Just when you think they can be no more pathetic, Liz Cheney proves you wrong. ‘Pathetic’ isn’t sufficient to describe her.

What led to the 9-11 attacks was her daddy and the rest of the Bush Junta being derelict in their duties. They were warned a month in advance by the CIA and NSA that Bin Laden was plotting an attack using aircraft. What did they do about it? NOTHING!

If she wanted to be of use to this country, Liz Cheney should give her ghoulish father forty-one whacks like Liz Borden did with her dad, though not necessarily with an axe.

Ms. Cheney has a good point. I don’t agree with it entirely but the substance of it is sound.

The 9/11 Commission reported that the investigation into the first Word Center bombing was:

..Not designed to ask if the events might be harbingers of worse to come. Nor did it allow for aggregating and analyzing facts to see if they could provide clues to terrorist tactics more generally—methods of entry and finance, and mode of operation inside the United States.

It was much too narrow in its scope.

And they concluded that:
Although the bombing heightened awareness of a new terrorist danger, successful prosecutions contributed to widespread underestimation of the threat.

Their argument – one that Ms. Cheney is making – is that the successful prosecution misled us into thinking that the threat had diminished and that is was less severe then it actually was.

That’s the Commission’s argument. One can debate though points. But they are worth debating.

They make a similar argument about the Embassy bombings, i.e., that the civilian prosecutions misled us into the nature of the threat.

Again, it’s debatable but to just dismiss Ms.Cheney’s argument is wrong.

into the first Word Center bombing

That would be World Center bombing. My darned keyboard is shot.

Yeah, blame the keyboard.

Read the 9/11 Commission Report on the actions prior to 9/11. They make some claims that I think support some of Ms. Cheney’s views.

No, that doesn’t absolve the Bush White House. But it does gives us the greater perspective that our security people had about the dangers.

Is Liz Cheney the one whose child was fathered by a turkey baster? If so, did she name the child “Tom?”

Liz Cheney is terrific, she was far superior to Ms. Maddow on FNS. She is spot on — specifically when she talks about the incompetency of the Obama administration Re; terrorists. She is a tremendous asset to this nation and I admire her enormously.

I love the comparison of the headlines:

Maddow Commands versus a Liz Cheney statement. If you put Liz and Maddow up side by side, Liz would slaughter Maddow in any battle of wits and knowledge.

^ Uh, pass the crack pipe, will ya?

‘Maddow Commands versus a Liz Cheney statement. If you put Liz and Maddow up side by side, Liz would slaughter Maddow in any battle of wits and knowledge.’

I agree with you, and because of the love for all things leftist on Mediaite, it is fast becoming a place to avoid.

All hope abandon, ye who enter here.

^ Bye! Bu-bye!

I agree with you, and because of the love for all things leftist on Mediaite, it is fast becoming a place to avoid.

Yeah, too many of the writers are just incapable – or unwilling – to jettison their ideology. Politics first, analysis second.

Ms. Cheney isn’t saying anything that the 9/11 Commission didn’t also state. That is that the criminal trials of the first World Trade Center bombing and later of the Embassy bombings were too limited in their scope and lulled us into thinking that the threat had been eliminated (generally speaking).

That doesn’t absolve the Bush White House from its failures. And that doesn’t mean that civilian trials today can’t be successful (although I think they can’t).

Personally, I think we need to have Congress establish a “National Security Court” system to handle these cases. Something that can provide enough safeguards that innocent people won’t be railroaded but also with enough security to limit the publication of national security information. It would allow prosecutors more leeway in investigating the crimes.

Instead of calling each other names (both sides do it), maybe we can intelligently discuss it?

Yeah, who am I kidding?

I respect both Liz Cheney and Juan Wiliams, but I thought important comments were also made by Ceci Connolly from the Washington Post.

If I can paraphrase, she said that the American people were surprised to find out that the High Value Interrogation Group, which was supposed to be created by the Administration after President Obama stopped CIA interrogations in Jan 2009, had not yet been established at the time of the attempted Christmas attack in Detroit. In fact, the group was only implemented in February of this year. She indicated that this left the Administration open to charges of being weak regarding national security.

President Obama’s surrogate attack dogs on the radical left will of course continue to demonize Ms. Cheney, her father, and President Bush. But the Washington Post is a respected pillar of the liberal main stream media. If the Post begins to criticize the President on national security, how will the lunatics at the Huffington Post or the Daily Kos respond?

Liz Cheney is wrong of course, everyone knows that the 9/11 attacks occurred because of cheese. The tea-baggers are all nodding in agreement.

Bill Adkins says:
February 14, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Personal attack.

Jelperman says:
February 14, 2010 at 5:38 pm

Misses the point / Personal attack.

parakeeta says:
February 14, 2010 at 6:15 pm

Personal attack.

parakeeta says:
February 14, 2010 at 7:06 pm

Personal attack.

parakeeta says:
February 14, 2010 at 7:19 pm

Snark.

Ted says:
February 14, 2010 at 8:50 pm

Personal attack.

____________________

An interesting thing happens when someone on the right makes an informed comment that the left can’t refute. They sure do make a lot of personal attacks. WTG guys… you’re retorts are solid!

Ugh.

The key term being “informed comment”…you make this far too easy ImNutblue. What you tea-baggers call “informed comment” most others call “bullshit.”

parakeeta just to let you know that it was her sister who used the turkey baster!!!

Ted says:
February 14, 2010 at 9:46 pm

And that turns your (and the other) personal attacks into valid comments how?

blueblogger says:
February 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Ohh… I can add homophobic to the list!

ImNotSmart, once again shows he’s out of his league. You’ve never added anything to the discussion other than “ugh” and “the left is mean.” Again, your fake “college degree” isn’t helping. Get outside, read a book, do something. We’ll continue to mock teabaggers like you because we are better than you.

Oh, and Happy valentine’s day to you ImAloneOnceAgain. I bet this year was just as lonely as last year’s was for ya! Don’t worry, my old lady and I brought you home some leftovers.

tjl – personal attack. Ugh! Snark! Insecure comment!

Smooches!

A turkey baster. Hilarious. I don’t know why anyone would say the far left gets hateful or strays off topic.

tjl says:
February 14, 2010 at 11:42 pm

tjl – personal attack. Ugh! Snark! Insecure comment!

Hey, at least this time he got something right!

I wonder, after you post to you think to yourself, “Good… I’m making a difference, I’m doing something good.” Or do you just think, “Yahoo! Did you see that insult?! Woo-Hoo!”

Dumb.

Liz Cheney has no points. She just wants to keep her daddy out of the dock.

On second thought, I’ll play along with the stupidity. Let’s assume that for once she’s not lying like a cheap rug, and the trials of those who bombed the WTC in 1993 stirred up hostility against the U.S.

What does she think the kidnapping, torture, rape and murder her father condoned and his willing executioners carried out has done? Cause them to take up golf? What does she think a lynching by a kangaroo court will do? Make them calm down and find hobbies?

Only right-wingers are dishonest enough to make this sort of claim, and stupid enough to believe it.

I have to ask: Is Liz Cheney a liar or simply ignorant. I have to think it’s the former. I can’t understand the networks’ rush to hurl her into our living room when her only agenda is to rebuild her father’s credibility. I do have to say that Ceci Connolly boxed Disingenuous Liz and Wrong Way Kristol in very effectively. Articulate. Polite. Informed. Strong.

Instead of personally attacking Liz Cheney, why won’t the critics read the 9/11 commission report about the trials of the first World Center bombing and the embassy bombings in Africa? You can accept or reject their claims. But to just attack Cheney and not respond to the substance isn’t scoring you any points.

Here’s the relevant section: “Counterterrorism Evolves” (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec3.pdf).
They point out that the counterterrorism efforts using civilian trials and prosecution was too limited in its scope and missed crucial evidence that AQ was planning larger attacks.

If all you’re interested in is scoring political points, never mind. But if you want to have an intelligent discussion, why not consider what they say?

Don’t be so condescending, Steve. To my knowledge, no one has overlooked the findings in the 9/11 Report, and I have no doubt that the pre-9/11 interrogations, discovery and trials were not as holistic as they ought to have been. I’m sure that has changed. But, that’s obvious, indeed superficial. The criticism of Cheney, the disingenuous nature of her critic is the presumption that indefinite Guantanamo detention, the use of torture and military tribunals would somehow be more effective. Implied in that is a great slander of our judicial system. In point of fact, all of the evidence establishes that the trials have been far, far more effective in dealing with terrorist suspects than the military tribunals have been. In fact, the detentions and torture have actually impeded terrorist prosecutions. We have at least two detainees who were so brutally tortured that they could never be prosecuted effectively. And, that doesn’t even take into account the respect we gain throughout the world for our effective prosecutions in a fair setting as opposed to our ineffective detentions and torturing. So, spare the pontificating. The Cheneys are true American outlaws and a great embarrassment to our nation.

The Cheneys are true American outlaws and a great embarrassment to our nation.

Well you’re just interested in raw political point scoring.

I’d like to have maybe – just maybe – a decent discussion of how we go about conducting this war. How we can use both law enforcement and military tools to protect us.

Liz Cheney’s not 100% right but neither is she 100% incorrect.

At least to me.

To my knowledge, no one has overlooked the findings in the 9/11 Report,

Then why have none of the posters referred to it?

As I said, if you just want pee on the other side, go for it.

Surely, Steve M G, you do understand that Ms. Cheney used this merely as a pretext for getting into a discussion she preferred to have, justifying indefinite detention, the suppression of habeas corpus, and torture, all to vindicate her father. Other posters haven’t addressed the 9/11 Report because they fully recognize this is a merely a ruse for very deceitful woman from a very deceitful family. Frankly, I am pleased you raised the issue, because it is worthy of being addressed. However, it is as unrelated to Ms. Cheney’s remarks as turnips are to aircraft fuselages.

Imnotblue says, “An interesting thing happens when someone on the right makes an informed comment that the left can’t refute!”

That blue considers Liz Cheney’s statement ‘an informed comment’ says a lot. As to refuting that ‘informed comment,’ perhaps Liz could have identified who we might have retaliated against in February ’93, a little over 30 days into Clinton’s first term. After George HW Bush so spectacularly screwed the pooch in the ’91 Gulf War, would she and Impotent Dick have advocated invading Iraq again? We know they would never go against the homeland of all the bombers – Saudi Arabia is teflon and golden for them.

I wonder, Blue – after you post something do you review it to make sure it’s even more stupid than your last post?

“Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj. They received financing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed, Yousef’s uncle. In March 1994, four men were convicted of carrying out the bombing: Abouhalima, Ajaj, Ayyad and Salameh. The charges included conspiracy, explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, two more were convicted: Yousef, the mastermind behind the bombings, and Eyad Ismoil, who drove the truck carrying the bomb.”

To ImNotBlue

blueblogger says:
February 14, 2010 at 10:20 pm

Ohh… I can add homophobic to the list!

Yea right homophobic!!! You don’t have a very good memory. I am the real gay on this board.

To SteveMG:

Thanks for the link to the government 9/11 report. And please, leave the “condescension” and “pontificating” to the vicious leftist swine who frequent this web site.

Odd how the left says Obama inherited Bush’s mess, but never say Bush inherited some of Clinton’s. 9/11 happened under Bush and he’s partly to blame, but hamstringing our intelligence agencies happened under Clinton. The terrorists were able to move here, set up fake identities, get IDs, take flying lessons, and so on while Clinton was in office. Yet the left holds him entirely blameless. As for ‘rules’ in dealing with terrorists, I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But I am reminded of an interesting quote from Winston Churchill at the end of WWII. “If the German army had invaded England, we weren’t going to follow the rules.”

You mean, Writer, how the first WTC bombing only 30 days into his term is Clinton’s fault, and how the WTC 2001 attack 9 months into Bush’s term is Clinton’s fault, too?

Jelperman says:
February 15, 2010 at 12:52 am

More unsubstantiated slander of military men and women from Jelp. I must admit, I do appreciate you consistency… even if it’s awful.

Bill Adkins says:
February 15, 2010 at 9:33 am

perhaps Liz could have identified who we might have retaliated against in February ‘93, a little over 30 days into Clinton’s first term.

I’m pretty sure that wasn’t her point… like at all.

After George HW Bush so spectacularly screwed the pooch in the ‘91 Gulf War,

In what respect? He didn’t overthrow Saddam when he should have… but beyond that, what did you object to?

I wonder, Blue – after you post something do you review it to make sure it’s even more stupid than your last post?

Yes, my response to you and your cohort’s single-minded, classless, nasty, personal attacks because you have nothing to add… was pretty stupid, wasn’t it? I mean… who am I to think that you’re capable of a rational, intelligent, adult discussion? We already know you hate anyone who isn’t like you. We already know you’re fairly racist, sexist, and an anti-Semite. I suppose what you’re really saying is, “Hey, INB… I’m just on auto pilot. I stopped thinking years ago! Why are you even bothering?” Not a bad point, actually.

blueblogger says:
February 15, 2010 at 10:44 am

Well… I don’t really care if you’re gay or not. But, the fact that you can be so condescending and nasty, doesn’t really make you any less homophobic. But if you’d rather, based on this new information, we can change it to “bigot,” because you’ll attack anyone who isn’t like you, just because they’re not like you… and you’ll do it in whatever offensive way tickles you at the moment. Is that better?

Bill Adkins says:
February 15, 2010 at 11:55 am

Yes, because we know that the first WTC was the only act of terrorism on Clinton’s watch… right? Oh wait. Nevermind.

And one follow-up… since you say that Bush should have caught Bin Laden in his 7 years 3 months… why don’t you say Clinton should have? If they knew Bin Laden was a bad guy (part of your attack on Bush is that they “told him” he was going to attack), and Clinton had 7 years 11 months to do it… why aren’t you more upset with him for failing?

There’s enough blame to go around… unless you’re a hack, who only knows to attack Republicans.