Give Bush a break!

steviec

Imagine the uproar if the American governemnt took down two planes on September 11th and the attacks never happened. That cowboy Bush attacking innocent commuters.

Hobbes

Originally posted by por
Interesting, can you provide some links etc to back this up, or is it just your opinion ?

Bush was personally handed the documentsby the CIA before Sept 11, but was busy taking a month long holiday. Those documents clearly laid out an attack coming. (ref: Film footage of F911 movie)

CIA warned of attacks to congress beforehand.

German intelligence warned the US months before it happened.

Even the US Anti-terrorism handbook for 2000 had a picture of the Twin towers with a sight on it.

Or prehaps Bin Ladan publically annoucing he would attack the towers again after attacking the first time.

Or maybe the huge number of put options on the airlines prior to 9/11 could be traced to the carlyle group (which had Bush+Bin laden family connections), plus traced back to companies owned by ex-CIA.

Sources:

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

Imagine the uproar if the American governemnt took down two planes on September 11th and the attacks never happened. That cowboy Bush attacking innocent commuters.

It is unlikey they could of stopped the first plane, except from before it took off (and some flights were being investigated the day before). However after the second flight hit it was in no ones mind that it wasn't a deliberate attack. What did Bush do? He sat on his ass and read a childrens book when he should of been giving the order to ground all flights sooner. It might of saved the pentagon.

Webmonkey

Originally posted by steviec
Imagine the uproar if the American governemnt took down two planes on September 11th and the attacks never happened. That cowboy Bush attacking innocent commuters.

Come on now, to safely take down 2 planes, by flying them in to the airport wouldn't have caused that much uproar...I'm sure the people would have understood that it was for security reasons

oh and yes, there were explosives put in the building, thats what brought the buildings down, not the planes. It exploded in the bottom floor and huge numbers withnessed this and why did the 3rd plane fly into the West side of the pentagon, the side that was under construction. Ive enough said, read the articles

steviec

What was meant to be done about this intelligence? People are tearing him apart for the Patriot act, and to make sure September 11th never happened it would have taken that and no fly zones and more besides. How many dozens of terrorist attacks were stopped that were never heard about?
So your the President of America, you know there's a terrorist threat and Bin Laden might strike somewhere somehow sometime. What exactly are you meant to do? If he had done a lot more and the attacks had been prevented he'd have been 'heavy handed'. Now that there has been an attack and it's very clear for all to see that there is a terror threat people still call him heavy handed for increasing security.

mycroft

What was meant to be done about this intelligence?

Um anything? Which is the opposition of what he did, which is nothing.

to make sure September 11th never happened it would have taken that and no fly zones and more besides.

Or listening to FBI intelligence ( which named hijackers, alluded to the plot) and making a few arrests.

Saudis bailed him out, not his daddy.

The Saudis who have a fine history of links with the Bush dynasty. But we're spliting hairs, the son who was really helped out was Jeb (whole saving and loans scandal)

jackofalltrades

What was meant to be done about this intelligence?

Ummm, they could have acted upon it.
They could have passed the information onto NORAD and then they might have managed to actually intercept the planes, which for some unknown reason they messed up 4 times in a row, in one day.

Hobbes

Originally posted by steviec
What was meant to be done about this intelligence? People are tearing him apart for the Patriot act, and to make sure September 11th never happened it would have taken that and no fly zones and more besides. How many dozens of terrorist attacks were stopped that were never heard about?

Hardly. Did you know he cut funding to the CIA for terrorism beforehand, or that he told the CIA to stop investigating bin laden?

So your the President of America, you know there's a terrorist threat and Bin Laden might strike somewhere somehow sometime. What exactly are you meant to do?

You use the intel to stop it. The president did nothing at all.

people still call him heavy handed for increasing security.

Have you read the PATRIOT act? I have. It basically treats anyone who disagrees with the president as a terrorist.

Amazing he could get that passed in 4 weeks after 9/11 but still took two months to go after Bin Laden.

Simple fact is Bush+co has profitted off 9/11+Iraq by an insane amount of cash.

por

Originally posted by Webmonkey
Come on now, to safely take down 2 planes, by flying them in to the airport wouldn't have caused that much uproar...I'm sure the people would have understood that it was for security reasons

Yea. I'm sure Atta et al. whould have landed without a fight.

Webmonkey

Well they have no choice if the controls get locked and plane gets controlled by NORAD base

Though i have seen somehwhere that the planes wern't equipped with remote control features..but besides anywayz, Norad should have done something.

Have a read of this if your bored http://www.standdown.net/

pork99

I've already given him a break

But he didn't deserve it.

When he was first elected I thought he might be a moderate consensus-building conservative (maybe a bit like Eisenhower). Even though I would have preferred Gore to win I thought Bush might be ok.

However he has turned out to be a sinister subversive cloak-and-dagger conservative in league with a gang of idealogical cranks.

It's the same with the Iraq war I thought if they go as far as invading there must be a very serious threat there to justify it. Probably one, intelligence on which was so sensitive, where information on it could not be released to the public. But over 12 months later, there's nothing, over 600 soldiers dead and the USA's influence in the world (which I believe has been largely benign) seriously compromised, for what? It's a good thing Saddams gone but was the cost worth it?

And then as for the "Patriot Act" - who needs Al Queada to subvert democracy when you have Bush?

Spock

And bush trying to muscle the EU into accepted a country with a brutal human rights effort was what?

Was a suggestion, which he is entitled to make, and we are entitled to reject, just not, i believe, in the manner that Mr Chirac did.

Or do you think someone who was sitting on his ass enjoying a holiday instead of reading documents that would of warned him about 9/11 is a good thing?

Very narrow minded indeed, firstly it was a working holiday and secondly he was well aware of the threat of OBL, he just didn't act on them. Get your facts right before you start rambling on as if you fully understand the situation.

By alienating Bush you only futher convince America that it does not need allies, and if action has to be taken, take it, regardless of what europe has to say. What we do now will have long term effects. Without american leadership we have.........no leadership.

sovtek

Originally posted by Spock
Was a suggestion, which he is entitled to make, and we are entitled to reject, just not, i believe, in the manner that Mr Chirac did.

And what do you think would be the reaction of Bush if told by Chirac to allow Mexico to be become part of the US?

Very narrow minded indeed, firstly it was a working holiday

Oh some guy is going to attack America...lets go on a working holiday.

and secondly he was well aware of the threat of OBL, he just didn't act on them.

My that's comforting and an assured vote getter.

By alienating Bush you only futher convince America that it does not need allies,

Although it's been made quite obvious and it's leader has acknowledged that it does.

and if action has to be taken, take it, regardless of what europe has to say.

Even though it was asking the UN and Europe to join it in "taking action" which it is obliged to do by UN Charter as well as the US Constitution.

What we do now will have long term effects.

You are quite right there my friend.

Without american leadership we have.........no leadership.

If jumping off a bridge is leadership, then I'm quite happy without it.

Champ

Without american leadership we have.........no leadership.

The whole lack of evidence justifying the war; the half-truths and lies paraded before the UN in a farce to justify the war for entirely different reasons; and the lack of willingness of the US to join the international crimes court makes me have little to no faith in current american leadership.... Not to mention the infamous "Bring em on" stunt...

If what you say is considered true; then well quality leadership is something that became extinct decades ago....

Cork

Many Irish Americans will vote for Bush for his Anti Abortion statements.

The Democrats policy of Pro Choice has alienated many Irish Americans.

(I know that Irish Americans are also alienated by the death penenty).

mycroft

Was a suggestion, which he is entitled to make, and we are entitled to reject, just not, i believe, in the manner that Mr Chirac did.

Actually what Bush said was "given that Turkey now meets EU criteria for membership, the EU should give Turkey membership at the earliest opportunity"

I actually hadn't heard Bush's exact wording until today, and frankly I'm suprised Chirac said anything other than "well take your opinion and ram it up your arse, if you can find it cause I'm not sure which one of your holes spouts the most crap"

It was bush trying to dictate EU policy, over one of the most contenous issues the EU faces; the membership of Turkey. One of the countries with the most dubious human rights records in the region (a title it really had to fight for, what with all the competition from Israel, Saudi, and Iran) which happens to be a huge nato ally whom Bush bribed to help in his "war on terror". It's the Bush trying to bully the EU into giving il ole Turkey a little something for all it's trouble, and it's much appreciated help.

It's bush trying to dictate to us our policy, the "should" is not even remotely ambigious, it's the kind of arrogant swagger we've come to expect from that half literate chimp.

By alienating Bush you only futher convince America that it does not need allies, and if action has to be taken, take it, regardless of what europe has to say. What we do now will have long term effects.

Well duh, and standing up to a man who embodies everything that we must change if the human race is going to survive we send America a clear signal that we well not tolerate their hyprocritical war on terror, a war which they tell us is because "they hate our freedom" which justifies detenment without trial, a war which they tell us will make the world "a safer place" which clearly it is not. And finally we must stand up to Bush and his oil cronies, (lest we forget the real reason they are at war) and demand that the US takes responsibility for the environment they're destroying.

egan007

Originally posted by Spock
I .I say give the guy a break, he’s trying to run the only Superpower in today’s troubled world, it can’t be easy.

A break - he doesn't need a break his corporate driven greed is all that matters to him. He's not even of the people and for the people - if he was he would of been elected.

OF course running a 'superpower', a funny word as 1 bullet can make you a super power if you fire it at the right person, is not easy that why it needs a competent leader. He's an idiot in the highest sence of the word - if Kerry is any better then that remains to be seen. The bottom line is that man needs to be taken out.

Spock

And what do you think would be the reaction of Bush if told by Chirac to allow Mexico to be become part of the US?

He would say no, but not in the manner that Chirac did, I'm begining to wonder if anyone here has read or seen Chirac's display

standing up to a man who embodies everything that we must change if the human race is going to survive

But we are not standing up to a man, we are standing up to a nation, and if this nation accepts that europe (at the moment) does not want it's friendship, it may decide to take away the friendship, the support, and the security. America is the best ally to have, lets not ruin it.

1 bullet can make you a super power

Wrong!. America is the only superpower because of its vast military strenght and resources and its powerful economy.

mycroft

But we are not standing up to a man, we are standing up to a nation, and if this nation accepts that europe (at the moment) does not want it's friendship, it may decide to take away the friendship, the support, and the security. America is the best ally to have, lets not ruin it.

So if I have your policy clear it's "We should be nice to Bush", "Why" "Well if we're not nice to Bush, America may not like us".

We should tolerate his policy, accept his rape of the environment, the carving up of Iraqi to his oil cronies, the tens of thousands of innocents killed by his side on the "war on terror", because maybe, America may not like us???????????! WTF???

Or alternatively we could show the millions of Americans who are opposed to Bush and didn't vote for the unelected SOB, that they're not alone, and we support them.

But we are not standing up to a man, we are standing up to a nation

No I'm opposed to Neo Conversative Oil hungry, right wing relgious nutcases, I'm not opposed to America as nation or as a social group.

Y'know Spock, I think you should change your name, you and logic aren't on speaking terms......

Hobbes

Originally posted by Spock

Wrong!. America is the only superpower because of its vast military strenght and resources and its powerful economy.

If it is vast miltary strength, why then does the US need other countries to help it out then in Iraq/Afganistan? Why is it extending tour of duties for people in Iraq and recalling people who shouldn't be fighting anymore? Why is it withdrawing troops from other areas to make up the numbers? (eg. South Korea)

Why do things like Missile shield system that only protects America needs listening posts in Europe for it to work?

Powerful economy? Everything is made in China.

User45701

I think bush and his friends are brillent.
The first half of F 9/11 showed the brillence at which everything was manaplited by bush and his friends. He achived power, the person running against him could not.

One thing i think is very good is that bush held in his smile, when he was in that classroom on 9/11, when he was told of the attack - i dont know how he held in his smile. He knows allot of his citizans have died and thats bad yes. But bush also knew that this attack was everything he wanted and needed to go to war with "terrorism"

egan007

<-- Maybe he could give you a job

Champ

So if I have your policy clear it's "We should be nice to Bush", "Why" "Well if we're not nice to Bush, America may not like us".

Thats also how i view that; and let me say that any friendship with that kind of relationship is no true friendship at all.

But we are not standing up to a man, we are standing up to a nation

I don't think so; from what i've seen people in Ireland have their problems with Bush and his administration; not the people of America.

Spock

So if I have your policy clear it's "We should be nice to Bush",

No, you have it unclear, my policy is, Bush has offered friendship, we should take it.

accept his rape of the environment

Compared to the European "rape of Africa", Bush's environment scheme is pretty minor, Europe has been forgiven for many of its acts of atrocity, perhaps we should be as forgiving.

why then does the US need other countries to help it out then in Iraq/Afganistan

Because of the cost of war.

Why is it withdrawing troops from other areas to make up the numbers?

because Americas troops are streched very thin because of recent military events. American troops are stationed all over the world, they try to protect as many people as possible, including europe. If America was under any real threat of war and fully mobilised, you would see the extent of their military power.I can't even believe this is even being debated, nobody denies there military power.

bush also knew that this attack was everything he wanted

While a lot of people have made money because of the wars, i don't think anybody wanted 9/11 to happen.Nobody sat down and said, wouldn't it be great if the WTC was attacked and thousands were killed. Don't buy to much into what Micheal Moore says, his credibility has come under questioning many times before.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Spock
No, you have it unclear, my policy is, Bush has offered friendship, we should take it.

He was pointing out, someone offering friendship while holding a weapon/threat isn't that much of a friend.

because Americas troops are streched very thin because of recent military events. American troops are stationed all over the world, they try to protect as many people as possible, including europe.

America is made to make out they are the best military in the world. So far they are just the most expensive.

Protect Europe from what? US only wants troops in Europe so they can plonk their nukes here for the pre-cold war days against Russia.

If America was under any real threat of war and fully mobilised, you would see the extent of their military power.I can't even believe this is even being debated, nobody denies there military power.

Afganistan is a mess, Iraq is still a mess. Are you telling me that this is due to the US doing a half ass job because they are not under any real threat?

While a lot of people have made money because of the wars, i don't think anybody wanted 9/11 to happen.Nobody sat down and said, wouldn't it be great if the WTC was attacked and thousands were killed. Don't buy to much into what Micheal Moore says, his credibility has come under questioning many times before.

Because Moore may of been wrong before it means any facts he states are false?

Fact: There are clear links with the put options and ex-CIA operatives owned companies. One of these companies Bushes daddy works for and Bin Laden family were members of as well. Funny enough that same company was having a meeting in Washinton with a speaker being OBL brother.

Bush in a speech when asked did he have knowledge of the attacks beforehand didn't deny it. Instead he said "Had I known the extent of the attack I would done everything in my power to stop it". It is a documented fact (thanks to Ms Rice) that Bush received a report in August warning of the imminent attacks.

They also claim that using planes as weapons wasn't an expected attack yet such plans have existed as far back as 1995.

It is quite clear that the US govenment and certainly people in the CIA knew that hijackings were going to take place.

If had been simple hijackings then certain people would of gotten a lot richer.

If you are looking for a good resource for everything that happened and links to sources etc..

http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/

BUMP!

America is the only superpower
I reckon china might have something to say about that.

The only reason America is considered a superpower is because it spends so much on weaponry and boasts a massive (nuclear) arsenal designed for the specific purpose of eradicating the lives of its enemies (or those deemed to deserve it i.e. Sadam). If this should be considered a good thing then fair enough.

Personally I would be wary of any friend who points a gun at you...

Batbat

Give Bush a break!

Are you stupid of something?

bonkey

Originally posted by Spock
Compared to the European "rape of Africa", Bush's environment scheme is pretty minor, Europe has been forgiven for many of its acts of atrocity, perhaps we should be as forgiving.

Sure we should...to any acts which are over, done with and which the nation/leader in question has sworn will never happen again.

We should not accept any ongoing atrocities, as to do so is effectively to legitimise them. I didn't notice you, for example, calling out for Saddam to be left alone because we should simply forgive him the brutally oppressive regime he currently has in place. I don't hear you saying that we shouldn't try and help any oppressed people anywhere in the world, but should just accept the ongoing atrocities. So why should we do it with teh US?

Answer : we shouldn't. Forgive the past, when the actions belong only in the past. Save genuine condemnation and attempts of correction to current activities.

That will exclude acceptance of pretty much all of Bush's environmental policy.

jc



jc

mycroft

my policy is, Bush has offered friendship, we should take it.

Okay so let me have this clear, this president, the president who said "either you're with us or againist us" whose policies on everything from the environment, to the middle east are adhorant dangerous and distablising the region and creating terrorism, but he wants to be friends!! so we should!!!!

Compared to the European "rape of Africa", Bush's environment scheme is pretty minor, Europe has been forgiven for many of its acts of atrocity, perhaps we should be as forgiving.

Seriously Spock change your name.

Okay comparing something my ancestors did 200 years ago, to something this administration is doing right now is bizarre. I can't fix what has happened I can try and change what is happening and prevent what may happen.

While a lot of people have made money because of the wars, i don't think anybody wanted 9/11 to happen

Which hasn't stopped this administration profiting from it immensely. Cheney has paid back his old bosses ten fold then millions they paid him in contracts. It's a bit rich talking about restoring freedom while preventing the freedom and the creation of a real Iraqi state.

Spock

He was pointing out, someone offering friendship while holding a weapon/threat isn't that much of a friend.

And what threat would that be?

America is made to make out they are the best military in the world. So far they are just the most expensive.

Thats true, they are the most expensive. They spend more than double that of the next largest military budget. But they are also the best, it was a topic of discussion in the E.U that America should be made to slow down its military advancements. It was quite worring that research showed that the combined military strength of the then 15 members of the EU was still less than that of America.

Protect Europe from what?

From whatever danger that may present itself, that the military can combat. Its no secret that America has given Europe free secruity for the last few decades. Thats why no formality was taken on the whole American military issue by the EU.

Funny enough that same company was having a meeting in Washinton with a speaker being OBL brother.

The brother of OBL has not been show as a criminal, just because of his relations you shun him. The Hitler's were allowed to live out there lives in America, unharmed and not persecuted, why can't the rels of OBL do the same.

I reckon china might have something to say about that.

Me too, they prob say,"America is the only Superpower"

The only reason America is considered a superpower is because it spends so much on weaponry and boasts a massive (nuclear) arsenal designed for the specific purpose of eradicating the lives of its enemies (or those deemed to deserve it i.e. Sadam).

No nuke's were used against saddam, where did you here that. And yes that is why it is considered a Superpower, that and its economy.

I didn't notice you, for example, calling out for Saddam to be left alone because we should simply forgive him the brutally oppressive regime he currently has in place.

One, you assume to much, you have no idea where i was during saddam's reign. And two, forgiveness should also reflect the circumstances. The rape of Africa for example, circumstances were very different from today. The circumstances under which saddam acted are not extenuating enough to be granted forgiveness.

the president who said "either you're with us or againist us"

Thats what he said then, not what he's saying now.

Which hasn't stopped this administration profiting from it immensely

Your one to talk about logic, for one of the groups who hasen't made any profit is the administration. The admin are the guys who fork out the money, not take it in.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Spock
And what threat would that be?

The US bullies to get its way. It has always been the case. Do you not think Bertie got some nice veiled threats about US businesses working here?

The US also threatened a number of countries on a number of issues. For example the ICC.

But it was more directed at the comment of "We should be friends or else" (sic)

But they are also the best

Depends on how you define best? If they were the best then why are so many dying in Iraq, many more returning home disabled in some way? Why didn't they find OBL?

If anything this is a wakeup call to the US they aren't are great as they thought they were. Lets hope they learn that friendship is better then wars and threats.

It was quite worring that research showed that the combined military strength of the then 15 members of the EU was still less than that of America.

and yet still the massive amount of damage on US soil was done by 12 guys with box cutter knives. You also fail to realise that the US is overly dependant to the EU for its defense. NATO? GPS System in EU airspace, listening posts for the defense shield or nukes put into England as faster attack.

The brother of OBL has not been show as a criminal,

True, however it has been shown that his family had contacts with OBL a few months before 9/11. Do you not think their family should of been held for questioning? Or should they of been flown out of the country because they were part of a company that the presidents Dad works for and made a profit from 9/11?

While your thinking about that, think about this. I was living in Boston during the attacks. A Boston taxi driver was arrested and detained without rights or being charged for close to a month before finally being freed as innocent. The reason? His name was similar to one of the hijackers. When they released him, he had found he had been fired from his job and lost his home as no one knew where he was and assumed he had skipped the country.

So which do you think is more right? Detaining people for questioning who would know more about the location of OBL or some guy who had a similar name to a hijacker?

Me too, they prob say,"America is the only Superpower"

China is a super-power and is expected to exceed the US in the coming years. I have been to China and some of the cities there make places like New York/LA look like towns. A large amount of US imports are created in China.

No nuke's were used against saddam, where did you here that. And yes that is why it is considered a Superpower, that and its economy.

By your logic china would be a superpower. By the way, the US has weapons as bad as or worse then Nukes. The US is the only country that is actively creating nukes for convential warfare and plan to use them.

Thats what he said then, not what he's saying now.

Because he realised who much of a total fuk up he has made and needs us to bail him out for the november elections.

for one of the groups who hasen't made any profit is the administration.[/B]

Oh really? Are you even in this reality?

Dick Cheney
Cheney, who served as [Haliburton] CEO from 1995 to 2000, continues to receive as much as $1 million a year in deferred compensation as Halliburton...A few weeks ago, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers awarded a no-bid contract to extinguish oil well fires in Iraq to Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR), a subsidiary of Halliburton...Halliburton held stakes in two firms that signed contracts to sell more than $73 million in oil production equipment and spare parts to Iraq while Cheney was chairman and chief executive officer.

Chevron won a nice big Iraqi oil contract (previously profitting from the oil for food program). Guess who used to be a director of Chevron? She even had an oil tanker named after her, but they had to change the name of it because it was looking too obvious she was helping them.

Then Bushes family connection to the Carlyle Group who made profit from the War as well as 9/11.

Need we go on?