Bush Says: 'I Want to Be the Peace President'

I had assumed he was using the generalization that all Germans were Nazis because in his previous, and somewhat racist, comments he seemed to come across as being a little "dense".

In reality, everyone who knew what the Nazi party stood for and still called themselves Nazis were bad people.
 
Israel was formed from Palestine as the result of an agreement between the British govt. and the Jewish bankers that wanted a homeland, this was circa 1916, when England ran out of money to continue WWI and needed to borrow money from the bankers to continue the war. THIS was how Israel was formed. Now to say that Israel is a Democracy shows a lack of education, most of the people that live in Israel are not allowed to vote or hold office, that's right, most of the people in Israel are the native people, Palestinians! So, of course Israel is not and cannot be a democracy, because it then would not be a Zionist nation, but once again it would be a Muslim nation due to majority rule. Israel is a bastard nation (i.e., not formed from the majority) formed from backdoor deals with the rich and powerful as a homeland for Jews. Most did not go there until after the Holocaust since it was a pretty crappy place to live at the time. Since the US, as well as the traditional Middle eastern occupying countries (france and england) also supported Israel, and since those three countries (us, england and france) have consistently screwed over the muslims in the middle east since before WW1, there is no wonder the muslims hate them and us. After all, would you allow a bastard govt to just come in an bulldoze your house and throw you and your family into a refugee camp just so their kind could have your family property? Not in this country! Just try that in the US and see how far you would get! BTW, I take issue with the fact that soldiers of the Werhmacht were not members of the Nazi party, I know that the Kriegsmarine absolutely were as was Schindler, so, not all Nazis were bad, but those that were held the levers of power and tried to screw us all!
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']DennisT, 9/11 was a SNAFU. It wasn't in anybody's playbook. When we would wargame with imaginary forces at Carilsle many moves or tactics would be disallowed as "unrealisitic" that were similar to the reality of that date.

The FAA didn't have a playbook, neither did the Air Force or the NCA. When jets were scrambled they were put out to sea in anticipation of a cold war scenario of incoming bombers. That's all the military knew how to do was anticipate a traditional attack.

Now let's think about this. Let's say a new tactic by terrorists in the next wave would be to hijack Greyhound busses. They meet up with tractor trailers, clear out the baggage underneath and fill the holds with NBC (Nuclear, biological or chemical.) weapons. The busses are running 15 minutes late which the diver, at gunpoint, reports to dispatch is the result of traffic.

Busses start exploding, gassing or contaminating major population centers at 4PM EDT. There are 12 busses that have been hijacked and they're going off every 8 minutes. That means by 5:30PM EDT you have to have ascertained how many busses were hijacked as opposed to really running late. You can't stop these busses with a 2 car roadblock as they'd ram right through them.

Do you send in tanks, Bradley's or helicopter gunships in an attempt to start destroying all Greyhound busses in visual sight regardless of being able to communicate with them? Take into account that the drivers have a gun to their head and are going to tell you exactly what they think it is you want to hear so he doesn't die.

Now tell me.... how do you react to this situation.

You have have more information on this round of attacks then President Bush did on 9/11 and less than an hour to react and be right but your decision can and will be judged by critics and historians for decades.

GO! The clock is ticking....[/quote]

Let me provide you an alternate scenario:

I'm in a classroom for a photo op. I already know one tower of the World Trade Center is burning, the result of a plane crash. An aide steps in and whispers to me that a second plane has crashed into the World Trade Center, something that means a coordinated attack on the country I run is underway.

As President, do I:

(1) Immediately leave the room to find out what the heck is going on, regardless of whether I will make any difference in the moments that follow; or

(2) Sit still, play with a book, and look about the classroom for seven minutes?

As a man of action, a military man, which choice would you make?

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?
 
[quote name='gkargreen']After all, would you allow a bastard govt to just come in an bulldoze your house and throw you and your family into a refugee camp just so their kind could have your family property? Not in this country! Just try that in the US and see how far you would get! [/quote]

It DID happen in this country. The Native Americans lost almost all their land to the British, Spanish, etc governments.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?[/quote]

And how about how Bush is preaching about "family values"? Nothing like having an AK-47 in your home to show "family values". That's because he's letting the ban on assault weapons run out this year. So this is how he's committed to fighting terrorism. Sounds like another FLIP-FLOP to me.
 
[quote name='dennis_t']

Republicans like to speak of character. What kind of character does it show to respond to a national crisis in the manner Bush did?[/quote]

whoa there, now I would label myself fairly liberal in my politics but I don't think that event really shows the character of Bush in a national crisis. Bush had huge approval ratings the few months after 9-11 from both left and right, While I will vote for Kerry because of a number of reasons I don't wan't to belittle what Bush did the days, weeks and month(s) after 9-11. There was a lot of fear in the nation (while I didn't feel it, I met many people who were terrified of the next attack and these were people that live in 'non target rich' environments of North Dakota and Rural manitoba. Bush did a good job in helping to give confidence amidst turmoil and chaos. Could he have done things differently, sure---could his actions in the year after 9-11 been more beneficial to the country (well In my mind yes but you may disagree) but there was like 90% approval in Sept-nov of that year. Of all the things to judge someone's character this really doesn't seem to be the indicator.

Sum up---I disagree with alot of Bush's politics, will vote Straight ticket democrat this election (Congresman, Pres, Gov) but will give 'props' to Bush in his character during the 9-11 times.
 
[quote name='Gregory Kimball'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.[/quote]

Those 3,000 dead were his fault, and for that reason, so was the following war. But, I don't think we're being critical of that Bush war. The second one was a bit more of a downright stupid decision, and is a bit harder to link with a "peace president."

Dubya Caption - "Got to concentrate... Country under attack... Huh? The third little piggy said WHAT?"

^I can't remember exactly what book he was reading, but I imagine there are lots of third little piggies spread across the literary world.[/quote]

You're an idiot. Disassociating the terrorists who flew three bombs into the WTC and saying the 3,000 dead were his fault. What you don't think Clinton is to blame as much as Bush is? Clinton had a chance to get Bin Laden two times. I for one dont want to play the blame game with people like you because you are always going to believe that it was all Bushs fault, just like all hardcore Republicans will believe it was all Clintons fault.

The 9/11 commission that you liberals love to quote so much released findings that Bush could have done something about the 9/11 attacks six times, while Clinton could have 4 times. And considering their partisan sensibilities towards the Democratic side of the spectrum obviously both are as much to blame as each other.

Idiots like you get me angry. THE fuckING TERRORISTS FLEW A PLANE INTO THE WTC, and youre saying the 3,000 dead are HIS FAULT.
 
If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You can't make a decision, you can't act or throw things into motion on an uncertainty. In the case of 9/11 the FAA and the 11 air traffic control centers in the nation were completely confused and indecisive. If you can't get good information going upstream you can't get a good decision coming back down the chain of command. It's that simple. NORAD was alerted to multiple hijackings but had no playbook for this. By the time of the Pennsylvania crash jets were scrambled but to go where? To hit what?

People I knew coming in from overseas were told to land wherever. My GF at the time was forced to land in Gander, Newfoundland under threat of shootdown. The best thing to happen that day and there was good that came out of it, is that the entire U.S. commercial aviation fleet was brought to a screeching halt and grounded without incident. There were no crashes, no accidents, no collisions because pilots were making hasty decisions to get in line and land before threat of shootdown.

Then Bush was on AF One circling the nation which is where the President should have been. In an unknown emergency it is policy to get the NCA airborne under fighter protection. Why go to the White House? Why risk an attack? You question these 7 minutes when President Bush defied the Secret Service and key military aides and returned to the White House that evening to address the nation. That was decisive and frankly, inadvisable. Why let an enemy know where key assets are at exact moments in time in a day full of attacks?

You think he should have been doing something... anything to which I reply what should he have done. You answer has been repeated, anything. I don't see what him getting up and leaving 7 minutes early would have changed.

During a combat situation you're working with less than 5 seconds sometimes to make decisions. Typically the training sceanarios you work under are more difficult than combat. That's by design. That way in the "fog of war" you are more apt to make a better decision. Unfortunately 9/11 was never trained for and never expected. That being said it's impossible to judge fairly, in hindsight, how what was done was right or wrong.

I can tell you what Clinton did in response to the first WTC bombing. He treated it as a legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the Khobar Towers bombing, as an internal Saudi legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the USS Cole bombing, he blew up the aspirin factory in the Sudan. I can tell you how Clinton treated the massacre of American soldiers in Somalia, he denied them heavy armor and then cut and run. Now.. which set a more dangerous national precident in regards to how our enemies perceive us? What I just listed..... or 7 minutes thinking "What the hell is going on, what can people tell me and how are we going to react?"

Go ahead. I'm all ears.
 
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']When you vote Democrat, you are only getting a Demo[/quote]

Although in your mind you probably thought that was a great slam, its actually a nice compliment.

Demo: Noun 1. demo - a visual presentation showing how something works;


So when you vote Democrfat you are getting something that shows you how things can work? Hey thanks for the compliment Dragon,....

Edit: Verb: make understandable and clear
 
They think the muslim world hates us because we keep the saudi arabian government in power.

Let me give you some advice. DON'T DRIVE! Everytime you fill up your big honking 3 miles per gallon SUV YOU ARE SUPPORTING TERRORISM, and thus keeping the Iraqi and Saudi government in power. Also you shouldn't drive if you think Iraq is all about oil.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?[/quote]

You're right, you're right.

I would've finished my photo op too. Then, I would've gone for some coffee and a bagel, followed by my reading of the Washington Post. Then, after playing some Mario Kart, I would've gone and taken a nice healthy dump before really getting my hands into this whole plane-crashing-into-the-world-trade-center-tower incident.

Riiiiiiiight. :roll:
 
See, no serious answer is even attempted. Just a smart ass comment designed to make it look like what was done was the wrong thing without any submission as to what the right thing to do is. Your answer forwarded this discussion in no measureable way and we're all dumber having read it.
 
Bush is a warmonger?

Afghanistan was clearly justified. Nobody can argue that.

Iraq was a continuation of U.S. policy toward that country. You don't thumb your nose at a cease-fire agreement for 12 years and get away with it.
 
Actually, when you assume that Bush had 7 minutes, that is 20/20 hindsight. He/we didn't know what was happening, how many planes were ging to be used, other forms of attack that may have been planned, we DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING! So, Bush should have gotten immediately into action form, because nobody knew what was going to happen at that time. Sorry, Bush froze, and everyone knows it, it's plain on his face.
 
Technically in the matter of the decision to get the President up and moving anywhere/somewhere/airborne was under the purview of the Secret Service. If there was an attempt made on a Pesidential assination or a danger that it could happen it was up to them to get Bush moving. They concluded at the time there was no immediate danger to the President's life or he would have been up and moving.

If his had been Al Gore I would maintain the same thing. I don't know what you could expect any President to do with the complete lack of information or immediate nearby personal attack. I think in hindsight what could have been done different and the answer comes back to I don't know. I think back to that morning and as I saw the wrecks and burnign buildings I just kept wondering "What else.".

I remember filling up my car, filling 3 5 gallon containers with water, buying enough groceries for a month and just waiting to see what happened next. Oh, and I loaded up a couple of guns in case of civil unrest. I think people forget and have let memories of the fog of that day slip through their minds. Why? I think because nothing has happened here since everyone views it as an anomoly as opposed to something our enemies wish would hapen to us daily.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If you get up, pannicked what do you accomplish? In this role you are a figurehead. 7 minutes isn't going to make a diference or save any lives. The planes have already hit. The first was still being considered a possible accident as opposed to terrorist strike. The second is what caused the concerned look and dazed expression. How else do you deal with it? "GOOD GOD WE'RE UNDER ATTACK! WE'RE ALL GOING DIE!"?

You can't make a decision, you can't act or throw things into motion on an uncertainty. In the case of 9/11 the FAA and the 11 air traffic control centers in the nation were completely confused and indecisive. If you can't get good information going upstream you can't get a good decision coming back down the chain of command. It's that simple. NORAD was alerted to multiple hijackings but had no playbook for this. By the time of the Pennsylvania crash jets were scrambled but to go where? To hit what?

People I knew coming in from overseas were told to land wherever. My GF at the time was forced to land in Gander, Newfoundland under threat of shootdown. The best thing to happen that day and there was good that came out of it, is that the entire U.S. commercial aviation fleet was brought to a screeching halt and grounded without incident. There were no crashes, no accidents, no collisions because pilots were making hasty decisions to get in line and land before threat of shootdown.

Then Bush was on AF One circling the nation which is where the President should have been. In an unknown emergency it is policy to get the NCA airborne under fighter protection. Why go to the White House? Why risk an attack? You question these 7 minutes when President Bush defied the Secret Service and key military aides and returned to the White House that evening to address the nation. That was decisive and frankly, inadvisable. Why let an enemy know where key assets are at exact moments in time in a day full of attacks?

You think he should have been doing something... anything to which I reply what should he have done. You answer has been repeated, anything. I don't see what him getting up and leaving 7 minutes early would have changed.

During a combat situation you're working with less than 5 seconds sometimes to make decisions. Typically the training sceanarios you work under are more difficult than combat. That's by design. That way in the "fog of war" you are more apt to make a better decision. Unfortunately 9/11 was never trained for and never expected. That being said it's impossible to judge fairly, in hindsight, how what was done was right or wrong.

I can tell you what Clinton did in response to the first WTC bombing. He treated it as a legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the Khobar Towers bombing, as an internal Saudi legal matter. I can tell you how Clinton treated the USS Cole bombing, he blew up the aspirin factory in the Sudan. I can tell you how Clinton treated the massacre of American soldiers in Somalia, he denied them heavy armor and then cut and run. Now.. which set a more dangerous national precident in regards to how our enemies perceive us? What I just listed..... or 7 minutes thinking "What the hell is going on, what can people tell me and how are we going to react?"

Go ahead. I'm all ears.[/quote]

I think just sitting there, looking stunned, sets a much more dangerous national precedent. I'm sure the terrorists watch those seven minutes of tape and laugh their butts off, tickled that they were able to derail the thinking and decision-making capability of the leader of the most powerful country in the world through their evil, audacious actions.

Standing up, politely excusing himself and getting IMMEDIATELY into the fray would have sent a much more powerful message to the terrorists and the world. Bush was incapable of doing that.
 
I agree, he inadvertently sent a message to those who perpetrated the crimes that he did not know what to do. And that was probably true, given the circumstances. Heck, I saw the Pentagon 1 minute after the hit, I was on my way to work right as this was happening! But, as we all know, appearances are important, and Bush should have gotten up and presented the appearance of knowing something, even though he/we really did not know much at all. BTW, your right, it did happen here when we committed genocide on the Indians, we screwed them every way possible, as much as the Nazis did to the Jews (well, may be not quite that badm the Holocaust was an unbelievable thing to do...) Now, as the Indians are starting to get back at us by using our gambling affliction to make money, we are trying to stop that, can't let the Indians make money off of us when we can let big corps or govts, do it to us instead!
 
You're still ignoring the fact that he knew nothing. There were no civillian officialls telling him of organized attack on the nation, just on one target, the WTC. That target had been attacked before in 1993 in a less direct method. You didn't have generals telling him of an immediate threat either.

You answer is still ANYTHIING without being specific. I maintain that no President could have done any better. I'm not even making a defense of this President. I'm saying I don't know what you could have expected anyone to do in those 7 minutes. If he gave the go order in those 7 minutes the Pentagon would have still been hit. United 93 may have been shot down but it never go to its target anyways.

You're saying one man, in 7 minutes of inaction, set a more dangerous precedent than 10 years of knowing war had been declared on us but deciding to treat those at war with us as criminals and a legal matter? You're saying that now that we have toppled two terrorist governments, assasinated Al Qaeda members in more than a dozen countries, have convinced Libya to rejoin the community of nations and get out of the terroism and WMD business that terrorists sit around.... laughing.... because Bush sat around for 7 minutes around 9AM on 9/11/01?

Really. That's astounding.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You're still ignoring the fact that he knew nothing. There were no civillian officialls telling him of organized attack on the nation, just on one target, the WTC. That target had been attacked before in 1993 in a less direct method. You didn't have generals telling him of an immediate threat either.

You answer is still ANYTHIING without being specific. I maintain that no President could have done any better. I'm not even making a defense of this President. I'm saying I don't know what you could have expected anyone to do in those 7 minutes. If he gave the go order in those 7 minutes the Pentagon would have still been hit. United 93 may have been shot down but it never go to its target anyways.

You're saying one man, in 7 minutes of inaction, set a more dangerous precedent than 10 years of knowing war had been declared on us but deciding to treat those at war with us as criminals and a legal matter? You're saying that now that we have toppled two terrorist governments, assasinated Al Qaeda members in more than a dozen countries, have convinced Libya to rejoin the community of nations and get out of the terroism and WMD business that terrorists sit around.... laughing.... because Bush sat around for 7 minutes around 9AM on 9/11/01?

Really. That's astounding.[/quote]

He knew two things. That (1) two planes had struck both the World Trade Center towers and that (2) the nation had been attacked. I'm saying that immediately leaving that classroom to find out what was going on would have sent an invaluable message to the world, that we had a strong and effective leader who pounced on the problem.

And we have not toppled two terrorist governments, only one -- the one in Afghanistan. As multiple government investigations have concluded, Saddam did not work with al Queda at all. In fact, al Queda asked for help and he basically ignored them. Our attack of Iraq did nothing to further the War on Terror. You could argue it hurt the war effort by expending valuable military resources in the wrong direction, destabilizing a non-terrorist-supporting government while leaving other more guilty parties in the region (Iran, Saudi Arabia) to continue their dirty business.
 
Oh give me a break that Iraq wasn't a terrorist government. So, they didn't have ties to 9/11. We never said they did. We said and have said several times since, as did the 9/11 commission that there were contacts between the Hussein government and Al Qaeda none of which directly lead to Iraqi involvement in the attack.

Now you're saying that a government that invaded Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990, gassed their ethnic minorities, brutallly supressed their Shiite majority in 1991 and awarded $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber that launched attacks against Israeli's was NOT a terrorist government? What, they were a garden society?

Your logic astounds me.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Oh give me a break that Iraq wasn't a terrorist government. So, they didn't have ties to 9/11. We never said they did. We said and have said several times since, as did the 9/11 commission that there were contacts between the Hussein government and Al Qaeda none of which directly lead to Iraqi involvement in the attack.

Now you're saying that a government that invaded Iran in 1980, Kuwait in 1990, gassed their ethnic minorities, brutallly supressed their Shiite majority in 1991 and awarded $25,000 to each family of a suicide bomber that launched attacks against Israeli's was NOT a terrorist government? What, they were a garden society?

Your logic astounds me.[/quote]

A few notes regarding your argument:

(1) Every example of Iraqii aggression you give took place more than a decade ago, save the awards to suicide bombers.

(2) Contact does not equal collaboration or cooperation. I'm sure agents of the United States contact terrorist-harboring countries like Saudia Arabia and Iran all the time, and that doesn't make us collaborators in terror.

(3) Iraq had neither attacked the United States nor threatened to attack us when we launched the latest war against that country, nor had they harbored a single one of the 9/11 terrorists at any time. Iraq was no threat to the United States.

(4) If no one is saying they had no ties to 9/11, then why did we attack?
 
OMG! IF only Bush had left the classroom seven minutes earlier the world would be a better place!!!! OMG OMG OM!!!

:rolleyes
 
1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

2. The Saudi Arabian government does not harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. Iran does. Iraq did. Hence the death of wanted terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal in a Baghdad hospital. No one got that kind of treatment without implicit government approval..

You're trying to equate contact indirectly as being direct contact. Just because we have a backdoor "in" to contact the Iranian government through France or Canada doesn't mean we have established relations. The countries in question, Saudi Arabia excepted, have offical state contact with terrorist groups. Hezbollah is Iran's pet.

3. Iraq was a threat to world stability under the government of Saddam Hussein. That had been proved numerous times by their own internal and external actions. Recently Vladmir Putin came forward and stated that the current Russian intelligence service, the old KGB, had collected evidence that Iraq did indeed harbor desires and plans to attack the United States directly through its intelligence service or agents working for the government.

The purpose of a pre-emptive strategy is to ensure your enemy does not gather strength, the will and ability to strike great harm. This is a policy that was signed off on by the United States congress before we invaded Iraq last year. This policy was voted for by John Kerry and John Edwards and pre-emption remains on their election platform. This isn't a policy of one President. It is now standing doctrine of the United States government.

4. I have listed the reasons already.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended.

2. The Saudi Arabian government does not harbor terrorists as a matter of state policy. Iran does. Iraq did. Hence the death of wanted terrorist mastermind Abu Nidal in a Baghdad hospital. No one got that kind of treatment without implicit government approval..

You're trying to equate contact indirectly as being direct contact. Just because we have a backdoor "in" to contact the Iranian government through France or Canada doesn't mean we have established relations. The countries in question, Saudi Arabia excepted, have offical state contact with terrorist groups. Hezbollah is Iran's pet.

3. Iraq was a threat to world stability under the government of Saddam Hussein. That had been proved numerous times by their own internal and external actions. Recently Vladmir Putin came forward and stated that the current Russian intelligence service, the old KGB, had collected evidence that Iraq did indeed harbor desires and plans to attack the United States directly through its intelligence service or agents working for the government.

The purpose of a pre-emptive strategy is to ensure your enemy does not gather strength, the will and ability to strike great harm. This is a policy that was signed off on by the United States congress before we invaded Iraq last year. This policy was voted for by John Kerry and John Edwards and pre-emption remains on their election platform. This isn't a policy of one President. It is now standing doctrine of the United States government.

4. I have listed the reasons already.[/quote]

Where is your proof that Iraq harbored terrorists as a matter of state policy? Just because Bush administration officials say it, doesn't make it so. (For the record, Abu Nidal committed suicide in his Baghdad apartment, rather than dying in a Baghdad hospital. He killed himself as Iraqi agents were preparing to take him in for questioning. Not the action of a guy who felt he was being supported by the regime, I would argue.)

And even if Iraq had any intention to harm the United States -- and we only have Putin's word on that, not even our own intelligence agencies will say that -- we now know that he had no weapons of mass destruction and no way to make them on any accellerated schedule. We would have known that before the war, had Bush allowed the weapons inspectors to finish their work.

And I wouldn't be so quick to pull out the pre-emption strategy, since the pre-emption strategy seems to only apply against Iraq. We haven't hit Saudi Arabia, which remains as radical as ever, nor have we hit any other country. Instead we hit Iraq, because they were an easy target with a Boogeyman for a leader, and in so doing squandered our resources. Pre-emption under Bush is a joke and a failure, and our country is less safe for it.
 
You say that Bush did as good as any president by sitting there for 7 minutes and reading to the classroom, I simply cannot believe that you seriously believe that, as a leut in the military. You, as well as me, know that appearances are important when you are projecting a figure of power, and that as president, that image is very important. In military matters, creating the appearance of power, or of knowing what your enemies are up, gives you leverage over them, even if you don't know what is going on. These are tactics that have been used since the beginning of warfare, I'm sure you are quite aware of them. If I was the terrorist that was watching tv and seeing Bush sitting there while my planes were destroying the buildings, I would think that he either doesn't have a clue, is scared, or doesn't care. If, on the other hand, he excuses hisself and leaves to do?, then I am concerned that he is on to what I am doing, and is preparing to do something in return. That's simply the way it is, and how Bush, or any other leader, military or otherwise, would be percieved by his enemies. And I'm sure that those kind of topics are taught at war college. That you are a Bush supporter is fine, we support who we like, that's democracy, but Bush froze at a critical time. We know NOW that any actions would have been for naught, the damage had already been done, but AT THAT TIME we did not know what more would be coming. You yourself acknowledge that when you indicated that you loaded up your guns in preparation for civil unrest that may follow the attacks. Also, our attack on Iraq was obviously a wrong move that had little to do with terrorism, if you have any knowledge of history of that region, you will know that by destabilizing the Hussein regieme we made it easier for terrorist to set up bases there, Hussein was keeping them in check. The real terrorist threat/country is Pakistan ( can't believe nobody mentioned them!), that is where Al Queda is set up, where the really religious Muslims are operating, where attacks on Afganistan are occuring from, etc. And just to finally solidify the wrongness of the Iraq invasion, a source/friend at the Company, was privy to the traffic coming in on Iraq (he's an analyst) and he was astounded that the case for war was made. He's been an analyst for the Company since Viet Nam, and a conservative/republican, and a supporter, until the Iraq war...
 
You say that Bush did as good as any president by sitting there for 7 minutes and reading to the classroom.
Click to expand...

No, I 'm saying that I don't believe it made a difference and don't fault the job of him and his advisors for immediately pulling out. The Pentagon plane was 30 minutes after the second WTC hit which is the deer in the headlights look. The Pennsylvania plane was another 30 mintues after that?

That appearance was not on live TV. It was as routine as anything any President does. There were no uplink trucks, even from C-Span, showing that classroom scene on television. No one anywhere in the world was watching it live laughing their ass off. That's why I don't think it made a difference if he left or not.

As to what your friend/analyst acquaintance thinks about the intelligence that the CIA produced? Chances are if he exists he blew every security clearance he has if he's sharing such information with you. Which while not completley disbelieving you I am skeptical of your claim.

I've never even claimed the intelligence of the scope of Iraqs WMD capabilities were a proper cause for launching the invasion. I will maintain that there were sufficient grounds of existing cease fire violations to warrant renewed military action. I don't even view the renewed hostilities in Iraq as a seperate conflict but a conclusion of the UN resolutions passed in 1990. Also UN resoltion 1441 was as much international justification as we ever really needed to get. There isn't one country that voted for that, including France, that knew exactly what that vote meant and implied.

Clinton came up with the policy or regime change in Iraq in 1998. Not Bush, it would have been Gore's policy as well. When Hussein threw out the inspectors in 1998 and we were again bombing Iraq and Baghdad on CNN, Sky TV and FOX News I was supportive of that action as well. In fact I would have supported boots on the ground and special ops missions run against likely sites to come to a conclusive verification one way or another even if it meant casualties.

It amazes me that the issue in this thread has boiled down to one thing. 7 minutes in a classroom. I'm surprised how deeply from the well of Farenheit 9/11 the youth of this country have drank.
 
[quote name='Tromack'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.[/quote]

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.[/quote]

Hey, i was just wondering, Since when did we attack Iraq because of 9/11?
I could have sworn it was to remove Saddam, and the fact that he had weapons and was not following International law.
I must be wrong. I mean WE got Iraqis killed.

I'll let you all in on a little secret.

......SADDAM WAS A PROBLEM DURING AND BEFORE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE.!!

He didn't mention it so it wasn't off concern, the second Bush tries to do something it's his fault it happened. I mean we caused the Veitnam war, didn't we? I mean that's what your telling me, and Pearl Harbor, it's our fault. Hitler, yeah we did that too. Uhhhh..............

NO! just cuz we try to help other countries doesn't make us bad. and i'm sorry if you where dumb enough to sign up for the armed forces and expect to get through college for free without paying.

Some people Serve to serve others want free college.
 
BEFORE BUSH ENTERED THE SCHOOL HE WAS TOLD THAT 1 PLANE HIT THE WTC.

He should have been alert then. Later when the SS told him of the second plane he just sat there, knowing full well that the US was under attack.

Jets were scrambled after the first attack but no orders were given because Bush was sitting in a classroom for the duration of the attacks.
 
I think bush is behind 9/11 here is why.

When the first plane hit his SS guard whispered "A plane hit the WTC" and bush said "I know". How did he know? There were no TVs in the classroom! So I think bush coordinated the attacks and for that, he should be hung for treason
 
I am assuming by your post PAD, that you acknowledge that appearances can make a difference, but you are correct, in hindsight, that Bush's actions did not make a difference in what happened and what was to happen. It was bascially over before we could do anything, although I believe that there were other planes that were to be used but were not abducted by the terrorist. If history has taught us anything, it is that unstable goverments can become breeding grounds for various types of terrorist organizations, Bush the elder new that taking out Hussein would leave a power vacuum that Iran would try to exploit, that's why he stopped the invasion, as you know. And thats what is happening now, with terrorist coming from all over to take potshots at the americans serving there, as well as at Iraqis trying to set up a democratic (as much as they can) government. This was bound to happen when such a iron fisted government was toppled, and the many factions were allowed to do as they pleased and try to grab power for themselves. We have supported many such similar governments when it pleased us, Pinochet, etc., so we cannot make any claims to morality in our dealing with outlaw countries. Indeed, both Iran and North Korea are much more of a threat to us than Iraq, as I am sure you would know with your military background, but we cannot defeat either one without serious consequences, as you would also know. With regards to the Viet Nam slam, we went into VN to stop the spread of communism, not to save the people there who were fighting with us during WW2 against Japan, we, in paticular the French of which VN was a colony, renegged on an agreement with Ho Chi Minh for sovereignty for VN, so he went over to USSR to get their freedom, something we did in fighting the Bristish for our own freedom (using the French as they used us). The same is true of Cuba, they came to us first for help, we said no ( because we did, through large corporations and the Mafia, run the country under Batista) then they went to USSR. Boy, I can see there needs to be a history review here! And BTW, I'm not some young punk, even if that mattered, been voting since 1970. And as far as my CIA friend, he gave me no specifics to his traffic, just indicated that he saw that there was nothing to go to war, that it was a a lie, and that he was very disgusted with what happened. He's even older than I, and when you reach this age, you really don't give a crap about supporting lies to save your job...
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
You say that Bush did as good as any president by sitting there for 7 minutes and reading to the classroom.
Click to expand...

No, I 'm saying that I don't believe it made a difference and don't fault the job of him and his advisors for immediately pulling out. The Pentagon plane was 30 minutes after the second WTC hit which is the deer in the headlights look. The Pennsylvania plane was another 30 mintues after that?

That appearance was not on live TV. It was as routine as anything any President does. There were no uplink trucks, even from C-Span, showing that classroom scene on television. No one anywhere in the world was watching it live laughing their ass off. That's why I don't think it made a difference if he left or not.

As to what your friend/analyst acquaintance thinks about the intelligence that the CIA produced? Chances are if he exists he blew every security clearance he has if he's sharing such information with you. Which while not completley disbelieving you I am skeptical of your claim.

I've never even claimed the intelligence of the scope of Iraqs WMD capabilities were a proper cause for launching the invasion. I will maintain that there were sufficient grounds of existing cease fire violations to warrant renewed military action. I don't even view the renewed hostilities in Iraq as a seperate conflict but a conclusion of the UN resolutions passed in 1990. Also UN resoltion 1441 was as much international justification as we ever really needed to get. There isn't one country that voted for that, including France, that knew exactly what that vote meant and implied.

Clinton came up with the policy or regime change in Iraq in 1998. Not Bush, it would have been Gore's policy as well. When Hussein threw out the inspectors in 1998 and we were again bombing Iraq and Baghdad on CNN, Sky TV and FOX News I was supportive of that action as well. In fact I would have supported boots on the ground and special ops missions run against likely sites to come to a conclusive verification one way or another even if it meant casualties.

It amazes me that the issue in this thread has boiled down to one thing. 7 minutes in a classroom. I'm surprised how deeply from the well of Farenheit 9/11 the youth of this country have drank.[/quote]

Well, first off, I'm 36 so I'm not sure I qualify as the youth of this country.

It's also pretty condescending to belittle the fact that we see those seven minutes as a serious lapse in leadership. You may disagree, but the previous poster made a good point -- immediate action would have sent a message to the terrorists and the world, regardless of the presence of TV cameras. And since when did Bush pride himself on acting differently when there's a camera on him? I thought his whole shtick was his authenticness. Well, in those seven minutes we saw authentic Bush -- a deer in the headlights, without a clue, no one telling him what to do.

Regarding the war on Iraq, even if you see this as a continuation of the 1990 hostilities, I have to ask you: why do you feel they needed to be continued? Iraq has no proven ties to terrorism, as opposed to neighbors Saudi Arabia and Iran. Why pick back up those hostilities, when Iraq was contained and absolutely no threat? Why are we attacking in the wrong direction in the War on Terror?

If we were really into reopening a continuing conflict, there's always that Korean War thing that's still going on to this day. Kim Jong Il is a greater threat than Saddam was, and now has nukes because Bush completely blew diplomacy with North Korea. But even though they're a member of the Axis of Evil, I don't see our forces spilling over the border into North Korea. If Bush is all about the pre-emption, why aren't we going it?

PAD, I think you're a smart guy and a good American, and I applaud your military service. I just want to understand why you hold the opinions that you hold, when the facts indicate that the Bush administration has made the world less safe, not more. Hell, even the State Department had to revise its annual terrorism report to note that violence increased last year, rather than decreased.

The world is not safer because we're in Iraq. The world is not safer because we half-assed the job in Afghanistan. And the Bush Administration and a fully Republican Congress are the sole place where the fault lies.
 
[quote name='Dragonlordfrodo']I think bush is behind 9/11 here is why.

When the first plane hit his SS guard whispered "A plane hit the WTC" and bush said "I know". How did he know? There were no TVs in the classroom! So I think bush coordinated the attacks and for that, he should be hung for treason[/quote]

And then there are these folks...... :roll:
 
[quote name='magilacudy']Plus, I'm sure the military would teach you an objective, unbiased version of politics in general.[/quote]

:rofl:

You actually got an audible laugh out of me from that comment. :lol:
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended. [/quote]

Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']What are my credentials? Basic training Fort Dix, New Jersey, AIT at Fort Knox, Kentucky sectioned 19 Kilo (That's a tank platoon leader.), Army war college Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 2 tours in OPFOR platoon commander at the national training center in Fort Irwin, CA discharged honroable as a 1st Lieutenant in 1996. Any more questions?[/quote]

You forgot ASSWIPE! :lol: Very impressive!!!
 
[quote name='fireball343'][quote name='Tromack'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Yeah, how dare us launch a war after 3,000 people lay dead, burning and crushed at the hands of our enemies. That's definitely HIS FAULT.[/quote]

See this is bullshit. I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban and trying to take down Al Qaeda. But Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. If we wanted to invade a country because of September 11th we should have invaded Saudi Arabia. All going to Iraq did was weaken our offensive against Afghanistan, and needlessly cost the lives of Americans and Iraqis. Don't get me wrong, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, but he posed no threat to the U.S.[/quote]

Hey, i was just wondering, Since when did we attack Iraq because of 9/11?
I could have sworn it was to remove Saddam, and the fact that he had weapons and was not following International law.
I must be wrong. I mean WE got Iraqis killed.

I'll let you all in on a little secret.

......SADDAM WAS A PROBLEM DURING AND BEFORE CLINTON WAS IN OFFICE.!!

He didn't mention it so it wasn't off concern, the second Bush tries to do something it's his fault it happened. I mean we caused the Veitnam war, didn't we? I mean that's what your telling me, and Pearl Harbor, it's our fault. Hitler, yeah we did that too. Uhhhh..............

NO! just cuz we try to help other countries doesn't make us bad. and i'm sorry if you where dumb enough to sign up for the armed forces and expect to get through college for free without paying.

Some people Serve to serve others want free college.[/quote]

Ummm...fireball....

Don't know if you've read the latest literature, but (1) no one has found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and (2) Saddam had allowed inspectors in and was following international law. So the two reasons you just gave for the invasion are bogus.

And yes, Saddam has been a continuing problem, but guess what? So was Iran, so was North Korea....hell, so was Ireland, if you want to get technical. But Saddam was a contained threat with no weapons and no real weapons making capabilities. So why did we attack him, aside from distracting the country from the Bush administration's failure to adequately invade Afghanistan and capture Osama bin Laden?
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']MBE, I did run the company. From 94-96 I helped train nearly 80% of the armored units in this country. I was in the top 5% of the graduating class of my section from the war college. You don't get to be an instructor at the NTC because you're a step above potato peeler.[/quote]

:idea: I say you should run for President on 2008 :wink: If your idol (Bush) could do it so can you. It seems your level of education is higher of that of Bush, who happens to have the lowest I.Q. among U.S. Presidents. :D
 
[quote name='trq'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']1. The cease fire that ended the UN mandated expulsion, by force, of Iraqi troops from Kuwait was never adhered to by the Iraqis. Therefore the war never really ended. [/quote]

Uh ... I'm gonna call your bluff on this one, PAD. There isn't an international lawyer on the planet (who isn't on government payroll) who would expect that to hold up. That rationale is a technicality at best, a loophole in all fairness, and a far-fetched abuse at worst. It was also put together completely after the fact. By that logic, we're still at war with North Korea, since "technically" the Korean war never really ended.

I understand the fault for that sloppiness lies with the Pentagon lawyers, not you, but I didn't want to let it pass uncontested.[/quote]

We still are at a state of war with North Korea.

Find me the peace treaty we signed for them.

Ditto Iraq.

No technicality about it. And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

CTL
 
PittsburghAfterDark I need your help!!! :lol: I am going to a costume party (70's Theme) on Saturday and I have nothing 70's to wear, so to be funny i was just going to dress up as a "Ghost" but my wife wont allow me to put two holes on this white sheet we have. :idea: Can you lend me your "Clan" outfit ? I'm sure you have one you can spare :wink: :wink:

O:) Just having some fun!!!
 
And being a member of the Army JAG Corp I couldn't let the sloppy opinion of someone who is not a lawyer pass as one.

I'm perhaps too much of an internet skeptic but reading so many of your posts I really hope that you are not a member of the JAG as all the posts that I see you post just don't seem to be argued very 'matter of factly' , (maybe I'm colored by intel-dump.com the way that man writes one can see the military intelligence actually working)
 
[quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='Quackzilla']
Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.[/quote]

Chapter and verse...

Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?

give me a break...[/quote]

Sure. How about:

"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love transgressors." 2:191

or:

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we submit.'" 29:46

or maybe:

"Repel evil with what is better and he, between whom and you was hatred, will become as a warm bosom-friend." (I admit I can't find the actual chapter and verse for that one, though.)

Are Muslims pacifists? Nope. But then, neither are Christians and Jews last time I checked. Considering so few non-Muslims know the first thing about them, they sure are an easy target, though.
 
[quote name='trq'][quote name='mcwilliams132'][quote name='Quackzilla']
Only one problem, the Quran (Islamic bible) teaches peace and protests violence.[/quote]

Chapter and verse...

Where in the Quaran does is promote peace with Jews and Christians?

give me a break...[/quote]

Sure. How about:

"Fight for the sake of God those that fight against you, but do not attack them first. God does not love transgressors." 2:191

or:

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except with those among them who do evil. Say: 'We believe in that which has been revealed to us and which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To Him we submit.'" 29:46

or maybe:

"Repel evil with what is better and he, between whom and you was hatred, will become as a warm bosom-friend." (I admit I can't find the actual chapter and verse for that one, though.)

Are Muslims pacifists? Nope. But then, neither are Christians and Jews last time I checked. Considering so few non-Muslims know the first thing about them, they sure are an easy target, though.[/quote]

ex-cellent
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top