Saving Jobs And Saving Lives

The LA Times headlines a story saying it's hard to prove Cheney's claim that Bush administration policies saved American lives. In the same vein, it seems to me that Obama's claims of spending trillions of our children's dollars to allegedly save American jobs is hard to prove, too, right? No doubt they'll be pointing that out when Obama stands for re-election on the claim.

Sure they will.

But terrorism experts said that though it is possible to envision scenarios that involve casualties of that magnitude, no evidence has emerged about the plots disrupted during the Bush administration to suggest that Cheney's claim is true.

"It's an easy thing to say and a difficult thing to prove," said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. "I think it's another broadside in this ongoing feud."

Comments

[bear1909]

So if the Library bombing had gone through no one would have been killed? Dhimmi slime

[Capitalist Infidel]

If Cheney's points are "hard to prove" wouldn't it also be hard to prove Obama's assertion that Gunatanamo Bay has caused more terrorists than it houses? Why is this crap always one way?

[john]

Actually Cheney's points would be somewhat verifiable if the memos he requested were released, as you could see the information gathered and extrapolate the likely loss of life had the disrupted plots succeeded (which is why we'll never see them).

Granted it'd still be an estimate but it'd be a great deal more accurate than the recent remarks by Obama about creating/saving jobs.

[Nishner]

Yeah, because he was sooooooo right about all that Iraq War stuff.

[lu-ee]

....can someone tell me how the 2nd Gulf War is/was wrong?

....to this day not one African, Arab, or European country, who provided USA intel organizations, WITH THE F*KIN INTEL that Saddam had, & was further developing, WMDs!

....NOT ONE OF THESE COUNTRIES HAS PROVIDED EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY, AND NEITHER HAS ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER....

....also, John Kerry stated 2 weeks before the end of 2004 election season, that Iraqi troops removed non-biological/chemical WMDs from their ammo depots. With video of these facts. Kerry then tried to show how Bush didnt move the troops fast enough to capture these WMDs.....AND how it was all Bush's fault that the WMDs were removed & never found!!!

....funny how every liberal, and no small amount of supposed "conservatives" AND "republicans," forget these crucial FACTS.

...but alas, Bush & Company simply dont want to defend themselves for protecting the USA. I will never understand the lack of communication Bush's admin had with the American electorate. Granted the media would have twisted every word he said, but Cheney is proving you can push back & be successful on your own terms.

...keep fighting the good fight Cheney!!!

[mark l.]

google the following in google news-

bush rosy, obama rosy...

bush 114, obama 522.

pretty impressive for a guy who has been on the job for 4 months. Pretty soon, al sharpton is going to tell us that "rosy" is a racist codeword for incompetence.

[mark l.]

http://www.lesjones.com/2009/05/12/unemployment-numbers-worse-than-projected/

file this under "rosy".

obama projections on the stimulus plan versus 'no' stimulus plan...

no plan-unemployment would peak at 9%, from q1-q3 2010.
with plan-unmeployment would peak at 8%, at this very moment.

current unemployment is 8.9%. we now have a higher unemployment rate than europe, which did not pursue a stimulus.
(the .9% of labor force is roughly 1.4 million jobs...at 10% unemployment, he will have lost more jobs than he predicted he was going to save, or create)

When unemployment crosses 10%, obama will have missed on his unemployment projections by 25%. probably a good(snicker) constitutional lawyer, not very bright on anything economic. The disaster is that in his rush to put himself out there as chief economic prognosticator/messiah, he didn't leave anyone out there who can take the blame when things get worse.

quick, name his job "czar". at present, his economic 'czar' is timmy geithner.

[anon]

If there was a memo that vindicated Cheney he would have found a way to release it.

This is a person who created a fourth branch of government, an executive/legislative hybrid, to suit his purposes but he can't get the ONE MEMO that will prove all of his assertions released.

What? He doesn't have a copy and neither does Joh Yoo or anybody else.

Puleez.

[lala]

Maybe Sandypants Berger has the memo.

[DaveinPhoenix]

"In the same vein, it seems to me that Obama's claims of spending trillions of our children's dollars to allegedly save American jobs is hard to prove, too, right?"

--Not really, factually, eighty years of deficit spending from 1929-2009 has shrunk the private sector in America from 88% of the entire economy to 55% while all levels of government have grown from 12% to around 45%.

Grandfather Economic Report - Home Page - by MWHodges
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/

[mark l.]

"If there was a memo that vindicated Cheney he would have found a way to release it."

"After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that allowed the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already "tasked" with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles."

http://townhall.com/Columnists/TerryJeffrey/2009/04/22/cia_waterboarding_produced_intel_that_stopped_attack_on_los_angeles

apparently, the memo was already released-
(from same article 4/22/09)
"The previously classified memo was released by President Obama last week."

I'm looking at the three waterboard 'victims'-
KSM, the mastermind of 9/11.
Abu Zubaydah, the guy who directed/financed convicted millenium bomber, Ahmed Ressam, who incidentally targetted LA.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

Three victims who have this thread of masterminding very high level attacks...

I'd imagine reams of information being provided. Two were responsible for killing americans, while the other had the 'misfortune' of being unsuccessful. The recurring theme that was produced was pretty scary.

did ksm give up after failing in 93 at the wtc?

LA should have it's own specific threat level, because it seems they had captured everyone's imagination. If there is a 'successful' mission committed there, in the next 5 years, the roots are going back to the guys who got waterboarded, and gladly not the guys we didnt't waterboard.

[WBestPresidentEver]

Obama, "worst leader ever", To run this country. I will never call him President.
I still cannot believe people actually voted for him.
That Kool aid had some potent stuff in it.
Really messes with the brain.

Happy Memorial Day and may God Bless our soldiers and their families and all who really care about this country.

[mark l.]

you just stay in your bathtub, patriot.

any terror plot that was stopped, was probably just a lie, "like 9/11".
there will be no further attacks. obama might as well declare victory.

[mark l.]

"quake in fear at the sight of my superior skills of reason and logic."

try this one-

let's assume NO terrorist plot was thwarted. This means that bush was successful in completely dismantling al-queda. no information obatained via waterboarding was relevant to this 'victory'. by your supposition, you are giving a great deal of credit to bush.

93-wtc
96-kobar towers
98-embassy bombings
00-cole, millenium plot
01-9/11.

since 9/11? either bush is the luckiest guy on the planet, or they got something right.

we could struggle a little further with logic that you would offer-
waterboarding was UNSUCCESSFUL in gathering intel on ongoing operations, despite having the three masterminds/financial routers of wtc(93), 9/11, the cole, and the millenium plot, becuase a)there were no future plans, or b)these three would not be aware of future plans.

did we BEAT al-queda? did W win?

[lala]

Nancy Pelosi should call for immediate hearings on the CIA to expose their lies once and for all.

[mark l.]

Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, wrote: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.” But when Blair’s office released parts of his letter as a public statement on the subject, that sentence was cut. Blair also noted that members of Congress had been briefed on the methods, but that section was also cut from the public statement.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/cheney_request_denied.asp

so, on one side we have cheney saying plots were thwarted, and the current DNI staking out the postion of "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country.”

the truth is probably somewhere in between, against the backdrop of NO ATTACKS in eight years.

[Nishner]

No Al Qaeda attacks since 9/11 - are you serious?

Torture is against US law.

[Old Trooper]

OK, calling you on it. Be advised that the US Constitution applies to American soil Skippy.
Cite the Statute or get off your soapbox and get outa here.

[Nishner]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340---A000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

[mark l.]

"No Al Qaeda attacks since 9/11 - are you serious?"

I'm all ears, if you got one.

[Nishner]

For starters, think Bali

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/11/07/bali.bombings.qaeda/index.html

And learn how to use Google. It'll save you tho embarrassment of coming off as an uniformed shill

[mark l.]

so, obama will be held responsible for AQ attacks in bali. fair enough.
looks like you hold him responsible for losing in pakistan, currently.

I don't know how to use google...could you find a dem, aside from yourself, who deemed bali on the scale of wtc, kobar towers, millienium plot, etc?

even the nick berg beheading had more drama to it.

no chance you could detail our actual responsiblity for the failure of preventing the bali bombings.

[mark l.]

"Ironically, it was left to Chris Matthews -- one of the vice president's most unrelenting critics -- to offer the best take on last week's dueling speeches. On his Sunday show, he put it this way: "I saw something from Barack Obama I never even saw in the campaign, a sense he was listening for footsteps, that he could hear Cheney coming at him and he was defensive."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124328987165752237.html

if you want to hold bush/cheney responsible for failing to prevent an attack in bali, I really can't wait to hold obama's feet to the fire on what you believe HE will be responsible for...

you have made a hurdle for buch/cheney, that even obama will not be able to jump.

"footsteps"? cheney threw down the gauntlet, and the best obama can hope for is to keep the pace of bush/cheney. he stumbles, and he'll never recover.

would you still love the messiah if we are attacked again?

[Nishner]

You wrote "against the backdrop of NO ATTACKS in eight years."

Apparently "NO ATTACKS" means something different to you than me.

[mark l.]

i'm not seeing anyone calling cheney on his assertions...

checked wiki for list of major attakcs by AQ...

there is one for instanbuhl/2003, 9/11, the embassies, and the cole. Bali didn't make the cut.

your bali bombing of 03, which had 6 or 7 americans as collateral damage...how many americans were killed in the months after obama took office, by illegal immigrants?

no attacks? here's a list of 19 that were stopped, targetting US interests.
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

[Nishner]

Do you not understand what you mean when you write: "against the backdrop of NO ATTACKS in eight years."?

[mark l.]

the criteria you used to define "attack" is the problem.

your first choice was bali, which sets the threshold at 7 dead, in defining attack. under this definition of 'attack' we are under 'attack' from mexican nationals. They have killed more US citizens than AQ, since aboma took office. I would venture a guess that the number exceeds 7 dead.

[mark l.]

I guess, by another definition, that AQ is still attacking us...

"2 : to assail with unfriendly or bitter words"

yep, they've been bitching at us, so clearly we are under attack constantly.

"attack implies taking the initiative in a struggle" by merriam webster.
maybe I'm being parochial, but if it is outside the US zones of responsiblity, cheney's covered. The other events incidentally target the US, but are not the point of focus. I'm sure obama will stop "all" attacks directed against us ;), and you, in you desire to hold some account of cheney, will fail to offer the same indictment of your messiah.

[Nishner]

Please explain what you mean when you write: "against the backdrop of NO ATTACKS in eight years."

Also you're wrong on this: "your first choice was bali, which sets the threshold at 7 dead, in defining attack."

There were over 200 dead in Bali, not seven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings

The 2002 Bali bombings occurred on 12 October 2002 in the tourist district of Kuta on the Indonesian island of Bali. The attack was the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of Indonesia, killing 202 people, 164 of whom were foreign nationals, and 38 Indonesian citizens. A further 209 people were injured.

You seem to have a problem with facts.

[Rob Crawford]

"This is a person who created a fourth branch of government, an executive/legislative hybrid, to suit his purposes but he can't get the ONE MEMO that will prove all of his assertions released."

What the hell are you talking about?

[Rob Crawford]

Nishner -- Bali is not part of the United States.

[Nishner]

If someone writes a post, as Mark did, about pre-9/11 attacks citing attacks outside the US. Then writes a post which says "against the backdrop of NO ATTACKS in eight years." with NO qualifications, it means no attacks ANYWHERE. Which is demonstrably BS.

And his Bali screwup is a two-fer. First, he apparently didn't know it was an Al Qaeda operation despite the huge press it received at the time. Second, even after providing a link to the story about it, he still got the number of dead wrong, over 200 instead of 7.

Clueless? Apparently.