Aileron Posted April 2, 2004 Report Posted April 2, 2004 Is it just me, or is this 9/11 investigation complete and utter political BS? It seems little more to me than merely another attack Democrats are making against Bush. If it was "the truth" they sought, shouldn't they have done the investigation the first moment they had all the facts? Wouldn't sometime in late 2002 have been more appropriate. Instead, they waited until the spring before an election year. Or we could talk about Richard Clark. His job was to prevent terrorism from happening. He had this job for two decades, and for two decades terrorists got bolder and bolder. He knew Bin Laden was a problem for a long time. Although he had some close calls, he failed to kill or capture Bin Laden. He was a complete and total failure at his job, and has no credibility whatsoever. The only thing supporting this guy is that a lot of people hate Bush, and Bush fired him. One thing for sure is that Bush absolutely couldn't have stopped 9/11 in his 9 months before it. Clinton possibly could have in 8 years, but even that is unlikely. Bush is recieving a lot of flak for going into Iraq. The target, Hussein, was the easiest political target in the world, yet Bush could barely justify the war. Take the same situation, only worse. Replace the potential WMDs with potential conventional weapons. Replace Saddam Hussein with a figure who at the time was hated a lot less. Would any President have been able to justify invasion under these cir-*BAD WORD*-stances? Probably not, and its a logical contradiction for anyone against War in Iraq to think so. 9/11 was caused by our unwillingness to attack weaker nations. We think them being weaker than us automatically gives them some moral high ground. Bin Laden attacked the USS Cole, but we would not retaliate against Afghanistan because they are weaker than us, and we risk being a bully. The only thing that will prevent other acts of terrorism is to use heavy handed tactics every once in a while; not too often, but often enough that it forms a balance.
Dr Brain Posted April 2, 2004 Report Posted April 2, 2004 Bush didn't have trouble justifying Iraq. He had problem with showing leadership and making the previous prez look like a spinless jellyfish, and because of that there has been a TREMENDOUS outporing of rage from a very small section of the population who idolized said previous prez. All I can say is, thank god Gore isn't president.
Unlimited Posted April 2, 2004 Report Posted April 2, 2004 SKULL & BONE - Popular Secret Organization, George W Bush is in this. Bush didn't win the Presidential election, Al Gore did. Only reason Bush won is cause he happens to be part of the Secret Organization of Skull & Bone.http://www.adsamaj.org, u can find a lot of interesting things in this site, the truth. http://adsamaj.org/files/bushfamily.jpg, here's a little something about Bush's whole family.
Dr Brain Posted April 2, 2004 Report Posted April 2, 2004 There were three or four independent recounts AFTER the supreme court stoped the state's recounts. Gore lost every one. The florida supreme court didn't determine the outcome of the election. It stoped a rouge court from continually recounting the ballots until it got a favorable outcome.
Live-Wire Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 There were three or four independent recounts AFTER the supreme court stoped the state's recounts. Gore lost every one. The florida supreme court didn't determine the outcome of the election. It stoped a rouge court from continually recounting the ballots until it got a favorable outcome.You need to know what happened to be able to form an opinion, so please . The Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gore. The US Supreme Court overruled them. According to the Cons!@#$%^&*ution, States may chose their representatives in the electoral college any way they chose. The Governor may appoint the representatives, if thats what their State Cons!@#$%^&*ution says. Where the USSC gets juristiction to tell States what to do, tell me. Powers not specifically enumerated are reserved for the States. Given your recent post about Democrat hypocrisy, please riddle me this; why aren't the Republicans up in arms about this clear violation of State rights? The counter-argument, which I'll actually present, is that the USSC had to protect voting equality. But that argument has far more holes; plenty of people don't have their ballots counted, and plenty are thrown out. Democrats hypocrisy in this case is far less clear. Its easy to pretend you have an opinion, please stop.
Dr Brain Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 We would be, if it was a volation of states rights to stop a rouge court from recounting the ballots for the third time (forth maybe, I forget now). You are quite correct that the state can determine how it will give its representation in the electoral college. However, a single state court is not considered "the state". Recounting and changing people's votes to who they "meant to vote for" is very bad. If you agree with nothing else, you have to agree with that that kind of precident would doom us.
Aileron Posted April 3, 2004 Author Report Posted April 3, 2004 Dr. Brain, don't bother talking to Unlimited; he has more in common with a brick wall than an intelligent thinker. Live-Wire, Dr. Brain's analysis of the situation is just as valid as yours. The only difference here is opinion - not the level of knowledge or understanding. Overall, that both Bush and Gore got 50% + or - 1 of the vote. Gore got a small fraction of a percent more. However, Bush's votes were spread over multiple regions. If the election was held the next day, the results could easily have been the opposite. Frankly, we had two equally qualified candidates, and we had to pick one. That said, note that the value of democracy is not that the people get to choose the leaders. They masses could easily be wrong about an issue. However, the value of democracy lies in the fact that leaders can be removed by legal means. This is off-topic, please get back to the 9/11 commitee.
Dr Brain Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 Yes, I agree that the 9/11 commitee is BS. I think all these things will come back to haunt the Democrats in November.
»CypherJF Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 All I know that election was messed up :/ -- i laugh at the idea that a panel was they got to choose 'voters intent'.
PK2 Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 bush sucks period al gore would own all because clinton tought him how to PIMP
Dr Brain Posted April 3, 2004 Report Posted April 3, 2004 I just thought of something. If Bush had tried this war on terror before 9/11, like invading Afganistan, he would have been impeached. Clinton was in office 8 years. If anyone could have stopped it before hand, it was Clinton, and not Bush.
Vile Requiem Posted April 4, 2004 Report Posted April 4, 2004 Bush stonewalled the 9/11 comission from heing held in the first place. It was only via the lobbying efforts of the 9/11 families that anything got done (cause, you can't exactly have 9/11 families on TV saying Bush is preventing the investigation, can you? But that's exactly what happened ). After it got started, he tried to impose an unfair time restriction to make a conclusion. Fortunately Kean was smart enough to stop that. Then came the Clarke bombs-*BAD WORD*-. Now, even Bush Administration officals will tell you themselves that they shut Clarke out of the loop after he had virtually permission to come into the oval office at any time under Clinton, and much more intelligence gathering power. Rice and Rumsfeld basically said '-*BAD WORD*- you' to him. But don't take my word for it, it's all in this week's Newsweek mag There's also the issue of ~10,000 pages of do-*BAD WORD*-entation about terrorism that the Clinton administration passed on to the Bush Admin that they refuse to give to said commission. Why such stonewalling? Not even going into the refusal of people to testify. It's beginning to seem Watergateish or worse. Clinton DID go on the offense over terror after his own 9/11, the WTC bombing. He had terror intel meetings on a daily basis, and Clarke was a big part of them. As we're about to see, the bombing wasn't enough evidence to go attack someone (it's common knowledge he thought Bin Laden a threat). 9/11 was caused by our unwillingness to attack weaker nations. We think them being weaker than us automatically gives them some moral high ground. Bin Laden attacked the USS Cole, but we would not retaliate against Afghanistan because they are weaker than us, and we risk being a bully. The only thing that will prevent other acts of terrorism is to use heavy handed tactics every once in a while; not too often, but often enough that it forms a balance. It's ironic how the republican congress was up in arms when Clinton did so much as throw missles at Afganistan, calling it a Wag the Dog scenario to distract from his sucky problems. Back in the days before 9/11, you're absolutely right, anyone who tried to pull covert ops such as, say, !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inating Bin-Laden would be signing their own impeachment. Which is kinda why Clinton didn't "directly" say that, even though it was "!@#$%^&*umed" by the top staffers. If anyone's a bunch of hypocrites... (btw, the commish of said 9/11 committee was the former republican gov. of my state, and the president of Drew University in Madison, NJ. He's a good guy). (PK2: There's no way Robo-Gore could pimp, no matter how much expertise Clinton gave him ) (Finally, the comission is 5 Republicans and 5 Democrats, with Kean being a Republican. Hard to see where a partisan ruling is going to come into play).
Dr Brain Posted April 4, 2004 Report Posted April 4, 2004 Clinton DID go on the offense over terror after his own 9/11, the WTC bombing. He had terror intel meetings on a daily basis, and Clarke was a big part of them. As we're about to see, the bombing wasn't enough evidence to go attack someone (it's common knowledge he thought Bin Laden a threat).Did you know that clinton passed up several opurtunites to have OBL !@#$%^&*inated? They had the man in their sights, asked for the go ahead, but didn't get it. Now, I can sorta understand why he did it. But I don't think its fair to blame the problem on Bush. If Clarke had (excuse the bad lead in) "virtually permission to come into the oval office at any time under Clinton", why was terrorism a threat after the eight years of Clinton in office? I'm not trying to put down clinton here, I'm just saying you can't use the Clarke case, because it doesn't hold water. BTW, intel indicates that 9/11 was planned in 1996. So it's not like Clarke didn't have time to warn Clinton, if in fact, he knew anything at all. I meant that invading a forign country pre 9/11 would have been cause for impeachment. !@#$%^&*inating a known terrorist might have caused some "Wag the Dog" claims, but no one would have faulted him for it.
Killing Ape Posted April 4, 2004 Report Posted April 4, 2004 the 9/11 commission is a dumb -*BAD WORD*- commission only for the families that died in the sept 11 attacks that feel angry that something should've been done. The truth is the 9/11 commission can't change the past... and it is 100% obvious that somebody could've did more to prevent terrorist and possibly stopped the attacks but thats hypothetical and it never happened. Whatever the 9/11 Commission concludes it won't change any type of policy at all. And although I'm a democrat and john kerry fan... it is extremely unfair and offensive if you blame bush for not stopping the sept 11 attacks.
Dav Posted April 4, 2004 Report Posted April 4, 2004 the attacking of afghanastan was understandable after the event, the main thing i dont agree with is the abandonment of the country plunging into a worse state then it was to begin with.
Aileron Posted April 5, 2004 Author Report Posted April 5, 2004 I wouldn't say Afghanistan is worse off, but I'll agree that we did almost abandon it and it really isn't that much better. The problem is that we didn't want to turn Afghanistan into another Israel - a small nation proped up by our money that their neighbors constantly attack. If they fork the bill for their own military, we don't suffer. However, I agree that we really should have given Afghanistan bigger support, because this arguement frankly isn't enough to even convince me. For 9/11, I don't blame the government, I blame us. We wanted peace and the government gave it to us. To prevent the 9/11s from happening again, we need to get meaner to hostiles and nicer to nuetrals. One thing we need to do is repeal that law or agreement forbiding us from !@#$%^&*asinating people. Its better than starting wars, and its easier to make an arguement saying how the one or two victim(s) had it coming. !@#$%^&*asination is atleast a better alternative than war.
Dav Posted April 5, 2004 Report Posted April 5, 2004 it would never make another israil, israil has its finantial dependancies and is under attack because the majority of the population hole western traditions and values being mnosly from the west to begin with. Thay also will not give the occupied tertiories back which causes problems. The US shouldnt have abandond afganisytan, although a govenment was in place it was not ready to have evetything put onto them at the time it was.
Recommended Posts