Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Well many people here know my views of Bush. Summed up in one word: Asshat.
But enough of that. Lets get to the real point of this thread.
Numerous times in the previous months I had stated that Bush was warned about terrorist attacks on US soil in the form of a hijacking of a plane. For the people who watched Farenheight 9/11, you know what I'm talking about. But back on topic here. Many republicans and Bush supporters clearly believed that Bush never received ANY information on this whatsoever.
Well you were all just proven wrong.
Last week, I was watching the local news in the morning. Every so often they go to nation-wide reports. Once again, Bush was in it. Well they started out by saying that the government had actually received warnings about a 9/11 type attack before it happened.
So tell me this all you Bush supporters who tell Democrats to "deal with it"... what do you think of this? Clearly I'm not lying, I have no point to lie to you guys about this. But one good thing I get out of this is the fact that I can hold it against anyone who says I'm wrong and they are right; SpoonMan999 for example?
By the way, it was Fox, the most backed republican network ever.
So in closing, I leave you with this statement: I was right, and you were wrong.
Edit: If you ask for proof on this, make me a time machine so I can go back in time and record it... /sarcasm. Open your mind and try to accept something outside of your narrow vision.
Posts: 1,127
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation:
0
They were getting threat's all the way back in 98, I hope no one try's to argue this point since they will get massacred.
Posts: 437
Threads: 15
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
0
Good, they were obviously using that time to plan the bombing on the terrorist sons of *****es.
Posts: 2,208
Threads: 104
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation:
0
Well if this wasnt already old news it might be exciting...but alas I've know that they knew that there was going to be some sort of terrorist attack on the US. Here's the kicker...Clinton knew to. Did Clinton do anything? No. Was it to late for Bush to do anything? Probably. By the time Bush was in office the "threat" of an attack against America had been long standing, meaning that the people who were going to carry it out were already in the US and had been. So in reality we should all be yelling and screaming and causing all sorts of trouble for Clinton and not Bush.
No I'm not saying Bush is without fault but I am saying that there were a slew of mitigating factors which imminently lead to the 9/11 attack. Let us not forget that both the FBI and the CIA were failing to communicate with each other and due to the private agendas of both directors they were are also failing to communicate with the president.
"One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. "
- Beilby Porteus, Death, A Poem
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Sinner Wrote:Well if this wasnt already old news it might be exciting...but alas I've know that they knew that there was going to be some sort of terrorist attack on the US. Here's the kicker...Clinton knew to. Did Clinton do anything? No. Was it to late for Bush to do anything? Probably. By the time Bush was in office the "threat" of an attack against America had been long standing, meaning that the people who were going to carry it out were already in the US and had been. So in reality we should all be yelling and screaming and causing all sorts of trouble for Clinton and not Bush.
No I'm not saying Bush is without fault but I am saying that there were a slew of mitigating factors which imminently lead to the 9/11 attack. Let us not forget that both the FBI and the CIA were failing to communicate with each other and due to the private agendas of both directors they were are also failing to communicate with the president.
Clinton had too much stuff to do that was of a more important matter, since most threats back then were hoaxes. Since nobody (not even Congress) would listen to him for the first three years of his second term, he couldn't get ANYTHING accomplished. So even if he did want to do something about it, chances are he wasn't able to.
As for Bush, there was no communication failure, he deliberately ignored it. I remember Bush's first year in office. His numbers were slipping. People didn't think he was a great president. So Osama's attack on 9/11 was the perfect thing Bush needed to gain support. The problem is, he's running out of war excuses to boost his popularity. He still doesn't do shit in office, just like his pre-9/11 days.
Posts: 2,208
Threads: 104
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation:
0
N u b l i Wrote:Clinton had too much stuff to do that was of a more important matter, since most threats back then were hoaxes. Since nobody (not even Congress) would listen to him for the first three years of his second term, he couldn't get ANYTHING accomplished. So even if he did want to do something about it, chances are he wasn't able to.
As for Bush, there was no communication failure, he deliberately ignored it. I remember Bush's first year in office. His numbers were slipping. People didn't think he was a great president. So Osama's attack on 9/11 was the perfect thing Bush needed to gain support. The problem is, he's running out of war excuses to boost his popularity. He still doesn't do shit in office, just like his pre-9/11 days.
He's getting ready to royal screw over all of Gen X's social security benifits. So thats something.
"One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. "
- Beilby Porteus, Death, A Poem
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Privatizing social security.. hmm, the 90's were good times. Why is Bush ruining it? I think he's a Puritan by heart; he thinks religion + government = America. No wonder he only got a C average in school.
Posts: 2,982
Threads: 107
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
nubli, not to nitpick, but there's a difference between being good in school and succeeding in life. im gonna use the stereotypical response everyone uses...einstein flunked out of school, etc. etc. but grades aren't everything.
Posts: 1,596
Threads: 71
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
N u b l i Wrote:Clinton had too much stuff to do that was of a more important matter, since most threats back then were hoaxes.
Well, Nubli, correct me if I'm wrong, but you just said that most threats back then were hoaxes. Now why, all of the sudden, with all of these terrorist threats, is the government going to single out one lead among many and actually try to do something about it? Having prior knowledge doesn't exactly help you out when you're dealing with terrorism, either. They would have to know what plane the hijacking would take place on, the exact intent, and when it would happen. Even then, what is the government going to do? Land all planes until further notice?
Posts: 2,208
Threads: 104
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation:
0
N u b l i Wrote:Clinton had too much stuff to do that was of a more important matter, since most threats back then were hoaxes. Since nobody (not even Congress) would listen to him for the first three years of his second term, he couldn't get ANYTHING accomplished. So even if he did want to do something about it, chances are he wasn't able to.
Hoxaes? You mean to tell me in the 90's when Osama was coming to power in the middle east that was a hoax? Sweet jebus of joseph we've all been played! In the Clinton era there was mounting evidence of an imminent terrorist attack on the US on US soil. Clintons response was a few missle vollies at pretty unimportant targets. So it was not just has second term these reports were coming in they were also coming in during his first term.
N u b l i Wrote:As for Bush, there was no communication failure, he deliberately ignored it. I remember Bush's first year in office. His numbers were slipping. People didn't think he was a great president. So Osama's attack on 9/11 was the perfect thing Bush needed to gain support. The problem is, he's running out of war excuses to boost his popularity. He still doesn't do shit in office, just like his pre-9/11 days
So I guess your NOT following the internal "investigations" into both the CIA and FBI. Because unless this is some great goverment cover up to make Bush look good, which it really does nothing for him, then there was most certainly ALREADY a break in communications between the president and the FBI and CIA. There have been numerous reports as of late that not only was he not getting the "full" story on the middle east but also that because of that the pentagon field agents were unable to fullfill objectives in the middle east. Its been proven that the director of the CIA and the director of the FBI both had personal agends and that they saw fit to follow those as opposed to Bush's agenda. So we are suppose to blame Bush, who really was not even president yet, for 9/11 while we know that the two most powerful intelligence burea's in America were not even doing their job of keeping the president informed? Bah!
I have no fondness for Bush but it has less to do with 9/11 and more to do with his current economic and social standings than anything else. So you can go hate Bush all you want but do not hate him for 9/11 hate him for how he is going to drive america into economic and social disastor. Why should you not blame Bush for 9/11? Because its most obvious that while he MIGHT have played a small contributing factor in the attack he most certainly was NOT the only reason it came to pass. Greater security measures should have been taken in the Clinton era, or at least a desire for stronger security measures, in airports and at immigration offices long before Bush came to power.
"One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. "
- Beilby Porteus, Death, A Poem
Posts: 492
Threads: 30
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation:
0
N u b l i Wrote:By the way, it was Fox, the most backed republican network ever.
Sinner already said everything I would have, so I'll just quote you here.
I personally think that Fox is balanced. Greta Van Sustren? (I don't think I spelled her name right) She's a Dem. There are a few others, but I don't watch them.
So really, you just agreed with me that Fox is a balanced news network.
'Clinton had too much stuff to do that was of a more important matter'
Oh yeah, like when he was closing down military bases? Yeah, he sure was preparing for a terrorist attack. The way you put it, Clinton is just as guilty as Bush. They just actually ended up doing something while President Bush was in office, but who new it was going to be a real attack?
'As for Bush, there was no communication failure, he deliberately ignored it.'
Completely rediculous. No president would kill 3,000 Americans just for a popularity growth. That statement cannot be backed up. It is you yammering about the terrible things that President Bush did to screw over America and stating them as fact, when in reality, they are your silly opinions.
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
RtD-Rookie Wrote:Well, Nubli, correct me if I'm wrong, but you just said that most threats back then were hoaxes. Now why, all of the sudden, with all of these terrorist threats, is the government going to single out one lead among many and actually try to do something about it? Having prior knowledge doesn't exactly help you out when you're dealing with terrorism, either. They would have to know what plane the hijacking would take place on, the exact intent, and when it would happen. Even then, what is the government going to do? Land all planes until further notice?
The fact was, there was more than just one or two warnings on the matter. The part of the government who found out tried to warn Bush multiple times, but he didn't care.
Posts: 2,208
Threads: 104
Joined: Dec 2004
Reputation:
0
N u b l i Wrote:The fact was, there was more than just one or two warnings on the matter. The part of the government who found out tried to warn Bush multiple times, but he didn't care.
Okay. So lets "assume" or hypothesies that Bush knew of the imment terror attack by plane. What would you have him do? Tell people not to fly? Close down ALL the airports? Board up the twin towers and every other important structure? Seriously what would you have him do?
"One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. "
- Beilby Porteus, Death, A Poem
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
medicine_man Wrote:Sinner already said everything I would have, so I'll just quote you here.
I personally think that Fox is balanced. Greta Van Sustren? (I don't think I spelled her name right) She's a Dem. There are a few others, but I don't watch them.
So really, you just agreed with me that Fox is a balanced news network.
No, not really. I don't agree. Just because Democrats speak on a network doesn't mean that's who they are backed by.
Quote:'Clinton had too much stuff to do that was of a more important matter'
Oh yeah, like when he was closing down military bases? Yeah, he sure was preparing for a terrorist attack. The way you put it, Clinton is just as guilty as Bush. They just actually ended up doing something while President Bush was in office, but who new it was going to be a real attack?
Such military bases like the ones out here in California which haven't been in use for years; i.e. Treasure Island and a few others near S.F.
Quote:'As for Bush, there was no communication failure, he deliberately ignored it.'
Completely rediculous. No president would kill 3,000 Americans just for a popularity growth. That statement cannot be backed up. It is you yammering about the terrible things that President Bush did to screw over America and stating them as fact, when in reality, they are your silly opinions.
You read it wrong. Bush didn't ignore it to have innocent people die and gain popularity. Let me break it down some more.
He ignored the attack even though there were multiple warnings, all the same general idea too.
He gained popularity by finding the person responsible (namely Osama.) But why are our efforts on finding him so slim compared to taking out Saddam? Bush left Afghanistan in ruins (spark any memories of the gulf war?) and basically turned on Saddam, just because he was on this 'anti-terrorism' campaign. But really, Bush was on a personal mission to take out Saddam. The number one reason? WMD's. And as far as many news networks have said (including the White House) there were no WMD's at the time we occupied Iraq, nor before or now. So basically Bush left Afghanistan, forgetting about Osama, going after Saddam to please himself personally. Ironically, more than half the country thought he was right.
Sure Saddam was a threat to anybody, but we didn't have any reason to go in there and take him out other than the torturing he did on his own people. He had no connections to 9/11 whatsoever.
So tell me, anybody here who thinks Bush is doing a good job, why do you think so?
Posts: 1,127
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation:
0
foog Wrote:nubli, not to nitpick, but there's a difference between being good in school and succeeding in life. im gonna use the stereotypical response everyone uses...einstein flunked out of school, etc. etc. but grades aren't everything.
Uh, I could have sworn you just compared Einstein to Bush....
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Sinner Wrote:Okay. So lets "assume" or hypothesies that Bush knew of the imment terror attack by plane. What would you have him do? Tell people not to fly? Close down ALL the airports? Board up the twin towers and every other important structure? Seriously what would you have him do?
Probably taken more security measures at airports? Please, do you know how long it took Bush to respond to the initial statement that "The United States is officially under attack." ? Yes, he was in a school with children who might have gotten worried if he had to immediately leave. But what is more important, lives of plane-goers or little children who might be spooked? No contest.
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Anubis Wrote:Uh, I could have sworn you just compared Einstein to Bush....
Hyperbole at best. More of a paradox if you ask me.
Sure Einstien flunked school, but he didn't try his hardest. Greatest scientific mind of the century, Einstien, only flunked because his teachers rejected his way of thinking.
Bush.. self explanatory. He even makes up his own words.
Edit: Silly foog, Trix are for kids!
Posts: 1,127
Threads: 14
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation:
0
BTW, Is this really true that Bush got a C average? I mean come on talk about mediocrity at it's best.
Thank you Nubli that and he also had a severe case of dyslexia, Hell back then I would have flunked now since I was able to do alternate schooling I'm going to Harvard LoL....Poor Eintsein.
Posts: 1,991
Threads: 30
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
This thread is silly. And most of what I'm studying right now in Psychology helps me understand why people take their positions and defend them, even when wrong. Even though some people deep deep down know that they are wrong, they still go to defend themselves. It's like survival. Now am I supposed to believe that Bush let 9/11 happen? No. Nubli, do you remember FDR and Pearl Harbor?
Posts: 6,828
Threads: 200
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
TroGdoR Wrote:This thread is silly. And most of what I'm studying right now in Psychology helps me understand why people take their positions and defend them, even when wrong. Even though some people deep deep down know that they are wrong, they still go to defend themselves. It's like survival. Now am I supposed to believe that Bush let 9/11 happen? No. Nubli, do you remember FDR and Pearl Harbor?
I think the government was to naive with the warnings of Japan's attack on Dec. 7th, 1941. The US was too proud to think anybody would dare attack them. Look what happened. as a result. We entered WWII.
|
