' and step up domestic intelligence gathering on their political opposition. Just my take.

[Lorien]

42. The Bush administation was a terrorist organization, plain and simple

they terrorized Americans to push their agenda through and loot the treasury. There's little difference between BushCo and Somali pirates outside of scale.

[W T F]

10. David was "On Message"

She could not deflect the question, which is the standard modus operandi for the neo-cons.
It's so refreshing to see these turd polishers squirm when their own tactics are used against them.:yourock:

[mikelgb]

11. always mention anthrax, shoots that not attacked since 9/11 BS

right outta the water

[populistdriven]

12. probably for the same reason they wont say waterboarding is drowning someone

appearances sake

we gotta maintain that good image of the US (and the militarists) as the shining beacon of freedom and light to the rest of the world

i REALLY wish the blondie gop strategist on your cnn clip would just abandon her facade of appearing righteous and just admit that

"ks mohommad was a terrorist and so we tortured the fuck out of him" and then go on to explain:

"the gop is the torture party and if you dont think we should torture terrorists then you should vote for the democrat party"

if she felt particularly verbal she might add that:

"we stand for the torture of terrorists, the jailing of abortionists, the internment of all undocumented workers and the immediate execution of any illegal alien at all borders and airports"

but that would just shorten the conversation if they got to the point that quickly

[EnviroBat]

13. Gobble gobble gobble, cluck cluck cluck...

Oh look! Another RW Talking-Bot! Don't these fuckers realize how insignificant they are anymore? I'm so sick of RW apologists, propagandists, and assholes.

[knixphan]

14. K&R

Well done, Mr. Sirota!

[Dollface]

16. She's using the OJ method - You've got to stick with your lie (credit to Wanda Sykes)

[GreenTea]

17. Hey, David Sirota is ALWAYS excellent! Huffington Post, TV, radio & his writings!

[Chorophyll]

21. David Sirota is so great.

Liberal, intellectual, AND able to hammer away a point on the circus that is cable news. Who could ask for more?

[quidam56]

22. Bush is a toxic terrorist

Appalachia has been bombed, blasted and bulldozed right into 3rd world America.

http://www.wisecountyissues.com/?p=138

[JDPriestly]

23. Content-wise David Sirota is way, way better, but why can't

our guys, the people who speak for our point of view, take some lessons in how to speak on TV so as to be effective. Mr. Sirota sounded frustrated and impatient. He did not sound like an authority. The lady speaking for Bush, who had about half the IQ of David Sirota, sounded patient, informed and had authority. Presentation counts. You only get a few seconds and you have to say your piece clearly, succinctly and in a manner that earns you authority. Mr. Sirota should call some of the celebrity actors and actresses on our side and ask them to show him how to play speak and carry himself on TV. Rachem Maddow is great at this. It comes naturally to some people, -- to great actors, to great lawyers, to great teachers. But some of us have to learn, have to get a few tips on how to "act" on TV or in front of an audience.

Please, Please, Mr. Sirota. It's not a matter of being phone. It's a matter of being effective.

[Jim Sagle]

25. Baloney. Sirota came off as authoritative.

Jacobus came off as a sleazy and desperate real estate agent.

[JHB]

31. I have to agree with JDPriestly...

...she could toss out more half-truths, sliver-truths, and complete BS in a situation where a point-by-point refutation just wasn't possible. To someone who doesn't already know the facts and counter-arguments that undermine or refute her claims, it looks like she's hitting him left and right. Even though the barrage is really just bugs on the windshield, she comes across athoritatively.

[AlbertCat]

41. she comes across athoritatively

Uh huh....while she desperately blabbed on intelligibly and was incapable of answering a yes or no question.

[nyc 4 Biden]

40. IMHO, one of the best we have at debating is Lawrence O'Donnell...

He will never interrupt an adversary or lose his cool. He will wait for a pause and let 'em have it with a smile on his face. Reminds me of our Veep.

[PatrynXX]

26. Does she have ears?

Doesn't look like she wanted to answer that question. Should she put oil in the gas tank?

[Cali_Democrat]

27. Awesomeness!!!

:thumbsup:

[Norrin Radd]

28. She's blinking a lot. Obvious body language of a liar.

[Enthusiast]

35. Isn't it interesting how

we see karma playing out right before our eyes?

[Puzzler]

29. Great job David!

It's interesting how at the end she says that it's a ridiculous question. That odd, it was her f**king question in the first place!

[zoff]

36. I know of someone who recently lost ...

in a tournament of young female physical attributes who might be taking her place ...

[mwb970]

37. God, that woman's voice is annoying!

What is it with these always-blonde right-wing bimbos with the screechy, whiny voices? She looks identical to every Fox "News" girl. Her nasal whining seems to go on and on and on and on no matter who's talking. I made it through almost the whole clip but I just couldn't stand to hear that woman's voice any more.

[nyc 4 Biden]

39. David Sirota FTW!!!

Best Psycho Talk line I've heard today:

Crazy NeoCon Lady:

"Obama is just riding the wave of optimism from George W. Bush's presidency." (<<paraphrasing)

[mzmolly]

44. It's about time the media allowed this statement to be made.

I've often chastened Democrats for not beating this very drum during election 2004.