The failed attempt at a terrorist attack in Detroit over the weekend has caused Republicans to revive their claims that Democrats are weak on national security. On CNN’s State of the Union today Mary Matalin claimed that George W. Bush inherited 9/11 from Bill Clinton, even though 9/11 happened 8 months after Bush took office.
Here is the video courtesy of Think Progress:
Matalin said, “I was there, we inherited a recession from President Clinton and we inherited the most tragic attack on our own soil in our nation’s history. And President Bush dealt with it and within a year of his presidency within a comparable time, unemployment was at 5 percent.”
Of course, this isn’t the first time that has former member of the Bush/Cheney team has distorted the 9/11 timeline. Last month former Bush press secretary Dana Perino claimed that the U.S. did not suffer a terrorist attack during the Bush presidency.
Here is the video of Perino’s November 24 appearance on FNC’s Hannity:
Perino said, “They want to do all of their investigations. I don’t know. All of the thinking that goes into it. But we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term. I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think we ought it to the American people to call it what it is.”
Of course this absurd because George W. Bush took office in January of 2001, and the 9/11 attacks occurred on September 11, 2001, months after George W. Bush took office. Anyone who knows how to use a calendar understands that September comes after January.
The motivation for both Matalin and Perino to tell such obvious lies is simple. They are trying to reclaim the post 9/11 “glory days” of the Republican Party. The objective is to convince the American people that only Republicans can keep them safe, and when a historical fact like the date of 9/11 challenges their claims, then they rewrite history to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11.
The Republicans are still treating the American people like they are complete idiots. Everyone knows that Bush was president during 9/11. Their pathetic attempt to change the facts should be an insult to every American. This latest great lie of the right is a shallow attempt to revive the politics of fear that carried the GOP to victory in 2002 and 2004.
Your have a very dangerous country. Your ex president Mr. Bush killed your friends on 9/11 and you thought that he is a here who will save you. What a great country! Full of idiots.
Why do people continue to post comments on the internet concerning their political opinions? Do you think you’re going to change anyone’s minds that reads these insignificant comments from insignificant people? There are real forums in your real towns and cities; If you haven’t, I encourage you to take the argument there, where people are somewhat accountable to others for their words rather than shielded by anonymity and distance. Hell, I’m not sure why I’m even posting this.
We don’t have to worry about getting shot from a deranged rightwingnuts carry firearms to the debate. I have a carry permit but I do not take my pistol to town hall meeting that is just stupid.
Well, there were a lot of terrorist attacks on American soil before GW got in. The US in genreal never took it seriously (both parties) before 9-11.
Zebra killings-black muslim extremists
Yahweh ben Yahweh – terrorist muslim cult
faln-1975
oklahoma city
wtc 1
Fort hood massacre (post GW attack, this occured under Obama’s watch, so it was his fault).
Plenty of blame to go around. Both the Republirats and Demorats have done a crappy job.
Could they have used a better word than inherited? Yes. Does that one word make them trying to rewrite history? Absolutely not.
The point was, Clinton was given opportunities to kill Bin Laden and he declined on pulling the trigger. These passive decisions lead to continued growth by Al queda and eventually 9/11.
I feel like crap today because I hate so much over the holidays. I blame Bush because if it wasn’t for his right wing ideologies I wouldn’t have eaten so much. The day people realize that Bush is no longer president and they can look at what is happening here and now the better this country will be.
It’s not that hard. When “they” say Bush inherited 9/11, “they” are simply saying that Clinton knew Bin Laden was a threat, the Saudis offered to give him to us, Clinton said no, Bin Laden then went and directed 9/11 against us.
Obviously Clinton didn’t know Bin Laden was going to plan to attack us. Clinton was obviously also more concerned with the “peace dividend” than worrying about terrorism. Bush had his own distractions. Both Bush and Clinton would have tried to stop 9/11 had they known.
Overall, it’s Al Qaeda’s fault.
Here’s what’s truly amazing. So you lefties are concerned that Bush supporters are blaming the prior administration for something?
Every heard of a guy named Barack Obama? Not quite a year in office, he has blamed Bush for Chicago not getting the Olympics, lax airport security (now, not then), the housing crisis, the now worsening unemployment rate, and most everything going bad under Obama. I thought Bush was a lousy president, but the blame game by Obama to Bush is outlandishly illogical and frankly childish.
so it’s not ok to say that Bush inherited 9-11, 8 months into his presidency. But it is ok to say that Obama inherited all of Americas problems, 11 months into his.
this liberal flake double sided shit is hard to stomach sometimes.
Clinton failed on numerous occasions to deal with the growing terroist threat – cllassic kick the can down the road diplomacy. Interesting PBS special showing there was an opportunity to destroy Osama bin Laden in camp but Clinton failed to act until too late. He was too preoccupied dealing with the Lewinsky case. Al-Qaeda certainly did not materialize in the nine months under the new Bush administration. The terroists’ group first objective was to destroy Arab regiemes that invited western influence. For instance, they were the group to assasinate Egypt’s Sadat for his “sin” of cooperating with Israel. When Al Qaeda saw the weak US response to the Cole incident, and retreated from Somalia in the face of attacks, they decided to up the ante by directly attacking the US. Fortunately Bush dealt with it head-on.
during which Bush took an economy that was doing well, and trashed it.
Bush involved us legitimately in the war in Afghanistan after9/11. The involvement in Iraq was not even remotely as legitimate, and not a good idea.
I would argue the evidence suggests Bush ignored serious intelligence that was presented to him during the two months prior to the attack., making it Bush’s responsibility rather than an iinherited problem for which he can justifiably blame Clinton.
SOME factors were problems for Bush from events prior to his taking office, that is not the same thing as being a problem caused by the Clinton administration. Was Clinton perfect? Heck no, he made mistakes. But the country did considerably better under his administration, for which he deserves credit.
The phrase inherited problems is strictly applicable where the actions of Bush are directly responsible for some or all of the problem. Lack of regulation, and politicization of regulatory institutions, as well as the politicization of entities like the DOJ were directly causal at least in significant part for many of the problems with the economy facing Obama.
Bush policies and strategies are directly and causatively responsible for many of the international problems, including terrorism, facing Obama. Bush being a lousy president IS a fair attribution for many problems. One has to look at causal relationships, and then proceed. It is never appropriate just to pass blame for the sake of shifting responsibility.
[...] Republicans Continue to Rewrite History by Claiming that Bush Inherited 9/11 http://www.politicususa.com/en/GOP-9-11-Lies – view page – cached The failed attempt at a terrorist attack in Detroit over the weekend has caused Republicans to revive their claims that Democrats are weak on national security. On CNN’s State of the Union today Mary Matalin claimed that George W. Bush inherited 9/11 from Bill Clinton, even though 9/11 happened 8 [...]
Republics are certainly stupid…statistics indicate that conservatives have lower IQ’s than progressives. They’re like sheep – stupid animals – that follow any ridiculous marching order en masse.
This comment is rude and does not advance the debate.
and while I find myself in disagreement with them, I do not agree with your statement.
I’m sure you have no idea what any individual’s IQ is (except – maybe – your own).
They have a demonstrated fondness, almost a compulsion, to conformity, but that can arise from many causes – most likely, given their other fetishes, from fear.
If you had any actual familiarity with sheep, and working sheep herding dogs, you would know just how uncooperative they can be on occasion…. bad analogy here anonymous.
Yes, Repubs have low IQs, but apparently Jason does too…
While I do appreciate that this Republican mouthpiece is not making any sense at all (“…Bush dealt with it…”, really?!?), the “inherited” part is a reference to Clinton presiding over the USS Cole and first WTC attacks, and having a chance at killing Bin Laden and not taking it.
It’s not insinuating anything about the timeline of the 9/11 attacks.
Dana Perino obviously is not that dumb, she meant to say after 9/11 there were no more attacks on US soil, which is a terrible argument for Bush-style “security”, but still true.
Please try and rise above this inane pedantic nitpicking that distracts us from real issues.
jackass, i guess in your groveling you forgot about your buddy the shoe-bomber?
no matter what corrections are made, you will keep revising the intent of your statement over and over each time you are called out by facts.
bottom line – you jerks keep trying to revise history and are too ball-less to own up to anything that resulted from or during periods of your ideological influence.
Apparently, you are confusing low IQ with the ability to read minds. You know what Perino meant to say, where as I chose to write about what she actually did say. By the way, this wasn’t the first time that she made such statements. I used her appearance on Hannity because it was the most recent instance.
I apologize for not being able to read minds like you obviously can, some of us are but mere mortals.
Jason
It’s not impossible to inherit a problem from a prior administration, but the test I use is this: If Bush walked in on Day 1 saying “Wow, this is a big problem and we’ve got to deal with it,” then that’s a problem he inherited. If he walks in and a few weeks later his staff says “Wow, Mr. President, we’ve audited records of the prior administration and they left it a real mess,” that can be a problem (though it’s subject to spin). But he was moved in and doing nothing and reporting nothing, so EVEN IF it was a problem that came in from Clinton (and that’s still possible), the fact that Bush was unaware until the strike is proof that, at worst, it was not reasonably forseeable since if Bush didn’t see it coming why should Clinton have.
In fact, though, we know that Clinton knew that Bin Laden WAS a looming problem and that he communicated the information to Bush and he did nothing. We also know that Bush’s administration ignored the memos saying he was determined to attack. That doesn’t count as a problem that was inherited. That’s a problem of bad stewardship on Bush’s watch. Saying otherwise is like you buying a house from me where I’ve disclosed in the inspection that there are termites and you’ve gone ahead anyway and then you complain later that I left you with a big problem. At some point, you have to own the fact that you had proper disclosure and you blew it.
Whatever happened to “The Buck Stops Here?”
Bush’s own advisors, like Richard Clarke complained bitterly and documented convincingly that Bush ignored warnings and advice to act. You can’t hold Clinton responsible for other parts of the world outside of his control or events that took place concurrently with his administration. Bush failed to do a conscientious and competent job in areas that were his responsibility and in his control HERE.
You are almost there.
Even if the problem was Clinton’s, Bush responded to it by reading a story about a pet goat to kids. Is that being tough on security?
And do you think Bush inherited the thermite that brought down the towers from Clinton, and did he know it was there before he took office?
Because the thermite, a very powerful military explosive, WAS there. It has been proven over and over, peer reviewed and what not. Why is it that the Bush/Cheney gang is trying to hide the fact that the 3 towers were full of military grade explosives?
Why are they not trying to pin that one on Clinton?
Maybe because Bush’s brother was in charge of the security at the World Trade Center?
Aaah, the facts, they’re always there, but clearly America isn’t very interrested in them.
All those neo-conservative chickenhawks should be jailed forever, the evidence is there, but still people discuss the bullshit that the corporate media throws at them.
Come on, people, think a little, research your country’s history, and open your eyes to the terror-feeding corporatocracy.
Wow, this is a shit blog post… 1) Mary Matalin doesn’t speak for all Republicans. 2) According to the 9/11 commission, the 9/11 attack took aprox. 4 years to plan put into effect. That means it was conceived of and planned for during the Clinton Administration.
1. sure she does. if her comments get shot down, then republican leadership might distance themselves. otherwise, if the shit sticks, they will fully support it. the ONLY admirable thing about republicans is the hive-mind like solidarity, no matter how senseless any of the drones’ remarks. having arbitrary GOP flacks throw out unsubstantiated nonsense to see what sticks, then fully backing it is a page right out of Rove’s playbook, used with great success throughout the last decade.
2. and bush threw all right to blame ANYONE out the window when he decided to consistently ignore the numerous warnings. not only was he asleep at the wheel, he was deliberately ignorant and dismissive. good ‘ole dubya really cares about you!
…and the sky is blue. So what! What does this statement have to do with applying culpability?
with it being common knowledge that we allow presidents to serve only two elected termsof office, they waited until Clinton was out of office, and until after W had demonstrated his ineffective, inattentive style of cowboy government before they actually decided to act on their plans.
Duh? (trying to speak your lingo here)
just another attempt at creating a new ‘big lie’ … there is definitely a certain special insanity that surrounds the illogical banterings of the neo-con crusaders sprouting up over the last decade or so … a very sad time for politics … the grand death of debate, in fact, and a sissy parade of nonsense
the main issue at this point in history is the fact that the philosophical concept of democracy is not at all where our nation has ended up … let’s face it, at this point we’re more of an flailing economically-defined system of things than anything else … we have failed at creating a true and real democracy, a land governed for the people by the people, just as badly as the soviet union failed at creating communism … both were fantastic ideas on paper and in concept, but both have been twisted and perverted each and every step along the way
in order for us to learn from all that has happened in the last decade or so, we all need to look at some of the reality, admit to our faults and shortcomings, and take an entirely new approach … a very bold, brave approach where each and every one of us starts to work toward that original concept of democracy … we all need to participate … television slothdom cannot be part of the equation … we need people to start using their voices and their hearts and their hands and rebuild THIS nation … and we need to make it a new nation that far surpasses that original dream, those original philosophies … one that aims to really live up to the promise of ‘for the people, by the people’ …
anyone not willing to step up and participate ( and i’m not talking about the passive-aggressive participation we call voting ) can just sit down and stop whining
enough
let’s get to work!
There is really no such thing as a “good” government. I’ve never even seen or heard about a universally effective government in the entirety of history. But to you folks on the left, it’s not the government that’s the problem, but who’s in government at the time. When Bush ruled with the patriot act in place, he was pictured as the looming tyrant. When Obama continues the very same policies and keep the exact same legal framework in place, it’s okay, cause he’s our guy. Do you really believe that the left has a huge amount of support right now either? Right now, libertarian and independent candidates poll higher than the GOP, and the only thing keeping the DNC together is the fact that they are a temporarily unified. The conservative vote is being split between Republicans, libertarians, and independents.
Your “solution” seems to involve yoking the masses to an intense political party. Maybe people do know what’s best for themselves and they are already voting or being as active as they feel that they should be. That whole, “let’s get to work” attitude just smacks of “get out of our way” and is almost similar to the the right wing’s “America, love it or leave it.” The more you lefties copy the right’s hyperbole, you are going to lose more and more of the American people. The more you complain about sarah palin, death panels, and bush, the more you will lose touch. Conservatives don’t care about sarah palin, Bush isn’t the president anymore, and only a small group of conservatives really believe that Obama isn’t from the US or that he wants to appoint death panels over every old person.
The higher the IQ, the less likely a person will be conservative.
Agreed, if the shoe fits huh. Its pretty clear, speaking in generalities of course, that republicans tend to be more emotional about politics. Emotions, like any psychiatrist can tell you is an easy in and is like reins to a horse when dealing with people. Get them all in the same emotional state while empathizing with you and they will follow you anywhere.
Terror Alert Level (Fear)? Patriot Act (Fear)? Glenn Beck (All Emotions), lol oh Glen, any man that cries at will regardless of being on TV is no kind of man.
We need serious people, not crybaby emo tards making the complicated decisions in our country.
Would love to see the study on that one please….
How about “No child left behind”?
Personally I blame 9/11 on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
Clinton was President for 8 years and was unable to get Bin Laden or disrupt Al Qaeda…although he tried.
Bush was President for 9 months and was unable to get Bin Laden or disrupt Al Qaeda…the degree to which he tried is debatable and not fully in the public record.
What needed to be done to prevent 9/11 could have been done prior to 9/11. Not by Clinton, and not by Bush.
9/11 changed things.
How could you completely accuse conservatives of killing debate? The left has used as much hyperbole, ad hominem attacks, bully pulpiting, and outright misinformation to push their agenda. You live in a fantasy world, where you are always right.
no, not even close. conservatives have destroyed debate. there are no factual conversations anymore. holding the right accountable for their own words gets dismissed as “gotcha media.” try to debate any topic with facts, and immediately the conversation becomes twisted into either
a) SOCIALISM!!!
b) you hate the troops! you arent a real american!
c) GOD GOD GOD JESUS JESUS GOD JESUS !
show me, PLEASE show me, a transcript of a debate between left and right over the last few years where the person on the right brought substantiated fact to the argument and the person of the left diverted the conversation into horse shit. particularly from Fox News. i’d love to stop feeling like a dumbass for being registered as a republican, but i dont see it happening any time soon.
conservatives don’t need to debate – they are always right because jesus said so. the second you bring religious thought patterns into a discussion, there is no chance of logical argument.
in a 2 party system in a government controlled by bankers it really doesn’t matter-
what matters is our nations inability to rise up and take away the bankers’ feeding tubes, curb foreign spending and defense spending and focus on social and economic issues here at home
bush and obama are just political puppets. their respective parties are just the stage production companies. don’t fool yourself into thinking otherwise
She said Bush’s term, not Bush’s presidency. That is what she ‘actually’ said, “term”. Isn’t that what you typed? Bush was re-elected (somehow) and therefore served 2 terms. 9/11 was in the first term. When was there an ‘actual’ terrorist attack on US soil between 2004 and 2008 (2nd term)?
In my opinion the only difference between the GOP and the Liberals is Liberals have fresher air between their ears (they do, after all, have an open mind).
Um, “term” can also mean his ENTIRE presidency, dipstick. Again, there you go, deciding that she must’ve meant his SECOND term when she said “during Bush’s term.”
You’re a friggin’ moron. Just stop while you’re ahead. You’re only making yourself sound stupider with every post you make.
The Republicans have claimed to be able to read the minds of Democrats for years, they base their strategies on misinterpreting other viewpoints. This does nothing to further any debate, it’s ad-hominem and pointless.
What we need is to ignore the fact that these talking heads make mistakes in their verbal diarrhea (everybody does it!) and figure out how to get the point across that they are butchering the country for some nebulous and false principle of “Conservatism”.
Somebody has to recognize that we can’t do anything productive in this country without bringing the conservatives into the fold and engaging them in meaningful debate. Right now the only people that are engaging conservative Americans are Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck and Limbaugh. These ideological idiots have no place in any debate, but they whip the moderates and wingnuts into a frenzy at the slightest provocation.
How do we get past this stupid “literal interpretation” nonsense and start building a better system? You talk about what Perino and Hannity say, I ask who the hell cares what Dana Perino said? Those two people are utterly irrelevant to anything current! They get on Fox News and then you have to talk about how infuriating it was to see them lie, quit falling for their tactics.
How do we fix the Senate? How do we excise the lobbyists? How do we make the country more free, more united and more secure? Ask some questions that have implications, not this he-said she-said bullshit.
Not that it’s central to the debate, but let’s not make up new definitions. According to the Constitution, Article II, section 1, a term is a four year period of service by the president.
According to the 22nd amendment, a president can serve two terms, or be elected to one term if he/she served 2 or more years as acting president under someone else’s election.
So, perhaps “dipstick” actually means exactly right, and stupider actually refers to trying to convince a pack of wild hyenas, and is in fact all in vain. Or maybe you’re just name calling.
I agree with the previous poster. I seriously doubt she was trying to convince the public that 9/11 never happened under Bush. That just seems like a silly point.
Another poster on here mentions facts/debate. Be nice to see some of that, not “person x is stupid.”
You couldn’t tell from my tone that I’m a liberal-minded person? I am asking everyone to quit worrying about facts. Conservatives hate facts, they ignore them in favor of emotional reactions. You cannot win over a conservative with facts, just let it go.
You would be hard pressed to find anyone more ideologically opposed to Bush, or anyone that hates him more than I do, he is scum, we all know this. But citing a failed attempt at terrorism isn’t very useful and doesn’t change anything I said before. Perino had a point, and it was very poorly articulated. Her flawed logic makes no sense in either interpretation, so let it go! It’s not important.
I guarantee Perino has already moved on to the next hit piece and couldn’t care less how you heard her, they’ve already chalked it up as a win.