View Single Post
  #15  
Old 04-21-2004, 02:33 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

It was issued long before Bush ever came into presidency for a regime change for Iraq in the to-do list of America. The debate was over to send ground troops into Iraq, since the aerial strikes were doing little to nothing. 9/11 inspired Bush to make his decision rather quickly.


Quote:
I wish I could say this to the entire country, but everything that happens from this point on to the final day of voting is an act. You will see oil prices drop, you will start seeing a better economy, you will start seeing stocks go up but you know what? There's one universal purpose to it. Bush wants to us believe that we are making progress and it will stay that way if he is elected again. But that's complete crap, it's an idiotic strategy to get people to believe something that isn't true.
I feel like I'm the only one here who can comprehend the presidental election. Oil prices WON"T drop, the economy WON'T get better. Simply put, these aren't simple things that the whims of someone who's president can do. And the stocks rising and falling is completely uncontrollable. Second, the media does the same *insert unapropriate word* thing! I don't see how come other people can't! We are making progress all right. Since the vast majority of media doesn't like Bush, they try to take advantage of it and only tell half of the story: the bad half.

Quote:
And people have begun to catch up on it. Bush should have done all these things for every year that he was in office, or at least to the best of his ability.
You do realize it takes a few years for everything he signs to go into action, right? These things CAN'T be signed unless it gets proposed by someone else! No one proposes it, there is little he can do.
Quote:
Still, he has failed to do that. If we catch Osama Bin Laden tomorrow, chances are he's already been caught for quite some time, or some "critical" or "strategic" action had taken place to ensure his capture.
Someone's a conspiracy nut.
Quote:
If that's the real case, then something like this should have been done long ago. It would be extremely shameful to see something that should have been done to avenge the victims of 9/11 used as a beneficial tool for one's own purpose.
I believe you are referring to the advertisement that Bush put out that had a glimpse of firemen working together. I find this entire statement to be nit-picking and some underhanded and cheap ploy to further put down something that the opposing side doesn't like.
Quote:
You don't know how disgusted I would be if I saw that happen. Bush never really handled 9/11 very well,
Opinion! Define well, from a non-hindsight view.
Quote:
and I really have no clue as to how Gore would have handled it if he had been elected instead.
He would've done the same thing, because that is what was proposed to him, signed by him, and sent into action, along with how much power he has.

Quote:
With all that said, I don't believe Bush has been a fighter for the people of America, which is a real shame when we needed his support in some of the worst times of this election.
You mean of his term, right? All these "worst times" that you probably no longer hear about are taken care of! He isn't a "fighter", he's a leader.
Quote:
Everything that was done for New York during those critical moments was done by Rudolph Giuliani, not by George Bush.
Opinion. I watch the news, too. Bush did a whole lot, like have Rudolph Giuliani do his work in the critical moments in New york.
Quote:
There were so many ways Bush could have done a better job,
Name one.
Quote:
but he decided not to simply because in his mind there were better solutions.
Which probably were.
Quote:
He should have been thinking in terms of what the people wanted, not just what was going to be good for him. I can only hope it costs him the election.
That is what he was doing!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alakazam
Reason #3: September 11th Dom't get me wrong, I don't blame Bush for the 9/11 attacks, but I am appalled at the level of apathy he showed both before and after the attacks. In a memo (Presidential Daily Briefing) from August 6th, 2001, entitled "Osama bin Laden Determined to Attack within United States", Bush found out that al-Qaeda was palnning something, and he knew it may involve using planes as weapons. He and Condi Rice keep saying that this information was 'historical sata', and wasn't construed as a wraning. However, on July 18th of 2001, just two two weeks prior, both the FBI AND THE FAA released TERROR WARNINGS. So, how could the PDB NOT be construed as a warning?!
Hindsighted so much it's rediculess. Firstly, this was NOT issued first to Bush! It was givin to Clinton near the end of his term, and he decided what would and wouldn't happen. We've known that Al-Qaeda was planning junk long before Bush was president. In a DAILY briefing (meaning he sees document 365 days a year) it mentioned Osama bin Laden, among many of those who don't like America, The Planes and weapons and Hijacking was taken out of context, not only because those words appeared standing alone in the highlighted document, but also the very plan of Al-Qaeda to use plains was kept a very deep secret amongst Osama and his little friends. The PDB isn't a warning. It's a "here's what's goin' down" report. Nothing about action, or warning. Terror warnings are vague. For all we knew, they could've attack an embacy in Spain.

Let me clarify something for you: In Al-Qaeda, we waited for something to happen. Otherwise it would've been an unprovoked attack against people who could've been innoscent, and would've been until they did something. Now, for Iraq, we acted prior to before anything happened, and we found plenty of junk telling that he was going to do something to America. Now, you either complain about his inability to act on Al-Qaeda, or the un-provoked attack against Iraq. If you complain about both of them, you are being a hindsight perfectionist without a grip on reality. He did BOTH choices, and BOTH WERE WRONG to people like you. And BTW: there was way more stuff than just ONE PDB that suggested Iraq was doing something. By gosh we were right.

Quote:
Bush keeps saying that he didn't know when or where or how it would happen. Well, that he didn't know how is a lie.
Prove it. Was it at New York? Even in America? This month? Next year? Were they going to bomb a plain? A building? Go on a shooting spree? You can't. In this PDB (the FBI also doesn't remember anything) that mentioned Osama, it didn't give nearly enough information to do something about it, nor any real motivation.
Quote:
He had intelligence that binLaden may be using aircraft as weapons (the military had even done multiple training scenarios where A PLANE FIES INTO THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. As to where and when, of course he didn't know, we don't excpect him to. What does he excpect, a not from Al Qaeda explaining when and where they will attack? Please...
Those scenarios were done not for Al-Qaeda, but rather to test the structure of the World Trade Center. Don't forget that. From what I've seen, nothing was good enough for people like you, so go on and ramble away your contradicting nonsense.

Quote:
He maintains that the government did all they could with the information that they had. I say that that' just plain bulls**t.
Iraq, anyone? I also explained this before. And he doesn't get the final say. He doesn't have the ability or the right to say "Go invade Afghanistan". It has to be proposed to him by the Military. That didn't happen, so there wasn't a {insert inapropriate word here} thing he could've done. No president could've done anything.
Quote:
What could they have done, without knowing the specifics of the attack?
Or the specifics of what to do to prevent this, and the specifics if this is true or just another false alarm. Not everything in every PDB is fact, you know.

Quote:
1.) Airport Security - security in airports (before 9/11) were almost non-existant in the US. It was pretty much a joke, with untrained personell as security officers in most places. There could have been some significant improvement in security to prepare for an attack through the air, as they did know it was going to happen.
You do realize that even with airport security, a few people were able to pass onto airplanes with box-cutters even with the boost. The only way they caught a few of them was when they opened their bag to check. They put you through a metal dectector. They don't need trained personel. And how were they supposed to know that about a dozen people would go onto an airplane and take it over? Was one or two guys supposed to handle that? Hindsight is blind.

Quote:
2.) Public Relations - Some information should have been released to the American poeple, even if just by raising the terror alert status.
Yes, release shaky unproven data to the public to make them panic. They might aswell release very little bit and piece of information that the president ever gets. Little law here: you can't immediatly release things from the government into the public. It has to wait awhile.

Quote:
Not only did Bush not amply prepare us for the attack, he, to this day, will not claim responsibility for it.
I don't see how he was supposed to.
__________________

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
http://www.liliy.net/mdak/guestart.html
Reply With Quote