9/11 – We Must Never Forget

by Ben Hoffman

We must never forget how the Bush administration didn’t take the threat of terrorism seriously before 9/11 and then how the first Supreme Court appointed president used it to pass his radical agenda. The consequences of Bush’s response to 9/11 were the doubling of the federal debt, getting us involved in two wars at a cost of some three trillion dollars and over 4,000 American lives, the loss of all credibility in world affairs, the huge spike in oil prices, the collapse of our economy, the violation of the Geneva Conventions, violations of our Constitution, and the list goes on.

We must never forget 9/11 and what conservatives did to our country.

Tags: , ,

19 Comments to “9/11 – We Must Never Forget”

  1. You mean the 8 months after he was elected?
    What about the 8 years prior?
    Oh, right, that was a democrat so it’s all Bush’s fault.
    So does that mean the crap economy Obama inherited is all his fault because it happened on his watch? or the Oil Spill??
    Of course not!
    This is partisan hackery of the worst kind.
    But not a surprise from “the professional left” 🙂

  2. Pretzel logic?? Of course it is. IndyFromAz is using YOUR logic and extending it to Obama. I disagree with him on one point however. Since Obama participated in the cause of the economic collapse, he cannot claim he inherited it (see http://www.rmedary.wordpress.com for details).

    What do you know about terrorist threats? How do you know how many there were and which ones were real? How do you know what Bush knew? How do you know Bush didn’t take terrorists threats seriously? How easy do you think this is? Did you know the World Trade Towers were going to be attacked with airplanes? If so, why didn’t you inform the appropriate authorities and tell them how you knew?

    Does going to war with terrorists after 9/11 really surprise you? Bush said this would be a global war on terror and at the time it seemed everyone understood and was in agreement; even the Democrats. This included the war in Iraq. When liberals, probably you as well, realized that soldiers were being killed and that wars cost money, they wanted to quit. They treated this war like a fad that is popular for a time and then fades. War is not a game played by spoiled brats who can quit anytime they want. During wartime is when the President needs American support the most so that the enemy knows we mean business. You didn’t do that. What do you suppose that did to our credibility?

    Speaking of the Iraqi war, at the end of the Bush presidency the violence had all but vanished leaving the country in a semi-stable peace. The troops’ role turned into more of peacekeepers. A murderous dictator had been captured alive, tried and executed and Iraq was converted into a Democracy with the Administration’s help. By anyone’s definition this is quite an accomplishment. This is what Obama inherited. Let’s see what he does with it.

    At the end of the Bush term, the deficit was $950 billion which included two wars. At the end of 2009, the deficit increased to $1.5 trillion. Yes, I know you’ll say much of this is because of bailouts and several stimulus bills due to the economy (that was not caused by Bush) which, by the way, the public is against as are a large number of professional economists. Note that $6 million is being sent overseas for non-war related uses. I suppose it’s logical to you that we borrow and spend more when we have less to spend, i.e., borrowing more than we can pay back. This is exactly the thinking that helped put this economy in the dumpster. Talk about giving the keys to the wrong people!

    When you talk about a spike in oil prices, remember that there had to be a decline as well as a rise. No doubt you are blaming Bush for the rise, so to be fair I suppose you will give him credit for the fall? The decrease was rapid and fell to below $40/barrel by the end of 2008 and my price at the pump fell to $1.29/gallon in that time period. It’s much higher than that now. Applying the same logic that you applied to Bush, this must then be Obama’s fault.

    This comment is long enough so I’ll stop here even though I haven’t refuted all your accusations. I think I’m probably wasting my time. It’s much easier to list criticisms than it is to try to support them, isn’t it?

    We have an anti-American for President. If there are enough voters like you, we’ll all find ourselves in a banana republic (without the bananas) and you won’t even know what hit you. Be alert! Please tell me you won’t let this happen.

    • [At the end of the Bush term, the deficit was $950 billion which included two wars.]

      You have two lies in that statement.
      1. Bush’s final fiscal year budget deficit was $1.8 trillion.
      2. The previous budget deficits didn’t include the wars.

      [We have an anti-American for President.]

      You are anti-American. You lie for the sake of your party rather than supporting policies that are good for the country.

  3. I will revise my figures. The 2008 deficit was over $458 billion and the 2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion which comes from the whitehouse itself (see http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hist01/z4.xls). Where are you getting your figures?

    Are you saying we didn’t pay for the wars that year? How do you know that? Give me a source. If we didn’t pay for the war, let’s stop complaining about how much the war is costing.

    I have listed the facts as to why I can call Obama an anti-American. I noticed you didn’t refute them.

    • Bush funded the wars mainly through emergency supplemental bills, which is not included in the federal budget. Obama included them in the federal budget, which is one reason the budget deficit spiked.

      [I have listed the facts as to why I can call Obama an anti-American.]

      I say you are anti-American. You support policies that put our country deep in debt such as going to war and cutting taxes so we had to borrow the money to fund the war. You support the deregulation that led to the collapse of our economy. You support a president that violated the Constitution when he lied us into war, enabled war profiteers, and when he tortured prisoners, not to mention politicizing the justice department.

      Obama is trying to fix the problems left him and you right-wingers are doing nothing to help. The only thing you care about is getting your leaders back in office so they can inflict more damage on our country.

      Republicans have done far more damage to our country than any terrorist group could ever hope to and you right-wingers blindly follow. It makes me wonder why you hate our country so much and only care about your simple-minded ideology.

  4. I’m not an economist, so let’s see if I got this right according to your first paragraph. I found that the definition of Federal deficit is when expenditures by the Federal Government exceed the revenues. So what you are saying, since the wars were paid for by emergency supplemental bills, this is NOT an expenditure by the Federal Government and is therefore not included when comparing Federal expenditures with revenues. This is great! We now have a way of reducing our Federal deficit to zero. We’ll just pay for everything thru supplemental bills. I think maybe your first paragraph needs more explanation. By the way, I’m still waiting for your source that says Bush’s deficit was 1.8 trillion dollars.

    You said that the economy collapse occurred because of constant deregulation by the Republicans. Again, source please. In actual fact, the Bush administration tried several time to add restrictions to the large institutions, only to be defeated by the Democrats which is just the opposite of what you said. Again, see my blog for details and sources.

    We went to war and it cost money. Sure we did and sure it does. So what’s the criticism? Are you saying we should not have gone to war? Taxes were cut which did add to the deficit, but a deficit does not mean an economic collapse. In fact, the Obama administration is even now haggling over the “Bush Tax Cuts”. Even in light of a runaway deficit, tax cuts are still in the wind. Does this mean tax cuts are OK if Obama proposes them but not OK when Bush proposes them? Oh, I forgot. The upper 5% of the population will pay for all of this.

    You say Bush lied us into a war? Prove it. And if you provide no sources for anything else, you definitely need to provide some for this.

    As far as “Right-wingers” doing nothing to help, maybe you should listen. You noticed, I assume, that the Democrats are in control. As such, they defeat any ideas Republicans bring up. We have plans for reducing health care costs and fixing the economy. Go to a Republican based site and find out what they’re up to. In fact, if you would listen to a Fox News interview, you might find out what they are suggesting.

    [“Republicans have done far more damage to our country than any terrorist group…..”] This is the clincher. The response I have for that one I’m not even going to put in print.

    • [I’m still waiting for your source that says Bush’s deficit was 1.8 trillion dollars.]

      My mistake. For fiscal year 2009, Bush’s final fiscal year, it was 1.4 trillion.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aA8lChe4zUQU

      [You said that the economy collapse occurred because of constant deregulation by the Republicans. Again, source please.]

      The Gramm-Leache-Blyley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act — Republican legislation that Clinton signed, were some of the primary causes of the collapse of our economy. The tax structure of Bush’s tax cuts encouraged companies to outsource jobs overseas. The granting of most favored nation status to China led to further loss of our jobs overseas.

      [In actual fact, the Bush administration tried several time to add restrictions to the large institutions, only to be defeated by the Democrats which is just the opposite of what you said.]

      You’re a liar. So if Bush tried to regulate large institutions, what were the bills that were introduced? On the contrary, Bush pushed for an ownership society and made it easier for people to get loans they couldn’t afford.

      [Are you saying we should not have gone to war?]

      Yes, we should have gone after those responsible instead of invading and occupying two countries. Obviously it was a mistake — a very expensive mistake, and possibly the biggest blunder in U.S. history.

      [Does this mean tax cuts are OK if Obama proposes them but not OK when Bush proposes them?]

      No, all the tax cuts should be repealed. But tax cuts for the lower and middle class does stimulate the economy somewhat because they’re more likely to spend the money.

      [You say Bush lied us into a war?]

      There is plenty of proof out there. Research it yourself. The problem is, the Democrats are too wimpy to do anything about it.

      [As such, they defeat any ideas Republicans bring up.]

      Republicans have no ideas other than cutting taxes and deregulating and they filibuster EVERYTHING the Democrats try to do.

  5. [“So if Bush tried to regulate—“]
    Two examples of bills defeated by the Democrats are S 1656 and S. 1461.

    You made the claim that Bush is a liar so it is up to you to back it up. I can’t prove a negative. If I see nothing from you, the discussion is closed.

    Well, at least you mentioned two ideas the Republicans have. Some progress is being made. Of course they don’t filibuster everything. By the way, tell me what I lied about.

    • S.1656 and S.1461 were both sponsored by Democrats.
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1461
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-1656

      [You made the claim that Bush is a liar so it is up to you to back it up. I can’t prove a negative.]

      Research it yourself. You’re not aware of the evidence because you get your information filtered through right-wing sources. See, if you had any intellectual curiosity, you’d learn the facts and then form your opinion. Instead, you get your opinion from right-wing outlets.

      [By the way, tell me what I lied about.]

      You lied about Obama being responsible for the deficits, about Bush trying to regulate the GSEs, about Republicans having ideas, about the Democrats treating the Iraq war like a fad, about Iraq being semi-stable… you lie about everything! Repeating lies you hear on Fox “news” is the same thing as lying.

  6. I meant to say H.R.1461, not S. 1461. H.R. 1461 was sponsered by Republicans and S. 1656 was, as you say, sponsered by Democrats. My hat’s off to them for that. Still in all, they were both defeated by a Democratically controlled committee.

    You still can’t back up your statement that Bush lied. If I’m getting information from the wrong sources, this is your chance to give me the “right” information. You do a lot of dancing, but the bottom line is that you can’t prove it, can you? If I’m wrong, then give me the proof. To use language that you can understand, put up or shut up. I’m not going to ask again.

    In your last paragraph. What I said was that at the end of Bush’s term, the deficit was $458 billion and at the end of 2009 it was $1.4 trillion. You made the inference that Obama was responsible for the deficit. These are the facts and I supplied sources. I also gave you facts and sources about bills coming out of the Bush administration trying to regulate institutions. You looked these up yourself. Did you forget already? Do you need to look them up again? And look up H.R. 1461 (109th congress). I said the Democrats were treating the war like a fad, because that’s the way they acted. You don’t know if that’s a lie or not. And Iraq WAS in a semi-stable peace at the end of the Bush administration. I don’t know what you could call it, but I can certainly find references for that too. I thought you already knew this. I can find quotes from Gen Patreas if I need to as well. As far as Republican having ideas, you gave me two of them yourself and I told you how to find more. Obviously you didn’t try to do it. I thought you said if I were intellectually curious, I would look for the information myself. Now its time for you to follow your own advise. It’s more convenient for you to just make things up. As far as Fox News is concerned, listen to the interviews. By the way, nothing I said came from Fox News. I told you where everything came from.

    The bottom line is that I gave you far more backup material for my statements than you gave me for yours.

    • [Still in all, they were both defeated by a Democratically controlled committee.]

      Here’s what the AEI had to say about HR1461:

      HR 1461–a bill that was supposed to create a “world class regulator”–is in fact a world class failure. Not only does it fail to improve significantly upon the regulatory authority of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), but it actually increases the opportunities for Fannie and Freddie to exploit their subsidies in order to expand into other areas of residential finance. While the bill makes some modest improvements to the weak regulatory structure of OFHEO today, these improvements do not bring the authority of the new regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the level currently exercised by federal bank regulators. Moreover, the deficiencies of the bill so far outweigh its modest regulatory improvements that the taxpayers and the economy generally would be better off with current law. Under these circumstances, unless there is a reasonable chance that the bill can be strengthened on the House floor, in the Senate, or in conference, it does not deserve to proceed further in the legislative process.
      http://www.aei.org/paper/22705

      [You still can’t back up your statement that Bush lied.]

      On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.
      http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/index.html

      [You made the inference that Obama was responsible for the deficit.]

      No I didn’t. The stimulus added about 200 billion dollars to the 2009 fiscal year.

      [As far as Republican having ideas, you gave me two of them yourself and I told you how to find more.]

      Okay, they have ideas… all bad. They want to cut taxes on the wealthy, they want to allow the purchase of insurance across state lines, they want tort reform. Those things will do nothing but make things worse.

      I don’t like debating facts. Facts are not open to debate but you right-wingers think you can have your own facts to fit your ideology.

  7. Out for the weekend. I’ll get bsck to this on Monday

  8. Getting back to your comments on September 16, 8:30 PM. I’ll give you credit for providing backup for your statement that Bush lied. However, an article by one author providing pieces of information, some of which are unverifiable, is not proof. I have some problems with some of the information in that article that still leaves the “Bush lied” accusation in considerable doubt, but I’ll pursue this myself. If you want to hear my problems with it, I’ll be glad to tell you; otherwise, I’ll drop it for now.

    As is your style, you again ended your comments by insulting me and as is also your style, you have no basis for it. So now let’s talk about facts that suit ideology.

    Regarding the two deregulation bills, the Gramm Leach Bliley Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, that you claim ruined the economy, this is what the AEI (http://www.aei.org/outlook/100925, the source you used) said:

    “For reasons that are not yet clear, the GLBA has not achieved its purpose; banks have continued to focus on traditional lending activity and are now more heavily committed to the real estate sector than they were in 1999. The continuation of this trend will result in more bank instability in the future. The answer is not more regulation, as the Obama administration would have it, but policies like the GLBA that make it possible for banking organizations to meet their competition by broadening the range of their financial activities.”

    And http://www.american.com/archive/2009/is-deregulation-to-blame:

    “According to Gramm, GLBA “doesn’t deregulate anything.” In fact, the bill “does not have a deregulatory section in it.” Instead, it repealed provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that prevented affiliation between commercial and investment banks. Considering the prominent failures and rescues of banks, insurance companies, and securities firms in 2008, GLBA offered a convenient target. Unfortunately for that theory, Gramm said, the regulations in Glass-Steagall were already more like “Swiss cheese” by 1999, and even without GLBA, not one of the investment banks that failed or had to be rescued by the federal government in 2008 would have been in violation of Glass-Steagall anyway.”

    That same site also discusses the CFMA. I might also say that 122 of your Democratic buddies voted for H.R. 1461. So where does all this leave us?

    I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the statement that the stimulus added 200 billion dollars to the 2009 deficit. This is supposed to be your response to my claim that I did not specifically say that Obama was responsible for the deficit.

    I’m glad you found out that Republicans have ideas. The fact that you don’t agree with them is the subject of a different debate

    • [According to Gramm, GLBA “doesn’t deregulate anything.”]

      Geeeee… the author of the GLBA says it didn’t cause any problems. He made a shitload of money from his legislation, which also included blocking regulation of credit default swaps. Sure, I believe him. *rolls eyes*

      • [“Geeeee…the author of the GLBA says it didn’t cause any problems.”]

        So did it cause problems or didn’t it? Remember, I have another quote about GLBA which did not come from Gramm.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: