What Bush Really Did On Sept. 11 - DC 9/11: Time of Crisis (2003) Discussion

[–] whatsyour20 21 years ago

Again, another schmuck causing slander. Slander only makes you a sad, strange little man like Al Franken! (ooh did I use slander just now, nah, thats a fact 'ol Al is a washed up SNL sad strange little man!)

reply

[–] megadoomer 21 years ago

Oh, I don't think that that's slander. You'd probably have to form some kind of coherent thought before it could really be considered injurious to a person's reputation. Besides, this is print. It'd be libel. :)

And it's typical of a right wing schmuck to counter a factual statement with ignorant demagoguery.

reply

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

mega, you are a riot
lolol
just one suggestion
when speaking to the reich wing sheep
USE SMALL WORDS
otherwise there is little chance they would have heard it used in conversation (on fox),
or recognize it if it ever was on fox...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] scotthall82 15 years ago

Your a troll go back to your bridge.

My feet smells like *beep* Its becuase I stepped on dog poop.

reply

[–] whatsyour20 21 years ago

Okay, so I was a bit angry at the bias of this forum, I allowed myself to be lowered to a level I depise, so from this point forward...WhatsYour20 moves back to a better 20...not speaking out on topics in anger.

I'm chilled now, (breathing :-)

reply

[–] frankbannister02 21 years ago

My twinkie friends helped me find it.

reply

[–] whatsyour20 21 years ago

Cute Frankie...

reply

[–] whatsyour20 21 years ago

Lets be civil and all stick with the issue at hand, not calling anyone names and overuse of the word: Demagog/Demagoguery 1 : a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power
2 : a leader championing the cause of the common people in ancient times

Doesn't quite apply when you actually consider the word in its full sense.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gibscreen2 19 years ago

If it's printed, and it has the ability to be viewed by more than one person, then it's libel. If it's spoken, it's slander.

But actually, this is neither libel nor slander. Because truth is a defense to both. And it's true that Bush just sat there on his ass reading a book about goats (although he may not have even been reading it--cause I'm not sure he knows how)

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scottand 17 years ago

The man said to GWB, "A plane has hit the WTC". What would you have done?

Children, the nation is under attack! Some of your family members are possibly dead, burned up in scorching flames!

No, I'd say something along the lines of "I'm sorry kids but something very important has come up and I have to cut my visit short. My brother is the governor here, as you know, so I will probably be back to visit soon. It was nice meeting you all. Goodbye."

Why can't some people seem to grasp the fact that there are ways of extricating yourself from a photo-op without panicking and freaking everyone else out? Are you people really that dense? Absolutely amazing.

reply

[–] mm-109 19 years ago

your just a shlameil, shut up bushy, get a clue, bush is killing our environment and people like YOU let it happen... see you in hell bushy

reply

[–] justpastalaska 18 years ago

Whow when did video of actual events become slander?

So tell me Rightwingers was the video of oswald getting shot slanderous to Jack Ruby?

SLANDER...you Ann "Trannie" Coulter loving trolls make me want to puke.

reply

[–] SentinelPrime 11 years ago

You mean...SENATOR Franken? Just checking!

Having fun revisiting 9-year-old posts!

reply

[–] frankbannister02 21 years ago

Ooh, ooh. You forgot about the faked threat on Air Force One that caused W to criss-cross this great nation on September 11th. Andrew Card claimed that they received a credible threat that Air Force One would be attacked.

Yeah.

They didn't.

reply

[–] julieber 21 years ago

But they thought it was a credible threat.

Someone called in a threat to Air Force One. It was passed up the chain of command, and at some point someone referred to it as a threat on Angel. Someone further up said, "Oh no, since they knew Air Force One is code named Angel, this threat obviously is from someone with inside connections" without confirming the language in the original call. Hence the screw-up.

I wish they would have shown this in the movie. One Bible reading scene could have been replaced with the Air Force One to Angel changeover. I knew it was a screw-up, but a viewer without background knowledge came away with a very false impression.

And if it was all some Deep Dark Plot (see Pearl Harbor, FDR's supposed foreknowledge of) then why did they admit they screwed up?

[And please don't call me a Reich Wing Sheep. That was from Woodward's book, who has proven he's no right wing shill.]

Going back to the movie, I wish they could have shown more of the screw-ups. Air Force One lost communication with the outside world several times, infuriating Bush. Showing that would have improved the movie immensely.

reply

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

regarding "credible threat"

out here in los angeles
we have a police force world-reknown for their abilities to see
"credible threat[s]"
EVERYWHERE
and they only ever claim "credible threat"
after they get busted for beating someone up
hmm...

regarding AF1 losing communications with the outside world?
hmm...

wasnt the old AF1 retired?
didnt they replace it with a new one?
hmm...

AF1 trivia
AF1 can broadcast (audio and video) from anywhere in the world
even while flying
using state of the art
technologies

so
regardless
where it was
AF1 could have transmitted
oilboy's reassuring message to america and the world
via television broadcast
or via radio (audio only) message

just like local politicians do whenever there is some accident (or something)
for a news conference

of course, oilboy had to wait for it to be written for him
and he had to wait to be emotionally able to read
and sober

oops
i meant "somber" enough to read that message

just a few thoughts

also, i find it interesting that leni riefenstahl died the day after this movie debuted
i guess she knew the torch had been passed

hmm...

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] snoorian 21 years ago

WOW. Why do you write like such a moron? I guess you weren't around when we learned about "sentences".

reply

[–] craigarrss 20 years ago

If you watch the movie and heard the reports, you would remember that he wanted to be SEEN by the people so they would understand that the government was still in power/control and would act accordingly. His security advisors did not want AF1 to land and wanted to runn the government from the AIR! We were not on the plane to say why auto or vidoes was not used but he did make them land to speak with the nation, Gore would have found a rock to hide under or called CIGARboy to educate himself on that.

reply

[–] RipRip 17 years ago

They admitted they screwed up because it sounds a hell of a lot better than, "Hey, we just murdered several thousand Americans and destroyed a national landmark so we could have an excuse to start a war and curtail all this silly 'liberty' stuff. You guys don't mind, do you?". As to him just sitting there, maybe he made a promise to devote a certain amount of time to that event and was not going to break his promise, which I personally agree with, although I am not a fan of Bush.

Sometimes evil is just applied stupidity-Ronar

reply

[–] petro_32 21 years ago

I'm sorry, but I don't care how many kids are in the freakin' room, if you're the president of the united states, and the united states is "presumably" under attack, your getting your ass out the door. Unless you know that Florida is safe, why would he risk his life, so he doesn't scare the children??? And why would the president leaving, scare the children anyways. All they needed was a president's aid to come into the class and explain that the president has to go. Why would that be so scary. The fact that he didn't get ushered out, and that he wasn't afraid to stay with the kids for 20 minutes longer tells me he knows/knew more than he's leading on.

"frighten the children" has got to be the WORST excuse i've ever heard for a president's f-up.

And there is such a thing as leaving a room calmly. No need to yell out "oh my god, we're under attack!"

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] surly_canadian 21 years ago

Hey, give him a break!!! He was reading "See Spot Run". He was learning too! He was learning complicated words so that he would be able to read the speeches that 3 people collectively write for him over 4 days.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] surly_canadian 21 years ago

At the very least Lactate--lucatel, at the very least.

reply

[–] sleazydinosaur 21 years ago

There are many real reasons to critisize George W Bush, he has been a disaster as a president, but getting indignant about his immediate reaction to unprecedented attacks on our country isn't one of them. Should he have politely excused himself? Yes, I think he probably should have, and that would have looked much better for the cameras, so the fact that he didn't undercuts your theory about him knowing about the attacks.

He was taken off guard, as most everyone was that day, and made the split decision to not do anything to frighten the children in front of them. In the scheme of things, I don't think it's a very big deal, but he is doing many terrible things to our country, your time and indignation would be better served to focus on his disasterous policies, instead of something as unimportant as this.

"I don't want to date someone that shares my interests, I hate my interests"

reply

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

there are many reasons why he didnt leave within a reasonable amount of time, like any real leader would have...

in fact...
TOP TEN REASONS WHY OILBOY DIDNT LEAVE WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME AFTER LEARNING (?)
HEARING ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON 9/11/01

#10 it was story hour, duh
#9 he didnt say "mother may i get up and leave the room in a calm manner?"
#8 he wet his pants
#7 the story was so fascinating, he didnt want to lose his place
#6 he was too drunk to stand up
#5 he was too coked-up to stand up
#4 it is skull and bones tradition to masturbate in a coffin before leaving a room
#3 since his brother, jethro, had declared floriduh to be under martial law, he knew how safe he was right where he was
#2 he already knew america was under attack
and the number one reason why the idiot didnt behave like a leader
by doing something...

because chest-pain cheney didnt say
"simon says"

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] whminter 21 years ago

I'm sorry, but I don't care how many kids are in the freakin' room, if you're the president of the united states, and the united states is "presumably" under attack, your getting your ass out the door. Unless you know that Florida is safe, why would he risk his life, so he doesn't scare the children??? And why would the president leaving, scare the children anyways. All they needed was a president's aid to come into the class and explain that the president has to go. Why would that be so scary. The fact that he didn't get ushered out, and that he wasn't afraid to stay with the kids for 20 minutes longer tells me he knows/knew more than he's leading on.

First of all - hindsight is always 20/20. Here we are in the "now", and we presume that the president knew "then" as much as we know "now". What do you think Bush was first told? "Sir, an airliner has hit a building in New York and the loss of life appears to be extreme."

So what? Although it’s a tragic accident, it isn't the first time a heavy airplane has flown into a skyscraper in New York. In 1947 due to heavy fog conditions, a B-25 bomber flew into the side of the Empire State Building. So you keep reading to the kids.

But as additional news reports keep coming in, the Pentagon, the second tower, another airliner down in a field, the realization hits that maybe this is a different situation than was first believed. Maybe it’s not an accident. Now it's time to get moving. But you seem to believe that the president should have psychic powers – that from the first moment he receives the first news report, he knows the whole story. I’m sorry, but he doesn’t.

And neither do his aides. Oh, yeah – he knew. Yeah, that’s the ticket. And Roosevelt knew the Pearl Harbor attack was coming. Not only do I contend that GWB did not know the events of 9/11 were about to transpire, I also contend that there should be no reasonable expectation that he should have known.

Once upon a time we had a terrific problem acquiring intelligence. So, the OSS is transformed into the CIA to gather human intelligence, and the NSA (National Security Agency) is formed to gather electronic intelligence. Now we have a different problem, one akin to drinking from a fire hose. Now we have massive quantities of intelligence, more than we can ever analyze. We’re eavesdropping on international phone calls. We have spy satellites photographing virtually every square inch of the Earth. We’re monitoring cell phone calls all over Europe, Asia, and the Middle East and running the results through voice identification/recognition software.

But there’s a little problem – when Jimmy Carter appointed Admiral Stansfield Turner head of the CIA, Turner was given his marching orders, which were to essentially gut the CIA. Now the law prohibits the CIA from hiring just precisely the type of person they need to hire.

And how do we separate the nuggets from the dross from the disinformation? For the record, we’d been receiving a good quantity of disinformation, intelligence reports that there were going to be some terrorist activities in Paris on 9/11. This was apparently just in case we’d gotten our wind up over any suspicious intelligence. And here we were, warning the French.

We need to find some psychics, we really do.

"frighten the children" has got to be the WORST excuse i've ever heard for a president's f-up.

Assuming he screwed up. And I’m not convinced he did – at least not in this case.

And there is such a thing as leaving a room calmly. No need to yell out "oh my god, we're under attack!"

If he had reacted that way, then I’d be a lot more critical than I am now. I have plenty of criticisms, most of which are more severe than yours appear to be, just not in the same areas.

reply

[–] scottand 21 years ago

"First of all - hindsight is always 20/20. Here we are in the "now", and we presume that the president knew "then" as much as we know "now". What do you think Bush was first told? "Sir, an airliner has hit a building in New York and the loss of life appears to be extreme."

This has nothing to do with 20/20 hindsight. Bush knew "then" exactly what we all know "now"--a SECOND plane had struck the WTC. That's what Card was whispering in his ear. Bush even knew about the FIRST plane striking the WTC BEFORE he even went into the classroom. He said so himself. In Dec. 2001, while speaking to a crowd in Orlando FL, he was asked how he felt when he heard about the attacks. He claimed that upon learning of the first attack he thought to himself, "There's one terrible pilot". THERE'S ONE TERRIBLE PILOT?!?!

It gets worse. He then claimed that he was "whisked off" and didn't have time to think about it. The most powerful man in the world could not find, or make, time to think about the fact that something horrific has just happened in his country. I suppose a classroom full of second graders was so much more compelling. I love the fact that he uses such an urgent sounding phrase like "whisked off", as though he was whisked off to a bunker somewhere or straight to Air Force One. He was "whisked off" to an elementary school classroom--not the most secure location.

We also know "now" that Bush knew "then" about the Aug.2001 intelligence that was coming in warning about a possible attack on the US and the likelihood of hijacked planes being involved. This intelligence report was a mere month prior to the attacks. A plane crashing into the WTC (a KNOWN terrorist target especially after 1993) should have immediately raised red flags in the mind of someone who'd received an intelligence briefing a mere month prior to the attacks. I don't buy his "There's one terrible pilot" schtick. I mean, I despise the man and think that he's dumb but even I don't think he's THAT dumb. After, the 1993 WTC bombing and after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing the citizens and leaders of America would have to be completely brain-dead to not suspect trouble if so much as a trashcan fire erupted at the WTC or at a federal building--and of course, a commercial airline crashing into a skyscraper is more of an attention-getter than a trashcan fire, or so I'd hoped. "There's one terrible pilot" my ass!!!

There's lots of stuff that WE only learned after the fact but that Bush knew about PRIOR to 9/11. Stuff like the warnings from Egypt, Israel and Russia in addition to the Aug.6, 2001 intelligence briefing AND another briefing that Bush was given in July 2001 after which John Ashcroft was advised to stop flying commercial aircraft.

I'm not trying to bash you, whminter, it's just that this topic gets me really riled up and I don't think the "hindsight is 20/20" thing holds up in this case. Bush had more than 20/20 hindsight to go on.

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] petro_32 21 years ago

I don't like Gore much either, but I'm sure is reaction to 9/11 would NOT have been oil-based like the current president's.

That said, I doubt there ever would have been a war with Iraq, and probably wouldn't have been a war with Afhgan. Of course it's all speculation, but I wouldn't have been surprised to see us handle things more diplomatically if Gore was prez.

reply

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

petro, i agree
in fact, i can almost be certain that a gore presidency would not have been as secret as this bush klan admin needs to be

as far as saddam or UBL being found, that will happen to prop up oilboy's sagging numbers

no questions will be answered, just another photo-op.
i just hope the unemployed americans who are losing clean air and clean water will remember that it will be just another photo-op.
(i wonder what outfit oilboy will be wearing when the capture of saddam and/or UBL is announced?)

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

when i was reading your post
i feared for your nephew
i do not know who you are
nor do i know who your nephew is

i hope he is not injured by any of the D.U.
(depleted uranium)
or hurt in any way

i also hope that when he comes back
this criminal admin has not removed every protection people have been fighting for on his behalf (veterans' benefits, etc) while he is overseas.
certainly every american cannot fight as a soldier
but that does not mean people are not fighting here at home

your nephew deserves everything he was promised when he signed up
and more

let's hope all those things he has earned are not taken away from him
and given to others how just happen to have "better" political contacts

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] scottand 21 years ago

You can afford to go catatonic for a half hour. You are not the President. We don't elect people to office so that they can go catatonic when the sh*t hits the fan. Also, if you were wondering if Armageddon was starting (as I'm sure lots of people were) then Bush should have also been questioning what was going on and what was going to happen next. Being the President, he might have been targeted for attack that day and sitting on his behind after learning about the SECOND attack was the height of irresponsibility. If terrorists had decided to come after Bush they would have harmed those children as well. You're probably one of those poeple that think that by his being "strong" and sitting there not reacting that he was trying not to alarm the children. One thing that people seem to forget is that Bush gathered the press in the school library, surrounded himself with the very school children that he supposedly didn't want to frighten and then announced in front of those children that we had been attacked. That's hardly what you do if you don't want to frighten them. You might be proud of this man but I think he is a disgrace and an embarrassment.

reply

[–] evilevildoer 21 years ago

oilboy was doing what he was told to do
and that is all we can expect from him and his entire criminal admin

you are correct about making himself a sitting duck
and the children as well were sitting ducks

as he sat, he sat with those children
if, as the criminal admin alleges, oilboy was a target
so were those children

i dont know what would have frightened the children more
a. hearing about something called an "attack" happening somewhere
or
b. being attacked

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] big_john_studd 20 years ago

That's right...Gore would still be "negotiating" with the Taliban to try and hand over bin Laden!!! In fact, if yes-man Gore and Clinton were TRULY committed to dealing with terrorism, then WHY THE HELL DIDN'T THEY TAKE OUT BIN LADEN WHEN THEY HAD HIM DIRECTLY IN THEIR SIGHTS NO LESS THAN 3 (THREE) DIFFERENT TIMES DURING THE CLINTON/GORE ADMINISTRATION???
Do you think that maybe, just MAYBE had Clinton/Gore done their jobs THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO 9/11??? Has that ever occured to you or are you so filled with hatred towards anybody with an "R" beside their name that you have to excuse the fact that many, many people screwed up to make 9/11 possible that you have to blame this entirely on Bush???
Wake up and smell the napalm, for God's sake!!

reply

[–] 21 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

Sorry, but the truth is that "Whatreallyhappened.com" DIDN'T really happen. If anyone's ramming propaganda down anyone's throats, it's sites like this, and the fanatics who run and follow them.

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

"Sorry, but the truth is that "Whatreallyhappened.com" DIDN'T really happen. If anyone's ramming propaganda down anyone's throats, it's sites like this, and the fanatics who run and follow them."

Incredibly lame response. Please elaborate. If you can. And typical of the uninformed types like yourself, you assume that the people who question the White House and their account of 9/11 get all their info from whatreallyhappened.com. That site is only one of many out there that question the "official version" of 9/11. There's also Makethemaccountable.com, unansweredquestions.com, truthout.org and many others, not to mention the fact that the transcripts of testimony given to the independent commission investigating 9/11 are also available online so that you can read for yourself some of the utter nonsense this administration and it's puppets are trying to fob off on the public. For example, did you know that there is a NORAD official, Gen. Larry Arnold, who claimed that even after a SECOND plane had crashed into the WTC that he still wasn't sure that this was an attack?!?! He thought it was a "pattern" of some kind!!! That's typical of the kind of crap you hear from this administration since 9/11. Everyone is playing dumb. "There's one terrible pilot" and other such bullsh*t.
If you want to assume that those of us who question the official story of 9/11 are all slaves to whatreallyhappened.com, then you go right ahead. I'm sure it won't be the first time you've been way off base.

reply

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

Kudos
well said
and of course
the sheep will continue with their talking points

so sad for the sheep

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

"so sad for the sheep"

Actually, it's sad for all of us. People think you're a consumer of "propaganda" just because you ask questions about something that doesn't make sense. Let us assume that there are perfectly logical and reasonable explanations for some of the anomalies that occurred on 9/11, the only way we'd ever hear those explanations is if we ask the questions to begin with. Unfortunately,there are folks out there who think that you're some kind of liberal propaganda monger just for asking certain questions. And of course Bush (or Oilboy as you call him) and Cheney were among the first to try to preempt any questions by asking for a "limited" investigation into 9/11. The most devastating terrorist attack to take place on our soil and they want a "limited" investigation!!! And now they are doing everything they can to make sure that the investigation is, in fact, limited. Limiting funding, withholding documents, not requiring Bush to testify, and, of course,lying, lying, lying the whole time. Did you know that the people who are testifying before the commission aren't even under oath? But, of course, it's "propaganda" to point any of this out.

reply

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

Oh, please! That website and all the rest you listed are well-knonw to be full of sh*t! They're all by communists, fascists, and all-around psychotics. "Uninformed?" That definition goes to people like you, the guy who started this thread, and the people who created those sites, and I actually posted messages to those written by "truthout" on alt.copnspiracy. He's a NUTBALL, just like Alex Jones, Jeff Resne, and John "Koo-Koo" Kaminski. And the so-called "independent investigation," people like you keep shouting for is nothing but a smear campaign against the President, being spearheaded by bolsheviks like Ramsey "International No-ANSWER/WWP" Clark!

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

A typical rightwingnut response. You forgot to call us "socialists", "homosexuals", "abortionists", "gun grabbers" and "tree-huggers". And "well-known to be full of sh*t" by whom??? By you and other closedminded people like you? Just the fact that you would call the independent investigation a "smear campaign" tells me all I need to know about you. I suppose you don't think the victims of 9/11 and their families deserve any kind of investigation? Screw them if there's a chance that Bush might get "smeared", right? You're a real piece of work. If the independent investigation was such a smear campaign the commissioners would have hauled Bush's ass up in front of the commission to testify by now. They aren't even insisting that he do so. Your boy is getting off scott-free, so don't give me this "smear campaign" crap. And you know what, you're right, SOME of the conspiracy folks are nutballs but that doesn't discount the validity of the questions that have still gone unanswered. That doesn't change the fact that Bush sat on his ass after learning of the second attack. That doesn't change the fact that Bush actually said, "I didn't have time to think about it" after the first attack. That doesn't change the fact that Bush was briefed in August 2001 about the possibility of an upcoming attack on the U.S. but supposedly didn't have a single light go on in his dim bulb head when he learned that the WTC had been struck by a commercial aircraft. Calling some conspiracy theorist "nutballs" doesn't explain how the hell our Secretary of Defense and Richard Myers, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, could possibly be sitting in the Pentagon having a meeting and not know that the country was under attack until AFTER the Pentagon was hit. The world is full of "nutballs" (I wouldn't be surprised to find out that you're one of them) but, I repeat, that still doesn't discount the validity of the questions being asked. If you're too much of a coward to ask the questions and face the possibility of some unpleasant answers, that's fine; go ahead and enjoy your little bubble while it lasts.

reply

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

A typical rightwingnut response.

No, a typical response by anyone with common sense. What's also typcial is left-wingers to slander anyone with any right-wing convictions as "right wing nuts." I don't suse the same kind of slander for everyone on the left, and that includes Bill Clinton, Bob Graham and Tony Blair.

You forgot to call us "socialists", "homosexuals", "abortionists", "gun grabbers" and "tree-huggers".

I may have forgot about the socialists, but I'll leave out homoseuals, abortionists, and tree-huggers

And "well-known to be full of sh*t" by whom???

As I said earlier, anyone with common sense. "Whatwewantyoutothinkreallyhappened.com" is fascist propaganda which communists frequent as well. It's the only place woutside of Russia where communsits and fascists team up to plot to overthrow the government. "Unansweredquestions," have already been answered, but the webmaster doesn't like the answers. "Makethemaccountable" wants to make the WRONG PEOPLE accountable. And again, "truthout" doesn't know jack sh*t about truth.

Just the fact that you would call the independent investigation a "smear campaign" tells me all I need to know about you.

The garbage spewed out by people who keep calling for this "independent investigation," or PEOPLE'S investigation as they sometimes call it, which is a misnomer itself, have already decided Bush is guilty, so I'm absoulutley right in calling it a smear campaign.

I suppose you don't think the victims of 9/11 and their families deserve any kind of investigation? Screw them if there's a chance that Bush might get "smeared", right? You're a real piece of work. If the independent investigation was such a smear campaign the commissioners would have hauled Bush's ass up in front of the commission to testify by now.

What a crock! All I read on the net are people who are p*issed about the fact that the investigation DOESN'T call for Bush's head.

That doesn't change the fact that Bush was briefed in August 2001 about the possibility of an upcoming attack on the U.S. but supposedly didn't have a single light go on in his dim bulb.

That's NOT a fact. Four days before 9/11, there was a warning of terrorist attacks on US military targets in far east -- the kinds of warnings America has been getting for decades, which most people don't pay attention to. The day AFTER, 9/11, the feds suddenly understood an enemy code they were trying to break. Therefore, no cover-up, ands no ignorance by Bush.

Calling some conspiracy theorist "nutballs" doesn't explain how the hell our Secretary of Defense and Richard Myers, our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, could possibly be sitting in the Pentagon having a meeting and not know that the country was under attack until AFTER the Pentagon was hit.

Having no knowledge of the physical stucture of the Pentagon or the World Trade Center, and therefore believing that they were somehow behind the attacks DOES make someone a nutball.

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

I love how you're now trying to take the high road by speaking out against "slander" after throwing around words like "communists", "fascists", "all-around psychotic","nutball", and "bolsheviks". Or I suppose you meant all those things as compliments? Anyway, the rest of your post is still nonsense. What exactly do the people with "common sense" know? Can they tell me why Bush remained in that school even after learning about the second attack, because "common sense" would tell you that a school full of children is NOT the place for the most powerful man in the world to be when his country is under attack. You still seem to think that just because some websites are run by "communists and fascists" that the questions raised about 9/11 can be dismissed. What answers do these "common sense" people have to the questions? Or do you just think the questions themselves are nonsense just because you don't like the people who are asking them? Your casual dismissal of the independent investigation of 9/11 is a case in point. Just because you don't like the people who are calling for the investigation (the ones spewing "garbage" and the ones who've "decided Bush is guilty") then you decide that the investigation itself is a smear campaign. If you'd bother to read the transcripts you'd notice that the investigation doesn't even focus on Bush. I'll be the first to say that it should though--but you knew I'd say that. You know what, have it your way. If you want to think of it as a smear campaign, so be it. I'm not ashamed to admit that I despise the man--just like so many on the right despised Clinton. But just because some people might be out to "smear" Bush doesn't mean that he doesn't have anything to answer for. Speaking of which, if you think that Bush receiving an intelligence briefing in August 2001 is "NOT a fact", then I don't know what more I can say to you. That briefing was big news in May 2002. It got tamped down (by the "liberal media", no doubt)like every other scandal that befalls this administration and the details of that briefing is one of the things that this criminal administration is, to this day, refusing to turn over to the commission. If you don't know this, if you think that it is "NOT a fact" then you are more deluded and uninformed than I thought. On second thought, you could save Bush the trouble of refusing to give details of the briefing to the commissioners by simply informing him that the briefing never took place (it's "NOT a fact"). He'll, no doubt, be glad to hear this. I'm surprised he didn't think of it first. It's really quite touching that the White House never even denied this briefing took place but you are willing to step up and deny it for them.

Finally, I have NO idea what your very last statement even MEANS. It's a nonsequitor really. The fact is that Rumsfeld and Myers were having meetings in Washington on the morning of Sept.11 and were supposedly unaware of the full extent of what was happening until after Flight 77 practically landed in their laps.(I was incorrect in my earlier post that said they were both in the Pentagon--only Rummy was. Myers was on Capitol Hill.) Why wasn't Rumsfeld notified sooner of what was going on? Why couldn't our nation's capitol protect its own airspace? How could the Pentagon not have its sh*t together almost a full hour after the attacks in New York began? These are just a few of the questions that some of us would like the independent commission to get answers to. There are many more. I won't even bother to list them because you think the questions are just a smear attempt and not the result of actual human curiosity and need for explanation. Like I said in an earlier post, there might be logical and reasonable answers to these questions (and then again there might not) but it doesn't mean that people are nutballs for asking them. As much as we would like to see him fall on his face,I can assure you that our desire for answers about what happened on Sept.11 is not ALL about your precious Bush. There are many other players in case you hadn't noticed.

reply

[–] martin_humble 20 years ago

Hi there Ddey65. Why not try a new thing, just for fun -open your eyes, maybe even get an education! Then you probably will find out that democracy depends on individuals questioning the descision-making bodies. In the US, that would be the senat and the president. For your information a communist is not a person that is for abortion for example, or for a welfare system. A communist, often generalixed as, is a person that believs in a strong dictatorial state, quite close to your belief that one shouldn´t critizise the president. You know, the people in Soviet did not, or could not, critizise their government. Communism in the original sense comes from the thoughts of Marx.His aim was not to attack the US and replace the government with a totalitar rule, he saw the capitalsim as a system of oppresion would eventually have no role to play and be abolished, instead there would be a rule by the many, the worker´s. Bolsheviks on the other hand are one direction which does believe in the same goal, but with other means. Well i could go on. You know the Soviet Union does not exist any more, so you can go to sleep without being afraid any more. The people you are refering to as being communists etc are people like you, maybe a bit smarter though, just not believing in the president. George Bush is a, in some curious way, elected president. That´s fine. But that does not give him the right to do what he please. He still represents the people, not the other way around. If you say he´s acting wrong- the he is. Most people would not have attacked Iraq, but he did. Now american soldiers are forced out in a war that never had to be. We can all thank dear Bush for that. And he will go on, if not the people says what they think. Stating ones opinions is a fundamental right nessecary for democracy!

reply

[–] evilevildoer 20 years ago

right on, martin humble
accountability and checks and balances

it seems the sheep dont bother to question anyone since they would rather be obedient
since it is what they do best

HAVE A LIBERAL DAY

reply

[–] HossTB27 17 years ago

evilevildoer-

I'm not sure if you'll read this, but I'd like to comment on a few of your posts. I'll be honest, I didn't read this whole thread as most of it seemed to be the same rehashed garbage. Secondly, I did read all of your posts and what they were referring to because you kept regarding yourself as a free thinker who has been liberated from the tight grasp of regurgitated propaganda. Unfortuantely, all of your statements are riddled with rehashed statements from liberals. I don't particularly like the President, but calling him OilBoy constantly is lame and you're not really separating yourself from any liberals. Okay, everyone knows that liberals think that George Bush has interests in oil. Yes, we all know that. And yes, Conservatives generally regard the president and his administration's policies as admirable and will defend them at whim. There have been things that the President has done right and things that he's done wrong. That's true with every President and every person. You don't judge someone based on what they did wrong, but how they reacted to it. In all honestly, I think that President acted responsibly on 9-11, because leaders shouldn't rush to decisions. Also, would his presence anywhere have affected the outcome of that day any differently? Anyone who criticizes the President for his conduct on 9-11 is just reaching and digging deep for insults. Like I said before, I'm not a huge fan of the President's. But, if you're going to criticize anything, criticize the man's policies, not the man's character.

reply

[–] enricribas 20 years ago

Ddey65: You're one funny guy. Usually I can find something interesting in another point of view, but you don't actually have anything to say. I haven't seen someone as pig-headed in beliefs as you in a long time. Your unwillingness to even listen to another opinion or research facts is awesome!

martin_humble: You're slightly off on your description of communism, and for Ddey65's benefit, I'll clarify. Communism is an economic system, and has nothing to do with an authoritarian government. It refers to a system where money is equally distributed amongst its people so that there are no rich and no poor but simply middle-class. At the opposite end of the spectrum is capitalism; not, as many people assume, democracy.

Another misconception is that about Left and Right. Left refers to communist economic systems, and Right refers to capitalist economic systems. So many of you will be surprised to learn that you are actually quite right-wing.

There is another element seldom talked about which is the vertical axis. This refers to the amount of control the government has over its people. At the top, is an authoritarian government, as was the Soviet Union, and (sorry) is the United States, and most world goverments. At the bottom of this chart is Liberal, referring to less government control.

So it is possible to have a Liberal Right Wing government (none exist that I know of, though), a Liberal Left Wing (Canada), an Authoritarian Left Wing (Cuba), and an Authoritarian Right Wing (you guessed it, U.S.A.)

thanks for letting me ramble...

By the way, the U.S. Democratic Party is quite Right of centre, and quite above centre in Authority just (slighlty) left of the Republican party.

okay, Ddey65, call me a "communist", "liberal", whatever, but now at least you know what the terms mean when you use them, but I bet you'll never guess what I actually am.

reply

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

Hi there Ddey65. Why not try a new thing, just for fun -open your eyes, maybe even get an education!

"An education," my ass! In the 1930's Nazi Germany's "education" curriculum consited of lessons on how to tell if somebody's a Jew from their facial features. I recently saw the same *beep* being posted by Muslim fanatics claiming Bush is "fighting a war agaisnt Islam." The same thing goes for "The Protocols of the Leading Elders of Zion," which was proven to be a complete fraud, despite the fact that anti-semites from all walks of life swear by it as proof of a world-wide Jewish Conspiracy. The websites mentioned are made by extremists of all forms who's only agenda is blaming everything on George Bush as well as everybody tied to him.

Communism in the original sense comes from the thoughts of Marx.His aim was not to attack the US and replace the government with a totalitar rule, he saw the capitalsim as a system of oppresion would eventually have no role to play and be abolished, instead there would be a rule by the many, the worker´s. Bolsheviks on the other hand are one direction which does believe in the same goal, but with other means.

And it's because of those other means that the US has been fighting against communist rule, even after the fall of the Soviet Union. In case you didn't notice, places like South Korea, Taiwan, Nepal, Cambodia, Colombia, Peru, etcetera, still face the threat of a communist takeover. BTW, I have never tied communism to abortion. I have no idea where you some of you come up with this garbage sometime.

The people you are refering to as being communists etc are people like you, maybe a bit smarter though, just not believing in the president. George Bush is a, in some curious way, elected president.

Sorry, but the people who refuse to believe that George Bush was elected President are not smarter, but are simply jealous that he won. That doesn't mean everybody who's upset about his 2000 win believes this nonsense about Al-Qaida not being involved in 9/11, or any of that other crap, but those who do and keep bringing the 2000 election up in their rhetoric, no matter which political party they're from(Communist, Green, Liberal, Democrat, Nazi, or whatever) are full of it, and have a suspicious agenda.

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jedixsupersloth 20 years ago

Okay, call me a nutball, hack, whatever- but there is something really fishy going on with the Carlyle group (headed in part by Bush's father) look into it, I found some pretty scary stuff about them and ties to the bin laden family, and the Saudi Royal family. The information I found was not on some liberal conspiracy theory sites, but reliable sources like the BBC and the Washington Post. I dont know why more people dont know about this. The FBI has actually been told to "lay of the Saudi's." The funny thing is, is that most of the 9/11 hijackers WERE Saudi, none were Iraqi.

reply

[–] Matt_Bassett 20 years ago

Hi,
I am a Media student at University in the UK and am looking to do my dissertation on the programme "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis", unfortunately i cannot get hold of a copy as it was not broadcast over here.
I was wondering if anyone involved in this conversation would be able to get hold of a copy, VHS would be fine, or would know of anyone who could. Postal expences would be paid. If you can help me with this matter please e-mail me at: [email protected]

Any help would be appreciated.

Many Thanks

Matthew Bassett

reply

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

I'm going to try again to explain something to those of you who believe all these reports point to some conspiracy between Bush and our enemies:

1)All members of the Bin Laden family inherited the family fourtune, and Osama is no exception. The difference is that Osama chose to use it to finance a terrorist group dedicated to spreading his own brand of islamic law throughout the world.

2)As repressive as the Wahabist government of the Saudi Royal family is, it's not repressive enough for the Taliban & Al-Qaida, which is why Saudi Arabia is as much of a target as we are, or anyone else for that matter. More than likely this is why the FBI has been told to "lay off the Saudis."

3)The ethnic origins of the 9/11 hijackers has nothing to do with the causes they're fighting for. 15 were Saudis, but Mohammed Atta was an Egyptian. That leaves three others, let's assume they're Yemenese. Neither Saudi Arabia, Egypt o Yemen has it in for us, but Taliban-run Afghanistan did. Incidentally, Atta was trained by Iraq.

4)Just because Iraq wasn't involved directly with 9/11, doesn't mean they don't train terrorist in the Middle East and aren't a threat to peace. The Taliban & Al-Qaida aren't the only troublemakers in the world and if we ignore one, others will simply replace them. Bob Graham criticized President Bush for trying to stop Osama & Saddam, at the same time in a 60 Minutes interview, he himslef claimed that he feared the Hezbollah may become a major threat. Would this mean it's okay for him to go after two thugs in the Middle East and not George Bush? I hope not.

reply

[–] dlynchian 20 years ago

He really was.

Legolas:Nedin dagor hen ú-'erir ortheri. Natha daged dhaer.

reply

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

You know that this hole that you accuse Bush of hiding in was considered standard procedure by the Secret Service in the event of an attack on the United States since the cold war, don't you? Do you also know that he refused to stay in that hole for the rest of the day?

reply

[–] Movie Hound Video 20 years ago

I can tell that most of you replying to this thread have never served one minute as a United States Soldier or a soldier for any other country. As a retired Army man, I assure you, Bush did as all Presidents before him were expected to do.
He SHOULD NOT have gone back to the White House for this one very fact: The Vice- President was there & that DC, being a natural target area, was going to evacuate anyway.
One reason that I believe Bush did not leave the children immediatley is that he may have been concerned that the media would speak out in front of the children. The movie showed this as does the real news footage does. Watch his reaction as he gets up to leave.

Now you can call me what ever name you wish, but until you put on the uniform and serve your country (wherever that may be), you might check all your acussations, name callings, and juvenile attitudes at the door.
If you think you could have or even actually do better than the man himself, clean up your act and get yourself elected.

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

Why are you ranting about U.S. soldiers??? No one here is criticizing them. You are, not so subtlely, changing the subject. The subject of this thread is:"What BUSH Really Did On Sept.11" NOT "What Our U.S. Soldiers Really Did On Sept.11".
We are criticizing Bush and he was most definitely ineffective that day despite how he might have been portrayed in a movie. He didn't necessarily have to go to the White House but he could have gotten off his duff and been more involved than he was. The hijackings were still underway as he sat in that classroom. As for his not leaving the classroom immediately because of how the media would have reacted in front of the children, I've said this before and apparently I have to say it again: If he was concerned about anyone saying anything in front of the children then he should not have held a press conference in the school library, surrounding himself with those children and announcing, in front of those children, that the country had been attacked. Offering his apologies to the students and school staff, thanking them for letting him stop by and then making his exit while taking the press with him would be a lot less alarming than announcing that the U.S. had been attacked. Even second graders are aware of the fact that the President is an important and busy man. If he or a member of his staff had simply told the children that the President has some important business to attend to I'm sure they would have understood and not freaked out. There had to be at least ONE person on his staff that was capable of extricating Bush from that room. Look at how calmly Andrew Card walks in, gives Bush the news and then calmly walks out. He could have used that same calm and equanimity to get Bush out of there and put him to work. Stop making poor excuses for him.

reply

[–] dudemanthegreat 20 years ago

Man... If you could be any more ignorant...

He was not "ranting about US Soldiers." He was talking about how, as a US Soldier, he has been taught and informed on the President's policies in a time of crisis such as this. I myself am training to be in the US Navy; when September 11th happened, we weren't even allowed to wear our uniforms for fear of attack. And I was in Illinois at the time.

So do you think that Bush might have been just a little bit of a target?

His continued reading to the children shows what may be considered extreme ignorance of the situation, but I doubt that Bush didn't think that major reprecusions weren't going to happen because of the attacks. The idea that he didn't leave "for fear of frightening the children" IS bull; he did it so that he wouldn't frighten the media, who'd in turn disturb us even more. What's scarier: a president leaving unexpectedly or a president who stands firm and finishes what he was doing despite the chaos occuring?

I think that the idea of Bush leaving and "taking care of buisness" is ridiculous; what was he going to do? He is, as we all know, not a great orator. This is something FDR has over him, true. But we also have little evidence that the US knew much of anything before the attacks of 9/11, which is something Bush has over FDR.

Attacking him for not "snapping to" when he found out about 9/11's attacks is a ridiculous and ignorant thing to do. I can assure you anyone in the military would think you are a total idiot for saying anything like that.

-------
That's right... who's laughing now... who's laughing now?

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

Oh, I see. So apparently the proper response for a president, or the leader of any country for that matter, is to do as little as possible when his country is under attack. Just keep doing whatever it is you're doing at the time. That should be encouraging news to the terrorist--and to the American people.

"...when Sept.11th happened, we weren't even allowed to wear our uniforms..."

Once again, you are shifting the focus of the discussion off of Bush and onto our soldiers. This thread is not about what our soldiers did or didn't do or could or couldn't do. Your statement, however, does bring up something that only helps to make my point. If it was feared that YOU might be a target in your uniform while in Illinois then imagine how much of a target Bush would be, and he needs no uniform to be recognizable as the President. And yet, there he was surrounded by school children who could have easily been harmed if anyone had tried to target Bush at that school.

"His continued reading to the children shows what may be considered extreme ignorance of the situation..."

WHAT?!?! His Chief of Staff has just informed him that ANOTHER plane has just stuck the WTC and America is under attack. That IS the "situatiion". He is no longer ignorant of the situation once he has been TOLD about it. His "extreme ignorance" of the full details (if that's what you meant) wasn't going to be remedied by remaining in that classroom reading a children's book.

"...he did it so that he wouldn't frighten the media..."

That is ALSO bull!!! The media ALREADY knew. Coverage of the first attack was already underway and members of the media DO have cell phones you know. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the members of the media that were following Bush around that day would have remained unaware of events in NY if Bush simply refrained from speaking out or reacting in any way. Bush himself said that he saw the first attack on TV while standing in the hall waiting to enter the classroom and thought to himself, "There's one terrible pilot". Very presidential response I might add. Also, I have personally seen footage of Bush at Booker Elementary School on 9/11 and a reporter specifically asked him (in the classrom) if he knew what was going on in New York, showing that the media was already aware of events and so didn't need Bush to spare them the news and not "frighten" them. Bush's response to the reporter's question:"Yes, and I will have something to say about it later". Okey dokey then. As long as he has something to SAY about it. And if the media should "in turn disturb us even more" as you put it, well, that comes with the territory. Do you think it's the media's job to give us only non-disturbing news?!?! When you say "in turn disturb us even more", by "us" I assume you mean the American people. Why shouldn't we be "disturbed". It was a perfectly horrific day. God forbid the media should come along and "disturb" us with any more news. What utopia do you live in?

"What's scarier: a president leaving unexpectedly or a president who stands firm and finishes what he was doing despite the chaos occuring?"

So, if he'd been, say, playing golf at the time then he should have just continued with his golf game, right?? He wasn't in the midst of some diplomatic summit when the attacks occured. And if people had become scared by his departure, so what? It was a SCARY day, period. Americans aren't such wusses that we'll be thrown into a tailspin if the President should suddenly leave a place to attend to urgent business. Millions of people in this country were raised to believe they'd be vaporized by the Russians if they didn't "duck and cover" at the right moment. Stop painting us as a bunch of scaredy-cats who'd pee our pants if our President suddenly jumped to his feet. Lots of people who were nowhere near the President that day were already scared by the events unfolding. Do you think the students and faculty at Booker Elementary School,as well as the news crew, were going to be somehow shielded from the news of the horror if Bush simply sat there unresponsive? Give me a break.

"So do you think that Bush might have been just a little bit of a target?"

Yes, I do. That was precisely one of my points. In fact, he'd be MORE than "just a little bit of a target" and as such he was endangering those children and the school staff by staying there as long as he did.

"I think that the idea of Bush leaving and "taking care of business" is ridiculous; what was he going to do?"

Once again, I suppose it's best for the president to do precisely NOTHING?? Is that what we pay him for? I'll tell you what he could have done. He could have contacted as many people on his staff as possible to get as much information as possible to find out what was going on and what kind of response might be required. I'm sure it all would have been very hectic and confusing and stressful but that's the nature of the beast at a time like that. In the process of doing that he would have clued in our Defense Secretary and our acting Chairman of the Joints Chiefs who were apparently in the midst of meetings and unaware of what was going on until after the Pentagon was attacked. At the very least he could have distanced himself from those children so that had the terrorists come after him the children would not have been in harms way. But I guess that's just too much to ask and perfectly "ridiculous" besides?? Oh, and he could have put two and two together while he was at it. As we all know now, he'd received an intelligence briefing in Aug.2001 specifically titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US". I don't think it's THAT much of a stretch for someone who'd received a briefing like that to assume the worst when they got news of something devastating happening at one of the Twin Towers--which, as anyone who's been paying attention since the 1993 WTC attacks would know are, or rather were, the Holy Grail for terrorists. Alas, the people in the second tower were told that it was safe for them to return to work because their building was secure. They might not have felt so secure if this administration had been more honest about that briefing they'd JUST received a mere month prior. A lot more people from the second tower might be alive today if Bush hadn't sat on his ass pretending to think that the first attack was an "accident".

As far as Bush not knowing "much of anything" before 9/11, I'll agree with you that he doesn't know much of anything. However, he knows (and knew) a lot more than he's letting on regarding 9/11. Ask the members of the independent commission investigating 9/11 who are having so much trouble getting him to cooperate. He's hedging and stalling and being uncooperative just like a guilty man would.

"Attacking him for not "snapping to" when he found out about 9/11's attacks is a ridiculous and ignorant thing to do."

HUH?!?! Well forgive me if I expect the President to take an interest when the country he is the presumed leader of comes under attack. I didn't suggest that he should have run out and dusted off his old fighter pilot uniform and attempt to take on the hijackers by himself. I don't see what in the world is so "ridiculous" about extricating yourself from a minor photo-op appearance and dealing with the major situation at hand. Our country was under attack!! Someone has to "snap to" and the Commander In Chief should be among them. Jesus, if your attitude is the prevailing one, then it's no wonder the Pentagon, of all things, managed to get hit--almost a full HOUR after the first attack.

Still, all I'm hearing are piss poor excuses from you Bush supporters.

reply

[–] mattholley 20 years ago

When you are out of power, pure hatred and a little innuendo are all you need. :)

reply

[–] scottand 20 years ago

Very analytical and insightful. Thanks for sharing.

reply

[–] darksoulnohope 20 years ago

Very detailed and accurate, I bid you thanks for the good article. It can't be said much more how Bush virtually did nothing for several minutes after being mentioned about a second plane hitting the WTC tower.

Other facts, the top speed of the planes that responded, the F-16 is about 1500 MPH in other words they could have gotten to NYC well before the jumbo jet planes hitting anything and shooting them down before they tried to! (And don't give me the FAA sonic boom regulations, that can be recinded in case of emergency!)

reply

[–] Ndwwaldo78 19 years ago

You're full of $hit scotty, so cram it.

You just got pissed, cause Clinton did less than nothing and you frickin know it.

Bush did his best.

You wouldn't do any better, moron.

By the way, FOUR MORE YEARS!!!!!!

Have a CONSERVATIVE DAY and drive you SUVs and hit an endangered animal!

BWahahahahahaha.

reply

[–] scottand 19 years ago

I'm guessing you're about 13 years old. Either that or you're a typically mindless
Bush supporter. I took the time to elaborate on the points I had to make. If you are capable of doing the same (and I doubt that you are) please be my guest. But I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that judging by the very last two lines of your post that you are simply a flaming moron. And if sitting on his behind in a room full of school children while the World Trade Center towers went up in flames and another plane sped towards the Pentagon is the "best" he could do, then, yes, you are right. Bush did the "best" he could do. Idiot. You and he both.

"THEY WANT FOUR MORE YEARS OF HELL!!"
---Theresa Heinz Kerry

reply

[–] Ddey65 20 years ago

George H.W. Bush was simply a member of the Carlyle Group, as were the Bin Laden Family. But the Bin Laden family aren't all islamic radical terrorists, like Osama. Guess who else is a member -- George Soros.

The FBI has actually been told to "lay of the Saudi's."The funny thing is, is that most of the 9/11 hijackers WERE Saudi, none were Iraqi.

In case you forgot, Saudi Arabia is on OBL's hit list too. Also, just because 15 of them were Saudis doesn't make ALL Saudis guilty. One was Egyptian, one was Lebanese, one was Yemeni, and one was from the United Arab Emirates, but that doesn't make those countries guilty either. None of them were Afghans either, but the order to attack us came from Afghanistan. As for Iraq, just because they didn't attack us on 9/11 doesn't mean the country wasn't guilty of supporting and harboring terrorists.

reply

[–] pdigaudio 20 years ago

Nothing like conspiracy wacko garbage to demonstrate true ignorance and blind partisan hatred. whatreallyhappened.com is a well-known black-helicopter type of website for true conspiracy wackos, the types who believe Mossad and the CIA really did 9/11, that Bush's reaction to the horrible news somehow "proves" he knew all along and even planned the attack himself. Here is some information for you, presuming you are intelligent enough to comprehend it (judging from your idiotic post, you are still reading books with nice pictures you can color with those fat crayons for kindergarteners): the security of the president of the United States is determined by the Secret Service. Protocol since the Kennedy assassination in 1963 has the Secret Service determining the president's movements at a time of crisis. Since we did not know whether any other planes had been hijacked or the extent of the plot against the U.S., the Secret Service dictated the president be taken to the special facility in Nebraska built in case of a nuclear attack. Once it had been determined that no other suicide planes were out there, the president returned to the White House and addressed the nation that night. Now you may continue to believe everything that conspiracy wacko sites like whatreallyhappened.com and the other nutjob and hate sites have to offer, but that reduces you to the level of the Americans who believe Elvis is still alive and that the Holocaust never happened. The men in the white coats from the Funny Farm will come for you and take you away in a rubber truck ... don't worry though, the muzak in there plays the Looney Tunes theme ... you will feel right at home. Michael Moore will have the room right alongside of you.

reply

[–] big_john_studd 20 years ago

Well said!! It makes me sick to know that the terrorists have succeeded in a way when you have so many leftist radicals in this country now pointing fingers at our President for this tragic event, rather than pointing fingers at the REAL culprits; the TERRORISTS!!! These left-wing radicals forgot about 9/11 and the carnage that happened on that day before the dust from the North Tower even settled, and refuse to let us have a united America, as we should after such a horrific attack and our participation in the ongoing War on Terror. Hell, if these people would've been around in 1944, they'd have probably been out there protesting that we deliberately messed up a few vineyards whilst fighting the Germans in Normandy on D-day!! These people want us to hate one another, always mistrust our government in times of national crisis, and will not be satisfied until we are all literally at eachother's throats!! Remember folks, these leftists are not uniters...they are DIVIDERS!!!

reply

[–] fitzvizion 19 years ago

I'm not a huge fan of George Bush, but he is the President, and it is his job to protect us from the Middle East scum that's trying to kill us.

And as long as it's his job, it's up to you and me to support him, just as you or I would need and expect his support if you or I were President.

And about "DC-911," it is the film that had to be made, by someone. I don't care where it was filmed. It is the first in a long line of eagerly-awaited 9-11 films, and I welcome them all.

reply

[–] sljones44 19 years ago

For the umpteenth time...Terrorists are people trying to create change and resist imperialism. In 1776 the patriots of the U.S. were called terrorists by the British. Yes, 9-11 was a tragic event, but Bush's relationship with the Saudi's and the sponsorship for Bin Laden by the CIA in the fight against the Soviets created Bin Laden's tactical planning. His goal being to ensnare the U.S. into a larger conflict with Islam and create a wedge between the Saudi moderates and the Royal family, which Bin laden detested. Then he financed Al-quieda. There is no comparison to this and the 2nd world war. pearl harbor was a pretext to the u.s. involvement in WWII, because the U.S. was paralyzed by isolationism, and was weary of involvement in another war. This is a conflict on another level; involving religion, economics, politics and ultimately the Middle East. Bush would have the Middle East become a pseudo-democracy, and he saw the 9-11 attacks as a sign to pre-emptively attack Iraq, secure its oil (for the main folks who purchase there Japan and Europe) and then "stabilize" the middle east with this wacky coalition. Trouble is, Europe has the Euro and is going to be a power in its own right. We shouldn't mistrust our government, just reform it, so that it doesnt limit our flexibility in a time of rising sentiment against us. The true war is the economic war - and terrorists want to drain the resources by a protracted conflict. - We do have a united america, but we want to be a smarter, wiser America that will regain the trust and goodwill of our allies.
There is no left, no right...just politics
and that gets us into war every time. Dissent just keeps everybody honest, and not to believe everything we hear.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bowlingfc 19 years ago

Its fricken fun y how when us open-minded Liberals present the cons a fact, they decide to ignore it, but WE JUST HAVE TO BELIVE THEM when they go on about how our president is the greatest, but that's just their personal opinion.

reply

[–] Ddey65 19 years ago

For the umpteenth time...Terrorists are people trying to create change and resist imperialism.

And for the umpteenth time, that's a communist lie!! Communist sympathizers were using that accusation as far back as the 1930's when Berlin & Moscow had that non-aggression pact and accusing Western Europe of being "imperialists" for defending themselves against the Third Reich. Every communist war has had people who falsley accuse America of "imperialism" when their support from the USSR, Red China, and Cuba proves they are the imperailists, not us. Even non-communists such as radical islamists have adopted this false accusation. Osama and his ilk have openly demanded that we become an Islamic dictatorship. Al-Muhajiroun has openly declared that they logn for the day when they can plant an Islamic flag on the White House and Buckingham Palace. Blaming the Bush family and their relationship with the Saudis is futile and irrelevant.

reply