Just as it had on the day before 9/11, Al Qaeda now has a band of terror camps from which to plan and train for attacks against Western targets, including the United States. Officials say the new camps are smaller than the ones the group used prior to 2001. However, despite dozens of American missile strikes in Pakistan since 2002, one retired CIA officer estimated that the makeshift training compounds now have as many as 2,000 Arab and Pakistani militants, up from several hundred three years ago.
Bush is nothing but epic fail from day one to day 2,922.
But while Bush vowed early on that Bin Laden would be captured “dead or alive,” the moment in late 2001 when Bin Laden and his followers escaped at Tora Bora was almost certainly the last time the Qaeda leader was in American sights, current and former intelligence officials say. Leading terrorism experts have warned that it is only a matter of time before a major terrorist attack planned in the mountains of Pakistan is carried out on American soil.
Remember that next time you take your shoes off at the airport. To quote Robert DeNiro’s Al Capone in the Untouchables, Bush and is nothing “but a lot of talk and a badge.”
The Buffalo Record 
As an intelligent individual, don’t you ever ponder the reason why Osama hasn’t been “sanctioned”….
The number of terrorist attacks–how many since 9/11? how many thwarted before they could be unleashed?
How many citizens injured or killed by terrorists inside our boarders since 9/11?
BUSH ISN’T RUNNING ALAN—Hate him all you like, but he’s not Barry Hussein’s competitor.
I’d prefer to go back to the days of “Who killed Vince Foster?” Travelgate,Monica Sploogegate, and total ineptitude. And if Barry gets in that’s JUST what you’ll have.
This really has been the worst administration in our history, compounded by the fact it occurred at the worst possible time. It can not end too soon.
As for Hank and other dittoheads, that tired and dangerous mantra “no attacks since 911” is very naive. The first World Trade Center attack was in 1993! Does that mean Clinton did a great job thwarting new attacks on America? Or does it just mean that there were no attacks? Puhleeeeeeease!
I guess the president is ultimately responsible, but the FBI did thwart an attack after 1993, before 9/11. They had planned to destory a number of NYC landmarks, including bridges and tunnels and to assassinate Sen. D’Amato.
Much has been written about how the Clinton adminstration dropped the ball and missed some opportunities to kill or capture Bin Laden and reign in Al Qaeda. Much has also been written about the failings of the current administration to follow up on these during and after the transition. Now a new report comes out about failings of the Pentagon.
There is no new information here and I fail to see how any of this qualifies Bush for the worst administration ever. If that’s the case, Clinton would have to be a very close runner up. Personally, I fail to see how any two-termer could be the worst ever.
The problems with Pakistan are not unique to the Bush administration. All these critics have not offered ways that things could have been handled differently. We cannot indiscrimately enter Pakistan, track any group we want there and break up training cells in that country. Unfortunately, our hands a little tied there and they know it. That’s why they’re there.
In the end, it just sounds to me like this post and other stories like it are just preparations for a possible future Obama presidency. They’re laying the groundwork early to try to pass off the blame when the Obama administration fails to protect the homeland.
(sung in annoying trilling Robert Plant voice)
Does anybody remember Anthrax?
“We cannot indiscrimately enter Pakistan, track any group we want there and break up training cells in that country.”
apparently we did exactly that in Jan.
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Jan. 18 – Two senior members of Al Qaeda and the son-in-law of its No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, were among those killed in the American airstrikes in remote northeastern Pakistan last week, two Pakistani officials said here on Wednesday.
This is a tctic advocated, believe it or not by OBAMA
“John McCain has been making a lot of noise about Barack Obama’s past comment that he, Obama, would bomb areas of Pakistan without the permission of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf if there was credible evidence of terrorist activities “
“The most important thing is to find Osama Bin Laden. It’s our NUMBER ONE priority. We will not rest until have found him”
— Dubya, Sept. 13 and 16, 2001
Wait for it….
“I don’t know where he is. I have no idea and I REALLY DON’T CARE. It’s not that important.”
–Dubya, March 13, 2002
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Wake up.
Freida, airstrikes are not the same as boots on the ground. And we have had permission from Musharraf for most of those kinds of attacks.
Apparently, you also fail to see the polls.
OBL remains free and alive because he is a very useful specter to have looming about. If you honestly think US intel and special ops couldn’t have killed him by now, you seriously underestimate the US.
Hank, thanks for getting me that 600 bucks!! Yahoo its like christmas in june, too bad its only 5 tanks of gas now. Maybe the next rebate you could ask him to pay us in euro’s. Too bad hank, your 8 year jerk off is almost over, get ready to use food stamps again.
Snarky, did US history begin in 1941? Besides, that measures approval ratings at one point in time, not best vs. worst of all time. Furthermore, the yardstick changes numerous times over those decades.
And Snarky, take another look at your poll data. If you want to use that as a statement on worst ever, you’d have to go with Harry S Truman. He consistently has the lowest approval scores. The problem with the logic of your post is that many historians consider him one of our better presidents.
Pick nits all you want, Russell; Bush’s popularity is in the toilet, and has done nothing but go downhill since 2005. Do you seriously think historians are going to come to some sort of reevaluation over Bush? That remains to be seen, but for the time being, he is reviled abroad and intensely disliked at home.
Let’s agree, then, on “Second-Most-Disliked-President-Since-1941” I’m cool w/that.
It’s not nit picking, but I will agree with your last statement.
Oh wait, Nixon’s ratings were lower, so we’d have to go with “Third-Most-Disliked-President-Since-1941”. Still, not the same as “Worst. Ever.”
i bets obama gets osama.
aren’t they related or something?
ahh, data… good stuff.
Actually, Truman and W’s distributions on those two arrays seem likely to have come from the same underlying distribution, i.e., they are not statistically different at p < .01 Ergo, they are/were equally unpopular. Bush, naturally, has the historical advantage in that his presidency isn’t quite over yet, so all his data aren’t in.
So… shall we add in Nixon and do a one-way ANOVA? You know, in case there’s a tie for “least-popular-president-since-1941?”
WASHINGTON DC (CNN) — A new poll suggests that President Bush is the most unpopular president in modern American history.
A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey indicates that 71 percent of the American public disapprove of how Bush is handling his job as president.
“No president has ever had a higher disapproval rating in any CNN or Gallup Poll; in fact, this is the first time that any president’s disapproval rating has cracked the 70 percent mark,”
Ladies and gentlemen, apparently you have some problems with reading comprehension. Popularity is not the same as best/worst. I don’t know why that is such a difficult concept.
For the record, most historians believe that James Buchanan was the worst president ever. Not only did many of his policy do little to alleviate the growing tensions in the US, many historians feel he exacerbated the problems and provided the final shove that plunged us headlong into the Civil War.
Really, without all the hyperbole and dramatic partisanism, do you think that anything that Bush has done compares in any way to ripping this country apart and almost destroying its very existence?
Althought there is no historic perspective yet, most historians place this Bush somewhere around the middle of the road, averaging about 23rd among the 42 Presidents–not best or worst, somewhere around or just below average.
What historians? please provide reference.
Asked to rank the presidency of George W. Bush in comparison to those of the other 41 American
presidents, more than 61 percent of the historians concluded that the current presidency is the worst in
the nation’s history. Another 35 percent of the historians surveyed rated the Bush presidency in the 31st
to 41st category, while only four of the 109 respondents ranked the current presidency as even among
the top two-thirds of American administrations.
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
Read the whole article not just the paragraph you posted. It clearly states that it’s poll is unscientific and informal. That’s not very reliable.
Here’s a scientific poll from The Wall Street Journal of “an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics. It has Buchanan last and Bush right around the middle:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007243
Here’s an AP article referencing a University of Louisville poll:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060218/presidential_errors_060218/20060218?hub=World
Here’s a Siena College poll of “experts” that states Bush was around 23rd
Click to access 06_may_expert_bush_release.pdf
The WSJ-Federalist Society study was done in 2000 and places George H. W. Bush “around the middle”. As a gauge of his son’s ranking, it’s not reliable at all.
The University of Louisville poll ranked presidential errors, not presidents and as the article clearly states, it didn’t address the decision to invade Iraq or any other Bush decision. Not sure what that link was supposed to prove.
The Siena Research poll placed Bush 23rd in 2002 – “shortly after 9/11”, as the linked article clearly states. The 2006 Siena study doesn’t rank Bush historically, although the article quotes an SRI representative as follows: “While time is needed to fairly and accurately gauge how well any president ranks with his predecessors, George W. Bush starts with a ranking that could hardly be lower.” Read the whole article not just the few words that you lifted from it.
Rob, 2000 was the year Bush was elected. The poll took place in 2005 and I already qualified Bush’s ranking in previous posts as too early. The point is he’s not being listed as worst and many agree Buchanan is.
What’s Robert Plant got to do with anthrax???
Russel, those polls are as old as the hills , can you reference something more recent like maybe in 2008.
Frieda, that’s part of the point. To declare worst ever you need some historical perspective. 2005, 2008 even 2010 would not provide that. To determine where he stands among all the others, you need some time to see the full effects of the administration and where they rank among history. Popularity polls during the adminstration are measuring something completely different and do not correlate directly with best/worst evaluations.
BP conceded he was too rash in declaring “Worst.Ever.” on the other thread.
Like I asked before, do you honestly believe that what Bush has done is worse than Buchanan? If so, please explain what has been worse than our Civil War.
It’s pretty sad watching you, Russell, trying to stick up for Bush. The only thing worse would be having to read a “column” by Mary Kunz Goldman. She’s the worst of all.
I’m not sticking up for Bush. I’m sick of the hyperbole and ridiculous pronouncements. There is not perspective and people saying those kinds of things lack any understanding of history.
I’m not a huge fan of either of the Bushes. I think both of their presidencies were sub-par. I just wouldn’t say “Worst.Ever.”
Russell, I have not expressed a personal opinion on Bush one way or another in this thread, I have merely pointed to polls and articles which I contend contradict most of your conclusions.
Frieda, you’ve been a little all over the place, but you haven’t posted anything to refute my main point, which BP conceded. It’s too early to rank Bush. Even if you have one unreliable, unscientific poll and I have others that are much more reliable that support the notion that he’s certainly not the worst, it doesn’t matter. It’s too early and ridiculous to make that claim at this point.
Besides, Frieda, you pointed to one poll/article and even its own author stated it was unreliable. That’s hardly a contradiction.
Read… Unreliable and Unscientific are not the same.
An unscientific poll is unreliable.
WTF difference do the polls make? The headline was my opinion.
@JR
The Robert Plant reference was to the section of live performances of “Stairway to Heaven” where Plant warbled “Does anybody remember laughter”
The usage here is to highlight how those who bleat “No attacks since 9/11!!!” are conveniently forgetting the anthrax mailings in late September and October 2001. Funny how a bioterrorism attack on media offices, two U.S. Senators (including the Democratic Majority Leader) and other entities resulting in the deaths of 5 people and the infection of 17 more doesn’t qualify as “terra” in the hearts of Bush apologists.
No; reliability isn’t validity. Reliability is necessary, but not sufficient, for validity.
And hey: Happy Canada Day!