In other words, what you're saying is that the Bush administration decided to put the airlines before national security??
Actually, that is most likely the case. But let's not pretend the airlines only pay off Bush, and no others. Senators and Congressmen from both parties have large vested interests in seeing the airlines get what they want, as well as Bush.
[B]I didn't say "nothing was done". I said he was ineffective.
You said he was completely ineffective. That's like saying he did nothing about it basically. Again, were no attacks thwarted??
Quote:
His policies were totally ineffective. Clinton was a nightmare for national security. I don't blame him for 9/11, but blaming Bush or saying he knew about it is is equally nuts.
Bull. I quoted your post when you had nothing but blame for Clinton. Glad you're "clarifying" that.
Quote:
As for invading Iraq, I don't agree that it will create more bin Ladens. I simply don't. You can believe what you like.
Yeah, cause there aren't any iraqis killing our soldiers down there right? No suicide bombers either.
"Somehow" I'm gonna have to "side" with the Egyptian president, the president of an "ally" country in the Arab world over you on this one.
So why aren't you outraged that Bush bypassed national security for the benefit of the airlines??? My goodness, how many thousands of people died then, and continue to die now related to 9/11? Unbelievable.
Instead of outrage, you write this, which sounds like what an apologist "would" say:
Quote:
But let's not pretend the airlines only pay off Bush, and no others. Senators and Congressmen from both parties have large vested interests in seeing the airlines get what they want, as well as Bush.
There's some pretty good information in this thread. I apologize if I contributed to derailing it. I'm off to play some tennis now. \
So why aren't you outraged that Bush bypassed national security for the benefit of the airlines??? My goodness, how many thousands of people died then, and continue to die now related to 9/11? Unbelievable.
Instead of outrage, you write this, which sounds like what an apologist "would" say:
There's some pretty good information in this thread. I apologize if I contributed to derailing it. I'm off to play some tennis now. \
Who said I'm not outraged? I don't recall ever saying that.
So by saying "Yes I agree Bush is partially to blame, and so are....", I am an apologist?
What I submit to you is that Bush can not create and pass law single handedly (for the most part), and no law pre-9/11 was going to get passed that forced the airlines to do something they didn't want to happen even if Bush wanted that law passed, which I do not believe he actually tried to do.
This is not being an apologist. It's calling the whole system that has led us to where we are what it is: broken. This goes WAY beyond Bush. I will not fault Bush for everything, because there is more than enough blame to go around.
Its good to see that the truth is coming out...bit by bit.
I have a couple other questions and I hope they are answered soon...these always bothered me...
1. Was there a Stand Down order given to fighter jets on 9|11?
2. How come when Payne Stewart's ill fated flight was intercepted in minutes when the jets tracking the three hijacked planes took longer...and if not...
3. Was Flight 93 shot down?
When reading these posts "Payne Stewart" popped into my mind...so did did a search on Google...
Though some of these are of the tinfoil hat fare...the site mentioned above (www.cooperativeresearch.net) is ranked up top and I wanted to link to the specific page on this...but it seems the site is down.
Just my thoughts. But one more thing. If we had known (from what I've read...for over 10 years) that Al Qaida was planning attacks of this nature in this country. Flight controllers and NORAD, if alerted, could have been able to have stopped these. There are hundreds of these kinds of incidences (flights deviating there path or the case with Stewart's Plane) every year. Why couldn't it have worked 9|11?
Though some of these are of the tinfoil hat fare...the site mentioned above (www.cooperativeresearch.net) is ranked up top and I wanted to link to the specific page on this...but it seems the site is down.
All CCR does is summarize and link to basically every scrap of info on 9.11. It was then put into timeline form so you can see the sequence of events and compare contrasting accounts.
The scrambling (sending into the air) of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. During the year 2000, there are 425 "unknowns" - pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters are scrambled in response 129 times in cases where problems are not immediately resolved. After 9/11, such scrambles go from about twice a week to three or four times a day. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01] Between September 2000 and June 2001, fighters are scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/13/02] General Ralph E. Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, says that before 9/11, "Normally, our units fly 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission." [FNS, 10/25/01] Statistics on how many minutes fighters take to scramble before 9/11 apparently are not released.
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft." [FAA regulations]
"If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." [FAA regulations]
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They?ll call the plane, saying 'American 11, you?re deviating from course.' It?s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart?s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." [MSNBC, 9/12/01]
"A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile." [Boston Globe, 9/15/01]
"In October [2002], Gen. Eberhart told Congress that 'now it takes about one minute' from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters 'within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.'" [Slate, 1/16/02]
The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, says the day after 9/11: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday.... As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up." [Pravda, 9/12/01]
Supposedly, on 9/11, there are only four fighters on ready status in the Northeastern US, and only 14 fighters on permanent ready status in the entire US. [BBC, 8/29/02] However, any number of additional fighters could be in the air or ready to fly at the time the 9/11 attacks begin, but exact numbers are not known.
Additionally, the Air Traffic Services Cell (ATSC), an office designed to facilitate communications between the FAA and the military, had just been given a secure Internet (Siprnet) terminal and other hardware six weeks earlier, "greatly enhancing the movement of vital information." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/10/02]
You said he was completely ineffective. That's like saying he did nothing about it basically. Again, were no attacks thwarted??
Bull. I quoted your post when you had nothing but blame for Clinton. Glad you're "clarifying" that. Yeah, cause there aren't any iraqis killing our soldiers down there right? No suicide bombers either.
"Somehow" I'm gonna have to "side" with the Egyptian president, the president of an "ally" country in the Arab world over you on this one.
Yes, I did say he was ineffective. That doesn't mean he didn't do anything. It means he failed. I'm not going to just sit here and let you throw up a straw man by asking if "no" attacks were thwarted. I'm sure their were. That doesn't mean Clinton's strategy was effective in any sense.
As for blaming Clinton, I've said many times I don't blame him. The comments I made were to put the attacks on Bush in context. In other words, it's foolish to blame Bush when Clinton presided over many devasting attacks.
Don't tell me what I'm saying and what I'm not.
On the Iraq issue, I'm not sure of your point. The majority of attacks aren't even coming from Iraqis. The country is not going to be under US control forever. There's no evidence to support the "hundred bin Ladens" theory.
There's no evidence to support the "hundred bin Ladens" theory.
Yet. Unfortunately I have the feeling you'll have to reconsider that statement soon.
Edit: considering al qaeda is according to experts "de-centralized" now, that's like many bin ladens. The polls coming out of arab countries show the hatred towards the US has only increased.
seems like the least we could have got was a yellow alert or something, I mean, we got them on and off so much after the fact. \
Ummm..theres a reason for that ya know... they didnt exist before 9/11. People seem to forget how things were before 9/11.
And I still don't really see Plfamm's point if there was one. None of those reports quoted are damning if true, they are all general information that no one could have specifically reacted to (especially in a pre-911 climate). So I don't see where the "failure" is. I would assume they get reports and warnings constantly, most of which pan out to be nothing. Its the reports with specific intel (hijackers suspected of hijacking flight xxx) that would support Pflamm's accusations, not this general garbage. Terrorists hijack planes?!?! OMG NO WAY! Whoda thunk it!?. It all seems like hindsight criticism to me, ala Clarke.
Rice's quote about "no one could have predicted using planes as missles" does seem odd and contradictory, but again what does it prove? Does it really seem to indicate some grand coverup to you? Watch X-files much?
I like Artmans questions better. Were they just not telling us there were fighters in the air awaiting orders to shoot the airliners down? That'd be a hell of a decision. Shooting down a jet full of people to prevent an even bigger catastrophe. Now I could see the gov't deciding to cover THAT up.
Terrorists hijack planes?!?! OMG NO WAY! Whoda thunk it!?.
actually, it wasn't just "terrorist will hijack planes", it was "terrorist could fly planes into the pentagon"...not only a fairly specific claim, but a very accurate one...
and clarke's comments of "attacking iraq does nothing to stop terrorism" is also very true...attacking iraq got rid of saddam and his sons and buddies, that's all...200 billion to eradicate al quida would have done much more to stop terrorism than invading a muslim country
do they have fits now?? isn't that the policy now, and hasn't it been the policy with the Israel airlines for many years??
tell pilots that they couldl have their throats cut with box cutters and have their planes and passengers flown into buildings and i bet they would have been fine with locked doors...
after the fact it's much easier to sell than before.
i'm sure there would have been a huge outcry if our military shot down a hijacked plane before 9/11.
now it's a real possibility. history changes what is or is not acceptable to people.
actually, it wasn't just "terrorist will hijack planes", it was "terrorist could fly planes into the pentagon"...not only a fairly specific claim, but a very accurate one..
OMG terrorists want to blow up the Pentagon or the White House or the Statue of Libery or any other American symbol?!? No way!! That's crazy talk!!
You seriously can't believe that consistutes "specific" information. Put yourself in the position of someone who'd have to follow that up. Which terrorists? Which cell? Which airline? Which flight? What day? What time? It's hardly "intel".
You guys are just so desparately wanting to finding something evil and wrong in the Bush administration. God forbid they may have reacted best they could to the situation, or actually done anything that wasn't conspiracy related.
after the fact it's much easier to sell than before.
Exactly. Seems like everyone supporting the "Bush failed" claims has amnesia prior to 9/11. Even if the Gov't did have some more specific intel, theres no way they could do the things to prevent it that they can today... no Homeland Security, no Patriot Act, no tolerance for stricter security etc. The climate is much much different after 9/11, that needs to be taken into consideration.
So basically you don't understand what anyone here is saying.
Oh taking the high road are you? If you're being so non-partisan then where are OTHER pertinant failures with regard to 9/11? I don't see any mention of Clinton, Allbright or Clarke. Funny that. If you were truely just "examining" the situation I would expect you to look further than 8 months prior to 9/11 for answers. Don't try to pass this off as anything other than yet another stab at the Bush administration you don't like, its insulting.
I don't blame you, fire away if you don't like the guy. That's your perogotive, but don't act all high and mighty if someone tries to refute such generalized claims.
I wonder why nobody from the 'attack dogs' is even responding to this
It just keeps piling up . .. .
LOL attack dogs indeed! Lets count the number of threads started to attack Bush vs the number of threads started to attack Kerry here, you'll see who is more rabid.
No, you are just off on a rampage thinking about everything in terms of good and evil, right and wrong when we are talking about the facts and circumstances of a real world event, not something that happened in church.
Regarding your desire to attack Clinton, the issues being discussed here concern the changes that happened when Bush took office, such as taking the counter-terrorism advisor out of cabinet meetings and creating a counter-terrorism task force under cheney that never met. No one is saying Clinton couldn't have done more, the problem is that the Bush admin did less.
OMG terrorists want to blow up the Pentagon or the White House or the Statue of Libery or any other American symbol?!? No way!! That's crazy talk!!
You seriously can't believe that consistutes "specific" information. Put yourself in the position of someone who'd have to follow that up. Which terrorists? Which cell? Which airline? Which flight? What day? What time? It's hardly "intel".
You guys are just so desparately wanting to finding something evil and wrong in the Bush administration. God forbid they may have reacted best they could to the situation, or actually done anything that wasn't conspiracy related.
the administration said they never even thought that terrorist could do something like this prior to 9/11...it has been shown that it was mentioned to them several times prior to 9/11...do they need an exact date, an exact terror cell to add safeguards like locked doors??
g
ps...we don't have to be desparate to find wrong with bushie and company...they are sooo good at finding it for us...they want to campaign on how they will be better at fighting terror than the democrats...it just shows that they didn't do such a great job...9/11 isn't all their fault, but there is something to be said about it happening on their watch...if i'm guarding my family and something awful happenings, sure i blame the other guy who did the awful things, but i also blame myself for not be a better guard/provider/etc...these guys never say oppps, or sorry or we can do better...it is always somebody else fault...the phrase, "the buck stops here" has totally been dismantled into, "if it is good, i get the credit, if it is bad, blame anybody but me"...yeah for the "ethics" of bush and company
Comments
Originally posted by Gilsch
In other words, what you're saying is that the Bush administration decided to put the airlines before national security??
Actually, that is most likely the case. But let's not pretend the airlines only pay off Bush, and no others. Senators and Congressmen from both parties have large vested interests in seeing the airlines get what they want, as well as Bush.
Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]I didn't say "nothing was done". I said he was ineffective.
You said he was completely ineffective. That's like saying he did nothing about it basically. Again, were no attacks thwarted??
His policies were totally ineffective. Clinton was a nightmare for national security. I don't blame him for 9/11, but blaming Bush or saying he knew about it is is equally nuts.
Bull. I quoted your post when you had nothing but blame for Clinton. Glad you're "clarifying" that.
As for invading Iraq, I don't agree that it will create more bin Ladens. I simply don't. You can believe what you like.
Yeah, cause there aren't any iraqis killing our soldiers down there right? No suicide bombers either.
"Somehow" I'm gonna have to "side" with the Egyptian president, the president of an "ally" country in the Arab world over you on this one.
Originally posted by rageous
Actually, that is most likely the case.
So why aren't you outraged that Bush bypassed national security for the benefit of the airlines??? My goodness, how many thousands of people died then, and continue to die now related to 9/11? Unbelievable.
Instead of outrage, you write this, which sounds like what an apologist "would" say:
But let's not pretend the airlines only pay off Bush, and no others. Senators and Congressmen from both parties have large vested interests in seeing the airlines get what they want, as well as Bush.
There's some pretty good information in this thread. I apologize if I contributed to derailing it. I'm off to play some tennis now.
Originally posted by Gilsch
So why aren't you outraged that Bush bypassed national security for the benefit of the airlines??? My goodness, how many thousands of people died then, and continue to die now related to 9/11? Unbelievable.
Instead of outrage, you write this, which sounds like what an apologist "would" say:
There's some pretty good information in this thread. I apologize if I contributed to derailing it. I'm off to play some tennis now.
Who said I'm not outraged? I don't recall ever saying that.
So by saying "Yes I agree Bush is partially to blame, and so are....", I am an apologist?
What I submit to you is that Bush can not create and pass law single handedly (for the most part), and no law pre-9/11 was going to get passed that forced the airlines to do something they didn't want to happen even if Bush wanted that law passed, which I do not believe he actually tried to do.
This is not being an apologist. It's calling the whole system that has led us to where we are what it is: broken. This goes WAY beyond Bush. I will not fault Bush for everything, because there is more than enough blame to go around.
I have a couple other questions and I hope they are answered soon...these always bothered me...
1. Was there a Stand Down order given to fighter jets on 9|11?
2. How come when Payne Stewart's ill fated flight was intercepted in minutes when the jets tracking the three hijacked planes took longer...and if not...
3. Was Flight 93 shot down?
When reading these posts "Payne Stewart" popped into my mind...so did did a search on Google...
Search link.
Though some of these are of the tinfoil hat fare...the site mentioned above (www.cooperativeresearch.net) is ranked up top and I wanted to link to the specific page on this...but it seems the site is down.
Just my thoughts. But one more thing. If we had known (from what I've read...for over 10 years) that Al Qaida was planning attacks of this nature in this country. Flight controllers and NORAD, if alerted, could have been able to have stopped these. There are hundreds of these kinds of incidences (flights deviating there path or the case with Stewart's Plane) every year. Why couldn't it have worked 9|11?
"Gimme some truth..." - John Lennon
Originally posted by Artman @_@
Though some of these are of the tinfoil hat fare...the site mentioned above (www.cooperativeresearch.net) is ranked up top and I wanted to link to the specific page on this...but it seems the site is down.
All CCR does is summarize and link to basically every scrap of info on 9.11. It was then put into timeline form so you can see the sequence of events and compare contrasting accounts.
Here's a mirror:
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/dayof911.html
The section that refers to Payne Stewart:
The scrambling (sending into the air) of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. During the year 2000, there are 425 "unknowns" - pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters are scrambled in response 129 times in cases where problems are not immediately resolved. After 9/11, such scrambles go from about twice a week to three or four times a day. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01] Between September 2000 and June 2001, fighters are scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/13/02] General Ralph E. Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, says that before 9/11, "Normally, our units fly 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission." [FNS, 10/25/01] Statistics on how many minutes fighters take to scramble before 9/11 apparently are not released.
"Consider that an aircraft emergency exists... when: ... There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft." [FAA regulations]
"If... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." [FAA regulations]
"Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They?ll call the plane, saying 'American 11, you?re deviating from course.' It?s considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart?s incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched." [MSNBC, 9/12/01]
"A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile." [Boston Globe, 9/15/01]
"In October [2002], Gen. Eberhart told Congress that 'now it takes about one minute' from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters 'within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.'" [Slate, 1/16/02]
The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, says the day after 9/11: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday.... As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up." [Pravda, 9/12/01]
Supposedly, on 9/11, there are only four fighters on ready status in the Northeastern US, and only 14 fighters on permanent ready status in the entire US. [BBC, 8/29/02] However, any number of additional fighters could be in the air or ready to fly at the time the 9/11 attacks begin, but exact numbers are not known.
Additionally, the Air Traffic Services Cell (ATSC), an office designed to facilitate communications between the FAA and the military, had just been given a secure Internet (Siprnet) terminal and other hardware six weeks earlier, "greatly enhancing the movement of vital information." [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/10/02]
It's sort of an intro to the Day of 9/11 timeline
Originally posted by Gilsch
You said he was completely ineffective. That's like saying he did nothing about it basically. Again, were no attacks thwarted??
Bull. I quoted your post when you had nothing but blame for Clinton. Glad you're "clarifying" that. Yeah, cause there aren't any iraqis killing our soldiers down there right? No suicide bombers either.
"Somehow" I'm gonna have to "side" with the Egyptian president, the president of an "ally" country in the Arab world over you on this one.
Yes, I did say he was ineffective. That doesn't mean he didn't do anything. It means he failed. I'm not going to just sit here and let you throw up a straw man by asking if "no" attacks were thwarted. I'm sure their were. That doesn't mean Clinton's strategy was effective in any sense.
As for blaming Clinton, I've said many times I don't blame him. The comments I made were to put the attacks on Bush in context. In other words, it's foolish to blame Bush when Clinton presided over many devasting attacks.
Don't tell me what I'm saying and what I'm not.
On the Iraq issue, I'm not sure of your point. The majority of attacks aren't even coming from Iraqis. The country is not going to be under US control forever. There's no evidence to support the "hundred bin Ladens" theory.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The majority of attacks aren't even coming from Iraqis.
Yet another correction for you SDW:
Still, most of the insurgent activity in the country, [Abizaid] remarked, "is primarily Iraqi."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200403043.html
Originally posted by giant
Yet another correction for you SDW:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200403043.html
Thank you Giant. There you go SDW....enjoy.
Originally posted by SDW2001
There's no evidence to support the "hundred bin Ladens" theory.
Yet. Unfortunately I have the feeling you'll have to reconsider that statement soon.
Edit: considering al qaeda is according to experts "de-centralized" now, that's like many bin ladens. The polls coming out of arab countries show the hatred towards the US has only increased.
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
seems like the least we could have got was a yellow alert or something, I mean, we got them on and off so much after the fact.
Ummm..theres a reason for that ya know... they didnt exist before 9/11. People seem to forget how things were before 9/11.
And I still don't really see Plfamm's point if there was one. None of those reports quoted are damning if true, they are all general information that no one could have specifically reacted to (especially in a pre-911 climate). So I don't see where the "failure" is. I would assume they get reports and warnings constantly, most of which pan out to be nothing. Its the reports with specific intel (hijackers suspected of hijacking flight xxx) that would support Pflamm's accusations, not this general garbage. Terrorists hijack planes?!?! OMG NO WAY! Whoda thunk it!?. It all seems like hindsight criticism to me, ala Clarke.
Rice's quote about "no one could have predicted using planes as missles" does seem odd and contradictory, but again what does it prove? Does it really seem to indicate some grand coverup to you? Watch X-files much?
I like Artmans questions better. Were they just not telling us there were fighters in the air awaiting orders to shoot the airliners down? That'd be a hell of a decision. Shooting down a jet full of people to prevent an even bigger catastrophe. Now I could see the gov't deciding to cover THAT up.
Originally posted by dviant
Terrorists hijack planes?!?! OMG NO WAY! Whoda thunk it!?.
actually, it wasn't just "terrorist will hijack planes", it was "terrorist could fly planes into the pentagon"...not only a fairly specific claim, but a very accurate one...
and clarke's comments of "attacking iraq does nothing to stop terrorism" is also very true...attacking iraq got rid of saddam and his sons and buddies, that's all...200 billion to eradicate al quida would have done much more to stop terrorism than invading a muslim country
g
do they have fits now?? isn't that the policy now, and hasn't it been the policy with the Israel airlines for many years??
tell pilots that they couldl have their throats cut with box cutters and have their planes and passengers flown into buildings and i bet they would have been fine with locked doors...
after the fact it's much easier to sell than before.
i'm sure there would have been a huge outcry if our military shot down a hijacked plane before 9/11.
now it's a real possibility. history changes what is or is not acceptable to people.
Originally posted by thegelding
actually, it wasn't just "terrorist will hijack planes", it was "terrorist could fly planes into the pentagon"...not only a fairly specific claim, but a very accurate one..
OMG terrorists want to blow up the Pentagon or the White House or the Statue of Libery or any other American symbol?!? No way!! That's crazy talk!!
You seriously can't believe that consistutes "specific" information. Put yourself in the position of someone who'd have to follow that up. Which terrorists? Which cell? Which airline? Which flight? What day? What time? It's hardly "intel".
You guys are just so desparately wanting to finding something evil and wrong in the Bush administration. God forbid they may have reacted best they could to the situation, or actually done anything that wasn't conspiracy related.
Originally posted by dviant
evil and wrong in the Bush administration
So basically you don't understand what anyone here is saying.
Originally posted by alcimedes
after the fact it's much easier to sell than before.
Exactly. Seems like everyone supporting the "Bush failed" claims has amnesia prior to 9/11. Even if the Gov't did have some more specific intel, theres no way they could do the things to prevent it that they can today... no Homeland Security, no Patriot Act, no tolerance for stricter security etc. The climate is much much different after 9/11, that needs to be taken into consideration.
Originally posted by giant
So basically you don't understand what anyone here is saying.
Oh taking the high road are you? If you're being so non-partisan then where are OTHER pertinant failures with regard to 9/11? I don't see any mention of Clinton, Allbright or Clarke. Funny that. If you were truely just "examining" the situation I would expect you to look further than 8 months prior to 9/11 for answers. Don't try to pass this off as anything other than yet another stab at the Bush administration you don't like, its insulting.
I don't blame you, fire away if you don't like the guy. That's your perogotive, but don't act all high and mighty if someone tries to refute such generalized claims.
Originally posted by pfflam
I wonder why nobody from the 'attack dogs' is even responding to this
It just keeps piling up . .. .
LOL attack dogs indeed! Lets count the number of threads started to attack Bush vs the number of threads started to attack Kerry here, you'll see who is more rabid.
Originally posted by dviant
Oh taking the high road are you?
No, you are just off on a rampage thinking about everything in terms of good and evil, right and wrong when we are talking about the facts and circumstances of a real world event, not something that happened in church.
Regarding your desire to attack Clinton, the issues being discussed here concern the changes that happened when Bush took office, such as taking the counter-terrorism advisor out of cabinet meetings and creating a counter-terrorism task force under cheney that never met. No one is saying Clinton couldn't have done more, the problem is that the Bush admin did less.
Originally posted by dviant
OMG terrorists want to blow up the Pentagon or the White House or the Statue of Libery or any other American symbol?!? No way!! That's crazy talk!!
You seriously can't believe that consistutes "specific" information. Put yourself in the position of someone who'd have to follow that up. Which terrorists? Which cell? Which airline? Which flight? What day? What time? It's hardly "intel".
You guys are just so desparately wanting to finding something evil and wrong in the Bush administration. God forbid they may have reacted best they could to the situation, or actually done anything that wasn't conspiracy related.
the administration said they never even thought that terrorist could do something like this prior to 9/11...it has been shown that it was mentioned to them several times prior to 9/11...do they need an exact date, an exact terror cell to add safeguards like locked doors??
g
ps...we don't have to be desparate to find wrong with bushie and company...they are sooo good at finding it for us...they want to campaign on how they will be better at fighting terror than the democrats...it just shows that they didn't do such a great job...9/11 isn't all their fault, but there is something to be said about it happening on their watch...if i'm guarding my family and something awful happenings, sure i blame the other guy who did the awful things, but i also blame myself for not be a better guard/provider/etc...these guys never say oppps, or sorry or we can do better...it is always somebody else fault...the phrase, "the buck stops here" has totally been dismantled into, "if it is good, i get the credit, if it is bad, blame anybody but me"...yeah for the "ethics" of bush and company
g