|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 2nd, 2004 11:44 AM | |||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
||
| Jan 2nd, 2004 10:52 AM | |||
| mburbank |
And looked good doing it. Naldo. No one sane is blaming Bush for 9/11. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but taking criticism of his adminstrations performance before and after as saying he's too blame is a typical distraction tactic of the right. It's the same as saying because he's not to blame there's no point in examining what could have been done better. Intelligence under Clinton and Bush was bad and badly coordinated and interpretted. Failing to admit this, investigate, not to blame but to understand and vigorously adress it, is a failure of administration. W. is our current administrator. If you still see that as a statement that Bush is to blame for 9/11, I think the problem lies in your interpretation. |
||
| Dec 31st, 2003 02:54 PM | |||
| AChimp |
Wonder Woman could have stopped it. 
|
||
| Dec 31st, 2003 02:34 PM | |||
| Abcdxxxx |
supposedly there were school kids running around talking about it happening weeks before it happened...and cryptic message board posts bragging about it all... so sure in retrospect anything is preventable. bush could have stopped it, and clinton could have stopped it. the saudi's really could have stopped it. i'm sure in 20 years a definitive study will be written up and the list of "coulda stopped its" will be a whole volume alone. so now let's wonder why they're not stopping them from any possible future attacks? i don't mean any "war on terror" junk either... i mean why are al qaeda guys still being employed at u.s. chemical, and nuclear plants like the sneaky fuck we just nabbed in the phillipines? |
||
| Dec 31st, 2003 07:27 AM | |||
| Cosmo Electrolux |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 31st, 2003 12:18 AM | |||
| sspadowsky |
Haha. Yes, we do, Helm. The sad thing is, most of our votes can be bought for a few hundred dollars worth of tax refunds. Oh, and Ronnie, good to see you back, and I hope you had a Merry Christmas, but kindly stuff it. There are way too many fishy things about the time surrounding 9/11, especially considering the Bush administration has stonewalled every step of the investigation. They have refused to cooperate from day one, and in openly contemptuous fashion. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:23 PM | |||
| Helm |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 05:44 PM | |||
| ranxer |
i totally agree with those that are asserting that the bush administration allowed the attacks to happen.. reasons for the attack.. 1. like riechstag it was used as a tool to clamp down on dissent and spur a security state with all the trappings, such as increased security and armes sales for the bush supporters(economic security). 2. to unite support for a war of imperialism- new contracts, new control over oil and a switch from iraqi oil counted in euros(big threat) to iraqi oil counted in dollars(national security) 3. to destroy an enemy of isreal.. (from what i've read the isreali intelligence had been covering up the terrorists mistakes so they wouldnt be caught before they boarded the planes.) a prosperous iraq was a tremendous threat to isreal. 4. increased 'threats' means increase in funding for the military industrial complex. as powel said when the ussr fell .. 'folks we're in trouble now for we have no enemy to fight' or somesuch.. the military industrial complex requires an enemy to stay in power.. war on terror is such a threat.. for one its a perpetual 'war' and a foggy enemy requiring unlimited resources and can be pointed at folks on the homefront as well as international. oh yeah 5. war is always profitable for the ready. hmm, economic recovery anyone? yeah, i know it's alot to swallow, but these issues won't go away no matter how much they are denied. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 05:02 PM | |||
| Ronnie Raygun |
You can't blame Bush for 9/11. It's stupid and very few are going to fall for those partisan lies. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 04:23 PM | |||
| sspadowsky |
It's nothing personal, Ror. That's just the way it is, as Bruce Hornsby once said. What makes me angry about it is that people who are so horribly guilty are not often made to pay for their crimes. And I think the Bush administration's staggering incompetence is so staggering that it borders on suspicious. It makes me think of the burning of the Reichstag. I just can't help but be frustrated, because it's so damn wrong. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 03:47 PM | |||
| kellychaos | Playing the devil's advocate, you would think that a failed attempt on the SAME building from the SAME terrorist organization years before would have prompted the government's intelligence agencies to insert a probe way up said terrorist organizations bunghole. I'm not necessarily talking about a wholesale "war on terrorism" but just to keep closer tabs. Indeed a daunting task but wouldn't you think that knowing that such an organization actually took action would narrow their focus to THAT organization ... at least for a limited amount of time? Perhpas such action following the time of the first incident would have prevented the second trajedy. Did out political ties with Saudi Arabia at that time play a part in our government not pursuing the matter with greater scrutiny considering they have since found direct, concrete paper trails from Al Qaeda to members of the Saudi royalty? | ||
| Dec 30th, 2003 03:26 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach | What's the difference really, whether one cares or not? In this situation, my concern would be as impotent and inevitably ineffectual as your anger. :/ | ||
| Dec 30th, 2003 03:20 PM | |||
| sspadowsky |
Quote:
|
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 03:10 PM | |||
| The_Rorschach |
My shift manager, Kim, used to work at a steel factory, she was telling me the other day she had some suspicions about the Twin Towers in as much as a steel support beam doesn't lose integrity, even at 3000+ degrees, unless the temperature is sustained for over four hours. . .I don't know, but luckily, I don't really care any more either. Thanks for the article though, it was insightful |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:35 AM | |||
| mburbank |
I'm putting that last paragraph into Naldo's thread on scenario's under which W. might loose the election. And here's my pre-emptive strike against the expected cry of "Clinton's intelligence agency's were just as much to blame." While I might quibble about how much blame goes where, I agree. But 9/11 came on W's watch, which put him and his administration not only in charge, but in a position to lie. Instead of immediately saying 'we have to know what we did wrong', they first tried to stifle any investigation at all and then dragged (and drag) their feet even now. This is a bi-partisan commision headed by a republican. It will be pretty hard to label their findings 'election year partisanship'. |
||
| Dec 30th, 2003 10:02 AM | |||
| sspadowsky |
9/11 was preventable Not the first article of its kind, but it's important that people are still talking about it. The intelligence failures were so horrible and so monumental that it boggles the mind. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1218-02.htm 9/11 Chair: Attack Was Preventable For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston. "This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean. "As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen." Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame. "There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said. To find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president's top-secret daily briefs. Those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the Bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building. "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002. "How is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had FBI records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility," said Kristen Breitweiser, one of four New Jersey widows who lobbied Congress and the president to appoint the commission. The widows want to know why various government agencies didn't connect the dots before Sept. 11, such as warnings from FBI offices in Minnesota and Arizona about suspicious student pilots. "If you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn't have one question answered, I wouldn't believe it," Breitweiser said. Kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers. Asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, Kean said, "Yes, the answer is yes. And we will." Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton. |
||
