3 users logged on

Tips: BlueJerseyDotCom (AIM) |

Menendez: Bush guilty of "pre-9/11 mentality"

by: Juan Melli

Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 02:52:35 PM EST

Senator Menendez responded to reports that the Bush administration wants to provide less than half of the $3.2 billion in funding requested by the Homeland Security department for first responders (press release):

"For an administration that constantly uses 9/11 and the continuing terrorist threats to justify a whole range of policies, this would seem to be a decision rooted in a pre-9/11 mentality. We've seen a lot of questionable homeland security decisions by the Bush Administration over the past six years, and this would be one of the more misguided moves."
"At the same time the president is asking for $200 billion for the Iraq War this year, he reportedly wants to shortchange local first responders along with port and transit security here at home -- even in the areas most at risk. With al Qaeda having regrouped in a safe zone along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, it's clear that our number one enemy is back in business and that our first responders need all the preparation they can get.
"These reported cuts would seem to have a disproportionate effect on New Jersey, with our heavy concentration of people, ports and transit systems. I will stand up for security in our state and work to make sure this plan doesn't see the light of day."

Juan Melli :: Menendez: Bush guilty of "pre-9/11 mentality"

Tags: George W Bush, Bob Menendez, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Menendez: Bush guilty of "pre-9/11 mentality" | 18 comments

"Pre-911 Mentality"? (4.00 / 1)

I don't know...I kind of miss those halcyon days when the government wasn't spying on it's citizens, holding some of them without charges and using every holiday to give vague warnings of insubstantial plots and dangers.

Good times. Good times.

Sen. Menendez' choice of turn of phrase is kind of unfortunate. It would have been a lot better if he had pointed out just where and to whom that money was ultimately gonna go.

Republican contributors and cronies, one and all, to be sure.

Dear Leader has never, ever been truly serious about the measures and moves made to fight this putative "war on terror". Had he and his government been serious, the person or persons responsible for the Anthrax distribution would have been brought to justice. It's all simply been , largely, a device to erode rights and funnel monies. Chertoff sees it as his ticket to become the new J. Edgar Hoover, the eternal fixture in Washington, wielding awesome, unchallenged, unchecked, extra-constitutional powers.

The nom de plume has a long and distinguished history.

by: Tandalayo Scheisskopf @ Sat Dec 01, 2007 at 21:42:51 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yes, but (0.00 / 0)

It is fair game to attack the hypocrisy of the administration. We should be calling for them to finish the job in Afghanistan and with port security and with energy independence, etc. "Security" is not a Republican value.

Obviously, the near-tragic events at Sen. Clinton's NH HQ show that we have enough home-grown people with terroristic tendencies.

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:46:47 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Yeah but (0.00 / 0)

Is it like settling for a field goal, when we need/want a touchdown.

....Whah......

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

by: FogerRox @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:52:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Um... (0.00 / 0)

I am not exactly sure what you are referring to.

But, getting three points is better than going to the red zone and getting none.

I understand the concern that many have (including me) that in fighting the GWOT we wind up losing the essence of what makes us Americans in the first place. But, we aren't going to be in a position to defend that if we concede the field of security to the GOP. Considering that virtually every decision they have made has been a disaster, it would be political malpractice not to point that out.

Remember, it was been 186 years from when the British burned the White House to 2001. One of the craziest things about this (mis)Administration's response is that they see no problem with invasions of civil liberties of vast numbers at random, but shy away from anything that might inconvenience large corporations that happen to own ports, power plants, chemical factories, etc.

by: Creed Pogue @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 14:20:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You "Old School" hold out. (4.00 / 1)

"those halcyon days when the government wasn't spying on it's citizens, holding some of them without charges"

Check out my 3 paragraph primer on Polywell Fusion.

by: FogerRox @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:48:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

unfortunately (0.00 / 0)

If it doesn't channel money to red states and Republicans, it's just not a priority for this administration.

Frank LoBiondo Record and Jon Runyan Watch

by: Hopeful @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 03:39:43 AM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

It's All About The Pork Folks... (0.00 / 0)

That's what 9-11 has become; the largest pork barrel in the recent history, perhaps only second to the "cold war" itself. (it ain't over yet)

It's sad to see Menendez buying into the rhetoric of paranoia to garner "our fair share".

What should be happening is the policing of profiteering and the reduction of the amount of monies that are being ripped off in the name of security.

Iraq has put us into the hole for at least a trillion dollars (that we don't have) and maybe two or three if it goes on another few years.

Meanwhile,most of the money (AND LIVES!!!) spent by this misadministration in the (stated) cause of making us more secure has had the opposite effect....especially so if one takes into account economic security as part of the picture.

Even now, it's not too late to really get to the bottom of the lies and outright criminality of the Bush administration's raping of our treasury and, worse yet, of our Constitution!

Foger Rox says it well: Impeach! Indict! The sheer quantity and quality of evidence is overwhelming/overpowering! It's just a matter of the Democrats truly patriotic Republicans having the nerve to stand up for the Constitution.

I wish Menendez had the insight, intelligence and sheer courage to call out the rotten undemocratic scum in the White House for what they are: criminals.

Instead, he seems content to simply push to get us "our cut" of the pork.

by: Nick Lento @ Sun Dec 02, 2007 at 20:04:28 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Impeachment is a dead end. n/t (0.00 / 0)

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:00:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You're Probably Right In The Sense... (0.00 / 0)

...that it's improbable.

The question then becomes why is it improbable?

I dare say the answer, at this point, is not because there isn't sufficient evidence or that an overwhelming case can't be made or even that the majority of the American people wouldn't support it (especially once they started seeing the case and the evidence at great length and in great depth on their TVs daily)......

There are three primary obstacles/impediments to impeachment that really both boil down to two.

1) Fear of destabilizing the country politically/socially/economically.

In fact, the opposite would be the result. There's something about justice which brings out optimism/prosperity on all levels.

2) Fear of offending the big money campaign contributors that in effect own most politicians.

The last thing creatures of the status quo desire is to have their chief benefactor thrown out of office. Bush/Cheney have been draining our treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars; that cashflow has it's own imperative.

3) The very belief that impeachment is virtually impossible makes it a self fulfilling assertion.

And guess who promulgates that belief? The corporate media who themselves would have much to lose if this country were to experience a contagion of democratic/just/free action.

The idea of an informed and inflamed electorate/citzenry is anathema to the people who are sucking at the the teat of a status quo that is enriching them.

So, again, Creed you're probably right; but not for the reasons that you may imagine.

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 05:23:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Simpler Than That (0.00 / 0)

Impeachment means nothing without a guilty verdict at the Senate trial. Failure to understand that separates realism from fantasy. There is NO way that 67 Senators are going to vote to convict Bush or Cheney.

I don't believe that impeachment and a trial would be "destablizing." I don't believe that impeachment isn't moving forward because "major campaign contributors" are opposed to it. GOP contributors are opposed to it, but I would imagine that a sizable number of Democratic contributors would be fine with it.

I have never heard an answer more sophisicated than "it'll happen" to explain how 16 GOP Senators plus Lieberman plus all 50 Democrats are going to vote to convict Bush because he is a liar and a moron. Can you name even one Republican who would support it? I doubt you could get 10 GOP Senators to support a conviction if Bush shot somebody.

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 16:49:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Insulting... (0.00 / 0)

Your implication that I don't/didn't understand the difference between impeachment and a trial in the Senate would be insulting if I believed it was a conscious/intentional action. As it stands, there is no need to apologize for your erroneous assumption.

If you don't think that there are people in high places who fear the destabilizing potentials of impeachment; then we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that. It's OK.

My contention is that a serious (could there be any other kind?) impeachment proceeding in the House would bring up so many indictable offenses and so many dirty details of criminal activity and downright un-American/unconstitutional activity that there would be a public outcry for a real trial in the Senate.

A real/serious trial in the Senate would only amplify/prove the case made in the house and any Senators who dared to vote in a blatantly/purely partisan manner to save Cheney/Bush's ass would be rightly seen as whores and could kiss their careers goodbye.

Of course, my scenario hinges on a Democratic leadership that has the political/moral courage to do the right things just because they are the right things to do.

Does anyone reading these words doubt that both Bush and Cheney are, in fact, objectively guilty of impeachable and convictable "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

In any event.....sadly , Creed, I still agree with your conclusion that impeachment is improbable; but, again; not for the reasons you state.

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 19:33:32 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then Answer the Question: (0.00 / 0)

How do you see 67 votes in the Senate to convict? Can you even name ten Republicans who would possibly vote to convict???

by: Creed Pogue @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 20:24:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Frankly, In A Scenario in Which... (0.00 / 0)

...there was a successful majority vote to impeach in the House; and a truly exhaustive objective trial in the Senate, I believe that the case(s) would be so overwhelmingly devastating that both Bush and Cheney would likely have pulled a Nixon and resigned before a verdict to remove would even be rendered.

You ask which 10 Republicans would vote guilty. As of right now, you are 100% right; that number is zero.

In the scenario that I am projecting, the question would be, which Senator of either party would have to nerve to acquit an obviously guilty miscreant.

Again, I agree with you that the first step of impeachment itself is one that isn't likely at this point, and I've said why above.

Sadly, we'll probably never know which one of us was/is right about what would have happened in the Senate.

And it goes wayyy beyond just a few lies and moronic behaivor; all presidents have been guilty of such on occasion.

What Bush/Cheney have done is cost us trillions of dollars, the goodwill of most of the worlds people, and many thousands of American dead and seriously wounded. (Not to mention the destruction of Iraq and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fairly innocent human beings there.)

And let's not forget the perversions of our Constitution perpetrated by this administration. Which I suspect I don't have to go into on this site. (And there is no end in sight....the hemmoraging is ongoing....)

Again, the case(s) for impeachment, conviction, removal, and even criminal indictment afterwards are strong.

The following snippet alone provides a sufficient framework to impeach and remove (note that Fein, a Republican, wrote the first article of impeachment against Bill Clinton).

(Obviously, the actual evidence/case against Bush/Cheney would extend to many thousands of utterly damning pages of documents and testimony....this youtube snip is just that, a snip.)

Here's a nifty documentary you may wish to watch online.

http://www.pbs.org/m...
Here's another...

http://www.pbs.org/w...

There are now, literally, scores (if not hundreds) of well documented volumes (many from former participants) exposing the multifarious perfidies of this administration....and the list will only get longer as time goes by.

Another positive side effect of instituting impeachment proceedings asap is that it would so thouroughly discredit/expose these horrible policies that no Democratic successors would dare to do anything other than to reverse all of them. Another is that it would go a long way towards re-establishing the credibility/reputation of America as a decent nation in the eyes of the world's (and our own!) people.

I could go on at much greater length on this topic but I would be beating a horse that hasn't even been born yet.

by: Nick Lento @ Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 21:28:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]