RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Bush on Homeland Security: It's Not About Popularity
January 12, 2009 12:10 PM
"In terms of the decisions that I had made to protect the homeland, I wouldn't worry about popularity," President Bush said in his outgoing press conference, when asked about whether he worried that the U.S. had lost "moral standing" in the world.
"What I would worry about is the Constitution of the United States, and putting plans in place that makes it easier to find out what the enemy is thinking, because all these debates will matter not if there's another attack on the homeland," the President said.
"The question won't be, you know, 'Were you critical of this plan or not?'" he said. "The question is going to be, 'Why didn't you do something?'"
The president then urged reporters to harken back to those terrifying days post-9/11.
"Do you remember what it was like right after September the 11th around here?" he asked. "In press conferences and opinion pieces and in stories -- that sometimes were news stories and sometimes opinion pieces -- people were saying, 'How come they didn't see it? How come they didn't connect the dots?'
"Do you remember what the environment was like in Washington?" he asked. "I do. When people were hauled up in front of Congress and members of Congress were asking questions about, how come you didn't know this, that, or the other? And then we start putting policy in place -- legal policy in place to connect the dots, and all of a sudden people were saying, 'How come you're connecting the dots?'
The president insisted the U.S. had not lost moral standing outside of some European countries and in circles of elites.
"My view is, is that most people around the world, they respect America," he said. "And some of them doesn't like me, I understand that -- some of the writers and the, you know, opiners and all that. That's fine, that's part of the deal. But I'm more concerned about the country and our -- how people view the United States. They view us as strong, compassionate people who care deeply about the universality of freedom."
-- jpt
January 12, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (8)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Kat, just how are you so knowledgeable about this? You must have listened to the "hearing"....just a bunch of old crotchety men that should have been voted out of the government long ago.******************************
Mildred- No, it wasn't the hearing I used. A couple of the sources were actually the Washington Post and ABC news. The hearing itself was inconclusive I thought, though I never actually watched it as you claim you did. Obviously, some potentially damaging stuff was brought up with both the hearing along with the mainstream media. Thanks for bringing up the similarities.
Posted by: kat | Jan 12, 2009 7:04:14 PM
Well he seems to find it incredibly easy to blame everything on 'elite Europeans'.
Maybe that's part of the reason he's got nowhere with them.
It isn't just European 'elites' (whoever they are - maybe the people on the doorstep of his adventurism - who are actually on the receiving end of domestic terrorist attacks fueled by propaganda associated with his Iraq war) who are concerned at a loss in American moral standing; he doesn't seem to understand that it undermines America's own sense of moral standing, and that the way the American image is projected around the globe is a source of great concern for millions of American citizens.
Posted by: Chris | Jan 12, 2009 6:10:47 PM
"Most of it was just garbage, lies and innuendos. Why didn't Clinton capture benladen when he had a chance.....Guess he was not a threat, huh?"
A look into the right wing mind where all evidence contrary to prejudice is discarded and anything remotely supporting said prejudice is given sacrosanct status.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 12, 2009 5:21:42 PM
Kat,
Apparently Mildred thinks actually learning about things (iow reading about the 9/11 hearings) vs listening to what FoxNews tells you is a bad thing.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 12, 2009 4:50:35 PM
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, listening to the hearings is where I got my info on this. It was just a waste of time from a bunch of old ********* that should have been retired long ago. Most of it was just garbage, lies and innuendos. Why didn't Clinton capture benladen when he had a chance.....Guess he was not a threat, huh?
Posted by: Mildred | Jan 12, 2009 4:59:38 PM
Kat,
Apparently Mildred thinks actually learning about things (iow reading about the 9/11 hearings) vs listening to what FoxNews tells you is a bad thing.
Posted by: Ryan C | Jan 12, 2009 4:50:35 PM
Kat, just how are you so knowledgeable about this? You must have listened to the "hearing"....just a bunch of old crotchety men that should have been voted out of the government long ago. They like to hear their own voice...you can't really believe that bs, it was just a "trial" that was a waste of time and our money.
Posted by: Mildred | Jan 12, 2009 4:26:26 PM
What dots were so hard to connect? In July of 2001, George Tenet, then CIA head, spoke to Rice about the strong possibility of a terrorist attack on American soil. While Bush was vacationing in Crawford in August, he received an intelligence memo that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US and that it could be imminent. Shortly before 9/11, calls were being monitored from bin Laden's chief of operations. Significantly more could be added to the list of developments prior to 9/11. Bush presents the intelligence prior to 9/11 as being vague, when in reality it clearly wasn't. But then he's become so used to his own obfuscations, he can't see beyond them.
Posted by: kat | Jan 12, 2009 2:04:41 PM
Replacing a right wing statist for a left wing statist. Bottom line... NOTHING changes! Hell, he's already backtracking and breaking promises left and right. Oh well, he's a new face on the same old, tired policies. Nice to know all those retired Clintonites get to "remake" policy and turn back to 20th century ideas in a 21st century world and economy. As long as Democrats and Republicans are rewarded for their incompetence (R's Iraq, D's Community Reinvestment Act=Housing crisis. And BOTH for their capitulation to use YOUR money to bailout corporations and Wall St. ponzi schemers "golden parachutes and multi million dollar bonuses to people who ALREADY stole all of YOUR retirement savings) NOTHING will, ahem "change."
Posted by: hmn... | Jan 12, 2009 12:50:27 PM
Post a comment
