Skip to main content

With Great Britain under extreme alert after three car bomb attempts over the past two days, George W. Bush and his high level White House cohorts are doing their utmost to goad the terrorists to try harder next time.  To be more "PROFESSIONAL" in their planning.  To detonate bombs that are certain to cause harm.  

By all accounts, the failed detonations of the two cars in London and the blazing SUV in Scotland weren't huge or impressive enough for Bush and his buddies.  They didn't do enough damage.  They didn't produce real harm.   They weren't "PROFESSIONAL" enough to get America's attention.  

The underlying message: to be worth your salt as terrorists, you'll have to do better next time!  Another case of: "Bring it on!"

Rather than supporting the Brits and their new Prime Minister by publicly commiserating with them on the tragedies that were averted, Bush and his buddies have once again chosen the most irrational, incompetent course.  They've called the terrorists "AMATEURS" to encourage their devising more sophistocated methods next time.

Bring it on!

In the six and a half years George W. Bush has been President, he and his Administration have never had a logical, well-reasoned, legitimate or successful response to any situation.  He failed miserably after 9/11.  He attacked Afghanistan, but failed to capture the orchestrators of the World Trade Center's demise.  He unnecessarily invaded and occupied Iraq, destroyed its infrastructure, killed thousands of Americans, and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who survived Saddam, but succumbed to him.  And he's made America the most reviled nation in the world.

Now once again, in the aftermath of a critical incident that requires a sound leadership response, George W. Bush makes another illogical and counter-productive choice.  He faults the terrorists for failing, giving them impetus to improve their attacks.  

Could he be more inept?  Could he be more dangerous?  Could he be more ill-suited for his job?

In lieu of goading for more successful terrorism, George Bush should contact the new Prime Minister to offer moral support.  He should state publicly to the Brits that he's pleased no innocents were harmed.  He should instruct potential attackers that all human life, including their own, is too precious to sacrifice in so heinous a way.  In other words, George Bush should deliver an adult, reasoned, moral message - and not antagonize the frey.

But naturally Mr. Bush isn't doing anything of the sort.  

Instead he's playing with his boat and his bicycle in Kennebunkport, looking into the eyes of Vladimir Putin to once again "know his heart," and childishly snubbing the new British Prime Minister for taking his Tony's job.

How long will our nation permit this grievous incompetent to remain in office?  Every second he's there our nation and our world fall further apart.

I. I. I. I. -- Invoke, Impeach, Indict and Imprison George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.  It can't happen a moment too soon!

Invoke -      Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
Impeach -   George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors
Indict -       George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to be tried in a criminal court
Imprison -  George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for the commission of criminal acts

Originally posted to Linda Milazzo on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:32 PM PDT.


Is George W. Bush provoking terrorists to increase their competence by calling them "amateurs"?

56%57 votes
8%8 votes
35%35 votes

| 100 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  mojo (11+ / 0-)

    Calling terrorists "amateurs" increases their desire to develop their skills and do greater damage the next time.

  •  you're kidding, right? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Trix, buddabelly

    We don't have time for short-term thinking.

    by Compound F on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:37:07 PM PDT

    •  Not kidding! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
    •  Gordon will be pleased. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpecialEFX, Linda Milazzo

      Can anyone imagine a more oportune moment for him to create some distance from the dengerous man in the Whitehouse.

      My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

      by Salo on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 10:10:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I actually thought the same thing... (0+ / 0-)

        about giving the new PM his independence from Bush.  I also believe Bush is purposely inflaming the situation in Britain with his rhetoric.  Bush believes he needs a mighty attack on US soil to resurrect his presidency.

        He's sick!!

        •  Incompetent terrorists just don't cut it....... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          fritzrth, Linda Milazzo

          Hell, NOBODY believes those "terror alerts" anymore....  every single one of the "terrorist" plots in the US has been a bunch of stupid guys mouthing off who have NO idea what to do, or means to accomplish their nefarious plans..... in almost every one, the everpresent informant is the one who's supposed to get the weapons or explosives....

          SO..... unless there's a REAL terrorist attack - and a competent one at that, one that does some REAL damage, Bush will have to get Blackwater or someone to stage an attack (the CIA is rather po'd and won't do such blatantly illegal things now - a point they were trying to make with recent revelations.....) ut then Blackwater and those guys aren't completely trustworthy so there's a risk of the whole thing leaking out.....

          So - to the terrorists out there - Listen up.  Bush is tired of these half assed efforts.  Hell.... you're giving terrorism a bad name.  Get your act together.

  •  please provide a link! (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    aitchdee, cosette, SpecialEFX, sc kitty

    I'd like to read the exact quotes and the context; thanks!

    Send some body some money some where by mid night to night; do it!!!!

    by PhillyGal on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:42:51 PM PDT

    •  yep (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Winnie, SpecialEFX

      it sounds about right, but a source would be extra nice :)

      God bless our tinfoil hearts.

      by aitchdee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:45:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  See Mishima's comment below for cnn transcript (0+ / 0-)

      S/He was able to pull it up.  Hard as I tried, I couldn't.

      •  well-written or not, this diary probably (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        should not have been posted without links.
        After reading the transcript that Mishima posted, I think this diary might be taking the official comments out of context a bit.

        •  Go to CNN and read the transcripts from yesterday (0+ / 0-)

          It's impossible to reprint every remote from Kennebunkport delivered by Ed Henry yesterday.  At the time the article was written, I had tevo'd the quotes but the transcripts weren't available.  Now they are.


          CNN: Ed Henry's probably 15 to 20 remotes each reporting the very same thing, using the very same terms, all day.  It's clear enough to me that Bush et al were used the terms "amateur time," "amateur hour," and "unprofessional" to discuss the actions of these terrorists.

          How can that possibly be out of context?  Do the research and see for yourself.

          •  This does not say: "Bring it on" (0+ / 0-)

            ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. He's been getting briefings, Melissa. And we actually have a bit of new information from a senior U.S. official, who just told me that while today's incident does seem to be terror, the incident in Scotland, the U.S. is not overly concerned at this point.

            This senior official said that's because these incidents both in Glasgow and London were "not professional". That while there may eventually seem to be a tie to al Qaeda or some other entity down the road, that that's a possibility, that's always a possibility. There's no sign at this point of some sort of a mastermind plan by al Qaeda or someone else.

            This official adding, "It looks like amateur hour, not very sophisticated attacks," and saying, "This is clearly not 9/11," that these were not major attacks, major incidents. They're concerned but not overly concerned.

  •  CNN transcript all day... (0+ / 0-)

    The Bush administration has been quoted as stating these are "amateurs" and their actions don't merit the attention of the Bush administration.  According to CNN, George Bush has not called the new Prime Minister.  Also stated ALL DAY on CNN, the Bush administration calls the terrorists "unprofessional."

  •  there is another way of looking at it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Linda Milazzo, craiger, inHI

    I would really have expected them to take the other tack and start promoting fear again. The fact that instead of promoting fear, which used to work quite well for them, they're now promoting the amateur aspect, which really works against them.
    That's how dumb Rove has become. He's second guessing his own logic.

    You are not Morg. You are not Imorg!

    by steelman on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 09:46:25 PM PDT

  •  i think gwb (9+ / 0-)

    has increased the level of terrorism in the world...first the terrorism that he perpetrates on the world and the increased hatred of the Coalition of the Killing.

    The bombs and attacks in Iraq from insurgents to our soldiers are definitely becoming deadlier and more sophisticated.

    Love to Dramazzo!

  •  Whenever Bush says "Bring it on," there's hell to (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    witchamakallit, xrepub, Linda Milazzo


    Of course the hell is brought to other people's flesh.

  •  From CNN (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arkdem, aitchdee, Winnie, Linda Milazzo, kurt

    ED HENRY, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's right. He's been getting briefings, Melissa. And we actually have a bit of new information from a senior U.S. official, who just told me that while today's incident does seem to be terror, the incident in Scotland, the U.S. is not overly concerned at this point.

    This senior official said that's because these incidents both in Glasgow and London were "not professional". That while there may eventually seem to be a tie to al Qaeda or some other entity down the road, that that's a possibility, that's always a possibility. There's no sign at this point of some sort of a mastermind plan by al Qaeda or someone else.

    This official adding, "It looks like amateur hour, not very sophisticated attacks," and saying, "This is clearly not 9/11," that these were not major attacks, major incidents. They're concerned but not overly concerned.

    •  Thanks, Mishima... (0+ / 0-)

      I don't know how you pulled that up.  I've gone to the cnn site again and again and haven't seen any transcript posted for today.  But the quote you posted from Ed Henry is verbatim what I tevo'd to write my piece.

      Much, much thanks.  As a writer, I pride myself on being truthful.  That's why I tevo everything I write about when it's reported on TV.  

      Again, much appreciated!!


    •  Ahh, aitchdee... so happy (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      you saw the text.  Makes me feel better when I'm believed...

      •  I believed you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linda Milazzo

        honestly I did. I just was bewildered 'cause (somewhat to my displeasure) CNN has been blaring on no fewer than two TVs in this house all day long and I was surprised I hadn't heard it, and like you I couldn't find it online. Now that I have seen the context, I'm not sure I interpret it the way you do--but you could well be right. But if that is "bring it on" from the Bush administration--then perhaps, in a weird way, so is Larry Johnson's whole rant yesterday that the London bomb scare was an overblown bunch of hype put on by the media and the Keystone terrorists who couldn't blow up a balloon. I mean, I'm not sure we can have it both ways.

        Anyway, good diary Linda. :) cheers.

        God bless our tinfoil hearts.

        by aitchdee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:31:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I saw Larry on CNN... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aitchdee, witchamakallit, Audio Guy

          I believe him over the traditional "intelligence/security" pundits.  

          But, I found his statement that the fuel, plus nails, plus cannisters in the cars couldn't do much damage to be a bit questionable.  

          I don't know ANYTHING about weapons, bombs, et al, but I could see the windows being blasted out if there was a detonation and someone nearby getting killed or wounded.  It did seem a bit more dangerous than Larry made it out to be.

    •  Well, far be it for me to defend the bush admin, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyGal, Audio Guy

      but to my ear that doesn't quite translate to more "bring it on"-style posturing as the diarist alleges. It is kinda reminiscent of Larry Johnson's "London bomb crock of crap" diary yesterday (which I was and remain pretty ambivalent about). Kind of a curious downplay from them.

      Anyway. Thanks for the link and for digging up the quote, Mishima.

      God bless our tinfoil hearts.

      by aitchdee on Sat Jun 30, 2007 at 11:03:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Beg to differ... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aitchdee, witchamakallit

        But when a terrorist is called an amateur, to me that does equate to "bring it/em on!  It's asking for more.  It's suggesting that the act isn't worth attention at the amateur's level of competence.  But with greater competence, resulting in a more effective outcome, resulting in greater carnage and destruction, then the attention will be there.

        Yes, to me, that's Bush-talk for "bring it on."  That's Bush-talk for you gotta do better than fail to detonate.  If you detonate, then I'll pay attention.  

        So, yes, bring it on.

    •  so it was an anonymous official (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhillyGal, aitchdee

      when the media gets a comment from an unnamed "senior U.S. official" it is hardly speaking for the president or administration, and it's probably not the public government "party line", which is why it's an anonymous comment in the first place.

      also, it's this essentially what larry johnson said on keith olbermann?

      so when a US official calls an attack amateurish and unsophisticated, it provokes terrorists...

      in cases where US officials call similar groups dangerous terrorists who pose a serious threat, how do you folks react?

      even if this official is speaking for bush... so the US government is "not overly concerned" about car bombs in Britain...  would you folks prefer they raised the terror threat level to red?  locked down US airports and put soldiers at every street corner in america?  

      what reaction would you NOT criticize?

      •  The Administration didn't refute it!! (0+ / 0-)

        If the spokesperson wasn't speaking for Bush et al, the Administration WOULD REFUTE IT.  That's how the media machine works.  Especially the media machine that's directly controlled by the White House.

        When a commentator reports the Bush administration perspective on the scene as delivered by an Administration official, that representative IS speaking on behalf of the President.  That's the way it works.  From Tony Snow, Dana Perino, Dan Bartlet, Josh Bolten on down.  

        Earlier in the day, the same commentator (Ed Henry) attributed those comments directly to Bush.  As the day progressed and others likely had a similar reaction to mine, the comments were attributed to HIS Administration.

        Understand how the Administration media machine works.  If this wasn't the position of the Administration, the Administration WOULD REFUTE IT.  The Administration, throughout the day yesterday, fed this to the media and NEVER ONCE REFUTED IT!

        •  "senior U.S. official" (0+ / 0-)

          doesn't even necessarily mean someone within the actual administration.  
          that could be someone in the CIA, state department, or some other career bureaucrat.  

          thousands of anonymous comments by senior US officials get made to various media outlets, NO presidential administration wastes its time refuting something so minor.

          seriously, no one really cares about this minor comment made by some random senior government employee (except obviously you).

          the comments were attributed DIRECTLY TO BUSH, were are you getting that from??  
          if bush made ANY statement about this issue, there would be actual quotes, and they would be in multiple media outlets.

          do a google news search or something.

        •  "NEVER ONCE REFUTED IT" (0+ / 0-)

          actually, chertoff has said that even if these attacks were unsophisticated, that doesn't make them any less dangerous.  

          so, anonymous "US official" on one side... head of DHS speaking publicly on the record on the other.

          •  Come on.... (0+ / 0-)

            Ed Henry's reports were coming DIRECTLY FROM LOCATION AT KENNEBUNKPORT.  He was being briefed by Bush's people.  It's foolish to presume Bush will come out every 20 minutes to brief reporters himself.  I mean, COME ON!!  Presidents have spokespeople who speak on their behalf.  

            How can you not know this?!

            As for what Chertoff said, he was speaking for Chertoff.  As for what Bush's rep said, he/she was speaking for Bush.

            THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS!!!

            When you hear words like Bush Administration officials, that MEANS BUSH!!  

            And as I said, the "amateur time," "amateur hour," "unprofessional" references have NOT BEEN REFUTED which means they are sanctioned by Bush.  This is his tactic.  This is the message he chooses to send.  That's presidential politics.

            •  Bush Administration officials (0+ / 0-)

              "When you hear words like Bush Administration officials, that MEANS BUSH!!"

              "US officials" and "Bush Administration officials" are not necessarily the same thing.  as i already said, the former could be a career official at the CIA, state dept, etc.

      •  No security response necessary here... (0+ / 0-)

        Just enough intelligence on the part of this Administration to recognize an attempted attack did take place and that it's not wise to publicly label the perpetrators as amateurish to provoke more anger and more successful attacks in the future.

  •  Much More than Foot-in-Mouth Disease (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Linda Milazzo

    Bush inevitably says the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people...ALL OF THE TIME!!!

    When someone says,"Why impeach, when he has so little time left?"....well....look at all the damage left to be done if he's left in office!!

    More than at any other time in our country's history it is IMPERATIVE that this corrupt criminal who has subverted our constitution and made the United States among the most hated/least trusted MUST BE IMPEACHED!!! Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez--ALL of them.

    Why on earth is the Democratic Congress NOT DOING WHAT THEY WERE PUT INTO THE MAJORITY TO DO??? Does the poll approval rating LESS than BUSH mean nothing to them???  

    We just saw "Sicko" tonight, by the way. If you haven't gone yet, put it on the GO-IMMEDIATELY list to do. And while there, hand out flyers on supporting HR676 single-payer health care.

  •  They're a bunch of $%^&ing amateurs. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Sorry, that's all I could think of.

  •  i was brought up in scotland (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Linda Milazzo

    Haven't lived there for years but I still have family and close friends there.

    We have to wait and see what these guys were up to so we have to keep an open mind.

    What bothers me is that my closest friend who happens to live in Glasgow is married to an Afghani refugee with a young son.  I really fear a backlash against any 'brown' people they perceive to be a threat to their way of life. It scares me as they're a sort of extended family to me.  They've been through hell to get official status in the UK and are just trying to live a normal life.  Now this.

    It's so ironic.  The Scots voted in a new government a couple of months ago.  The Scottish National Party won an election.  They are totally against the Iraq debacle - always have been.

    Suddenly this happens.  

    Hopefully  the police can do a decent job and find out the motivation behind it.  

    Scotland used to be the most racially tolerant nation in the UK.  That's what they said 20 or so years ago.  Things must have changed.

    I haven't seen it commented anywhere apart from someone mentioning that the new Prime Minister , Gordon Brown, in London, happens to be Scottish.  But Scotland is devoluted from London, and while not having full independence, has it's own government.  And they're anti-war.  Their leader is called Alex Salmond.  Just trying to educifmy you.  (where are the other Brits or Scots out there - help!!!).

    So, why this now?

    •  Yes, they did mention the new PM (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      is Scottish.  I hope all is well for your friend and her husband.  Also, great to hear that Scotland was so racially tolerant.  I hadn't known.  Just hope it stays that way.

      •  thanks for this diary Linda (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linda Milazzo

        I dpn't know what I'm doing up at this time of the morning.  But this has really disturbed me and I've been checking all the British newspapers all day.  It's really hard as Scotland doesn't have a history of terrorism.  We had the 'Tartan Army' years ago but they tended to be a bunch of bunglers.  The IRA never  targeted Scotland as they felt we were allies of a sort.  We had a common heritage and they left us alone.

        I spoke to my friend in Glasgow yesterday just before all this happened.  I'll call her again tomorrow.  

        I'm not so sure about Scotland being racially tolerant any more.  They were at one time but there's been a huge influx of immigrants and from what I hear they feel they're overloaded.  They also have a lot of  eastern Europeans flocking in (which, as far as I've heard, the Scots aren't on the whole bothered about - loads of Poles settling down there and there are historical ties between Scotland and Poland so the Scots basically like the integration).  I'd like to think they're pragmatic and won't succumb to the fear of brown looking people.  We'll see.

        Anyway, I just think we have to wait and see what these idiots were up to at the airport.

  •  Bush/Terrorists (0+ / 0-)

    Bush is a wacko but these terrorists don't need a dumbass president of the U.S. to give them reason to attempt to blow-up people sky high. They're as unreasoning as Bush.  

  •  I'm sure that Dumbya and his henchmen... (0+ / 0-)

    Are busy trying to figure out how to blame Iran for the incidents in England.
    Shit never changes with these guys, just their "Incompetence as usual" work ethic.
    Nothing to see here.
    Move along.

  •  so would it be provoking the terrorists (0+ / 0-)

    to deny that there is a war on terrorism going on in the first place?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site