November 2nd, 2007
08:40 AM ET
4 years ago

Bush plays the 9/11 card

Watch Suzanne Malveaux's report about President Bush's speech at the Heritage Foundation Thursday.

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bush used strong words Thursday. Saying "some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground and less time responding to the demands of bloggers and Code Pink protesters," Bush went to bat for his embattled Attorney General nominee. Watch this report about the President's effort to keep Michael Mukasey on track for confirmation by the U.S. Senate.

Click here to see CNN's new political portal:

Filed under: Michael Mukasey • President Bush
soundoff (117 Responses)
  1. Eric, from THE Republic of Texas

    I heard today that Teddy Kennedy has publicly stated he will not support the confirmation of Mukasey as Attorney General, due to the candidate's refusal to label the interrogation technique of waterboarding as "torture."

    Waterboarding is the controvercial terrorist interrogation technique in which accused terrorists are tricked into believing they are drowning... in other words, to scare them so bad they spill their guts on the intel they know.

    Now, let's just think about the irony in the two paragraphs above...

    It's too bad that Kennedy's concern for the simulated drowning of terrorists didn't extend to innocent 29-year-old single female secretaries who ride in his Oldsmobile.

    November 2, 2007 06:13 pm at 6:13 pm |
  2. Eric, from the Republic of Texas

    Bob from San Francisco wrote:
    "Yes, we all want to protect America from terrorism and other threats, but bombing and invading countries in a quest to control their oil is not exactly the best route to take."

    Dude, if this were really "all about oil" as the tinfoil hat contingent is adamant at stating, we would have simply invaded Canada and Mexico. We get five times more oil from these two neighbors than we do from Iraq.

    Plus, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to invade Canada and Mexico. I mean, we just follow the interstate highway systems north or south and neither of these nations would put up much of a fight.

    Hell, most of Mexico wants to come here anyway and most Canadians are either too cold or too stoned to care either way.

    So please, can it with the "no blood for oil" mantra. At least get some sort of dogma that attempts to make sense.

    November 2, 2007 06:22 pm at 6:22 pm |
  3. Chris

    He should get together with Guiliani and their deck of 911 cards would be complete.

    Lets not forget what Bush did 4 years ago:

    November 2, 2007 07:34 pm at 7:34 pm |
  4. Demonweed

    For the sitting President to say that Americans should pay more attention to the warnings of Osama bin Laden is truly stunning hypocrisy. All through 90s bin Laden boasted of a plan to bog America down in bloody occupations at various places in the Middle East.

    I don't fault the administration for invading Afghanistan as that regime was a factual menace (as opposed to a menace only in fiction, as Saddam Hussein was.) If this President actually understood the terrorists' agenda, then he would have foreseen the conversion of Iraq from an impotent secular fascism to a hotbed of religious terrorism driven by overpowering anti-American sentiments.

    There are two clear lessons that some people seem to have failed to learn in the past six years. One is that killing large numbers of foreign civilians makes new enemies for your organization regardless of whether that organization is a military superpower or a covert criminal network. The other is that George W. Bush couldn't keep his eye on the proverbial ball if the man had horse blinders surgically implanted. Terrorism is a legitimate and serious concern, having ended the lives of perhaps 3% as many Americans as automobiles have in this century. However, if we are seriously concerned about reducing the extent of terrorist threats in this world, then we should also be seriously concerned about removing from power the one American President who has done far more than any other to strengthen and broaden the extent of these threats.

    November 2, 2007 08:08 pm at 8:08 pm |
  5. dukesjames griffin ga.

    STEVE SUMTER SC. THINKS that the most critical role of this american government is to protect its people where did that crap come from. this george bush government is in the protective mode meaning national security. The United States Of America Messed up. It tried to kill the wrong person. It the united states failed so did it's intelligence agencies. They screwed up. There are some people that you simply do not shoot at. Now then this country will pay for that act-that action. so steve do you really think that the president is trying to protect you people like you-I saw this-bull- the president is probally try-int to protect his daddy's butt. what was daddy bush doing in 1981? he was the vp of president reagan so what about before 1981 what was he doing? there is a senator in the low country by the name of graham you go to that mans office steve and you ask him what does he really know then you ask him this how did the low country get those contracts to build those new mine resistance trucks that will be going to iraq. so steve what ya say; a senator gets info he goes to the white house with that info the next thing ya know his state gets a billion dollar contract from the pentagon; I know who and what you are steve-you aint -t. so do not try to post this crap about protect-ing the american people you people are about national security covering your own butts for trying to kill the-leader of the Catholic faith so know what to hell with the likes of you and your kind.

    November 2, 2007 09:33 pm at 9:33 pm |
  6. thetriathlete

    Holding one down until they think they are about to drown is how my father taught me to swim..

    November 2, 2007 09:44 pm at 9:44 pm |
  7. Jay, Kenosha, WI

    Christian, Selden, NY:

    I took your advice and looked it up. Brian Ross reported that Khalid Shiekh Mohammed lasted two and a half minutes of being waterboarded before giving up information that foiled more than a dozen plots including an airline attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles. I'm sorry it had to be done, but if it is true I'm glad those people are alive today.

    Your concern that an innocent person would suffer this treatment is valid. I hope it never happens.

    The humiliation that occurred at Abu Ghraib was a terrible incident but it is unfair to paint all of our soldiers in that light. Our soldiers are people too, they love their children, families and do good deeds. I'm not surprised you think how you do because stories like Abu Ghraib are publicized endlessly, while more positive stories such as "Iraqi soldiers donate $1,000 for wildfire aid" are forgotten. We do not thank our soldiers enough.

    November 2, 2007 10:07 pm at 10:07 pm |
  8. christian SELDEN NY

    Eric, from THE Republic of Texas

    yea thats a great argument, lets use something that happened 60 years ago with just ONE of the people who voted against waterboarding as a way to null and void the subject of torturing anyone we want in horrible ways. i wish some of these AMERICAN TOUGHGUYS went through 1 day of what these powerless people are going through in the middle east. its easy to put an american flag on our pick up truck when we are IN AMERICA....lets see you try that in the middle east toughguys i bet you that the last people that would do that are these people voting for a tougher government. becausse when you beg for protection all it shows is you have the inability to stand on your own two......

    November 2, 2007 11:42 pm at 11:42 pm |
  9. Craig H, Mpls, MN

    What reason could the president and Mukasey have to avoid saying that waterboarding is torture other than the practice of waterboarding is currently being used. If waterboarding is not being used, then there is no downside to calling it what it is–torture. The president is between a rock and a hard place on this issue. If the president says that waterboarding is torture he would be defining himself as a war criminal. If he says that waterboarding is not torture, the world will look at him mouths agape in utter disbelief that he has truly lost whatever sense of reality or humanity that was ever in him.

    November 3, 2007 04:42 am at 4:42 am |
  10. Steve, Swansboro NC

    Musharraf's loss of control in Pakistan will allow a complete takeover by the Taliban in Afganistan. The Turk's invasion of northern Iraq and the response of Iraq and Iran will lead to complete chaos. Bush's war will be revealed and a complete and utter failure. Just as Katrina showed the world what Bush is, what happens in the next week will show even the republicans that the U.S. has made a very big mistake.

    November 3, 2007 11:22 am at 11:22 am |
  11. Jay, Kenosha, WI

    Steve, Swansboro NC:

    Your hopes for the future are exactly why Republicans fear your party. You hope for the worst for the world and our country simply to discredit Bush. CNN will help you by contining to report bad news and ignore good news.

    November 3, 2007 12:05 pm at 12:05 pm |
  12. erika morgan black dimond wa

    Mark, you are right on all your points of our history, but you have missed the most important thing. The Americans made America on their own with no help from any foreign invaders; the French who helped, the German mercenaries all had the grace to return home or marry into the local population and became Americans. We need to take the lesson we taught the world and go home, preferably with our toys (when Democrats want to give time to leave Iraq, it is time to gather up the toys of war and safely pack the traveling containers that we are thinking of). Democracy can only be hatched by the folks who will live with it, it is by its nature a grass roots affair not a top down thing. No matter how much the neocons like the all powerful executive from which the crumbs will flow to the people, that is a monarchy not a democracy.

    November 3, 2007 01:39 pm at 1:39 pm |
  13. Jay, Kenosha, WI

    erika morgan black dimond wa:

    I'm sorry that you believe that democracy is impossible in Iraq and that America should just give up and go home. It's odd then that so many Iraqis voted during their last election despite the threat of violence.

    November 3, 2007 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  14. Ron Nebraska

    Isn't it just an amazing coincidence that a few years after writing a position paper concerning their desire to see American military power expanded into the Middle East as part of Americas' role as the last super power and also an illustrative warning to future enemies, (i.e. China) that an event like 9/11 happened that opened the door for the execution of their theories? I'm talking about the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz paper written when they formed the PNAC. Do a little studying on this and then let me know if you believe in coincidence. By the way, I don't. Which leads me to believe there is a special corner of Hell waiting for the architects of this Iraq war. For you supporters of these people you are probably ok on the Hell thing because of your ignorance.

    November 3, 2007 08:15 pm at 8:15 pm |
  15. Craig H, Mpls, MN

    Steve, Swansboro NC:

    Your hopes for the future are exactly why Republicans fear your party. You hope for the worst for the world and our country simply to discredit Bush. CNN will help you by contining to report bad news and ignore good news.

    Posted By Jay, Kenosha, WI : November 3, 2007 12:05 pm
    Jay, if I were to apply the same logic to your post as you apply to Steve's post I would accuse you of wanting Steve to want bad things for the world for the purpose of discrediting/demonising those who disagree with Bush. Do you think that is a fair analysis of your post? You are not afraid of the left, you are afraid of the construct of the left that exists only in your own mind. Do you understand how someone might be concerned about the judgments of sombody like you who can not tell the difference between reality and his own imaginings?

    November 3, 2007 08:50 pm at 8:50 pm |
  16. Jay, Kenosha, WI

    Sure Craig, I bet Steve meant to finish his post with "...but I hope that never happens."

    It's clear that good things in Iraq would be a big disappointment for those hoping that it's failure will lead to Republicans being removed from power and sent to their special corner in Hell.

    November 4, 2007 12:26 am at 12:26 am |
  17. Steve, Sumter SC

    Duke James in Griffin GA,

    WOW man! I don't want your heart to explode! Slow down and take a deep breath. I never said we are always right! I said the government is to protect its people! Your rambling crossed my eyes! It made no sense! Who is trying to kill the leader of the catholic faith and how is that protecting me? I made a simple statement and your made a rambling response and resort to name calling. You are an angry, angry man! Slow down and lets have a civil discussion! We may even learn sometime from each other!

    November 5, 2007 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
1 2 3 4 5