PDA

View Full Version : Bush Released Flight 253 Terror Plotters in 07



Gayle in MD
12-28-2009, 04:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen said on Monday that the group provided "a technically advanced device" to the man who attempted to bomb a Christmas Day flight to Detroit. "Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the [plot] were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents," ABC News reports. Muhamad Attik al-Harbi and Said Ali Shari were apparently sent to Saudi Arabia for an "art therapy rehabilitation program," after which they were set free. The terrorist branch, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, that claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing "said the device failed to detonate because of a technical fault," according to the Wall Street Journal. President Obama made his first public remarks on the incident on Monday. "We will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable," he said from a military base in Hawaii, where he is vacationing. Since the attempted bombing, Obama has ordered the government to review "the terrorist watch list and the U.S. threat detection capabilities," the Journal notes. The federal court hearing for the accused terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was postponed on Monday until January 8. </div></div>

Bobbyrx
12-28-2009, 06:13 PM
lol....already trying to blame this on Bush!!!
Where does it say Bush released anyone?
You sure are quick to believe "Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen".
What does it say about our CURRENT state of national security? FAILED MISERABLY<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was on NBC’s Today show this morning, back-tracking a bit from her statements about the attempted terror attack made yesterday on several Sunday shows.

She says her comments about how “the system worked” were taken out of context – and she agrees the system actually “failed miserably.”

</div></div>

If "Bush Released Flight 253 Terror Plotters in 07 " is true then I guess it's also fair to say " Clinton allowed 9/11 terrorists into the U.S."

eg8r
12-28-2009, 08:27 PM
Perfect reason why we should not be releasing any of the people in Guantanamo. With this great example you are still a proponent of shipping them up to NY to find a liberal judge to set them all free.

eg8r

eg8r
12-28-2009, 08:28 PM
Bobby you are perfectly correct. Why didn't Gayle mention this screw up by Clinton?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-28-2009, 11:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lol....already trying to blame this on Bush!!!
Where does it say Bush released anyone?
You sure are quick to believe "Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen".
What does it say about our CURRENT state of national security? FAILED MISERABLY<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was on NBC’s Today show this morning, back-tracking a bit from her statements about the attempted terror attack made yesterday on several Sunday shows.

She says her comments about how “the system worked” were taken out of context – and she agrees the system actually “failed miserably.”

</div></div>

If "Bush Released Flight 253 Terror Plotters in 07 " is true then I guess it's also fair to say " Clinton allowed 9/11 terrorists into the U.S." </div></div>
<span style='font-size: 20pt'>
If??? There is no "If" about it. It has been confirmed. They WERE released in 07. Did you forget who the president WAS, in 07? </span>

Did you forget twelve books, or more, written by former CIA Counter Terrorist Experts, including former Terrorist Czar, Richard Clarke, all of whom stated that they warned Bush, for eight months into his administration of failing to take bin Laden seriously, warned him of the impending 9/11 attack, the worst in our history???? Did you forget more than one of the former special ops, who were on bin Laden's tail in Tora Bora, who wrote books detailing how they were turned down when they asked for enforcements to squash not only bin Laden, but al Qaeda's top leaders of al Qaeda???? That was BEFORE they franchised, BTW.

Our current state of National Security....is that we have not lost three thousand Americans, ujnder president Obama, after unprecedented warnings, because the current President did not tell people, point blank, upon arrival in the Oval Office, that he wasn't interested in swatting at flies, Bush's name for terrorists, according to Rice.

Nothing is funnier, than any Republicans who would attempt to portray themselves as strong on terror, after dithering for eight years, and failing completely to get bin Laden, squash al Qaeda, succeed in Afghanistan, and in fact, handed over a tanking economy, two unfiniashed wars, one of which had nothing at all to do with al Qaeda, OR 9/11, which Bush chose to launch, for control of Iraq's resource, OIL CONTRACTS, to line the pockets of their oil cronies, and their no bid contractors, former employers in some cases.

Yet, numerous Republicans, are doing just that, celebrating this failed attempt to blow up a plane, after it has been confirmed that the two men who trained this terrorist, actually were released in 07, under George Bush's watch, into the hands of Saudi Arabia, where they were given theraputic re-training, only to join one, yes ONE of the al Qaeda franchises, which grew under the Bush administration, as they did around the world, for eight years, on Bush's watch, while Bush F-ed around in a country which had no WMD, and no terrorists, and no possibility of acquiring WMD, or allowing terrorists safe haven.

Yet YOU, of all people, find this funny?

Typical...

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

What about that, do you find funny???

Again, it says, in 07, they were released. Now although I realize you are generally short on information, surely, you do recall, that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch???

That numerous books have stated his refusal to heed the warnings of the coming attack?

That al Qaeda became a global franchise, on Bush's watch?

That the economy tanked, on Bush's watch?

That Bill Clinton, made smashing al Qaeda his number one priority? Warned Bush that he MUST also make them his number one priority, which Bush completely ignored?

That Bush pushed for the "Ownership Society?" unreasonablely low interest rates, which grew the R.E. Bubble?

That Greenspan, admitted to his failure to oversee the Wall Street thieves? Even stated that Iraq, was all about oil?

That Bush borrowed more money than all previous administrations, combined?

That al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, and even Russia, expanded their threats, and aggressive actions, throughout the Bush Administration?

No matter, I didn't expect you to have all that information, nor to understand the link between Bush's incompetence, and our current expanded threats. Not to mention, your complete ignorance regarding the vast difference between locking up terrorists, in a Federal prison, verses letting them go back to Saudi Arabia, where almost all of the 9/11 hi-jackers originated.

A bit of a tall order for your selective memory, I'm
sure. H

ave it your way, and try to compare a president who refused to take unprecedented warnings seriously, to a president who actually created the first agency created to focus strictly on al Qaeda and bin Laden, but all information was thrown out by the onset of the Bush Administration, and all of the warnings which originated from that very counter terrorist organization, AND THE CIA&lt; AND WERE given to Bush for eight months, were ignored, TOTALLY, and completely, by Bush, who did absolutely NOTHING! ZILCH! to address all the pre 9/11warnings, for eight months....failed to even attempt to prevent the attack, get bin Laden, when we had him right in our reach, nor address the growing threat of al Qaeda's multi franchises, for eight years!



/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

LWW
12-29-2009, 05:07 AM
So Gayle has finally came to her senses ... Gitmo exists for good reason and Bush was an absolute idiot to listen to the bleatings of the moonbat crazy left and start releasing these idjits.

Gayle, however, lacks the intellectual integrity to realize her latest point however.

Also to blame are the moonbat crazy left who accepted every terrorist claim as gospel truth and petitioned across the country for the release of such thugs.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-29-2009, 06:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perfect reason why we should not be releasing any of the people in Guantanamo. With this great example you are still a proponent of shipping them up to NY to find a liberal judge to set them all free.

eg8r </div></div>

Democrats are not proposing that we release terrorists, to give them ART THERAPY, AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO BE RELEASED - Ed, and, in fact, the REPUBLICANS, INCLUDING THE SENIOR LEADERS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, VOTED AGAINST PROVIDING EXPLOSIVE DETECTION EQUIIPMENT IN OUR AIRPORTS, AND, ONE REPUBLICAN CREATED AN AMENDMENT - BANNING THE USE OF EXPLOSIVE DETECTION BODY SCANNING EQUIPMENT EVER BEING USED TO DETECT THE VERY KIND OF EXPLOSIVES HIDDEN IN THE BOMBERS UNDERWARE...

The fact that Republicans immediately jumped on this story and politicized it, is just more for the public to be repulsed over, given they are responsible for the fact that the airport did not have that equipment.

Even Tom Ridge, former chief of Homeland Security, stated, that Napolitano was referencing the follow up, after the attempt was thwarted, when she stated that the system had worked, not the the failure of the system, (caused by Republicans refusing to vote to provide the funding which would have prevented his boarding in the first place) when she stated that the system worked.

Republicans, desperate, and knowing they had voted against that money for scanners for explosive detection in our airports, etc., virtually voting against our very our homeland security, had to jump with a non issue, exaggerating this into some kind of Bush-like failure to respond under a real attack, too busy reading about a goat to get up off his ass sort of a deal, although no American had died, although equipment they denied us would likely have detected the explosives, and although the attacker was trained by two former Gitmo prisoners that Bush released to get them some "Art therapy."

Quite a different plan from locking people up in a maximum security prison for the rest of their lives, a place from which no one has ever escaped.... one of our Maximum Security Prisons, .....AND the towns people want the jobs which would help their community, and eagerly look forward to having the prisoners moved. Then there is also the issue of improved PR for our country all around, given the damage, emboldening of our enemies, illegality and shame which the Bush/Cheney Cabal caused with their inhumane activities, using torture and inhumane treatment in GITMO.

REPUBLICANS VOTE NO TO EVERYTHING THAT COULD HELP AMERICA, AND YES TO EVERYTHING THAT DESTROYS IT.

Hence, I would never vote for a REPUBLICAN. I don't like slimey liars....who try to politicize serious events, like a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner, particularly when they voted against providing the very equipment that would have prevented him from ever boarding the plane in the first place.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Then next morning, they're right out there lying about the whole thing....

Typical....

Imagine, being so thoroughly and stupidly out of touch with reality, causing multi economic, domestic and foreign disasters, and then denying responsibility for all of it, and being a Republican, but then, forgive my redundance.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G.

Chilled
12-29-2009, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hence, I would never vote for a REPUBLICAN. I don't like slimey liars....who try to politicize serious events, like a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner, particularly when they voted against providing the very equipment that would have prevented him from ever boarding the plane in the first place.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

To be fair nothing any Republican or Democrat voted on as regards explosive detection equipment nor anything else anyone at all in USA did or didn't do concerning detection equipment would have had any effect whatsoever on whether this bomber was able to board the plane he tried to blow up.

Gayle in MD
12-29-2009, 06:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hence, I would never vote for a REPUBLICAN. I don't like slimey liars....who try to politicize serious events, like a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner, particularly when they voted against providing the very equipment that would have prevented him from ever boarding the plane in the first place.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

To be fair nothing any Republican or Democrat voted on as regards explosive detection equipment nor anything else anyone at all in USA did or didn't do concerning detection equipment would have had any effect whatsoever on whether this bomber was able to board the plane he tried to blow up. </div></div>

As far as I know, that is not true. Last evening I watched a number of experts say just the opposite, and they also said that the body scanners, and explosive detection equipment, would very likely have detected the man's stuffed underware....and the substance.

Gayle in Md,

Qtec
12-29-2009, 08:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perfect reason why we should not be releasing any of the people in Guantanamo. </div></div>

Locking people up for life without giving them the chance to defend themselves in a court of Law, isn't that what Barbarians do.



Q

Gayle in MD
12-29-2009, 08:23 AM
http://www.kauz.com/news/78519047.html

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">One of the country's most important national security posts remains vacant. A single senator is holding up confirmation of the man nominated to head the Transportation Security administration.

50,000 Transportation Security officers screen, inspect, question, and observe at the nation's airports to keep dangerous people and items off planes. Senator Jim Demint believes giving them collective bargaining rights would hurt security.

"Collective bargaining would standardize things across the country, make it much less flexible, much harder for the agency to adapt to changing threats around the world," said Sen. Jim Demint, (R) South Carolina.

Harder, for instance, to react to something like the 2006 plot to blow up airplanes with liquid explosives. Within hours the T.S.A. ramped up security and changed policy to ban carry-on liquids. The union representing 12,000 TSO's says Demint's argument is rubbish, pointing out that employees of the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Federal Protective Service, and others all have full union representation.

"You know no one talked about union membership when the cops and the firefighters went up the stairs at 9/11, the World Trade towers. No one talks about our two officers, two union members, who took down the shooter at Fort Hood. There was nothing in their union membership that stopped them from doing their duties," said John Gage with the American Federation of Government Employees.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama wrote the union that giving TSO's collective bargaining rights would be a priority. Unions gave him valuable support in the election.

"It's all about politics, pay-back to the unions," Demint said. Demint pushed the issue at a hearing Wednesday. "How can unionization and collective bargaining enhance security at out airports?" asked Demint.

"Well, Senator, the answer is collective bargaining and security are not mutually exclusive concepts," said Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security.

Demint is holding up the confirmation of Erroll Southers to head the T.S.A. to make his point, though Southers has been noncommittal on the union issue, telling Demint he wouldn't recommend anything that would "potentially compromise the safety and security of the flying public."

"I think that the nominee understands the confirmation process, and that he doesn't want to say anything that is controversial, but ultimately, once he's confirmed, it's not going to be his choice. It's going to be the choice of the secretary and ultimately the choice of the president, and the president has made it clear where he stands," said James Sherk, with the Heritage Foundation.

</div></div>


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/81356.html
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>Who's running the TSA? No one, thanks to Sen. Jim DeMint</span> </div></div>

"We'll fight them over there, so we don't have to fight them over here."
GW Bush...

Obviously, they are everywhere, estimates that they are in at least 60 countries, including right here.

We are at risk, and a Republican blocks the TSA nomination, squabbling over Unionization, and they block up-grading the technology that could save lives, and even put forth amendments to outlaw one of the best detection devices!

Unbelievable!

Typical Republican philosophy, naw, lets not allow the most important protectors of air safety for Americans, to have decent pay, and a Union to represent them.

About the same Republican ideology against the Unions which educate our kids.

Idiots!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Gayle in MD
12-29-2009, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 20pt'>lol....already trying to blame this on Bush!!!
Where does it say Bush released anyone? </span>You sure are quick to believe "Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen".
What does it say about our CURRENT state of national security? FAILED MISERABLY<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Sec. of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was on NBC’s Today show this morning, back-tracking a bit from her statements about the attempted terror attack made yesterday on several Sunday shows.

She says her comments about how “the system worked” were taken out of context – and she agrees the system actually “failed miserably.”

</div></div>

If "Bush Released Flight 253 Terror Plotters in 07 " is true then I guess it's also fair to say " Clinton allowed 9/11 terrorists into the U.S." </div></div>

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/men-believed-northwest-airlines-plot-set-free/story?id=9434065


Again, do some research before you post your cute little versions in defense of the party which is presently blocking the up-grades to our safety, and the TSA confirmation, while we are beiing threatened by Saudi Arabian Terrorists released by your boy George.

Anyone who thinks the Saudis are our friends, is out of their minds.

We also get most of our oil from Nigeria.....where the wealthy father of this last terrorist lives as a wealthy Bank President, and where all of the wealthy in the country get their money from oil.

Need a crayon????

g.

LWW
12-29-2009, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats are not proposing that we release terrorists

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

G. </div></div>

OH DEAR LORD!

This thread is but another Gayle rant boiling down to nothing more substantial than:

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>"IF BUSH DO, MUST BE BAD. IF OBAMA DO SAME THING, MUST BE GOOD ... BUT STILL WAS BAD WHEN BUSH DO SAME THING!"</span>

Logic so ridiculous even a caveman could see through it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A Republican lawmaker on Thursday invoked last week's Fort Hood shooting to <span style='font-size: 14pt'>oppose the Obama administration's decision to transfer Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Yeme</span>n.

In a letter to President Barack Obama, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) said that suspected Fort Hood shooter Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan's contact with Yemen-based radical Islamic cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>raises questions about Yemen as a destination for the detainees.</span>

"If the administration does not halt these pending releases immediately, it could be responsible for creating a new revolving door of terrorism that will cost American lives," Wolf wrote today. "The security of the American people could be at risk because of the administration’s relentless pursuit of a campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay by January 22, 2010."
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Justice Department in late September authorized the transfer of one prisoner to Yemen and two others to Ireland. The transfers were part of the administrations broader effort to close the prison by its self-imposed January deadline. </span>

Wolf, who is the ranking Republican on the Appropriations subcommittee that funds the Justice Department, also cited Yemen as a nation in which al Qaeda operates relatively easily, making it unsuitable for prisoner transfers.

The congressman's letter to the president marks the fourth time since Oct. 1 that he has questioned the administration's policy on transferring prisoners to the Arabian nation, but the first time since the Fort hood shooting.

Several members of congress have accused Hasan of committing an act of terrorism. The Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) announced this week that his panel will investigate the Hasan's motives and whether signs of "Islamic extremism" were apparent.

Lieberman, along with other lawmakers, has said that it is too early to judge if Hasan's shooting was an act of terror.

House Intelligence Committee ranking member Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.) first confirmed that Hasan had contacted Al-Awlaki, a remark that may have revealed classified information. Al-Awlaki lived in Virginia but moved to Yemen following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Meanwhile, Wolf also pressed for more information on the incident.

"The American people deserve a full accounting of al-Aulaqi's relationship with Hasan and his incitement of terrorism in Yemen," Wolf continued in the letter, saying that the cleric taught at a university attended by convicted American Taliban member John Walker Lindh.

"If al-Aulaqi were able to have this impact on a U.S. Army major at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Fort Hood, what impact will he have on the newly freed detainees in Yemen?" he asked.

Full text of the letter after the jump:

The Honorable Barack H. Obama
The President
The White House
Washington DC 20500

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Dear Mr. President:

As the author of the language that created the National Commission on Terrorism in 1998 and the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations subcommittee with oversight authority for the Justice Department, I remain deeply concerned about the administration’s imminent release of as many as 26 Guantanamo Bay detainees to Yemen -- a growing haven for al Qaeda in the Persian Gulf.</span> It is my understanding that you are also preparing to release several other detainees to another country that anyone with a basic understanding of world affairs would agree is unacceptable.

The American people have the right to know who these detainees are and what acts of terror they were engaged in. If the public had this information, they would never tolerate the release of these men back into unstable countries with a sizeable al Qaeda presence.

If the administration does not halt these pending releases immediately, it could be responsible for creating a new revolving door of terrorism that will cost American lives. The security of the American people could be at risk because of your administration’s relentless pursuit of a campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay by January 22, 2010.

Why has the administration made basic information about these dangerous detainees so highly classified that it cannot be shared with the American people or the media? I have reviewed the materials. These are dangerous individuals. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>To release committed al Qaeda terrorists back to Yemen under these conditions would be an act of gross malfeasance that undermines the safety of the American people.</span>

Earlier this year, I offered an amendment to the fiscal year 2009 supplemental appropriations bill requiring the administration to provide unclassified fact sheets and threat analyses of any Guantanamo detainees scheduled for release. The American people have the right to this information, which has direct implications on the safety of our military and civilians. The amendment was defeated by a partisan vote thus allowing your administration to operate under a cloak of secrecy to empty Guantanamo Bay.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>You receive intelligence briefings daily and must know that Yemen is undoubtedly one of the most unstable countries in the world today -- and the country where al Qaeda has reconstituted its operations over the last year. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, stated last month in a Voice of America interview, “In Yemen, we have witnessed the reemergence of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and the possibility that that will become the base of operations for al-Qaida.”</span> His sentiment is shared by United Nations sanctions coordinator Richard Barrett who indicated that few places in the world provide a more perfect safe haven to al Qaeda than Yemen.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Instances of former Guantanamo Bay detainees launching terrorist attacks from Yemen include one just a month ago. On October 13, Saudi police prevented an imminent suicide bomb attack as two al Qaeda terrorists slipped across the border from Yemen. Notably, one of the would-be suicide bombers, Yousef Mohammed al Shihri, was a former Guantanamo detainee released in 2007 to Saudi Arabia.</span> He quickly left Saudi Arabia for dangerously unstable Yemen where he rejoined al Qaeda.

Just over a year ago, in September 2008, another former Guantanamo Bay detainee, Said Ali al Shihri, helped orchestrate the terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, killing 10 guards and civilians. Since that time, al Qaeda's posture in Yemen has grown stronger with the merger of the Saudi and Yemeni arms of al Qaeda into one group--al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--with Yemen as its base for training and operations.

Yemen is also now home to radical cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, who influenced alleged Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal M. Hasan. As you may recall, al-Aulaqi mentored two of the 9/11 hijackers before fleeing to Yemen in 2004. He is believed by U.S. intelligence to be a critical link in al Qaeda’s efforts to radicalize Muslim Americans and incite domestic terrorist acts. According to one expert cited in a 2008 Washington Post article, "Aulaqi is 'a huge inspiration to home-grown terror cells in the U.K. and Europe.'"

As the facts surrounding the Fort Hood attack have emerged, it is becoming clear that anyone who is cited in the 9/11 Commission Report -- as al-Aulaqi was on page 221 -- as a “significant” contact for 9/11 terrorists Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar should be considered a “significant” connection to Hasan. Al-Aulaqi has subsequently praised Hasan’s attack stating on his Web site: “Nidal Hassan is a hero... Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal,” according to a translation.

The American people deserve a full accounting of al-Aulaqi’s relationship with Hasan and his incitement of terrorism in Yemen. Since fleeing to Yemen in 2004, al-Aulaqi has taught his radical ideology at the Iman University in Sanaa, Yemen -- the same university attended by convicted terrorist John Walker Lindh. In 2002, the university was temporarily closed following a deadly attack by one of its students on three American citizens in Yemen. If al-Aulaqi were able to have this impact on a U.S. Army major at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Fort Hood, what impact will he have on the newly freed detainees in Yemen?

Iman University’s founder, Abd-al-Majid al Zindani, is a long-standing ally of Osama bin Laden and was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department in 2004 as a “specially designated global terrorist.” However, the Yemeni government has refused to turn over Zindani to U.S. authorities amid speculation that President Salih is protecting him for political purposes. If the Yemeni government is obstructing the arrest of high-profile terrorist financiers like Zindani, how can we trust that they would even attempt to rehabilitate or monitor detainees released from Guantanamo Bay?

You were at Fort Hood on Tuesday for the memorial service. You saw the grief-stricken families of those who died. You saw the heartbreak of innocent children who will grow up without a parent, the gut-wrenching sorrow of spouses who are left to carry on alone, the tears of mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, aunts and uncles of the fallen soldiers.

I raise these concerns directly with you because, according to everyone with whom I have spoken, detainee transfers and releases are being run directly out of the White House. Setting aside the obvious concerns about politicization of the National Security Council (NSC), it is clear that your consolidation of operational authority within the NSC could certainly be viewed as an attempt to thwart congressional oversight and exert greater political control over the process, as reflected in instructions not to inform Congress about the effort to release Uyghur detainees into the U.S. earlier this year.

In my May 1 letter to you -- to which I am still awaiting your response -- I expressed my ardent opposition to the transfer of any Uyghur detainees from Guantanamo Bay to northern Virginia. The planned-transfer was ultimately scrapped over congressional objections, including mine. It should be noted that according to the New York Daily News, the Dar al-Hijrah mosque where Major Hasan first encountered Anwar al-Aulaqi, “is directly across the street from a residence where a half-dozen Turkmen Muslims known as Uighurs were slated to be relocated from Guantanamo Bay, according to a law enforcement source. Lawmakers scuttled the plan.” Had I not been informed about the NSC effort to release the Uyghur detainees into the U.S., your NSC would have completed the release without ever informing a member of Congress or the American people.

I raised these concerns as well in my November 2 letter to you. To date, I have not received a reply to either of these letters nor to my letters dated March 13, April 23, May 13, July 7, July 10, October 1, and November 2 to your attorney general on these matters. This is disappointing. Why is the administration not answering the legitimate questions of the American people?

In closing, I implore you to immediately halt the release of detainees to Yemen and other unstable countries. If the administration is intent, however, on proceeding with the release of detainees, it has an obligation to provide the American people with fact sheets and threat assessments for each and every detainee who leaves Guantanamo.

Best wishes.

Frank R. Wolf
Member of Congress
</div></div>

<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'><u>&gt;&gt;&gt;B-B-B-BUT B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!! arguments are getting old.&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67585-congressman-invokes-fort-hood-shooting-to-object-to-gitmo-prisoner-transfer-)</u></span></span>

LWW

Bobbyrx
12-29-2009, 10:27 AM
I had already seen your "link" yesterday. Old news. Except it shows that you had already blamed Bush before you had even seen it and were relying on "Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen". That IS the source you showed in your original link isn't it? But that is beside the point that you missed as usual. Bush is no more to blame for this than Clinton is for letting the 9/11 terrorists into the U.S. Was there any cry from any Democrat or ANYONE on the left when these prisoners were released?? It was not a secret. Since President Obama took office, 42 detainees have been transferred to other countries, and one detainee -- Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani -- was transferred to New York City. Any problem with that, especially when Napolitano says on national television that "the system failed miserably". Obama has been in office for almost a year so blaming Bush or anyone else about problems with the TSA is laughable. If the Dems really wanted DeMint to quit blocking confirmation, maybe they could get him the same bribe that Ben Nelson got....

Chilled
12-29-2009, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hence, I would never vote for a REPUBLICAN. I don't like slimey liars....who try to politicize serious events, like a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner, particularly when they voted against providing the very equipment that would have prevented him from ever boarding the plane in the first place.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

To be fair nothing any Republican or Democrat voted on as regards explosive detection equipment nor anything else anyone at all in USA did or didn't do concerning detection equipment would have had any effect whatsoever on whether this bomber was able to board the plane he tried to blow up. </div></div>

As far as I know, that is not true. Last evening I watched a number of experts say just the opposite, and they also said that the body scanners, and explosive detection equipment, would very likely have detected the man's stuffed underware....and the substance.

Gayle in Md,

</div></div>

Perhaps I should have spelt out a bit more clearly why my comments were mostly tongue in cheek but honestly didn't think it necessary /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The bomber in question boarded a flight in Lagos and transferred to another flight in Amsterdam.

The past votes of anyone in USA to instal or not instal such detection equipment in USA airports would obviously have had the sum total of zero effect on whether a bomber was able to board planes in Lagos and Amsterdam. Nobody in USA has any votes on whether Lagos or Amsterdam instals such equipment.

Chilled
12-29-2009, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We also get most of our oil from Nigeria.....where the wealthy father of this last terrorist lives as a wealthy Bank President, and where all of the wealthy in the country get their money from oil.

</div></div>

If you guys and gals are going to argue with each other you might as well at least start with facts instead of stuff plucked out of the air.

No way does most of USA's imported oil come from Nigeria, not even remotely close.

In 2009 USA crude oil imported from Nigeria accounts for only about 7.6% of USA's total crude oil imports, pretty much in line with general historical trends.

Nigeria is the 5th largest individual supplier of crude oil to USA. By a very large margin by far the largest is Canada, followed by Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in that order.

Less than half of USA's crude oil imports come from OPEC countries.

LWW
12-29-2009, 11:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We also get most of our oil from Nigeria.....where the wealthy father of this last terrorist lives as a wealthy Bank President, and where all of the wealthy in the country get their money from oil.

</div></div>

If you guys and gals are going to argue with each other you might as well at least start with facts instead of stuff plucked out of the air.

No way does most of USA's imported oil come from Nigeria, not even remotely close.

In 2009 USA crude oil imported from Nigeria accounts for only about 7.6% of USA's total crude oil imports, pretty much in line with general historical trends.

Nigeria is the 5th largest individual supplier of crude oil to USA. By a very large margin by far the largest is Canada, followed by Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in that order.

Less than half of USA's crude oil imports come from OPEC countries. </div></div>

Gayle operates on doublethink.

If her handlers tell her it's Nigeria, then she believes it's Nigeria.

If tomorrow they tell her it's Lichtenstein ... then she'll believe it's Lichtenstein.

LWW

eg8r
12-29-2009, 02:23 PM
I don't know qtip, what do you think?

eg8r

eg8r
12-29-2009, 02:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Democrats are not proposing that we release terrorists</div></div>Come on gayle even you know that would be political suicide. No instead they want to give them "due process" then free them.

eg8r

eg8r
12-29-2009, 02:35 PM
Gayle, is your head really stuck that far up your rear? The man did not go through US secuity, he was overseas. Nothing our Congressman could vote for would have an affect at an airport overseas.

Also, this is nitpicking but don't you think you would learn how to spell underwear correctly by now?

eg8r

LWW
12-29-2009, 03:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Also, this is nitpicking but don't you think you would learn how to spell underwear correctly by now?

eg8r </div></div>

Undoubtedly <span style='font-family: Arial Black'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> has disabled her spellcheck.

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-30-2009, 12:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Hence, I would never vote for a REPUBLICAN. I don't like slimey liars....who try to politicize serious events, like a terrorist attempt to blow up an airliner, particularly when they voted against providing the very equipment that would have prevented him from ever boarding the plane in the first place.... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
</div></div>

To be fair nothing any Republican or Democrat voted on as regards explosive detection equipment nor anything else anyone at all in USA did or didn't do concerning detection equipment would have had any effect whatsoever on whether this bomber was able to board the plane he tried to blow up. </div></div>

As far as I know, that is not true. Last evening I watched a number of experts say just the opposite, and they also said that the body scanners, and explosive detection equipment, would very likely have detected the man's stuffed underware....and the substance.

Gayle in Md,

</div></div>

Perhaps I should have spelt out a bit more clearly why my comments were mostly tongue in cheek but honestly didn't think it necessary /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

The bomber in question boarded a flight in Lagos and transferred to another flight in Amsterdam.

The past votes of anyone in USA to instal or not instal such detection equipment in USA airports would obviously have had the sum total of zero effect on whether a bomber was able to board planes in Lagos and Amsterdam. Nobody in USA has any votes on whether Lagos or Amsterdam instals such equipment. </div></div>

Actually, I thought you might have picked up on my thinking.

If terrorists knew, which they likely would, that we were scanning everything, and everyone, they just might give up the airliner tactic.

A computerized camera taking pictures of everyone in line, could scan through and detect a match to anyone and everyone on a watch list in plenty of time to detect watch list terrorists.

Spending money for Up-grading equipment included researching a number of technical devices, which would target everyone boarding a plane for the United States.

The original point....Reublicans are currently blocking anything, and everything. Haven't you heard? They are called the party of NO, while Dick Cheney can barely wait for the next attack....in fact, he seems to be banking on it....

G.

Gayle in MD
12-30-2009, 12:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We also get most of our oil from Nigeria.....where the wealthy father of this last terrorist lives as a wealthy Bank President, and where all of the wealthy in the country get their money from oil.

</div></div>

If you guys and gals are going to argue with each other you might as well at least start with facts instead of stuff plucked out of the air.

No way does most of USA's imported oil come from Nigeria, not even remotely close.

In 2009 USA crude oil imported from Nigeria accounts for only about 7.6% of USA's total crude oil imports, pretty much in line with general historical trends.

Nigeria is the 5th largest individual supplier of crude oil to USA. By a very large margin by far the largest is Canada, followed by Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in that order.

Less than half of USA's crude oil imports come from OPEC countries. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sources of Net Oil Imports:

Canada (20.1%)
Saudi Arabia (13.8%)
Venezuela (10.5%)
Nigeria (8.8%)
Mexico (8.7%)


It is usually impossible to tell whether the petroleum products you use came from domestic or imported sources of oil once they are refined.

</div></div>

21% from the Persion Gulf, 22% from Africa, in 08, according to the chart at this link:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm

Gayle in MD
12-30-2009, 12:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nothing our Congressman could vote for would have an affect at an airport overseas.
</div></div>

did you read the bill?

You're wrong, as usual.

G.

Gayle in MD
12-30-2009, 12:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had already seen your "link" yesterday. Old news. Except it shows that you had already blamed Bush before you had even seen it and were relying on "Al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen". That IS the source you showed in your original link isn't it?

<span style="color: #000066">Go back and read my original post, and you will see that there is no link included, nor any opinion.

You attack me when I simply posted news which I read on ABC. Apparently, you were overly anxious to defend Bush, when I hadn't even given an opinion on the subject, at all.</span>


But that is beside the point that you missed as usual.

<span style="color: #000066">Yes, most of your posts to me usually are. </span>


Bush is no more to blame for this than Clinton is for letting the 9/11 terrorists into the U.S.

<span style="color: #000066">Show me where I wrote that Bush was to blame for the attempted attack. </span>



Was there any cry from any Democrat or ANYONE on the left when these prisoners were released??

<span style="color: #000066">Is there a point in that question? </span>


It was not a secret. Since President Obama took office, 42 detainees have been transferred to other countries, and one detainee -- Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani -- was transferred to New York City.


Any problem with that,


<span style="color: #000066">I suppose if one of them shows up later and claims responsibility for training an attemted terrorist who came that close to blowing up an American Air Liner, after Obama sends the trainers off to get art therapy, in Saudi Arabia, I'll have a big problem with that. </span>


especially when Napolitano says on national television that "the system failed miserably".


<span style="color: #000066">So, What's your gripe with the woman telling the truth? Prefer the good old lies and denials which marked the Bush Administration???? </span>

Obama has been in office for almost a year so blaming Bush or anyone else about problems with the TSA is laughable.

<span style="color: #000066">Now that's a pretty laughable statement to make when Republicans have blocked the nomination for the director of that agency, just as they have completely held up every important issues our country needs to settle at this time. </span>



If the Dems really wanted DeMint to quit blocking confirmation, maybe they could get him the same bribe that Ben Nelson got....

</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">You're so full of it. that sort of deal has gone on throughout history. Where were your bribery accusations while Republicans did the same thing for eight years???? </span>


<span style="color: #000066">Have you read the Bill Republicans voted against?

Were you asleep for eight years while Bush blew Tillions of dollars in Iraq, which was no threat to our national security, as bin Laden, and the al Qaeda top operatives escaped from Tora Bora because Bush's supreme goal, was Iraq, and the top military commanders did not send in additional support for the special ops, several of which have written books about the event? Did you read any of those books?

Bush was president, the whole time that al Qaeda franchised their operations. They grew their presence into fifty countrries, during the BUSH ADMINISTRATION. I hardly think Obama could wipe them all out of fifty countries, in less than a year.

IOW, just as it will take years to rebuild the disastrous economy Bush left us, it will take years to impact Bush's franshised al Qaeda.

If a president can ever get the top men at the CIA and the FBI to work together, the system will work. IOnstead, they have a history of competing with one another, and not sharing information between the agencies. My bet is that Obama will change that dramatically.

We'll have to see how Obama impacts the historical dysfunction between those agencies, which consistantly fail to share information. My hope is that he will realize that warring in other Muslim nations is not effective.,

My opinion all along has been that a War On Terror, requiring the invasion and occupation of countries which harbor terrorists, is ridiculous.

I have written here for years, fighting wars over there, does not prevent them from attacking us here. BTW, that si known as the Bush Doctrine, of Pre-emption.

Terroprism is not a country, it is a tactic. You can't justify pre-emption, and invasion, against a tactic.

We need special ops, ANd secret agents, (hard to get these days, I hear, since Bush outed one of them, and put many people at risk who were working with Valarie Plame, abroad) targetting every cell, in every country. Killing more Muslims, is not the way to impact terrorism.

I will continue to blame George Bush for what he is responsible for. He IS responsible for releasing two terrorists to Saudi Arabia, who ended up recruiting and training the man who tried to blow up our airplane on Christmas Day.

Deny it all you wish, it is what it is.



G.</span>

sack316
12-30-2009, 06:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Nothing our Congressman could vote for would have an affect at an airport overseas.
</div></div>

did you read the bill?

You're wrong, as usual.

G. </div></div>

I am unaware, admittedly. What part of what bill we have here would dictate airport security in a foreign territory?

Sack

eg8r
12-30-2009, 10:50 AM
Prove me wrong gayle. Which bill are you referring to that allows the US government to control foreign airport security.

eg8r

LWW
12-30-2009, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Prove me wrong gayle. Which bill are you referring to that allows the US government to control foreign airport security.

eg8r </div></div>

The bill that the PuffingtonPost blog posts told her allowed it.

LWW

Bobbyrx
12-30-2009, 11:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Go back and read my original post, and you will see that there is no link included, nor any opinion. <span style="color: #CC0000">Sorry, I meant to say your cut and paste article </span>

You attack me when I simply posted news which I read on ABC. Apparently, you were overly anxious to defend Bush, when I hadn't even given an opinion on the subject, at all. <span style="color: #FF0000">I don't think I attacked you Gayle, I just thought the title of the post "Bush Released Flight 253 Terror Plotters in 07" which wasn't from ABC, was over the top </span>
</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me where I wrote that Bush was to blame for the attempted attack. <span style="color: #FF0000">I assumed the title of the post was doing that </span>

</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will continue to blame George Bush for what he is responsible for. He IS responsible for releasing two terrorists to Saudi Arabia, who ended up recruiting and training the man who tried to blow up our airplane on Christmas Day. <span style="color: #CC0000">No more so than Clinton is for letting into this country the 9/11 terrorists. Here is your logic.
1. 9/11 terrorists enter U.S. during Clinton administration....
2. Said terrorists attack during Bush administration
Bush responsible for not stopping attacks.
then
1. Terrorists released during Bush administration
2. Attack occurs during Obama administration
Bush responsible because terrorists released under his watch.
</span>

</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
especially when Napolitano says on national television that "the system failed miserably".


So, What's your gripe with the woman telling the truth? <span style="color: #FF0000">Was it the truth the day before when she said the system worked perfectly or the next day when she said it failed miserably? </span> Prefer the good old lies and denials which marked the Bush Administration???? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now that's a pretty laughable statement to make when Republicans have blocked the nomination for the director of that agency,<span style="color: #FF0000"> They have blocked a director that they don't like. It's a 2 party system and that's how it works. The Dems have had plenty of time to deal with it, but it was'nt a politically important issue to them, until now, and now they blame the Republicans </span> just as they have completely held up every important issues our country needs to settle at this time. <span style="color: #FF0000">IYHO </span>
</div></div>

Bobbyrx
12-30-2009, 11:55 AM
Off the subject but, Prattville gotted hosed big time against Hoover...those refs were awful.

LWW
12-30-2009, 03:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Chilled</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We also get most of our oil from Nigeria.....where the wealthy father of this last terrorist lives as a wealthy Bank President, and where all of the wealthy in the country get their money from oil.

</div></div>

If you guys and gals are going to argue with each other you might as well at least start with facts instead of stuff plucked out of the air.

No way does most of USA's imported oil come from Nigeria, not even remotely close.

In 2009 USA crude oil imported from Nigeria accounts for only about 7.6% of USA's total crude oil imports, pretty much in line with general historical trends.

Nigeria is the 5th largest individual supplier of crude oil to USA. By a very large margin by far the largest is Canada, followed by Mexico, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia in that order.

Less than half of USA's crude oil imports come from OPEC countries. </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sources of Net Oil Imports:

Canada (20.1%)
Saudi Arabia (13.8%)
Venezuela (10.5%)
Nigeria (8.8%)
Mexico (8.7%)


It is usually impossible to tell whether the petroleum products you use came from domestic or imported sources of oil once they are refined.

</div></div>

21% from the Persion Gulf, 22% from Africa, in 08, according to the chart at this link:

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm </div></div>

That's funny ... 8.8% is most?

<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>8.8%</span></span>

<span style='font-size: 8pt'><span style='font-family: Times New Roman'>50.0%</span></span>

See, <span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>8.8%</span></span> in Gayle logic is much bigger than the <span style='font-size: 8pt'><span style='font-family: Times New Roman'>50.0%</span></span> hurdle which, by definition "most" must clear.

No matter how low the bar is set ...

LWW

Gayle in MD
12-30-2009, 11:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am unaware, admittedly. What part of what bill we have here would dictate airport security in a foreign territory?

Sack </div></div>


Dictate? That wouldn't be necessary. It's a matter of leadership. They have already installed equipment, including the body scanners, in the country of his last stop, before entering our country, Sack.

And also, Turns out that both this guy, and the Ft. Hood guy, had contact with Terrorists, released by Bush.

Because George Bush so completely F-ed up the entire process of detainment, closing Gitmo is very difficult. Our current president is faced with the task of trying to determine which of the detainees actually did anything wrong, for one thing, since many of them were simply turned in for cash, by thugs.

Do you think is is fair to detain people who did nothing wrong???

Everything Bush did during his tenure, made matters far worse, on all levels, overall.

Now, if Bobby wants to take a realistic look at reality, he might want to address the fact that Bush was actually releasing terrorists, apparently dangerous terrorists, back to countries in the Middle East, long before Obama was ever president, and atleast two of them, released by Bush, trained not only this last guy, but also trained the shoe bomber, and was in touch with the Ft. Hood nut.

Now, tell me, where the hell do the Republicans like DeMint, and particularly Dick Cheney, get off, being critical of Obama, who is dealing with all of their F-ups, from the economy, to the disastrous state of our foreign affairs, and foreign threats, which they exascerbated?

2003...Bush stated that operations in Iraq were over, Mission Accomplished, remember?

2003 Bush stated that the Talliban had been destroyed, and Afghanistan was a free nation, remember?


Approximately 05, Dick Cheney stated that the insurgents were in their last throes, remember?

In fact, Bush's entire doctrine, was wrong, as our own National Intelligence Estimate stated. Invading Iraq, only made everything worst, torturing people, secret illegal rendition, all of his methods, exacerbated the problems with Muslim radicals, and actually aided their cuase, emboldened them, and enhanced recruitment.

How does Dick Cheney, of all people, have the nerve to criticize Obama??? How the hell do the Republicans, have the colossal nerve, to attack President Obama, and say that he isn't doing a good job protecting the country, after one of Bush's released terrorists, has already trained people who attempted attacks, and also had some influence over one who has killed people....our own soldiers.

It took Bush five damn days to address the Shoe Bomber attempt. Count them, FIVE DAYS before we heard a damn thing from that SOB!

It took him four or five days, to take a peek from a window, at the devastation from Katrina, and then say, Heckofajob, Brownie!!!!

He KNEW there was a coming Hurricane, to a very threatend location.

He KNEW that al Qaeda, was about to attack this country, and the information was all there, if he had bothered to give a damn, right down to using jets to crash into buildings, IN NY! AND IN WASHINGTON D.C.

His response when shown the Memo...."Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States"

"Ok, you've covered your ass....

THAT WAS HIS ONLY RESPONSE!

What did he do, what one damn thing did he do, to even attempt to prevent that attack? NOTHING! And THAT was after EIGHT MONTHS OF A GROWING THREAT! He didn't even suspend his vacation!

Then, Republicans follow up all the disastrous residue left over from their own party, and their own President, with rhetoric, and refusals to cooperate with ANYTHING that was either created by, or exascerbated by, or ignored by GEORGE BUSH..... by blocking every single effort to address Medical costs, to provide for up-graded security equipment in our airports, to provide that women serving in the military, have a recourse when they are gang raped, and even blocked the vote on the TSA appointee~!

They are SLIME! Pure SLIME!

G.


[/quote]

Gayle in MD
12-31-2009, 12:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Go back and read my original post, and you will see that there is no link included, nor any opinion. <span style="color: #CC0000">Sorry, I meant to say your cut and paste article </span>

You attack me when I simply posted news which I read on ABC. Apparently, you were overly anxious to defend Bush, when I hadn't even given an opinion on the subject, at all. <span style="color: #FF0000">I don't think I attacked you Gayle, I just thought the title of the post "Bush Released Flight 253 Terror Plotters in 07" which wasn't from ABC, was over the top </span>
</div></div>
<span style="color: #000066">Well, look, I don't often bring this up, but this time, I will.

I know a lot of people in Washington D.C....some of them are journalists. I knew for sure, when I made that post, that there was accurate information proving that one of Bush's releasees, was involved in training that guy...take it or leave it. I presume you've seen the recent news on the subject, since my post???? </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Show me where I wrote that Bush was to blame for the attempted attack. <span style="color: #FF0000">I assumed the title of the post was doing that </span>

</div></div>
<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>That is because you righties experience any FACTS that show up Republican failures, as attacks! That's the way it has always been around here. </span> </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will continue to blame George Bush for what he is responsible for. He IS responsible for releasing two terrorists to Saudi Arabia, who ended up recruiting and training the man who tried to blow up our airplane on Christmas Day. <span style="color: #CC0000">No more so than Clinton is for letting into this country the 9/11 terrorists. Here is your logic.
1. 9/11 terrorists enter U.S. during Clinton administration....

<span style="color: #000066">Prove it. How many who flew on 9/11, came here under Clinton, and how many came here under Bush One? Do you think that Bill Clinton didn't care about al Qaeda???? There were attacks, terrorist attacks, during REagan, Bush One, Clinton and Bush Two! Only ONE OF THOSE PRESIDENTS HAD ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE BEFORE AN ATTACK! GUESS WHO! </span>
2. Said terrorists attack during Bush administration
Bush responsible for not stopping attacks.
then


<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>He had eight months of consistant warnings! Your premise is wrong. </span> </span>
1. Terrorists released during Bush administration
2. Attack occurs during Obama administration
Bush responsible because terrorists released under his watch.
</span>
<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Bush responsible for creating imappropriate seizures, secret renditions, illegal torture, and the resulting head banging fix we are in trying to work our way out of the entire Bush/Gitmo Quagmire after rounding up people em masse, using such tactics as paying thugs, to turn them in, and then failing to address the mess he left behind him, what to do with these people! We cannot just leave them in a limbo. The Military is not the appropriate venue, given their record, and we already have terrorists who did attack us here, who were tried in N.Y.City, and are currently serving life sentences, without the possibility of parole. None of them have escaped. </span> </span>
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
especially when Napolitano says on national television that "the system failed miserably".


So, What's your gripe with the woman telling the truth? <span style="color: #FF0000">Was it the truth the day before when she said the system worked perfectly or the next day when she said it failed miserably? </span>

<span style="color: #000066">What damn difference does it make????

Tom Ridge, stated, that he understood what she meant. He stated that she was referencing the actions taken AFTER his attempt. That is what he said, but lets face it, you are nit picking, just like the rest of the Republicans. Was it the truth when Bush said in 03 that all combat operations were over in Iraq??? Mission Accomplished??? When he stated in 03 that the Talliban was crushed, and Afghanistan would never be a terrorist haven again? And Afghanistan was a free nation? Was it true when Cheney said the insurgency was in the last throes in 05?

Get off it, Bobby. You have two different sets of what is acceptable, one for Republicans and then your nit picking, irrelevant issues with Democratics. Obama came right out and stated the system had failed, it was unacceptable, and changes are coming. Now, do you really thing for one minute that Bush or Cheney will ever admit to any of their huge, disastrous failures?

NOT A CHANCE! </span>


Prefer the good old lies and denials which marked the Bush Administration???? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Now that's a pretty laughable statement to make when Republicans have blocked the nomination for the director of that agency,<span style="color: #FF0000"> They have blocked a director that they don't like.

<span style="color: #000066">BULLSH**!!! THEY HAVE BLOCKED EVERYTHING! </span>

It's a 2 party system and that's how it works. The Dems have had plenty of time to deal with it, but it was'nt a politically important issue to them, until now, and now they blame the Republicans </span>

<span style="color: #000066">You're hopeless! </span>

just as they have completely held up every important issues our country needs to settle at this time. <span style="color: #FF0000">IYHO </span>
</div></div>
</div></div>

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 20pt'>NO, Not IMHO, they are the party of NO. They don't give a flying F. about anything but political concerns. Bush didn't either. He stood by and allowed an attack, just as he stood by and allowed a financial collapse! It was all politics, all the time, and the Republican party is still that way.

BTW, my opinions about Republicans are far from humble, and don't you ever forget it!

G. </span> </span>

sack316
12-31-2009, 04:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Off the subject but, Prattville gotted hosed big time against Hoover...those refs were awful. </div></div>

Indeed we did. We didn't play anywhere near our best game, but still if you take away some of those blatantly bad calls the score reads very different.

I'm not 100% sure we played well enough to win... but sure would have been nice to have seen it all decided by the kids play on both sides rather than on the refs. The old addage for refs (and umpires for that matter) is that if nobody notices you, then you've done a good job. Unfortunately that wasn't the case here, as all ANYONE talks about with that game is the officiating.

Really sad and unfair, both for us and Hoover as well. We got jipped out of a four-peat, and Hoover holds a title that is tainted to the vast majority of the state.

Sack

eg8r
12-31-2009, 06:43 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dictate? That wouldn't be necessary. It's a matter of leadership. They have already installed equipment, including the body scanners, in the country of his last stop, before entering our country, Sack.

</div></div>gayle, why are you ignoring the question sack asked? We all know you are not man enough to post it for me so at least let him know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And also, Turns out that both this guy, and the Ft. Hood guy, had contact with Terrorists, released by Bush.
</div></div>These are the same terrorists that Clinton ignored after they bombed the USS Cole.

eg8r

Bobbyrx
12-31-2009, 09:10 AM
Tell me where I'm wrong here, on the Hoover pass that they ruled was an incomplete pass and not a fumble that Prattville returned. They ruled his arm was going forward and called it back. The ball went BACKWARDS and landed behind the quarterback, so even if his arm was going forward, it shouldn't have mattered because it was then a lateral and not a forward pass.

Gayle in MD
12-31-2009, 09:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dictate? That wouldn't be necessary. It's a matter of leadership. They have already installed equipment, including the body scanners, in the country of his last stop, before entering our country, Sack.

</div></div>gayle, why are you ignoring the question sack asked? We all know you are not man enough to post it for me so at least let him know.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And also, Turns out that both this guy, and the Ft. Hood guy, had contact with Terrorists, released by Bush.
</div></div>These are the same terrorists that Clinton ignored after they bombed the USS Cole.

eg8r </div></div>

Confirmation on the USS Cole bombing did not come early enough for Clinton to take action. Bush came into office soon after, did nothing....


Do you ever read a book?

sack316
12-31-2009, 03:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tell me where I'm wrong here, on the Hoover pass that they ruled was an incomplete pass and not a fumble that Prattville returned. They ruled his arm was going forward and called it back. The ball went BACKWARDS and landed behind the quarterback, so even if his arm was going forward, it shouldn't have mattered because it was then a lateral and not a forward pass. </div></div>

Yep, I agree. And not to mention his arm was nowhere close to going forward yet either. And then the Hoover back who fumbled at the Pville 1 or 2 yard line or so that P'ville recovered, yet somehow got ruled a touchdown.

Sack

Bobbyrx
01-03-2010, 02:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He had eight months of consistant warnings! Your premise is wrong</div></div>
1. No he didn't and
2. How long have we had warnings about terrorists wanting to blow up airplanes? Safe to say daily since Obama's been in office.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Military is not the appropriate venue, given their record </div></div>

I would not agree..... O.J. , I'm sure, would.

Gayle in MD
01-04-2010, 09:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> He had eight months of consistant warnings! Your premise is wrong</div></div>
1. No he didn't and <span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>He absolutely did, and they became more urgent over his first eight months in office....you don't get to change history....then, he went to his War On Terror, in a country where there was no al Qaeda. </span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif
2. How long have we had warnings about terrorists wanting to blow up airplanes? Safe to say daily since Obama's been in office.
<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Daily, huh? LMAO. </span> </span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Military is not the appropriate venue, given their record </div></div>

I would not agree..... O.J. , I'm sure, would. </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> You would not agree with any of the facts...you never do.</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

LWW
01-04-2010, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> You would not agree with any of the facts...you never do.</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Revised</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'> <s>You</s> I would not agree with any of the facts...<s>you</s> I never do.</span> </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif </div></div>

Fixed that for you.

LWW

Bobbyrx
01-05-2010, 03:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Daily, huh? LMAO. </div></div>

Please reattach said a--

"1,600 are suggested daily for FBI's list

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 1, 2009

Newly released FBI data offer evidence of the broad scope and complexity of the nation's terrorist watch list, documenting a daily flood of names nominated for inclusion to the controversial list.

During a 12-month period ended in March this year, for example, the U.S. intelligence community suggested on a daily basis that 1,600 people qualified for the list because they presented a "reasonable suspicion," according to data provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee by the FBI in September and made public last week."

link (http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/31/AR2009103102141.html)