SS2k3 rant of the day

[southsider2k5]

OK, this has been bugging me for a while, and I am going to let loose.

 

How come so many people are applying two completely contradictary standards to the intellegence finds of 9-11 and Iraq.

 

With regards to 9-11, I am not sure what everyone wanted us to do with the intellegence. If they had all gotten together and said OK we THINK there is a CHANCE of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into targets, what were they supposed to do when it happened?

 

I have heard people suggest that we should have shot down the planes. Tell me in a Sept 10, 2001 state of mind, that many if any people would have supported the United States killing its own citizens, based on intellegence. THE VERY SAME INTELLEGENCE sources that we we're now supposed to NOT believe in Iraq, because some of the claims and sources turned out to be wrong. What would the outcry been if we had shot down one of those planes (or even all 4) based on this intelligence, and it turned out to be false like the Uranium report? But we are expected to not use these same agencies when they say that they think Iraq is pocessing and/or developing WMD's. Can you imagine the outcry if we had treated the intellegence the same as 9-11's, downplayed it, and then had somewhere, maybe even a US target, attacked.

 

I just don't understand how this is a linear line of thinking. We should have done something on one hand, yet on the other we should not have.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

OK, this has been bugging me for a while, and I am going to let loose.

 

How come so many people are applying two completely contradictary standards to the intellegence finds of 9-11 and Iraq. 

 

With regards to 9-11, I am not sure what everyone wanted us to do with the intellegence.  If they had all gotten together and said OK we THINK there is a CHANCE of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into targets, what were they supposed to do when it happened? 

 

I have heard people suggest that we should have shot down the planes.  Tell me in a Sept 10, 2001 state of mind, that many if any people would have supported the United States killing its own citizens, based on intellegence.  THE VERY SAME INTELLEGENCE sources that we we're now supposed to NOT believe in Iraq, because some of the claims and sources turned out to be wrong.  What would the outcry been if we had shot down one of those planes (or even all 4) based on this intelligence, and it turned out to be false like the Uranium report?  But we are expected to not use these same agencies when they say that they think Iraq is pocessing and/or developing WMD's. Can you imagine the outcry if we had treated the intellegence the same as 9-11's, downplayed it, and then had somewhere, maybe even a US target, attacked.

 

I just don't understand how this is a linear line of thinking.  We should have done something on one hand, yet on the other we should not have.

SS2k3

 

There was a report written called "Terrorism 2000" before 9/11 put together by a large group of law enforcement agencies and in this report it states that it is likely that planes will be used as bombs at national landmarks. Cheney never read the report. But I forgot, it was Clinton's cock that got us into all this trouble.

 

Also, the morning of the event. Bush was told by NORAD that the planes had been hijacked. He told F-16's to stand down and LET THE TERRORIST CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON. He ultimately let a few fly but made them fly from the furthest base so there was no chance of them stopping it. It was not intelligence that Bush was using. He had clearly defined FACT that the planes were hijacked. Chimpy McCokeAddict simply didn't do anything about it. There was no CIA involvement the morning of 9/11. NORAD had told Chimpy that the planes were hijacked and Chimpy didn't do anything to stop Al Qaeda. Don't blame that on anybody else than Bush. He could have saved the lives of the people in the Pentagon that died but he didn't. It may help if you check out a chronology of the day's events and see the time schedule of when NORAD gave Bush the facts and he refused to act.

 

Also, the CIA told Bush BEFORE the State of the Union that he should not rely on the uranium claim because there was not much backing it up. But Chimpy had it tossed in. Again, Bush doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions and he makes Tenet jump on the grenade.

 

If you look at the Cheney energy commission papers that were just opened, the "f*** Saddam, we're taking him out" and the comments that Wolfowitz made that "WMD were just the cause that we could mobilize the most support around" as the reasoning for war in Iraq then that is the administration lying to us plain and simple. I guess it's just coincidental that Halliburton gets a huge no competition oil contract right after and we can't find WMD. Cuz of course, American motives are always pure.

[CubKilla]

Bush was told by NORAD that the planes had been hijacked.  He told F-16's to stand down and LET THE TERRORIST CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON.  He ultimately let a few fly but made them fly from the furthest base so there was no chance of them stopping it.  It was not intelligence that Bush was using.  He had clearly defined FACT that the planes were hijacked.

 

Just when I think that maybe you're making sense, you say something like this..... and totally devalue any argument or point you're trying to make.

[Spiff]

Yeah, really. I want to know the source of that.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

 

President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was "highly dubious," White House officials said yesterday.

The acknowledgment came in a briefing for reporters in which the administration released excerpts from last October's National Intelligence Estimate, a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies. The report declared that "most" of the six intelligence agencies believed there was "compelling evidence that Saddam [Hussein] is reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's nuclear weapons program." But the document also included a pointed dissent by the State Department, which said the evidence did not "add up to a compelling case" that Iraq was making a comprehensive effort to get nuclear weapons.

 

You should also check out the head of the 9/11 commission Lee Hamilton and see what his past is. He is a huge Bush fan. Cheney smartly exploited his relationship with Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Ind., who was chairman of the Iran-contra panel.

Hamilton cared deeply about his reputation for bipartisanship and the Republicans quickly exploited this fact.

 

A senior committee source said one of Cheney’s top priorities was to block Democrats from deposing Vice President Bush about his Iran-contra knowledge. Cheney “kept trying to intimidate Hamilton,” the source said. “He kept saying if we go down that road, we won’t have bipartisanship.”

 

So, Hamilton gave Bush a pass. The limited investigation also gave little attention to other sensitive areas, such as contra-drug trafficking and the public diplomacy operation. They were pared down or tossed out altogether.

Despite surrendering to Cheney’s demands time and again, Hamilton failed, in the end, to get a single House Republican to sign the final report.

 

Only three moderate Republicans on the Senate side – Warren Rudman, William Cohen and Paul Trible – agreed to sign the report, after extracting more concessions. Cheney and the other Republicans submitted a minority report that denied that any significant wrongdoing had occurred.

 

The watered-down Iran-contra majority report essentially let Vice President Bush off the hook. Bush’s political career was saved.

 

In essence, Hamilton gave Bush a pass on Iran-Contra, the motherlode of post-Hitler era global crimes

Hamilton said, "No truth to the contra drug charges."

Hamilton joined in whitewashing other evidence...

Hamilton hid documentary evidence that Reagan/Bush colluded with the hostage takers

 

That is the man who is heading the 9/11 commission. Do you trust him?

[southsider2k5]

OK, this has been bugging me for a while, and I am going to let loose.

 

How come so many people are applying two completely contradictary standards to the intellegence finds of 9-11 and Iraq. 

 

With regards to 9-11, I am not sure what everyone wanted us to do with the intellegence.  If they had all gotten together and said OK we THINK there is a CHANCE of terrorists hijacking planes and crashing them into targets, what were they supposed to do when it happened? 

 

I have heard people suggest that we should have shot down the planes.  Tell me in a Sept 10, 2001 state of mind, that many if any people would have supported the United States killing its own citizens, based on intellegence.  THE VERY SAME INTELLEGENCE sources that we we're now supposed to NOT believe in Iraq, because some of the claims and sources turned out to be wrong.  What would the outcry been if we had shot down one of those planes (or even all 4) based on this intelligence, and it turned out to be false like the Uranium report?  But we are expected to not use these same agencies when they say that they think Iraq is pocessing and/or developing WMD's. Can you imagine the outcry if we had treated the intellegence the same as 9-11's, downplayed it, and then had somewhere, maybe even a US target, attacked.

 

I just don't understand how this is a linear line of thinking.  We should have done something on one hand, yet on the other we should not have.

SS2k3

 

There was a report written called "Terrorism 2000" before 9/11 put together by a large group of law enforcement agencies and in this report it states that it is likely that planes will be used as bombs at national landmarks. Cheney never read the report. But I forgot, it was Clinton's cock that got us into all this trouble.

 

Also, the morning of the event. Bush was told by NORAD that the planes had been hijacked. He told F-16's to stand down and LET THE TERRORIST CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON. He ultimately let a few fly but made them fly from the furthest base so there was no chance of them stopping it. It was not intelligence that Bush was using. He had clearly defined FACT that the planes were hijacked. Chimpy McCokeAddict simply didn't do anything about it. There was no CIA involvement the morning of 9/11. NORAD had told Chimpy that the planes were hijacked and Chimpy didn't do anything to stop Al Qaeda. Don't blame that on anybody else than Bush. He could have saved the lives of the people in the Pentagon that died but he didn't. It may help if you check out a chronology of the day's events and see the time schedule of when NORAD gave Bush the facts and he refused to act.

 

Also, the CIA told Bush BEFORE the State of the Union that he should not rely on the uranium claim because there was not much backing it up. But Chimpy had it tossed in. Again, Bush doesn't have to take responsibility for his actions and he makes Tenet jump on the grenade.

 

If you look at the Cheney energy commission papers that were just opened, the "f*** Saddam, we're taking him out" and the comments that Wolfowitz made that "WMD were just the cause that we could mobilize the most support around" as the reasoning for war in Iraq then that is the administration lying to us plain and simple. I guess it's just coincidental that Halliburton gets a huge no competition oil contract right after and we can't find WMD. Cuz of course, American motives are always pure.

Maybe I wasn't clear on my rant. I am assuming that the hijacking had already taken place. In a Sept 10, 2002 frame of mind, we are supposed to shoot down planes full of innocent people based on our intelligence, but we are not supposed to believe the same intellegence sources that say Iraq has and/developing WMD's. That to me is a double standard. You either have to trust your sources or not.

 

As to Bush, I did vote for him. But if there is evidence of him covering up intelligence to go to war, he should be indicted. I am not one of those people who believes in different rules for people I vote for, vs the "other" guys. And I did support the indictment of Clinton, but it wasn't solely for the reason of lying under oath. I believe he essentially committed treason by the selling of our nuclear secrets to China, but that is a different story.

 

I also am not ignorant enough to believe all of the broad generalities that get painted with. Of course American Presidents do what is in their best personal interests. They always have. I seriously wish that we would start impeaching every single President who breaks the law to do it. Too many people use the excuse that Clinton did the samethings, or Reagan did the samethings... f*** that. The law is the law. Punish the wrong doers and we might start to be able to restore this country to what our forefathers were envisioning it as.

 

And lastly on a personal note, please don't reply with inflammatory stuff with me. I am perfectly willing to hear your opinions and what facts you back them up with. You seem to be an incredibly smart and perceptive guy. But when I see that, it instantly makes me want to tune out what you are saying, and it becomes a struggle to listen objectively. I do try not to reply with the same kinds of posts as all it does it make an intelligent discussion degenerate into namecalling. I understand some people can't handle that, and aruge away with them. But just as a favor to me, please stick with the meat of the post. Thanks Apu.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

 

Just when I think that maybe  you're making sense, you say something like this..... and totally devalue any argument or point you're trying to make.

There are tons of timelines of what happened on 9/11. Here is one.

 

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timelin...n/dayof911.html

 

There are plenty of sources backing up what they have to say, CK.

[clujer420]

Also, the morning of the event.  Bush was told by NORAD that the planes had been hijacked.  He told F-16's to stand down and LET THE TERRORIST CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON.  He ultimately let a few fly but made them fly from the furthest base so there was no chance of them stopping it.  It was not intelligence that Bush was using.  He had clearly defined FACT that the planes were hijacked.  Chimpy McCokeAddict simply didn't do anything about it.  There was no CIA involvement the morning of 9/11.  NORAD had told Chimpy that the planes were hijacked and Chimpy didn't do anything to stop Al Qaeda.  Don't blame that on anybody else than Bush.  He could have saved the lives of the people in the Pentagon that died but he didn't.  It may help if you check out a chronology of the day's events and see the time schedule of when NORAD gave Bush the facts and he refused to act.

LOL.

 

Like CubKilla said, just when I'm trying to figure out if you know what you're talking about or if you just have some agenda other than the truth, you say something like this and remove all doubt. If you believe this, you are an absolute moron, and if you DO believe this, why would you continue to live in this country if you think our government is this corrupt and evil?

 

So are you trying to push your agenda, or are you really this negative about the world around you?

 

You non-partisan idiots make me sick.

[cwsox]

You non-partisan idiots make me sick.

where were you holding the mirror when you typed that?

 

:puke :puke :puke

[clujer420]

 

You non-partisan idiots make me sick.

where were you holding the mirror when you typed that?

 

:puke :puke :puke

 

Not that your comments meant much of anything to me a week ago, but after hearing about you taking children on field trips to serial killers' houses, now they mean even less. Ever hear of Disneyland or the local county fair? It might be a much more happy trip for a child.

[Chisoxfn]

2k3...I had never thought about it that way. I think you brought up an excellent point and I got to agree with it.

 

We'd never seen something like that. Usually terrorist take over a plane, land it somewhere and demand for some things. In this case there was none of that and even if we had some reason to believe that was the case, how could you know for sure.

 

Anyone know where the planes were when they found out they were hijacked (in regards to the ones that hit the World Trade Center). I always thought they didn't know until it happened basically and if they found out when they are over New York, they don't really have the option to shoot it down.

 

Awesome analysis.

[IndySoxFan]

hey look out apu.... i heard some black UN helicopters were heading your way

 

what a crackpot..... what college f***ed your head?

[clujer420]

hey look out apu.... i heard some black UN helicopters were heading your way

 

what a crackpot..... what college f***ed your head?

Probably some hippy college like Berkeley.

[JUGGERNAUT]

If I may set the way back machine to the early 90's when the World Trade center bombings occured, it seems to me that a certain administration was very laxed in what took place. If not for some faulty math & chemistry the WT's would have collapsed like a tree being cut down & probably cost upwards of 10000+ lives total. After all the plan was for one to fall into the other causing both to fall on their sides.

 

Now it seems to me that an intelligent administration would have taken that attack seriously & in response not only consider the WT's centers a threat from the ground but also a threat from the air. Especially since the possibility of using airplanes as smart bombs had been discussed in a prior report.

 

And since that was considered a high probability, an intelligent administration would have implemented anti-aircraft hardware on top of the WT's. Furthermore air-space around the WT's would have been limited such that any plane violating that air-space would become a target.

 

Now let's fast forward to 2003. I still have not read anything about anti-aircraft hardware implemented on this nation's biggest targets. For ex; the Sears Tower & John Hancock Bldg. Two prime targets for any terrorist.

 

It still surprises me to this day that there are still no anti-aircraft guns atop the pentagon. I guess we are afraid that we can't secure our own military guns from the terrorists.

 

 

Finally it's a little off-topic but it's related. What's wrong with profiling?

Do not detectives profile suspects? How is this different? All of the terrorists connected to WT 1 attack in the 90's & WT 2 attack on 9/11 had Saudi Arabian passports. Now how much intelligence does it require to release that visitors in this country bearing eastern middle east & southwestern asia passports are not high risk for terrorism?

 

I would venture to say that such people should be scanned to timbuktu before entering this country & then be placed under surveillance for the duration of their visit. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS HERE!

[clujer420]

If I may set the way back machine to the early 90's when the World Trade center bombings occured, it seems to me that a certain administration was very laxed in what took place. If not for some faulty math & chemistry the WT's would have collapsed like a tree being cut down & probably cost upwards of 10000+ lives total.  After all the plan was for one to fall into the other causing both to fall  on their sides.

 

Now it seems to me that an intelligent administration would have taken that attack seriously & in response not only consider the WT's centers a threat from the ground but also a threat from the air.  Especially since the possibility of using airplanes as smart bombs had been discussed in a prior report.

 

And since that was considered a high probability, an intelligent administration would have implemented anti-aircraft hardware on top of the WT's. Furthermore air-space around the WT's would have been limited such that any plane violating that air-space would become a target.

 

Now let's fast forward to 2003.  I still have not read anything about anti-aircraft hardware implemented on this nation's biggest targets.  For ex; the Sears Tower & John Hancock Bldg. Two prime targets for any terrorist.

 

It still surprises me to this day that there are still no anti-aircraft guns atop the pentagon. I guess we are afraid that we can't secure our own military guns from the terrorists.

 

 

Finally it's  a little off-topic but it's related.  What's wrong with profiling?

Do not detectives profile suspects?  How is this different?  All of the terrorists connected to WT 1 attack in the 90's & WT 2 attack on 9/11 had Saudi Arabian passports. Now how much intelligence does it require to release that visitors in this country bearing eastern middle east & southwestern asia passports are not high risk for terrorism?

 

I would venture to say that such people should be scanned to timbuktu before entering this country & then be placed under surveillance for the duration of their visit.  WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS HERE!

The terrorists will not use planes again. Using them on 9/11 caught everyone off-guard, and they'll think of something more creative if/when they attack us again.

[DonkeyKongerko]

Also, the morning of the event.  Bush was told by NORAD that the planes had been hijacked.  He told F-16's to stand down and LET THE TERRORIST CRASH INTO THE PENTAGON.  He ultimately let a few fly but made them fly from the furthest base so there was no chance of them stopping it.  It was not intelligence that Bush was using.  He had clearly defined FACT that the planes were hijacked.  Chimpy McCokeAddict simply didn't do anything about it.  There was no CIA involvement the morning of 9/11.  NORAD had told Chimpy that the planes were hijacked and Chimpy didn't do anything to stop Al Qaeda.  Don't blame that on anybody else than Bush.  He could have saved the lives of the people in the Pentagon that died but he didn't.  It may help if you check out a chronology of the day's events and see the time schedule of when NORAD gave Bush the facts and he refused to act.

From what I read in the timeline there were a number of suspicious aircraft that morning. With air traffic the way it is it is not easy to tell which plane a transmission is coming from. Definitely not a cleary defined fact in any case. In this case they erred on the side of caution and people died as a result. I wouldn't have wanted it any other way.

[rafacosta]

If I may set the way back machine to the early 90's when the World Trade center bombings occured, it seems to me that a certain administration was very laxed in what took place. If not for some faulty math & chemistry the WT's would have collapsed like a tree being cut down & probably cost upwards of 10000+ lives total.  After all the plan was for one to fall into the other causing both to fall  on their sides.

 

Now it seems to me that an intelligent administration would have taken that attack seriously & in response not only consider the WT's centers a threat from the ground but also a threat from the air.  Especially since the possibility of using airplanes as smart bombs had been discussed in a prior report.

 

And since that was considered a high probability, an intelligent administration would have implemented anti-aircraft hardware on top of the WT's. Furthermore air-space around the WT's would have been limited such that any plane violating that air-space would become a target.

 

Now let's fast forward to 2003.  I still have not read anything about anti-aircraft hardware implemented on this nation's biggest targets.  For ex; the Sears Tower & John Hancock Bldg. Two prime targets for any terrorist.

 

It still surprises me to this day that there are still no anti-aircraft guns atop the pentagon. I guess we are afraid that we can't secure our own military guns from the terrorists.

 

 

Finally it's  a little off-topic but it's related.  What's wrong with profiling?

Do not detectives profile suspects?  How is this different?  All of the terrorists connected to WT 1 attack in the 90's & WT 2 attack on 9/11 had Saudi Arabian passports. Now how much intelligence does it require to release that visitors in this country bearing eastern middle east & southwestern asia passports are not high risk for terrorism?

 

I would venture to say that such people should be scanned to timbuktu before entering this country & then be placed under surveillance for the duration of their visit.  WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS HERE!

The terrorists will not use planes again. Using them on 9/11 caught everyone off-guard, and they'll think of something more creative if/when they attack us again.

Atackin Iraq, made the world for you guys much more dangerous in the US.

 

Please, just because i´m defendind my arguments doent mean that i´m a terrorist. Let´s be a little bit more comprehensive and stop being a little kid.

[clujer420]

If I may set the way back machine to the early 90's when the World Trade center bombings occured, it seems to me that a certain administration was very laxed in what took place.   If not for some faulty math & chemistry the WT's would have collapsed like a tree being cut down & probably cost upwards of 10000+ lives total.  After all the plan was for one to fall into the other causing both to fall  on their sides.

 

Now it seems to me that an intelligent administration would have taken that attack seriously & in response not only consider the WT's centers a threat from the ground but also a threat from the air.  Especially since the possibility of using airplanes as smart bombs had been discussed in a prior report.

 

And since that was considered a high probability, an intelligent administration would have implemented anti-aircraft hardware on top of the WT's.   Furthermore air-space around the WT's would have been limited such that any plane violating that air-space would become a target.

 

Now let's fast forward to 2003.  I still have not read anything about anti-aircraft hardware implemented on this nation's biggest targets.  For ex; the Sears Tower & John Hancock Bldg.   Two prime targets for any terrorist.

 

It still surprises me to this day that there are still no anti-aircraft guns atop the pentagon.   I guess we are afraid that we can't secure our own military guns from the terrorists.

 

 

Finally it's  a little off-topic but it's related.  What's wrong with profiling?

Do not detectives profile suspects?  How is this different?  All of the terrorists connected to WT 1 attack in the 90's & WT 2 attack on 9/11 had Saudi Arabian passports.   Now how much intelligence does it require to release that visitors in this country bearing eastern middle east & southwestern asia passports are not high risk for terrorism?

 

I would venture to say that such people should be scanned to timbuktu before entering this country & then be placed under surveillance for the duration of their visit.  WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS HERE!

The terrorists will not use planes again. Using them on 9/11 caught everyone off-guard, and they'll think of something more creative if/when they attack us again.

Atackin Iraq, made the world for you guys much more dangerous in the US.

 

Please, just because i´m defendind my arguments doent mean that i´m a terrorist. Let´s be a little bit more comprehensive and stop being a little kid.

Leaving Hussein in power was not an option.

 

And I don't know who you're calling a little kid, but I trust it is not me. If it is me, however, just come out and say it instead of doing it in a round-about way.

 

And who called you a terrorist?

[rafacosta]

If I may set the way back machine to the early 90's when the World Trade center bombings occured, it seems to me that a certain administration was very laxed in what took place.   If not for some faulty math & chemistry the WT's would have collapsed like a tree being cut down & probably cost upwards of 10000+ lives total.  After all the plan was for one to fall into the other causing both to fall  on their sides.

 

Now it seems to me that an intelligent administration would have taken that attack seriously & in response not only consider the WT's centers a threat from the ground but also a threat from the air.  Especially since the possibility of using airplanes as smart bombs had been discussed in a prior report.

 

And since that was considered a high probability, an intelligent administration would have implemented anti-aircraft hardware on top of the WT's.   Furthermore air-space around the WT's would have been limited such that any plane violating that air-space would become a target.

 

Now let's fast forward to 2003.  I still have not read anything about anti-aircraft hardware implemented on this nation's biggest targets.  For ex; the Sears Tower & John Hancock Bldg.   Two prime targets for any terrorist.

 

It still surprises me to this day that there are still no anti-aircraft guns atop the pentagon.   I guess we are afraid that we can't secure our own military guns from the terrorists.

 

 

Finally it's  a little off-topic but it's related.  What's wrong with profiling?

Do not detectives profile suspects?  How is this different?  All of the terrorists connected to WT 1 attack in the 90's & WT 2 attack on 9/11 had Saudi Arabian passports.   Now how much intelligence does it require to release that visitors in this country bearing eastern middle east & southwestern asia passports are not high risk for terrorism?

 

I would venture to say that such people should be scanned to timbuktu before entering this country & then be placed under surveillance for the duration of their visit.  WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN CITIZENS HERE!

The terrorists will not use planes again. Using them on 9/11 caught everyone off-guard, and they'll think of something more creative if/when they attack us again.

Atackin Iraq, made the world for you guys much more dangerous in the US.

 

Please, just because i´m defendind my arguments doent mean that i´m a terrorist. Let´s be a little bit more comprehensive and stop being a little kid.

Leaving Hussein in power was not an option.

 

And I don't know who you're calling a little kid, but I trust it is not me. If it is me, however, just come out and say it instead of doing it in a round-about way.

 

And who called you a terrorist?

I'm just saying to anyone that is thinking this from me. Little kid, would be anyone who wants curse at me because i'm agst this war and Bush government.

 

I'm not so sure but the economic of the US is not growing and the unemployment rate has increased in this today government. I think Bush is not worried with this, he is just worried in oil and other things that will give him more voters.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Probably some hippy college like Berkeley.

University of Illinois @ Champaign Urbana.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Maybe I wasn't clear on my rant.  I am assuming that the hijacking had already taken place.  In a Sept 10, 2002 frame of mind, we are supposed to shoot down planes full of innocent people based on our intelligence, but we are not supposed to believe the same intellegence sources that say Iraq has and/developing WMD's.  That to me is a double standard.  You either have to trust your sources or not. 

 

As to Bush, I did vote for him.  But if there is evidence of him covering up intelligence to go to war, he should be indicted.  I am not one of those people who believes in different rules for people I vote for, vs the "other" guys.  And I did support the indictment of Clinton, but it wasn't solely for the reason of lying under oath.  I believe he essentially committed treason by the selling of our nuclear secrets to China, but that is a different story. 

 

I also am not ignorant enough to believe all of the broad generalities that get painted with.  Of course American Presidents do what is in their best personal interests.  They always have.  I seriously wish that we would start impeaching every single President who breaks the law to do it.  Too many people use the excuse that Clinton did the samethings, or Reagan did the samethings... f*** that.  The law is the law.  Punish the wrong doers and we might start to be able to restore this country to what our forefathers were envisioning it as.

 

And lastly on a personal note, please don't reply with inflammatory stuff with me.  I am perfectly willing to hear your opinions and what facts you back them up with.  You seem to be an incredibly smart and perceptive guy.  But when I see that, it instantly makes me want to tune out what you are saying, and it becomes a struggle to listen objectively.  I do try not to reply with the same kinds of posts as all it does it make an intelligent discussion degenerate into namecalling.  I understand some people can't handle that, and aruge away with them.  But just as a favor to me, please stick with the meat of the post.  Thanks Apu.

The CIA had nothing to do with the 9/11 intelligence nor did the British "intelligence" [well as much intel as you can gather from a 12 year old school report ]

 

NORAD had told Bush that the plane was off course and had been determined to be hijacked by the airline and NORAD. This was after the 2 WTC planes hit in the timeline

 

It's apples and oranges comparing the two as equal intelligence sources.

 

And my commentary like the "Clinton's cock was what got us in trouble" etc. wasn't aimed at you personally. It's more to the people on this board that believe it was all Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened and sweet little innocent Bush had nothing to do with it. You know, the one's that tow the Sean Hannity conservative party line and never deviate from it, then blame others for following propaganda.

 

Now the argument can be made that if American planes and airline industry was like that of El Al airlines, 9/11 may not have happened. Their planes are built with reinforced cabin doors that only open from the inside, they are built to withstand a suitcase altitude bomb, etc. They have long waits to screen luggage and people but hey, they get you there in one piece. The lax attitudes of the security people at our airlines also played a part in the ease that the hijackers were able to get the weapons aboard the plane.

 

There is a lot of information that shows that Bush and Co. could have done SOMETHING to prevent some of the death and destruction on that day especially the one in PA and the Pentagon...I just hope that Lee Hamilton doesn't cave like a prison b****.

[IndySoxFan]

Maybe I wasn't clear on my rant.  I am assuming that the hijacking had already taken place.  In a Sept 10, 2002 frame of mind, we are supposed to shoot down planes full of innocent people based on our intelligence, but we are not supposed to believe the same intellegence sources that say Iraq has and/developing WMD's.  That to me is a double standard.  You either have to trust your sources or not. 

 

As to Bush, I did vote for him.  But if there is evidence of him covering up intelligence to go to war, he should be indicted.  I am not one of those people who believes in different rules for people I vote for, vs the "other" guys.  And I did support the indictment of Clinton, but it wasn't solely for the reason of lying under oath.  I believe he essentially committed treason by the selling of our nuclear secrets to China, but that is a different story. 

 

I also am not ignorant enough to believe all of the broad generalities that get painted with.  Of course American Presidents do what is in their best personal interests.  They always have.  I seriously wish that we would start impeaching every single President who breaks the law to do it.  Too many people use the excuse that Clinton did the samethings, or Reagan did the samethings... f*** that.  The law is the law.  Punish the wrong doers and we might start to be able to restore this country to what our forefathers were envisioning it as.

 

And lastly on a personal note, please don't reply with inflammatory stuff with me.  I am perfectly willing to hear your opinions and what facts you back them up with.  You seem to be an incredibly smart and perceptive guy.  But when I see that, it instantly makes me want to tune out what you are saying, and it becomes a struggle to listen objectively.  I do try not to reply with the same kinds of posts as all it does it make an intelligent discussion degenerate into namecalling.  I understand some people can't handle that, and aruge away with them.  But just as a favor to me, please stick with the meat of the post.  Thanks Apu.

The CIA had nothing to do with the 9/11 intelligence nor did the British "intelligence" [well as much intel as you can gather from a 12 year old school report ]

 

NORAD had told Bush that the plane was off course and had been determined to be hijacked by the airline and NORAD. This was after the 2 WTC planes hit in the timeline

 

It's apples and oranges comparing the two as equal intelligence sources.

 

And my commentary like the "Clinton's cock was what got us in trouble" etc. wasn't aimed at you personally. It's more to the people on this board that believe it was all Clinton's fault that 9/11 happened and sweet little innocent Bush had nothing to do with it. You know, the one's that tow the Sean Hannity conservative party line and never deviate from it, then blame others for following propaganda.

 

Now the argument can be made that if American planes and airline industry was like that of El Al airlines, 9/11 may not have happened. Their planes are built with reinforced cabin doors that only open from the inside, they are built to withstand a suitcase altitude bomb, etc. They have long waits to screen luggage and people but hey, they get you there in one piece. The lax attitudes of the security people at our airlines also played a part in the ease that the hijackers were able to get the weapons aboard the plane.

 

There is a lot of information that shows that Bush and Co. could have done SOMETHING to prevent some of the death and destruction on that day especially the one in PA and the Pentagon...I just hope that Lee Hamilton doesn't cave like a prison b****.

your neighbors with oliver stone aren't you?