It's hard to imagine what the Philadelphia Inquirer was thinking.

It was thinking that it'll stir an exciting publicity-generating controversy and hang on to its remaining readership, which consists largely of superannuated knee-jerk reactionaries who'll defend any monstrosity if the liberals are against it.

Pennsylvanians, you know what to do.

Well he's obviously just another conduit for whatever the conservative line is on an issue. Obama made his statement on empathy, saying nothing about race, or group identity, and immediately Orrin Hatch put out the line: its about favoring particular groups over others. Since then all the conservative parrots have run with this.

Its as if they follow marching orders. But its important that those concerned with the facts debunk this trash about what Obama meant by "empathy" as often as possible.

At the risk of sounding like, say ... Wanda Sykes, would it be so bad to say that if newspapers, who are going under at alarming rates, continue to exercise such bad judgement that it would be OK to say if the Inquy fails it deserved it?

Hiring John Yoo as a columnist? What for? The only reason to give this miscreant a column is to try to piss of everyone who's not a hard right conservative, who must be the only people buying newspapers these days and would explain why the numbers of newspaper subscribers are crashing so hard. Why pay to read John Yoo?

I'm a Philadelphian and long-time Inky reader, and a lot of us here are frustrated that the Inquirer is on the verge of financial collapse and yet throwing their money at a possible war criminal and simultaneously boosting their executive salaries. Inquirer: The GM of newspapers.

This man is living proof that liberals have no guts. How else can you explain his having a tenured position at BERKELEY's Law School?

"Academic Freedom" my a$$.

And the print media, newspapers in particular, continue to wonder why their subscriber roles continue to shrink.

And a guy who writes like that, never mind that he's a complete scumbag, teaches law at Berkeley? Glad he can find work in the "liberal" media and universities.

The "empathy" thing is supposed to evoke memories of the "bleeding heart liberal" epithet of decades past. But considering the opposite of "empathy" is "sociopathy," I'm not sure this attack has much future.

And they wonder why they are going bankrupt.

OT, but something else media-related. Was anyone else totally annoyed at Liz Cheney being some sort of extended guest on "Morning Joe" today, all the while defending her slimeball father's torture policies and lying like a rug every time she opened her mouth?
Again, nice that our "liberal" media gives the microphone to these lizards and barely allows people who actually know what their talking about to even appear on their shows.

It's great that Yoo teaches law at Berkeley. Contrary to the right's constant whining about academia being solely peopled by libruls, we can handle differences of opinion as part of the process of seeking and learning.

Of course, nothing in his tenure does or should shield Yoo from the constant harsh criticism of students, other faculty members or the public. If Yoo were at Pepperdine or another winger enclave, he'd never have to hear an opposing viewpoint. At Berkeley, he hears them every hour.

"Sen. Obama did not vote to confirm Roberts or Alito, but now proposes to appoint a Great Empathizer who will call balls and strikes with a strike zone that depends on the sex, race, and social and economic background of the players."

This statement has no proof of factualness.
In making unsubstantiated claim, that Obama "proposes to appoint a Great Empathizer who will call balls and strikes with a strike zone that depends on the sex, race, and social and economic background," Yoo proves
1) he is a Republican mindlessly parroting the party's latest talking point
2) he is not good lawyer. He does not think in terms of facts, proofs, or points of law.
3) he is a liar, as there is not proof of his claim that Obama "proposes to appoint a Great Empathizer who will call balls and strikes with a strike zone that depends on the sex, race, and social and economic background,"

Would you want a Judge at your trial who lawyerly thought processes are so shallow?

Now you liberals are finally realizing what conservatives have know for years: the print media isn't worth a plug nickel.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Only, the liberals want to bail out the legacy print media.

I wonder why?

The world has gone mad when torture advocates are rewarded with lucrative, high-profile influential positions. Mad ....

Well, of course Yoo doesn't know what "empathy" means. If he did, he wouldn't have participated in torture, would he?

Can anyone tell me how long McShitforbrains has been posting stupid comments here? All libruls are asking for in newspapers is some kind of make sense opinions. I Know it's debateable what makes sense but mindless gibberish written by Yoo sure doesn't.

He saves the worst for last.

As near as I can decode it, If Obama picks a woman and/or a black or Hispanic, that will be a "pick based solely on race or sex". He can only avoid this by picking another white male.

"It's great that Yoo teaches law at Berkeley".

Oh, hell yes it is. What better advertising for a world class university?

It's great that Yoo teaches law at Berkeley.

No, it's not. Teaching law at Berkeley is supposed to be (at least it used to be) an honor, an acknowledgement that the person awarded the post had achieved distinction in the field of law and had something valuable to teach and say. None of that applies to the war criminal John Yoo.

Contrary to the right's constant whining about academia being solely peopled by libruls, we can handle differences of opinion as part of the process of seeking and learning.

This goes beyond mere differences of opinion. Yoo is a criminal (even if as yet unindicted) and as such is morally and ethically unfit to educate students as to the responsibilities of being a lawyer. It's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach securities law.

Now you liberals are finally realizing what conservatives have know for years: the print media isn't worth a plug nickel.

No, it's you wingnut morons who perpetuated the myth of the "liberal media". Democrats have known that both print and television media have been nothing but pro-GOP/corporate whores for decades now.
And to prove my point that it isn't just the print media--check the guests on the "liberal" sunday talk shows: Cheney, Gingrich, and McCain. Amazing that the "liberal" media gives them so much air time. Not to mention Liz Cheney on MSNBC, that liberal enclave, all morning.

Democrats have known that both print and television media have been nothing but pro-GOP/corporate whores for decades now.

That's comedy right there.

Obama himself acknowledged the liberal media bias during his funny little get-together (you know, the one where the 9/11 joke went down and The One laughed). He then apologized to Fox News.

The reporters laughed. They know it to be true.

Question is why you can't see it.

Republicans hate people who need empathy. It's that simple. Empathy makes them queasy because it reminds them of human fallibility, and their mantra is that you can do ANYTHING if you try hard enough. People who are sick are just not trying.

In his 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts compared judges to neutral umpires in a baseball game.

Which, it must be said, is an absolutely terrible analogy. Unless it's part of an umpire's job to compare an ever-growing body of national, state, and local baseball rules against a document enunciating overriding baseball principles and issue rulings that will not only apply to the facts of the current play but become precedents for the way rules are to be interpreted henceforth in every ballpark in the country.

Question is why you can't see it.

Question is why you can't tell the difference between a joke and reality. Oh right, you're a wingnut, you waived bye-bye to reality long ago.

Again, why does the evil liberal media even allow conservatives like Cheney, his daughter(and only defender, apparently), Gingrich and McCain on their television programs, repeatedly, to attack the president? Sure is a funny way for the "liberal media" to behave. All part of some grand conspiracy in your warped mind, I'm sure.

It's like hiring Bernie Madoff to teach securities law.

Madoff, who has been indicted? Not exactly like that, no.

Anyway, I had a feeling you guys weren't going to buy that. Okay, you're right that you don't put a crappy-ass thinker into a world-class university under any circumstances. But what I was really arguing with was Cal Gal's idea that a liberal university hiring a conservative was an example of liberals having "no guts." I have no problem with Yoo teaching at some eighth-class liberal university...until his own indictment, that is.

Reporters don't hire op-ed writers, McBrainiac.

Again, why does the evil liberal media even allow conservatives like Cheney, his daughter(and only defender, apparently), Gingrich and McCain on their television programs, repeatedly, to attack the president? Sure is a funny way for the "liberal media" to behave. All part of some grand conspiracy in your warped mind, I'm sure.

Even the idiots who run the liberal media realize that they can't trot out Obama supporters 24/7. Even liberals will tire of the constant stream of ass-kissing and fawning.

You're right: God forbid they put on someone to criticize Obama's policies. It's not like they did that with Bush. No. Never.

Can you imagine the backlash if Bush pulled the Air Force One stunt?

They'd be calling for his resignation.

Jason, give it up. This is extremely sick.

Can you imagine the backlash if Bush pulled the Air Force One stunt? They'd be calling for his resignation.

September 11, 2001.

What were they thinking? they were thinking that so long as they're circling the bowl - like every other bundle of second-rate litterbox liner masquerading as a newspaper - that they might as well speed up the death spiral. Also, what right wing nutbag owns the Inquirer?

Even the idiots who run the liberal media realize that they can't trot out Obama supporters 24/7.

If they ever did that, you might have a point, but they never did, so you don't. Just another lie from wingnut fantasyland. The reality is that the conservative pundits and know-nothings get the majority of the time.

Can you imagine the backlash if Bush pulled the Air Force One stunt?

No, but I can imagine if he pulled the "let's ignore the warnings and go on vacation right before terrorists fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon" stunt. Actually, I don't have to imagine that one, unfortunately.

They'd be calling for his resignation.

Yes, a lot of us called for him to resign based on that complete failure, not to mention taking us to war and killing thousands based on lies.

Reality:1 Wingnuts: 0

No, but I can imagine if he pulled the "let's ignore the warnings and go on vacation right before terrorists fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon" stunt. Actually, I don't have to imagine that one, unfortunately.

What? You mean Bush had a document that terrorists were going to fly planes in the WTC and Pentagon?

Can you source that?

Yes, a lot of us called for him to resign based on that complete failure, not to mention taking us to war and killing thousands based on lies.

Lies? Are those the same lies that Clinton, Gore and Albright believed when they supported taking out Saddam, way back in the late 1990s?

What happened there?

Even the idiots who run the liberal media realize that they can't trot out Obama supporters 24/7.

The vast majority of guests on news/opinion programs are Republican conservatives. The few Democrats are moderates. Few if any strong liberal guests are allowed, Yep, they are fooling us! They have us sucked right in!

Quit your crying. I watched in horror, much like rubbernecking a bad accident, as Obama was innaugurated.

First, the jeers and catcalls from the classless Obama supporters as Bush was introduced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that never happened to Clinton when Bush came into office.

And Bush never pillaged the White House as Clinton did.

Then, I get to watch the Obama Lovefest on TV. No hard hitting analysis there. No questions on his background or his beliefs, etc.

I thought Katie Couric was going to fellate Obama on national television. I think her toughest question was about his abysmal bowling score. Or maybe his smoking. That's some hard-hitting journalism right there.

Lies? Are those the same lies that Clinton, Gore and Albright believed when they supported taking out Saddam, way back in the late 1990s?

What happened there?

Hmmm, late 1990s until 2003? I'm sure facts and circumstances hadn't changed at all in that time, at least not for residents of wingnut fantasyland. For those in the real world, Saddam was no threat whatsoever. But what do you care? Someone else's kids died for your noble cause.

What? You mean Bush had a document that terrorists were going to fly planes in the WTC and Pentagon?

"Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.", and using airplanes. But your hero couldn't be disturbed from clearing brush to try and prevent it. Just blame Clinton, it's easier than actually being a leader or accepting responsibility for anything.

And Bush never pillaged the White House as Clinton did.

Promoting one lie with another one doesn't help your credibility at all.

I think her toughest question was about his abysmal bowling score. Or maybe his smoking. That's some hard-hitting journalism right there.

Yeah, she should have asked him a tough question like "what do you read"? I guess that was still too tough for your hero Palin.

Reality is kicking McGruber's ass. Someone invoke the mercy rule, wingnuts don't know when to quit.

"Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.", and using airplanes. But your hero couldn't be disturbed from clearing brush to try and prevent it. Just blame Clinton, it's easier than actually being a leader or accepting responsibility for anything.

Actually, the memo doesn't say "using airplanes." You made that up.

The 9/11 Commission cleared his name while stating that the ridiculous "Chinese Wall" was a huge problem.

Tell me, who instituted said wall?

Jamie... what's her name? Help me out here...

To get back to the original topic for a moment, you guys all realize that the right wingers are going to attack you all for being mean to Asians.

But you have to give Yoo credit for this narrow interprtation of the "rule of law": "the idea of a rule of law that is blind to the identity of the parties before it."

To get back to the original topic for a moment, you guys all realize that the right wingers are going to attack you all for being mean to Asians.

Please. Actually, it's quite the contrary. We'd love it if you guys would get your collective head out of China's a$$.

How much money did Clinton and Gore take from China?

Will Obama ever call out China for its harassment of U.S. Navy ships sailing in international waters?

He went on to clumsily attack affirmative action, denounce "judicial activism," and insist that FDR's New Deal "never really worked" during the Great Depression.

In other words, he wrote the same column Republicans have been writing for, respectively, 40, 50, and 70 years.

Uh, McGruber--the whole Gorelick created the Wall was debunked by the FISC (if I recall correctly), who stated that the Wall had been in place prior to Gorelick ever being part of the Clinton admin. To say nothing of the fact that Ashcroft maintained the same policies when he was the AG. Any more talking points you want to trot out?

McGruber

The August 6 PDB didn't mention aircraft? It sure as fuck did.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

It said
(a) that bin Laden had made plans to hijack US aricraft to try to obtain the release of Ramzi Yousef (circa 1998).

(b) al Qaeda was surveilling buildings in New York City AND "FBI information since that time [1998] indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks."

Dumbass.

Daddy Love - read the memo again and show me where it says Bin Laden was going to fly planes into the WTC and Pentagon, as the vapid liberal upthread said.

Let me save you the time: you can't.

FYI - you want to blame Bush for 9/11? How about Clinton? Doesn't he share some blame? How many attacks did Bin Laden perpetrate on the U.S. under Clinton's watch?

1993 WTC
1998 Kenya Embassy
1998 Tanzania Embassy
2000 USS Cole

Oh yeah, Clinton launches some missiles. BFD.

Speaking of sourcing...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-09-19-attacks-intelligence_x.htm

Selected shorts:

Evidence that terrorists were considering using planes as weapons:

April 2000: A walk-in at FBI's Newark, N.J., office claimed he was supposed to meet five or six people in the United States to hijack a plane and either fly it to Afghanistan or blow it up. The man claimed he had been trained in a camp in Pakistan. He passed an FBI polygraph, but the FBI was unable to verify his story.

April 2001: A U.S. intelligence source with terrorist connections speculated that bin Laden would be interested in commercial pilots as potential terrorists. The source was offering speculation rather than specific knowledge, U.S. intelligence officials say.

Evidence that a large terrorist attack was in the works in the spring and summer of 2001:

March 2001: An intelligence source claimed bin Laden operatives were planning a strike in the following month.

April 2001: U.S. intelligence received reports of a possible terrorist plot in New York and California.

June 2001: The CIA's Counterterrorism Center learned that key bin Laden operatives were disappearing, while others were preparing for martyrdom.

Late summer 2001: The CIA learned that an al-Qaeda operative was considering mounting terrorist operations in the United States. No specifics were provided.

Uh, McGruber--the whole Gorelick created the Wall was debunked by the FISC (if I recall correctly)

You recall wrong.

And Ashcroft had to abide by it until the law was changed.

Damn, conservatives can't win by losing in your eyes, can they?

McGruber

The WTC attack occurred some 20-odd days after Clinton took office. Clinton's executive branch caught the perps, tried and convicted them.

Bush let bin Laden go and invaded Iraq.

April 2000: A walk-in at FBI's Newark, N.J., office claimed he was supposed to meet five or six people in the United States to hijack a plane and either fly it to Afghanistan or blow it up. The man claimed he had been trained in a camp in Pakistan. He passed an FBI polygraph, but the FBI was unable to verify his story.

No concrete evidence of using a plane as a weapon. Besides, how would Bush know about this if the FBI couldn't even verify the story? Do you think the President should be aware of every tip that comes into the FBI?

March 2001: An intelligence source claimed bin Laden operatives were planning a strike in the following month.

No talk of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.

April 2001: U.S. intelligence received reports of a possible terrorist plot in New York and California.

No talk of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.

June 2001: The CIA's Counterterrorism Center learned that key bin Laden operatives were disappearing, while others were preparing for martyrdom.

No talk of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.

Late summer 2001: The CIA learned that an al-Qaeda operative was considering mounting terrorist operations in the United States. No specifics were provided.

Again, no talk of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.

Do try to avoid McPaper when buttressing your arguments.

Frankly, I don't think Bush or Clinton, or any one specific person for that matter, is to blame for 9/11. Failed policies are.

Policies like the Chinese Wall, built and pushed by liberal politicians.

McG

No, you're misreperesenting. The poster you contradicted said, in response to your "Bush had a document" line, and I quote the poster here in entirety:
" 'Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.', and using airplanes. "

The poster wqas tellking the acbsolute truth as I just proved to you. Bush did indeed have a document that said bin Laden determined to strike in U.S. and that to the best of our intelligence analysis, would very likely to be using airplanes.

A competent executive, reading such information, which I assure you is not prepared sloppily or communicated lightly, would have fucking well done something besides mix up another drink at the ranch and nap for a month.

Typical, You didn't even read the one-page article.

I love it. Bush being warned of sky high terrorist chatter and receiving the August 6 PDB warning of the probability (not possibility) of al Qaeda preparations for hijacking US aircraft IS ONLY TO BLAME FOR TERRORISTS ACTIONS:
NOT if he stayed on vacation for a month after hearing dire warning s from his intelligence agencies. Nope, not that.
NOT if he failed to have his people follow up on the bin Laden confederates we knew had headed to the US.
NOT if he failed to increase airline security or warn New York City

No, Bush would have only a tiny sliver of blame ONLY if someone had handed him a sheet of paper telling him the flight numbers, and buildings that were to be hit, what time of day, the addressses and phone numbers of the terrorists, and included some free airtime minutes.

You're a fucking joke. But not as much of a joke as George W. Bush.

Daddy - the 9/11 commission didn't blame Bush. So why are you?

The memo contained no specifics and if Bush had locked down airport security, you libs would have whined about losing your freedom to some BS threat reporting.

There is no winning with you.

The real problem was the Chinese Wall: CIA couldn't tell the FBI that known terrorists were entering the country.

Why? Liberal politicians didn't like intel and law enforecement talking to each other.

Again, no talk of planes hitting the WTC and Pentagon.

Yeah, unless they name the place, method, and time down to the second, then Bush can't be bothered. Even after he was told on 9/11, he couldn't be bothered to interrupt his children's story.
That's McGruber's hero for you.

Actually I don't recall incorrectly. From In re: Sealed Case:

"As we have noted, some time in the 1980s–the exact moment is shrouded in
historical mist–the Department applied the Truong analysis to an interpretation of the FISA.
What is clear is that in 1995 the Attorney General adopted “Procedures for Contacts
Between the FBI and the Criminal Division Concerning Foreign Intelligence and Foreign
Counterintelligence Investigations.�

Thus, the Court is stating that the origins of the Wall were in the '80s and cannot be attributed to Gorelick herself (the Court notes that the memo was the clearest statement of the policy).

But leaving that aside--for argument's sake, if Gorelick, an unelected official, did create the Wall, it would be using her rule making authority, no? So how then, was Ashcroft bound by this "until the law was changed"? Policies can be changed on a whim without a corresponding change in the underlying statute...

Edit to the above post: should have added "solely to Gorelick herself".

The outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming Chimpy administration that al-Qaeda had intentions of utilizing hijacked commercial airliners as missiles to attack American targets. It is why the Bushies made the unprecedented move to install SAMs to protect Chimpy at the G8 summit in Genoa Italy in July of 2001, just 60 days before the 9/11 terrorist attacks:

Missiles To Protect G8 Summit

McG

The memo contained no specifics and if Bush had locked down airport security, you libs would have whined about losing your freedom to some BS threat reporting.

Again you show yourself to be either astoundingly ignorant or a bald-faced liar. Or both.

Bush wasn't about to increase airport security. For one thing, he was intellectually (for him) and politically wedded to the Cold War idiocy that is missile defense. You may recall (unless you are astoundingly ignorant, which we have still not ruled out) that Condi Rice was going to give a speech on that very subject on September 11, 2001. Until Al Qaeda hijacked the jets that the intelligence services predicted, that is.

Second, it would have meant embracing a CLinhton Gore policy, which after the 2000 elections was the LAST thing that petty, vindictive little troll would have done.

First there was the so-called "Gore commission" (the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security) which issued a report in 1997 making a number of specific and useful recommendations listed here. It went unimplemented by the airlines and the GOP Congress. From teh "key recommendatiosn section (details followed)"
"In the area of security, the Commission believes that the threat against civil aviation is changing and growing, and that the federal government must lead the fight against it. The Commission recommends that the federal government commit greater resources to improving aviation security, and work more cooperatively with the private sector and local authorities in carrying out security responsibilities. "

We didn't do that until after 9/11.

Second, there was the Hart-Rudman Commission report from 1999: American Security in the 21st Century, which recommended, among other things, a cabinet-level position for protection of the homeland.

Homeland security was and is a Demcratic project opposed by Republicans.

Yeah, Bush was all over that.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center ... that they would try to use ... a hijacked airplane as a missile."

Oh, and it makes this statement by Condi during her press conference after the 9/11 attacks a RIDICULOUS LIE, as she was briefed, against normal protocol, by President Clinton himself in regards to al-Qaeda's intentions to utilize hijacked commercial airliners as missiles against American targets, and she attended the G8 Summit in Italy with the SAM installations to protect from just such an attack.

Joe - your article makes no mention of Clinton telling Bush anything about hijacked airlines being used as weapons.

So why throw it out there as a defense of Clinton?

Again - why are you and Daddy trying to pin the 9/11 blame on Bush? The 9/11 Commission absolved Bush, and that had plenty of libs working on it. So why try to re-write history?

If Clinton was so on to this threat, why didn't he do something about it, other than lob a couple of missiles to ensure the public wouldn't focus too much on Monica?

*sigh* Just when ole Al is down to submitting just an occasional entertainingly twisted little wingnutty post....now this McGruber (the McGiver-like character who always gets blown up on SNL?) is polluting the discourse repeatedly and endlessly. As others have suggested in the past -don't feed the troll!

NYT is the paper of Record. I suppose the Inquirer would like to be known as the paper of Torture.

I am sure everyone here is aware of this, but just in case, folks like McGoofy, are just attention seekers, if you ignore them they either go away, or you start not to notice them.

McGruber,

"Joe - your article makes no mention of Clinton telling Bush anything about hijacked airlines being used as weapons."

Who claimed it did ?

It does prove that the Bushies had been warned of such an potential attack.

"So why throw it out there as a defense of Clinton?"

I didn't.

"The 9/11 Commission absolved Bush"

They did not. They documented he was warned that Osama bin Laden had intentions to attack American targets and had intentions to use hijacked commercial airliners as missiles.

"If Clinton was so on to this threat, why didn't he do something about it..."

The four pilots did not enter the country, according to the 9/11 Commission, until April and June of 2001, followed later by the rest of the hijacking teams. President Clinton left office in January 2001. Exactly what "something" did you want him to do ?

"...other than lob a couple of missiles to ensure the public wouldn't focus too much on Monica?"

* Actually, it was President Clinton who sent a team to pluck the mastermind of the first World Trade Center attack, Ramzi Yousef, out of Pakistan and return him to the U.S. for trial. He is serving a 240-year prison term, plus another life sentence just in case, all to be spent in solitary confinement. The 5 co-conspirators involved in the bombing were also captured by the Clinton administration, and all are also serving life prison terms.

* As a result of a prosecution begun during the Clinton administration, 14 suspects, members of Saudi Hezbollah, were indicted in the Khobar Towers bombing, many of whom have been held by the Saudis since shortly after the attack. Some have been executed.

* As a result of a prosecution begun during the Clinton administration, the four al-Qaida terrorists involved in the embassy bombings were caught, tried and convicted. All four received life prison terms.

They did not. They documented he was warned that Osama bin Laden had intentions to attack American targets and had intentions to use hijacked commercial airliners as missiles.

They also conceded that there were no specifics to any of these intentions. Bush could not be held responsible for the attacks; neither could Clinton.

What the 9/11 did hammer was the Chinese Wall. If the CIA and FBI could have talked to each other, 9/11 might have been stopped. There was much more concrete evidence of that than Bush somehow figuring out the plot based on upper level-briefings from Clinton's intel team.

Yeah, who on earth would want to try to assign some modicum of responsibility to the lazy bastard who slept for the whole fucking month before 9/11 and then still failed to act on the intelligence he was handed on a fucking platter?

BTW, The attack on the USS Cole occurred in October 2000. What did Bucsh do about it after January 2001? Um....*crickets*

Yeah, who on earth would want to try to assign some modicum of responsibility to the lazy bastard who slept for the whole fucking month before 9/11 and then still failed to act on the intelligence he was handed on a fucking platter?

We got ourselves a MM QB! Ok, Hoss, tell me: what would you have done?

Attack Afghanistan? Attack Pakistan? Start increasing airport security by telling them to profile racially? (You can't say "look for box cutters" - we had no idea what they'd use).

This should be good....

Remember - Jamie Gorelick said the CIA and FBI couldn't talk, so you can't use that idea...

The so-called "Wall" never prevented the Clinton administration from having the FBI and CIA cooperate in stopping numerous terrorist attacks in progress, never prevented the Clinton administration from obtaining warrants and successfully prosecuting numerous terrorists, who are all currently in prison.

Not to mention that the "Wall" was there long before President Clinton took office.

Why were the Bushies so utterly incompetent ?

From teh 9/11 Commission report:

"During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received
a stream of warnings that al Qaeda planned, as one report put it, “something
very, very, very big.� Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us, “The
system was blinking red.�

Aw, but it wasn't specific enough to question Moussaoui about. Georgie needs it to be all spelled out for him.

What WOULD I have done? Hmmm...

1. Implement the Gore Commission recommendations

2. Implement the Hart-Rudman Commission recommendations.

3. When “something very, very, very big� is in the works, and "the system is blinking red," and I receive a PDB stating that Al Qaeda wants to strike inside the US, I CUT SHORT MY FUCKING VACATION AND GET BACK TO MY FUCKING JOB.

That would have been a start.

BTW, Bill Clinton did more work before breakfast than Bush did in his best month on the job.

Yeah, it's a contest between the hardest working man and the laziest man ever to hold the job. Hmmmm...who would win?

Jesse Ventura on Larry King last night:

"I’ll put it to you this way, you give me a water board, Dick Cheney and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders."

Who owns the Philly Inquirer? Could it be that somebody "helped" get Yoo that column so that he can be another torture-justifier? Coincidence that Yoo gets this job, al Libi dies in a Libyan prison, and Cheney keeps getting a MSM platform?

BTW, Bill Clinton did more work before breakfast than Bush did in his best month on the job.

If by work you mean interns, then you are correct.

Aw, but it wasn't specific enough to question Moussaoui about. Georgie needs it to be all spelled out for him.

Seriously, you have no idea what the Chinese Wall did, do you? How could the FBI know to ask Moussaoui about a plot when the CIA couldn't share said knowledge of the plot with the FBI in the firstplace?

Honestly, MM QBing is a vapid waste of time.

Why didn't the so-called "Wall" hamper the Clinton administration from preventing numerous terrorist attacks in progress ?

Why didn't the so-called "Wall" hamper the Clinton administration from prosecuting terrorists and imprisoning them ?

* The Clinton team stopped (in progress) an attempt to blow up the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel, and the George Washington Bridge.

* They stopped already planned attacks to blow up the U.N. General Assembly building, to blow up the New York FBI building, to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle, to blow up the Boston airport, to blow up the L.A.X. airport, to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington, to blow up the US Embassy in Albania, and two attempts to plant bombs in specific (still classified) cites in the Northeast and the Northwest of the United States. Not to mention they stopped an attempt on the life of the Pope, an attempt to blow up the biggest hotel in Jordan, and an attempted bombing of a Christian site in Bethlehem. Oh, and let’s not forget they also prevented an on schedule plan to hijack and blow up 12 U.S. civilian airliners simultaneously on a single day in the Western United States.

And that was just around the Millennium.

dear god. mcgoober is the stupidest right-winger we've had posting here in quite some time, and that's saying something.

your pal,
blake

So where did the so-called "Wall" hamper the Clinton administration ?

That was the only remaining excuse you had for Chimpy's incompetence.

McGruber,

"The Clinton Team did that? Or the FBI, headed by Louis Freeh, who was no friend of the Clintons?"

Actually, the joint Congressional committee investigating intelligence failures prior to 9/11 reported that Freeh and the FBI, even after a plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport was prevented in December 1999, was STILL repeatedly assuring the Clinton White House that al-Qaeda lacked the ability to launch a domestic attack in the U.S.

The Clinton White House ignored Freeh's faulty advice.

"Using your metrics, Bush has stopped far more plots than Clinton."

There have been no terrorist plots stopped in progress since the Millennium.

BTW, still waiting for the EVIDENCE that the so-called "Wall" hampered Chimpy from preventing a terrorist attack.

Using your metrics, Bush has stopped far more plots than Clinton.

Number of dead (not all were Americans) killed by terrorist attacks on Amercian soil under Bush:
9/11 DC, PA, and NYC
2,974 dead and another 24 missing in 9/11
Anthrax attacks
5 dead

Hey, Bush NEVER CAUGHT The ANTHRAX TERRORISTS either, did he? I think the Boy Emperor does not come off well here. when did all of this "keeping us safe" stuff happen anyway. What it when he let bin laden get away or when he let the anthrax terrorists get away?

Number of dead (not all were Americans) killed by terrorist attacks on American soil under Bush:
1993 WTC bombing
6 dead
Number of WTC bombers arrested tried, and convicted: 6

I give Clinton major props for this, seeing how it occurred only 37 days after he took office. Just about the entire execution phase took place under Bush 41's nose.

And he did it without banging his interns in the Oval Office.

Yeah, like anyone would fuck Bush.

The Philadelphia Inquirer used to be a great paper. Now they really are "the GM of newspapers". What a shame.

The Philadelphia Inquirer used to be a great paper. Now they really are "the GM of newspapers". What a shame.

McGruber,

"You might want to look at the newest thread: had a quick hit on a plot stopped during the Evil Bush Administration. Not to mention the Fort Dix plot - or does that not count because the terrorists were planning to attack a U.S. military installation."

They were convicted of talking about a terrorist attack. No plans, no resources, no armaments.

PATHETIC.

Reminiscent of the Bushies claim of WMD in Iraq, and yellow cake, and aluminum tubes, and the mushroom cloud, and of course Mohamed Atta in Prague.

Wow.

John Yoo is more of a cartoon caricature of a wingnut than I could have possibly imagined.