Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
The Almighty
New member
buddy28 said:
You know you are right....cant get more specific than that.
COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF fails to protect his people, Congressional hearings on the way
- Thread starter RyanH
- Start date
You know you are right....cant get more specific than that.
The Almighty said:
You know you are right....cant get more specific than that.
Do i really need to repeat myself?
The Bush Administration did not require the exact time and place the terrorist attacks were expected to be carried out in order to foil the sept 11th plot.
Had the Bush Administration informed the FBI's Counter Terrorism Unit to step up federal investigations into 'suspicous' US resident aliens, of middle eastern decent, who exhibited an interest in flight lessons and also exhibited a possible aflliation with Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda, the central recommendations in a report filed by FBI feild agents stationed in Phenioex Arizona, suggesting swift and immediate federal investigation into all nonresident US aliens of middle eastern decent enrolled in national flight schools, would have been expeditously carried out.
ect. ect. ect.
its elementry man. If you cant comprehend the prudent action by the Bush adminisration was to step up FBI investigations into middle eastern men, who expressed a 'suspicous' interest in flight classes, then this conversation is not even worth having.
mekannik
New member
And the same question arises again: If Bush jr. knew of the hijackings, should/could he have shut down all the major airports in the USA for an unspecified amount of time? From when to when? And what would stop the terrorists from waiting till the ban was lifted and THEN acting?
Suddenly, it seems, no answer is as simple and easy as you once thought.
And might we look a bit back in history?
It seems there was a sneak attack planned against the USA, fully acknowledged, but allowed to happen.
The attack: Pearl Harbor.
The president: FDR.
His party: Democrat.
Are you elevating Bush jr. to one of the greater presidents this country has ever known? And isn't it funny how neither appears to be onthe side of the angels?
Suddenly, it seems, no answer is as simple and easy as you once thought.
And might we look a bit back in history?
It seems there was a sneak attack planned against the USA, fully acknowledged, but allowed to happen.
The attack: Pearl Harbor.
The president: FDR.
His party: Democrat.
Are you elevating Bush jr. to one of the greater presidents this country has ever known? And isn't it funny how neither appears to be onthe side of the angels?
The Almighty
New member
p0ink said:
Enough said.
p0ink said:
no they didnt.
You guys need to read your news stories alittle more attentivily.
The intelligence breifing presented to George Bush on August the 6th 2001, contained a warning prompted by intelligence information collected by the CIA.
The congressional investigative committee into the alledged sept 11th intelligence failure is trying to determine why the Executive Branch of the Government failed to adequately inform the FBI to alert their national counter terrrorism unit to be on the lookout for suspicous middle eastern men who expressed interest in flight lessons.
IF the intelligence briefing presented to President Bush on August 6th, 2001 contained information from both the CIA and FBI, some of which has already become public (see above), the Bush Administration is even more guilty of failing to ensure Federal investigations into suspicous middle eastern men who expressed interest in flight lessons were being expeditously carried out. (which they wernt. The whole phenoix report was ignored by the National Counter Terrorism Unit, and so were warnings about Zaccarious Mossouii)
"And the same question arises again: If Bush jr. knew of the hijackings, should/could he have shut down all the major airports in the USA for an unspecified amount of time? "
This is just smokescreen.
The Bush Administration did not require the exact time and place the terrorist attacks were expected to be carried out in order to foil the sept 11th plot.
Had the Bush Administration informed the FBI's Counter Terrorism Unit to step up federal investigations into 'suspicous' US resident aliens, of middle eastern decent, who exhibited an interest in flight lessons and also exhibited a possible aflliation with Osama Bin Laden or Al Queda, the central recommendations in a report filed by FBI feild agents stationed in Phenioex Arizona, suggesting swift and immediate federal investigation into all nonresident US aliens of middle eastern decent enrolled in national flight schools, would have been expeditously carried out.
ect. ect. ect.
its elementry man. If you cant comprehend the prudent action by the Bush adminisration was to step up FBI investigations into middle eastern men, who expressed a 'suspicous' interest in flight classes, then this conversation is not even worth having.
Last edited:
From reports I have heard thus far it appears other groups such as the Senate Intelligence committee knew about a general terrorism risk based on non-specific threats received. The reason this is perhaps closest to the truth is because the largely liberal media is reporting it so. If it were any worse or if what was said above was true then they would have reported it to the nth degree. Such a discussion is NOT elementary when it is completely speculative. Anyone who says they KNOW one thing to be the case in regards to what Bush or other committees actually knew must keep in mind that they are relying on news releases just like the rest of us.
one word regarding the whole situation....damn
The real smokescreen is that democrats are looking for ANY reason they can to limit a non-democrat to just one term. They are also looking to retaliate for the way Clinton was investigated. Given the president's approval ratings they are struggling to find just about anything they can to balance out the power in the greater odds of electing another democrat.
While I believe in a thorough inquiry for this process, I agree with Rush that it must NOT hinder the war on terrorism or the search for Osama.
Rush brought up another good point: Sudan agreed to turn Osama over to the U.S. during the Clinton administration...why did they not agree??? A known terrorist against U.S. foreign interests not taken into custody? THAT is worthy of a conspiracy theory or two.
one word regarding the whole situation....damn
The real smokescreen is that democrats are looking for ANY reason they can to limit a non-democrat to just one term. They are also looking to retaliate for the way Clinton was investigated. Given the president's approval ratings they are struggling to find just about anything they can to balance out the power in the greater odds of electing another democrat.
While I believe in a thorough inquiry for this process, I agree with Rush that it must NOT hinder the war on terrorism or the search for Osama.
Rush brought up another good point: Sudan agreed to turn Osama over to the U.S. during the Clinton administration...why did they not agree??? A known terrorist against U.S. foreign interests not taken into custody? THAT is worthy of a conspiracy theory or two.
you guys make me laugh.
I dont support either the democratic party, or the republican party. Im Canadian.
Corruption is corruption and its prevelant in both the republican and democratic party. Y? Because corruption is a human phenomenon. Both American parties are composed of humans, therefore, its likely both parties will engage in various levels of corruption.
I dont support either the democratic party, or the republican party. Im Canadian.
Corruption is corruption and its prevelant in both the republican and democratic party. Y? Because corruption is a human phenomenon. Both American parties are composed of humans, therefore, its likely both parties will engage in various levels of corruption.
Political disclaimer; I am not affiliated with ANY political party of the USA, so do not make unintelligent, ignorant, attempts to align me with either of them.
It is the fault of ALL administrations of recent history 20+years to let this terrorism get out of hand. As I mentioned we have not caught NONE of the first perps, and when the Marines were killed in Beirut, we tucked tail and went home. As for as prevention goes, had we applied deadly force then, maybe, just maybe the threat of retaliation would have prevented more recent attacks. If this does not enter your logic, then your head is up your own ass.
When clinton was in office, I picked apart his presidency, like I have the others, and I noticed one thing, repubs were so determined to find dirt, they created huge LIES. As if he needed help.
And buddy28, you're right, each party is corrupt, and each party seeks to destroy people in the other party, so no matter who is in office, the other party's mission is to make life miserable for the other. repubs seem surprised that dems are playing dirty......WHY? IT'S THE SAME GAME YOU PLAY........instead of working for the American people, you're retaliating.......and you want people to believe, (the sheep people will), that you're reflective of family values, and you have a Christian outlook, yada, yada.......blah, blah, blah.........
And for those who keep insisting that the Senate had the same report, you're full of it. The White House issued the report-minus the points of contention. NO ONE had the same report as the White House.
Here's another thing,
NOBODY can blame Bush for knowing, or possessing the report.........but his reasonings are suspect.
Rice made a comment that is full of rhetoric, (to a skeptic like myself anyway)
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would slam an airplane into the World Trade Center."
She's right, as far as the general public goes, not for intelligence personnel, who have received multiple warnings in recent months.......from the French in 2001, and the Phillipine police,
and since no one could have grasped the concept of suicide hijackings, there was enough information, warnings to warrant
a stepup of countermeasures.
She also said, that would have meant shutting down the civil aviation system. Well, better safe, than sorry huh?
Each administration has ignored acts of terrorism overseas for 20 years......well before Clinton was in office, yet people here act as though it just started while he was in office.
Maybe, some of you need to do some research. There are a couple of members on this board who were there, or in the military when the first terrorism-related death occurred.......bigguns, myself, and one other person.
You don't let somebody kick you in the leg repeatedly, then after no/weak response they hit you in the mouth, with a straight right.
No, you kill my people ANYWHERE, I WILL KILL YOU, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU REPRESENT.......that's the kind of message WE (USA) needed to send 20 years ago. MAYBE 241 Marines wouldn't have died, the Cole wouldn't have been bombed, the first WTC incident wouldn't have happened.
Unfortunately, we didn't. We chose to retreat, train, arm, teach future terrorists, tricks.
If you don't think there is something wrong with that, you never will get it.
It is the fault of ALL administrations of recent history 20+years to let this terrorism get out of hand. As I mentioned we have not caught NONE of the first perps, and when the Marines were killed in Beirut, we tucked tail and went home. As for as prevention goes, had we applied deadly force then, maybe, just maybe the threat of retaliation would have prevented more recent attacks. If this does not enter your logic, then your head is up your own ass.
When clinton was in office, I picked apart his presidency, like I have the others, and I noticed one thing, repubs were so determined to find dirt, they created huge LIES. As if he needed help.
And buddy28, you're right, each party is corrupt, and each party seeks to destroy people in the other party, so no matter who is in office, the other party's mission is to make life miserable for the other. repubs seem surprised that dems are playing dirty......WHY? IT'S THE SAME GAME YOU PLAY........instead of working for the American people, you're retaliating.......and you want people to believe, (the sheep people will), that you're reflective of family values, and you have a Christian outlook, yada, yada.......blah, blah, blah.........
And for those who keep insisting that the Senate had the same report, you're full of it. The White House issued the report-minus the points of contention. NO ONE had the same report as the White House.
Here's another thing,
NOBODY can blame Bush for knowing, or possessing the report.........but his reasonings are suspect.
Rice made a comment that is full of rhetoric, (to a skeptic like myself anyway)
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would slam an airplane into the World Trade Center."
She's right, as far as the general public goes, not for intelligence personnel, who have received multiple warnings in recent months.......from the French in 2001, and the Phillipine police,
and since no one could have grasped the concept of suicide hijackings, there was enough information, warnings to warrant
a stepup of countermeasures.
She also said, that would have meant shutting down the civil aviation system. Well, better safe, than sorry huh?
Each administration has ignored acts of terrorism overseas for 20 years......well before Clinton was in office, yet people here act as though it just started while he was in office.
Maybe, some of you need to do some research. There are a couple of members on this board who were there, or in the military when the first terrorism-related death occurred.......bigguns, myself, and one other person.
You don't let somebody kick you in the leg repeatedly, then after no/weak response they hit you in the mouth, with a straight right.
No, you kill my people ANYWHERE, I WILL KILL YOU, AND EVERYTHING YOU THINK YOU REPRESENT.......that's the kind of message WE (USA) needed to send 20 years ago. MAYBE 241 Marines wouldn't have died, the Cole wouldn't have been bombed, the first WTC incident wouldn't have happened.
Unfortunately, we didn't. We chose to retreat, train, arm, teach future terrorists, tricks.
If you don't think there is something wrong with that, you never will get it.
Similar threads
