Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Michael H · Sep 8, 2011

winston53660 said:
Anybody find it ironic that the anti-government types are bitching about the government not doing enough to add jobs?

Isn't it government that exported GDP ... and then wasted a stimulus? Now they want to waste more on another stimulus and export more GDP. How can you not complain?

Boo Radley · Sep 8, 2011

dontworrybehappy said:
The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama.

BTW, another claim you have wrong. It's not even true concerning the wars, which is not the entire middle east. Iraq has seen much larger totals.

Look here:

iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties

And here:

iCasualties | OIF | Iraq | Fatalities By Month

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 8, 2011

Boo Radley said:
BTW, another claim you have wrong. It's not even true concerning the wars, which is not the entire middle east. Iraq has seen much larger totals.

Look here:

iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties

And here:

iCasualties | OIF | Iraq | Fatalities By Month

Exactly how did we get from ...

"We's fightin' 'em o'er there so's we doesn't have ta fight 'em over here!"

... to ...

"The deadlist month on record in the middle east was under Obama."

:thinking

The Barbarian · Sep 8, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
I don't buy that. I believe attacks like that can indeed be thwarted. If they couldn't be, then there's no point in fighting terrorism. But one thing is for certain -- doing absolutely nothing will not prevent an attack.

And under those circumstances, you or I would do everything within our power to protect ourselves. Neither one of us would simply sit back and accept our fate was doomed, believing that person was so intent on killing us that they would succeed. We wouldn't do what Bush did, which was to ignore the warnings and do absolutely nothing to protect the nation he led.

I find that analogy rather absurd. You are basing a potential crime based on statistics and not on intelligence and comparing that with a terrorist attack which had a mountain of intelligence. Even so, L.A. police will be working vigilantly to prevent crime, whereas Bush did nothing.

And while I have no choice but to agree the PDB handed Bush was vague, he still could have taken some action. It did mention possible hijackings and it did mention New York. Clinton was also handed a PDB warning him of a possible attack, not as vague as Bush's, but he still took action and had airport security raised during the threat at some airports in the northeast. Did it thwart the attack? Who knows? Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. But the attack didn't go off as planned. Fast forward 3 years and now George Bush is in the White House, he does absolutely nothing to prevent an attack he knows is coming. And within little over an hour, 4 planes are hijacked and kamazied into the WTC and the Pentagon.

And to be clear, I'm not saying even had he done something, it would have been successful at thwarting the attack; I'm just amazed anyone can defend him doing absolutely nothing.

Bush blaming clinton (and Reagan) for 9.11 ...

"They looked at our response after the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings of the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy." ~ George Bush, 8.30.2005

Bush blaming Clinton for the economy ...

"The American economy began slowing last summer." ~ George Bush, 3.27.2001

"When I took office, our economy was beginning a recession." ~ George Bush, 8.30.2005

"You know, I'm the President during this period of time, but I think when the history of this period is written, people will realize a lot of the decisions that were made on Wall Street took place over a decade or so, before I arrived in President, during I arrived in President." ~ George Bush, 12.1.2008

A bit vague ??? That is putting it mildly, you will really use any bit of information to go after Bush won't you ? One has to wonder if your not on Obama's payroll. I've seen partisan hacks before... . This leads the way .

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

There is the actual released PDB that you are talking about …. I encourage everyone to read it and lets remember this was given to President Bush August 6 2001 35 days before the attack. I hope anyone reading this sees just how “ a bit vague “ This document given to the president just 35 days before the attack took place …. really is. In My Option only a jerk off a**hol * could even vaguely imply that anyone could have done anything with this PDB

Now on to your feeble attempts of showing where Bush blamed Clinton .. your first, he doesn't name Clinton, he doesn't name a party in our government, in fact the closest thing to naming anyone is . . “They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy."

To use your term a “bit vague” Personally .. I'd call it weak assed.

The rest is much the same … Clinton, past administration, democrats, or anyone else for that matter were not even mentioned ….it's pretty plan to see your arguments here are weak … and hold nothing even resembling placing blame at a party, or any administration..... but to a far leaning lefty like yourself .. well . I guess to you they do. That says a lot about your character..............

Conservative · Sep 8, 2011

you will really use any bit of information to go after Bush won't you ? One has to wonder if your not on Obama's payroll. I've seen partisan hacks before... . This leads the way .

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

Thanks, great post. Won't matter though and nothing will until he seeks mental health treatment for BDS.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 8, 2011

The Barbarian said:
A bit vague ??? That is putting it mildly, you will really use any bit of information to go after Bush won't you ? One has to wonder if your not on Obama's payroll. I've seen partisan hacks before... . This leads the way .

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

There is the actual released PDB that you are talking about …. I encourage everyone to read it and lets remember this was given to President Bush August 6 2001 35 days before the attack. I hope anyone reading this sees just how “ a bit vague “ This document given to the president just 35 days before the attack took place …. really is. In My Option only a jerk off a**hol * could even vaguely imply that anyone could have done anything with this PDB

Sure, uh-huh. <sarcasm>It's perfectly reasonable to not lift a finger to raise airport security to at least try to prevent a hijacking</sarcasm> after reading:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings ...

And that was just one warning.

"THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED"

Tenet told us that in his world “the system was blinking red.” By late July, Tenet said, it could not “get any worse.”30 Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB contained an article titled “Bin Ladin Threats Are Real.”Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense PaulWolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions.Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department’s questions on this point; the reporting was convincing.To give a sense of his anxiety at the time, one senior official in the Counterterrorist Center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns.31

- Chapter 8, 9.11 Commission

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec8.pdf

The Barbarian said:
Now on to your feeble attempts of showing where Bush blamed Clinton .. your first, he doesn't name Clinton, he doesn't name a party in our government, in fact the closest thing to naming anyone is . . “They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy."

WTF?? Who do you think he's talking abouit when he said they evaluated our response to the WTC93, blowing up the embassies, and bombing the U.S.S. Cole?? Who do you think is responsible for responding to those attacks if not the president? Who do you think Bush was speaking about if not Clinton? Mickey Mouse?

:lamo :lamo

The Barbarian said:
To use your term a “bit vague” Personally .. I'd call it weak assed.

Spits the poster who just said Bush didn't "name Clinton," even though Bush was talking about him. :roll:

Boo Radley · Sep 8, 2011

The Barbarian said:
A bit vague ??? That is putting it mildly, you will really use any bit of information to go after Bush won't you ? One has to wonder if your not on Obama's payroll. I've seen partisan hacks before... . This leads the way .

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB116/pdb8-6-2001.pdf

There is the actual released PDB that you are talking about …. I encourage everyone to read it and lets remember this was given to President Bush August 6 2001 35 days before the attack. I hope anyone reading this sees just how “ a bit vague “ This document given to the president just 35 days before the attack took place …. really is. In My Option only a jerk off a**hol * could even vaguely imply that anyone could have done anything with this PDB

Now on to your feeble attempts of showing where Bush blamed Clinton .. your first, he doesn't name Clinton, he doesn't name a party in our government, in fact the closest thing to naming anyone is . . “They concluded that free societies lacked the courage and character to defend themselves against a determined enemy."

To use your term a “bit vague” Personally .. I'd call it weak assed.

The rest is much the same … Clinton, past administration, democrats, or anyone else for that matter were not even mentioned ….it's pretty plan to see your arguments here are weak … and hold nothing even resembling placing blame at a party, or any administration..... but to a far leaning lefty like yourself .. well . I guess to you they do. That says a lot about your character..............

Look, I think there is plenty of blame to go around, including before he took office. But it simply isn't unreasonable to think he could have been working on improving security and being concerned about an attack. There were warnings.

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 8, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Look, I think there is plenty of blame to go around, including before he took office. But it simply isn't unreasonable to think he could have been working on improving security and being concerned about an attack. There were warnings.

How is it our little rightie friends can point to all of the terrorist attacks while Clinton was president (one even listed them and there were quite a few) -- but then go on to defend George Bush for coming into office and then turning his back to terrorism? Guess they think Clinton did such a marvelous job combatting terrorism that Bush didn't even need to concern himself about it.

winston53660 · Sep 8, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
How is it our little rightie friends can point to all of the terrorist attacks while Clinton was president (one even listed them and there were quite a few) -- but then go on to defend George Bush for coming into office and then turning his back to terrorism? Guess they think Clinton did such a marvelous job combatting terrorism that Bush didn't even need to concern himself about it.

..............

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 8, 2011

winston53660 said:
..............

<sarcasm>Isn't Wesley Clark a flaming Librul?</sarcasm>

The Barbarian · Sep 8, 2011

Boo Radley said:
Look, I think there is plenty of blame to go around, including before he took office. But it simply isn't unreasonable to think he could have been working on improving security and being concerned about an attack. There were warnings.

Did you even read the PDB he was referring to ... if not go read it . .tell Me what should have been done with the excellent intel in there

The Barbarian · Sep 8, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
Sure, uh-huh. <sarcasm>It's perfectly reasonable to not lift a finger to raise airport security to at least try to prevent a hijacking</sarcasm> after reading:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings ...

And that was just one warning.

"THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED"

Tenet told us that in his world “the system was blinking red.” By late July, Tenet said, it could not “get any worse.”30 Not everyone was convinced. Some asked whether all these threats might just be deception. On June 30, the SEIB contained an article titled “Bin Ladin Threats Are Real.”Yet Hadley told Tenet in July that Deputy Secretary of Defense PaulWolfowitz questioned the reporting. Perhaps Bin Ladin was trying to study U.S. reactions.Tenet replied that he had already addressed the Defense Department’s questions on this point; the reporting was convincing.To give a sense of his anxiety at the time, one senior official in the Counterterrorist Center told us that he and a colleague were considering resigning in order to go public with their concerns.31

- Chapter 8, 9.11 Commission

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec8.pdf

WTF?? Who do you think he's talking abouit when he said they evaluated our response to the WTC93, blowing up the embassies, and bombing the U.S.S. Cole?? Who do you think is responsible for responding to those attacks if not the president? Who do you think Bush was speaking about if not Clinton? Mickey Mouse?

:lamo :lamo

Spits the poster who just said Bush didn't "name Clinton," even though Bush was talking about him. :roll:

Yeah well .. I'll let others read this PDB that you are talking about and decide .. . now that the lies you set forth are out of the way ...

Example ….. yes it mentioned NY … her is the text from the PDB “A clandestine source said in 1998 that a Bin Ladin cell in New York was recruiting Muslim American youth for attacks”

Now for that about the only thing I could see being done, was going into New York and begin to arrest Muslim American youths ….. I'm sure that would have gone over real big with the screaming liberals .

Example.. It did mention possible hijackings

here is how it mentioned those hijackings. Again directly from the PDB “We have NOT been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (blacked out source) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of Blind Shaykh Umar Abd al Rahman and other US held extremists”

Like I said .. I encourage everyone to read the damn PDB and see how far the truth was stretched in his post.

pbrauer · Sep 8, 2011

Conservative said:
How does Iraq affect what is going on right now and the fact that we have a net job loss since this President took office?

With all due respect (I'm kidding of course), most of those job losses were due to the Great Bush Recession.

BTW, did you see the Republican debate last night, what a pathetic bunch. My favorite line was when your governor said to Romney that Dukakis created 3 times the number of jobs he did. I laughed my butt off.

Conservative · Sep 8, 2011

Sheik Yerbuti said:
<sarcasm>Isn't Wesley Clark a flaming Librul?</sarcasm>

This Wesley Clark?

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark to Congress 9-26-02 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."
More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

Conservative · Sep 8, 2011

pbrauer said:
With all due respect (I'm kidding of course), most of those job losses were due to the Great Bush Recession.

BTW, did you see the Republican debate last night, what a pathetic bunch. My favorite line was when your governor said to Romney that Dukakis created 3 times the number of jobs he did. I laughed my butt off.

As was most of the Obama spending that did nothing but add to the debt thus his very low JAR and 70% disapproval rating on handling the economy.

as for the debt, Romney and Perry created more jobs than Obama ever created so laugh your butt off at that!

Sheik Yerbuti · Sep 8, 2011

The Barbarian said:
here is how it mentioned those hijackings. Again directly from the PDB “We have NOT been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a (blacked out source) service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of Blind Shaykh Umar Abd al Rahman and other US held extremists”

Like I said .. I encourage everyone to read the damn PDB and see how far the truth was stretched in his post.

Perhaps it's just your reading comprehension that is the problem? The PDB didn't say the FBI couldn't corroborate a potential hijacking, it read they couldn't corroborate a potential hijacking for the purpose of using a hijacking to gain the release of other Muslim extremists, incarcerated by the U.S. as was thought back in 1998.

This is painfully obvious as the very next words read:

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings ...

Conservative · Sep 8, 2011

The Barbarian said:
Did you even read the PDB he was referring to ... if not go read it . .tell Me what should have been done with the excellent intel in there

Great point, can you imagine the outrage Democrats would have against Bush coming off the closest election in U.S. History had he taken the post 9/11 approach to a pre 9/11 world based upon the intelligence we had at the time? Bush wasn't liked then and would have been blasted as trying to scare the public to gain support after that election. I can here Sheik now, Bush scares people to overcome stealing the election!

Wonder what action Sheik and Boo believe should have been taken that would have prevented 9/11 and could have been implemented in the short period of time between January 21, 2001 and Sept. 11?

What if...? · Sep 8, 2011

Conservative said:
Great point, can you imagine the outrage Democrats would have against Bush coming off the closest election in U.S. History had he taken the post 9/11 approach to a pre 9/11 world based upon the intelligence we had at the time? Bush wasn't liked then and would have been blasted as trying to scare the public to gain support after that election. I can here Sheik now, Bush scares people to overcome stealing the election!

Wonder what action Sheik and Boo believe should have been taken that would have prevented 9/11 and could have been implemented in the short period of time between January 21, 2001 and Sept. 11?

Wellll, they had intel of a couple guys training to fly but not land jets. I bet following them around, tapping their phones, bugging their homes would have gone a long way without telling the American people anything.

And did anybody ever find out whether the civil air defense drill on 9/11 was scheduled before or after the hijackers bought their tickets? I've always wondered about that one, and the story about this aspect has morphed in every documentary I've seen.

Conservative · Sep 8, 2011

What if...? said:
Wellll, they had intel of a couple guys training to fly but not land jets. I bet following them around, tapping their phones, bugging their homes would have gone a long way without telling the American people anything.

And did anybody ever find out whether the civil air defense drill on 9/11 was scheduled before or after the hijackers bought their tickets? I've always wondered about that one, and the story about this aspect has morphed in every documentary I've seen.

What violation of your civil liberties would you have supported based upon the intelligence we had at the time coming off that close election of 2000? Not sure they had the intelligence information of guys training to fly but not land jets until after 9/11. Didn't know that was against the law in order to get a wire tapping order?

EarlzP · Sep 8, 2011

Conservative said:
As was most of the Obama spending that did nothing but add to the debt thus his very low JAR and 70% disapproval rating on handling the economy.

as for the debt, Romney and Perry created more jobs than Obama ever created so laugh your butt off at that!

More of your total BS "lies"

EarlzP · Sep 8, 2011

Conservative said:
Great point, can you imagine the outrage Democrats would have against Bush coming off the closest election in U.S. History had he taken the post 9/11 approach to a pre 9/11 world based upon the intelligence we had at the time? Bush wasn't liked then and would have been blasted as trying to scare the public to gain support after that election. I can here Sheik now, Bush scares people to overcome stealing the election!

Wonder what action Sheik and Boo believe should have been taken that would have prevented 9/11 and could have been implemented in the short period of time between January 21, 2001 and Sept. 11?

Bush could have resigned

What if...? · Sep 8, 2011

Conservative said:
What violation of your civil liberties would you have supported based upon the intelligence we had at the time coming off that close election of 2000? Not sure they had the intelligence information of guys training to fly but not land jets until after 9/11. Didn't know that was against the law in order to get a wire tapping order?

Yes, they did have that intel prior to 9/11, and a mechanism was already in place to allow a court order to be obtained for a wiretap after the fact in special circumstances. This was one of the primary reasons folks squawked about warrantless wiretaps in the Patriot Act. It was unnecessary, as the court in charge of issuing after the fact warrants never denied a single one.

pbrauer · Sep 8, 2011

Conservative said:
As was most of the Obama spending that did nothing but add to the debt thus his very low JAR and 70% disapproval rating on handling the economy.

as for the debt, Romney and Perry created more jobs than Obama ever created so laugh your butt off at that!

With Bain Capital, Mitt Romney was a job killer AND Perry stupidly told the nation that SS is a Ponzi scheme. Do you remember when in 2005 Bush decided to spend his political capital on privatizing SS? It didn't go so well for him.

Conservative · Sep 8, 2011

EarlzP said:
More of your total BS "lies"

Then prove that they are lies? Making claims is what liberals do then run when challenged

1Perry · Sep 8, 2011

winston53660 said:
Anybody find it ironic that the anti-government types are bitching about the government not doing enough to add jobs?

My arguement is that they are doing too much and it's doing more harm than good.

Employers add no net jobs in Aug.; rate unchanged

Member