Bush's "conversation" w/troops staged

[What the Heck]

Who's watch did it happen on and who received the August 6, 2001 PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In The US"?

How much of the American taxpayer money and government time did the Republican Congress spend/waste on witch hunts during those 9/11 planning years?

Btw, maybe you're unaware of this, but the perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing were arrested, tried, convicted, and have been in prison since 1995.

Bin Laden is still on the loose. Then again, Bush did say he really doesn't give much thought to Bin Laden. No kidding, George.

So, it's the presidents fault because it happened on his watch, but it isn't Clintons fault during the planning, it's the Republican Congress?

The report did say that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the US" - but since there wasn't anything that was definative, such as the day and where, what would you have had him do? What would the American people have allowed? They surely would not have allowed for us to go "on alert" for an indefinate period of time for something that might happen in the near future or might not happen for a couple of months down the road.

Clinton didn't say he didn't give that much thought to Bin Laden, he was too good of a politician. I could say that perhaps if he had looked at Bin Laden more than bottle factories in Iraq (when he was attempting to deflect the attention away from his crimes in the US), but that really wouldn't be fair to him. 9/11 worked because it was a complete surprise. No president, Democrat or Republican would have been able to do much to stop it, not in the planning stages or once it started. If you want to blame a President, I really don't see how you can't blame Clinton more. He had the best chance to stop it. But even I don't blame him for that - and I hate Clinton.

 

[What the Heck]

A subquestion as well.....what was the nationality of most of the terrorists on 9/11????

By your reasoning, we shoudl declare war on ourselves - what is the nationality of the terrorists we have had to deal with for a long time in our inner cities?

 

[yeartolate]

By your reasoning, we shoudl declare war on ourselves - what is the nationality of the terrorists we have had to deal with for a long time in our inner cities?

Define terrorist.

 

[What the Heck]

Define terrorist.

someone's who's goal is to dominate by terror.

 

[yeartolate]

By your reasoning, we shoudl declare war on ourselves - what is the nationality of the terrorists we have had to deal with for a long time in our inner cities?

 

[MizBlu]

So, it's the presidents fault because it happened on his watch, but it isn't Clintons fault during the planning, it's the Republican Congress?

Bingo.

Btw, maybe you missed this. The ones who commited the first WTC (1993)bombing were arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and have been in prison since 1995.

Where's Osama "wanted dead or alive" Bin Laden?

The report did say that "Bin Laden Determined to Strike In the US" - but since there wasn't anything that was definative, such as the day and where, what would you have had him do?

Oh, I see.........the PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" didn't tell them who, what, when, where, or how.

What the hell were they waiting for, a phone call: "Hi, George, Osama calling."

Bush could've made a phone call to his CIA director: He didn't.

Bush could've made a call to his FBI director: He didn't do that either.

What would the American people have allowed?

Might've been a hell of a sell since the Bush administration didn't see Osama Bin Laden as being as great a threat as Saddam Hussein.

They surely would not have allowed for us to go "on alert" for an indefinate period of time for something that might happen in the near future or might not happen for a couple of months down the road.

Speculation and we will never know.

Admittedly, it would taken the courage of leadership and all we had was George Bush.

Clinton didn't say he didn't give that much thought to Bin Laden, he was too good of a politician.

Maybe he didn't say it because he did see Bin Laden as a threat. DUH!

I could say that perhaps if he had looked at Bin Laden more than bottle factories in Iraq (when he was attempting to deflect the attention away from his crimes in the US), but that really wouldn't be fair to him.

Oh, good lord, I was actually starting to take you seriously.

Btw, the Bush administration has canoodled with the terror alert 13 times in response to bad press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

9/11 worked because it was a complete surprise.

Get real. It wasn't a surprise to George Tenet who's first words to David Boren, his breakfast companion, were: "This has Bin Laden's fingerprints all over it". Contrast that with Bush first words after hearing about the first plane hitting the WTC: "That must be some bad pilot". Evidently, it was a complete surprise to some.

No president, Democrat or Republican would have been able to do much to stop it, not in the planning stages or once it started.

Baloney! There's a reason why they knew exactly who the hijackers were within a few hours of the terrorist acts. The government had been following these people for years from the meeting in Malaysia to the re-entry into the country in Los Angeles to reports from several flight schools about Arab student who wanted to learn to fly big jets, but not how to land them.

If you want to blame a President, I really don't see how you can't blame Clinton more. He had the best chance to stop it.

Whoa, never saw this coming.

But even I don't blame him for that - and I hate Clinton.

Yeah right. You just blame him for everything else.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Bingo.

Btw, maybe you missed this. The ones who commited the first WTC (1993)bombing were arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced and have been in prison since 1995.

Where's Osama "wanted dead or alive" Bin Laden?



Oh, I see.........the PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US" didn't tell them who, what, when, where, or how.

What the hell were they waiting for, a phone call: "Hi, George, Osama calling."

Bush could've made a phone call to his CIA director: He didn't.

Bush could've made a call to his FBI director: He didn't do that either.



Might've been a hell of a sell since the Bush administration didn't see Osama Bin Laden as being as great a threat as Saddam Hussein.



Speculation and we will never know.

Admittedly, it would taken the courage of leadership and all we had was George Bush.



Maybe he didn't say it because he did see Bin Laden as a threat. DUH!



Oh, good lord, I was actually starting to take you seriously.

Btw, the Bush administration has canoodled with the terror alert 13 times in response to bad press.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240



Get real. It wasn't a surprise to George Tenet who's first words to David Boren, his breakfast companion, were: "This has Bin Laden's fingerprints all over it". Contrast that with Bush first words after hearing about the first plane hitting the WTC: "That must be some bad pilot". Evidently, it was a complete surprise to some.




Baloney! There's a reason why they knew exactly who the hijackers were within a few hours of the terrorist acts. The government had been following these people for years from the meeting in Malaysia to the re-entry into the country in Los Angeles to reports from several flight schools about Arab student who wanted to learn to fly big jets, but not how to land them.



Whoa, never saw this coming.



Yeah right. You just blame him for everything else.

Since you seem to have all the answers. Maybe you know where Osama is??? Come on, help George out.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Since you seem to have all the answers. Maybe you know where Osama is??? Come on, help George out.

Well we do know where he isn't...Iraq...along with no WMD's, 33 dead Iraqi citizens at the hands of US interogators, close to 2000 brave US sodliers killed, and only one platoon of Iraqi Security forces ready to defend their own country.

I can't get over the fact that The National Review and people like Ann Coulter and George Will have turned their backs on this President and his Administration, but the DISboard's conservative posse continues to make excuses for Bush. Amazing...and a tad bit pathetic, IMO.

 

[richiebaseball]

Well we do know where he isn't...Iraq...along with no WMD's, 33 dead Iraqi citizens at the hands of US interogators, close to 2000 brave US sodliers killed, and only one platoon of Iraqi Security forces ready to defend their own country.

I can't get over the fact that The National Review and people like Ann Coulter and George Will have turned their backs on this President and his Administration, but the DISboard's conservative posse continues to make excuses for Bush. Amazing...and a tad bit pathetic, IMO.

President Bush has earned the animosity of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. At least he's doing something right.

Richard

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

President Bush has earned the animosity of Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. At least he's doing something right.

Richard

The National Review Magazine=mainstream fiscally conservative Republicans
Ann Coulter=Far right wing nuts
George Will=WSJ OP-Ed page

He's lost 'em all...turn out the lights, ladies and gentlemen, the party's over...

 

[yeartolate]

Since you seem to have all the answers. Maybe you know where Osama is??? Come on, help George out.

Nevermind, he made it clear he was not concerned with OBL anymore.

 

[MizBlu]

Since you seem to have all the answers. Maybe you know where Osama is??? Come on, help George out.

Btw, I was going to start where Osama Bin Laden wasn't, but LOG beat me to it.

 

[MizBlu]

The National Review Magazine=mainstream fiscally conservative Republicans
Ann Coulter=Far right wing nuts
George Will=WSJ OP-Ed page

He's lost 'em all...turn out the lights, ladies and gentlemen, the party's over...

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

 

[richiebaseball]

The National Review Magazine=mainstream fiscally conservative Republicans
Ann Coulter=Far right wing nuts
George Will=WSJ OP-Ed page

And here we were needing a new professor. Thanks for the lessons.

He's lost 'em all...turn out the lights, ladies and gentlemen, the party's over...

Indeed. I give the current Democratic party a 50/50 chance at beating him in 08.

And while we're on the subject of the far left (that would be you), if you get a chance try reading "The Politics of Polarization". It was written by William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck, formerly of the Clinton White House. It's published by Third Way and I hear it's all the rage.

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Maybe 50/50 is too generous.

Richard

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Stick a fork in him, he's done.

Not according to some of these guys...I don't get it. Why, with so many Republicans now voicing their anger with Bush, from the WMD fiasco, to the run away government spending, to the Harriet Miers nomination, is it so hard to say that this President's time in office has been a serious disappointment?

 

[richiebaseball]

Not according to some of these guys...I don't get it. Why, with so many Republicans now voicing their anger with Bush, from the WMD fiasco, to the run away government spending, to the Harriet Miers nomination, is it so hard to say that this President's time in office has been a serious disappointment?

I don't get it. You just alluded to National Review, George Will, and Ann Coulter showing disappointment in this administration. Just who are you waiting to hear from? Anonymous people on a Disney bulletin board? If it makes a difference, I'm disappointed. Not that I had extremely high hopes to begin with, just a little more hope than I had for the other guy.

Richard

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

And here we were needing a new professor. Thanks for the lessons.

Richard

The only reason I felt the need to explain the George Will and National Review positions was because your post seemed to not comprehend my point. Now I know that you were just glossing over them to make a baseless point about Bush turning off extremists as a "good thing". Thanks for the explanation.

Bush has lost the middle, the far right and his "base", and yet some of your bretheren feel the need to keep those George Bush blow up dolls fully inflated. Don't get it...never will...

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I don't get it. You just alluded to National Review, George Will, and Ann Coulter showing disappointment in this administration. Just who are you waiting to hear from? Anonymous people on a Disney bulletin board?

Isn't that who's debating here?

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

Well we do know where he isn't...Iraq...along with no WMD's, 33 dead Iraqi citizens at the hands of US interogators, close to 2000 brave US sodliers killed, and only one platoon of Iraqi Security forces ready to defend their own country.

I can't get over the fact that The National Review and people like Ann Coulter and George Will have turned their backs on this President and his Administration, but the DISboard's conservative posse continues to make excuses for Bush. Amazing...and a tad bit pathetic, IMO.

Wars are bad. The loss of any life is horrible. Freedom comes at a cost. Look back at the wars that were fought so we could have our freedom. Many lives were lost. I'm glad we stuck it out. If not,we could not be writing so freely such disrespect for our President. Not a pathetic posse, just a more informed posse. Americans should show more respect for our troops in Iraq and the mission they are there to accomplish. Osama,WMD's, at this point are irrelivent. We freed human beings from a horrible,inhumane,evil dictator. That alone should give Bush a good nights sleep. Our troops should be praised for the work they have done. Not reminded at every media event "We should have not invaded Iraq, No weapons have been found. Bush lied. Go after the real terrorist, Osama." Our troops deserve better.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Our troops deserve better.

Hey...we agree on something!!