9/11 | Barack Obama | George W. Bush | News

Dana Perino: There Was No Terrorist Attack on the U.S. Under Bush


In a discussion of the Fort Hood shooting, Dana Perino criticizes the Obama administration for not calling it a terrorist attack, and then makes the obscene claim, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term."

Incidentally, Perino was just asked to serve in a media-oversight job in the Obama administration:

"Dana M. Perino, Mr. Bush’s fourth and final press secretary, was nominated Thursday by President Obama to serve on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an independent agency responsible for overseeing the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other non-military broadcasts sponsored by the federal government."


(via media matters)

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. WHAT???!!! There was no terrorist attack during Bush's Reign? IS SHE INSANE?

    Posted by: androjai | Nov 25, 2009 10:36:50 AM

  2. What the fuck is our Collaborator In Chief doing, having cunts like this in positions of responsibility in his administration?

    Posted by: Roscoe | Nov 25, 2009 10:37:18 AM

  3. Honestly, the conservative talking point is "no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11". It sounds like she just garbled up her words. An incredibly stupid mistake but I doubt there were any false intentions behind the remark.

    Posted by: bucky | Nov 25, 2009 10:49:59 AM

  4. Bucky, dear heart -- SHE'S A REPUBLICAN. They have nothing but false intentions.

    Posted by: Roscoe | Nov 25, 2009 11:08:46 AM

  5. "Honestly, the conservative talking point is "no terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11". It sounds like she just garbled up her words. An incredibly stupid mistake but I doubt there were any false intentions behind the remark."

    Except that it is still false. There were terrorist attacks following 9/11, on American soil.

    Posted by: Zach | Nov 25, 2009 11:09:48 AM

  6. Bucky, honestly, did you listen to what she said??? she was very clear and she was not confused and did not garble up her words. whatever the conservative talking point is, that is not what she said. if she meant to slay something different, well, we can not read minds, we can only go on what she did say. she is an idiot.

    Posted by: cueylove | Nov 25, 2009 11:12:12 AM

  7. @ Bucky

    Even so, what about the DC Shooter (just off the top of my head)?

    The entire Bush Era WAS a terrorist attack!

    Posted by: Joey | Nov 25, 2009 11:15:16 AM

  8. "What the fuck is our Collaborator In Chief doing..."

    Well, ROSCOE, he's still trying to be bipartisan; and as much as I love him it's starting to get on my f...kin' nerves. He needs to stop trying to be bipartisan and just be satisfied at being biracial.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 25, 2009 11:17:23 AM

  9. It's from the GOP play book; repeat something as the truth often enough and it becomes so.

    Posted by: Rad | Nov 25, 2009 11:18:31 AM

  10. Once again Fox News proves that you can't believe anything that they say.

    Posted by: Jeffrey | Nov 25, 2009 11:21:25 AM

  11. Be it Perino, Palin, Beck, Hannity or any other GOP hack. They lie through their teeth so often, they really do believe the shit that spills out. If Obama does not realize that there is no working with these douche bags, he is an asshole.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 25, 2009 11:36:46 AM

  12. It doesn't surprise me that she said that. And sadly, it doesn't surprise me that Obama rewards her by putting her on the Broadcasting Board of Governors. I've come to expect that from him. I can't vote for Obama in 2012.

    Posted by: Matt | Nov 25, 2009 11:39:28 AM

  13. Bucky, even if she simply made a mistake there are TWO - count them - two men sitting there and NEITHER ONE of them corrected her. They simply acted like she was correct in what she was saying (in actuality, neither of the men was actually listening to her. They were formuating what they were going to say in thier heads and waiting to talk. Reminds me of the old Annie Lebowitz comment, "The opposite of talking is not listening, it's waiting to talk.")

    I think she knew exactly what she was saying. I knew what she meant...and she is WRONG. The biggest terrorist attack even in the history of this country happened on Bush's watch. That's fact. But you can't "blame" George Bush for that. You can blame the CIA, the FBI, the NSA, etc., etc. But the Republicans act like Obama was standing sentry outside the gates of Fort Hood and let this nutjob sneak onto the base. It's crap. It's stupid. And it only plays to their core base (who really watches Fox News anyway...someone standing in line in the cold to see Sarah "Being Dumb Makes Me More American Than You" Palin.

    And you can call this whatever you want.

    Posted by: Bart | Nov 25, 2009 11:40:50 AM

  14. @Derrick: Thanks for my morning laugh.

    I can't believe there were two others at the table and no one gaffahed when she said that? Apparently they don't listen to each other... not a bad plan, actually.

    Posted by: kansastock | Nov 25, 2009 11:51:17 AM

  15. Perino is the same idiot who didn't know anything about the Cuban Missile Crisis. How can anyone serve in the White House as she did and not have any knowledge of contemporary American history, especially an event that almost caused a nuclear war?

    It makes no sense to nominate a hack like this to an important position.

    Hactackular proof that connections and not decency and brains take people to the top.



    Posted by: Lyle | Nov 25, 2009 12:06:03 PM

  16. @Bucky

    I'm sorry, but even if she did say it "correctly" and said there were none under Bush since 9/11 -- why the hell does he get a free pass for 9/11? Especially when there were intelligence documents warning of exactly that kind of possibility in the months leading up to it? I've never understood why no one asks that question.

    Posted by: rafi | Nov 25, 2009 12:18:43 PM

  17. Guys come on, you know what she was trying to say. Let's not jump on any mistake that Conservatives make just because you hate them.

    It is sad to me that when I found this blog a few years ago, it was billed to be a site that had news stories of interest to gay men. Now it has become such politically biased site dedicated to attacking anyone who does not agree with the Liberal Agenda. Always looking for ways people are trying to "Keep us down." I see nothing here about Joe Biden's daily mistakes (dare I say lies). I see no one attacking the FL congressman who called a lobbiest a whore.

    Remember this, it is not just the Republicans that lie. Politicians lie. They do it because we believe them.

    Andy, I challenge you to do one full day a week that is only dedicated to positive, uplifting stories reinforcing the strength and power of the gay community. Hell, at this point I'd take one day a month. I know it is naive to think that everything is wonderful all the time, but do you all think that we need a little more positivity in this world? Imagine if one day a week this blog only inspired posts that were bringing us together instead of expecting us to attack others.

    Posted by: BC | Nov 25, 2009 12:23:12 PM

  18. Sorry, my Outrage Meter exploded around 2003, I can't even get worked up by her blatant lie.

    So, all you Obamabots with your stupid fucking "Changey-Hopey" bullshit, how's it worked out for you so far?

    Posted by: Henry Holland | Nov 25, 2009 12:26:42 PM

  19. BC if you find the site a downer, instead of Andy changing his site why don't you not read it for one day a week. Go to Faux news, where they are so uplifting. By the way, lobbyists are whores.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Nov 25, 2009 12:35:15 PM

  20. In addition to the obvious, 9/11, people always forget about the anthrax attacks - on Bush's watch - which were never solved.

    Posted by: john | Nov 25, 2009 1:10:14 PM

  21. "So, all you Obamabots with your stupid fucking "Changey-Hopey" bullshit..."

    Oh, HENRY, I don't mind being an Obamabot...especially, now that I'm in such good company: at the State Department, you know.

    Posted by: Derrick from Philly | Nov 25, 2009 1:18:47 PM

  22. "Guys come on, you know what she was trying to say."

    We do. She was trying to say what she said: that there was no terrorist attack during the Bush administration. There was no garbling. She said it plainly, and it is a plainly and ludicrously false statement.

    Posted by: Ernie | Nov 25, 2009 1:40:36 PM

  23. @ BC:

    OK, I'll give you that, she intended to say something else, but that is not the point. How can she say "I hope they are not looking at this politically" right after she made a "Bush's administration" comparison.

    The problem is not that she is dumb with words, the problem is that she had a manipulative intention.

    And I find plenty of "positive, uplifting stories" on this blog, its just they usually dont come from republicans.

    Posted by: Felix | Nov 25, 2009 2:07:46 PM

  24. Bucky you need your ears checked my friend.

    Posted by: Sean | Nov 25, 2009 3:50:25 PM

  25. This really pisses me off. President Obama is appointing a history revisionist to an important and influential position in his administration? What's next? A Holocaust denier?

    Posted by: Rodney Wollam | Nov 25, 2009 6:33:51 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «One of These Twins is Gay« «