http://gamingtrend.com
November 23, 2014, 01:29:32 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [p] Is Bush really better at the war on terror  (Read 6844 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3320



View Profile
« on: October 27, 2004, 04:27:27 PM »

I mean that seriously.  

Here is what I see.


We are attacked on 9/11 and Bush responds by attacking Afgahnistan.  Ok, fine but it was actually Al Queda who were in Afgahnistan with the permission of the Taliban who attacked the US.  As far as I can tell Al Queda is still going strong.  We haven't captured their leader, we haven't disrupted their network very much, nor have we stopped (or even slowed) world support of them.  

Going by news reports (which are very infrequent about Afgahnistan) it seems like the Taliban is actually back in power in many places, there are whole regions of the country where the US can't go safely and the government of Afgahnistan isn't in control.

How can we see that as a win?  The country is still a great place to run a terrorist camp/resort/spa.


Next thing in the war - we attack Iraq.  WTF?  They didn't have anything to do with 9/11, they were not friendly to Islamic extermists, and they were watched like a hawk by the world.  We seemed to attack because of the whole WMD thing but that now appears to be a load of BS.  

And like Afgahnistan (but more talked about) there are large parts of the country not under control where American's can't go and which seem to be great places for a terrorist hang out.


It just seems like from an objective viewpoint Bush is doing a terrible job in the war on terrorism.  The only defense most people offer (well two) is 1. Kerry would do worse and 2. we haven't been attacked again so it must be working.  Neither of those is a logical argume.  We have no way of knowing how/what Kerry would do.  We can guess but we don't know.  And just because we haven't been attacked doesn't mean we won't be.  It is like saying I must be healthy because I haven't had a heart attack yet!  No, I could still be doing all the wrong things to stay healthy - it just hasn't caught up to me yet.


What am I missing in this that shows Bush is doing a good job?
Logged

Destructor
Special Project Group
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15971


▲▲▼▼◄►◄►B A Start


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2004, 05:56:51 PM »

I doubt you'll see another post from me ever on politics, but let me put it this way why this election is just screwed up:

Okay, when two new people are running for election (previous president hits his 8 years, steps down, whatever), it should be a simple 'this guy verses this guy' 'battle'. You don't know anything about either person short of their history before trying to run for president.

However, for a reelection, it should be a fight between what the previous president did and the new guy. It should be a 'look at what the president did in his last four years, and if you want him in office for another four', not a 'this guy verses this guy' battle.

Unfortunately, the average public is just so dumb, they don't look at what Bush did the last four years in office. Instead, they just look at the person to person fight. They look at all the political bullshit that both sides toss around.

I for one don't care who takes the office 'throne', but I sure as hell don't want Bush there for another four years. I for one would vote for somebody like Nader or an unknown if it meant that it kept Bush out of office.

Yes, I feel that he screwed up that bad overall in his last four years, and that's that. I don't want to take the chance of seeing him do anything worse.

Discuss, as I won't be back. smile
Logged

"All opinions posted are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled."
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2004, 08:45:40 PM »

I like that person vs person/ person vs guy who's been Pres for last four years approach. smile

My take:  ANYONE who is President is going to do about as well when it comes to national defense as anyone else who might be President.  Take the Cold War for example- were we any safer from the Soviets because so and so was Pres vs someone else? No , I think that's obvious because the Soviets didn't take over the world on anyone's watch, Democrat or Republican.

Anyone who is President is going to use the exact same apparatus to fight terrorism. He will be under the same pressures to appear to do it well.  Re-election concerns alone guarantee that. Not to mention wanting to provide coattails so that party members can win seats in the House and Senate.  Anyone who appears lame against terrorism will be out on his ass PLUS destroy his party for the foreseeable future.

If the terrorists get lucky, they get lucky no matter what we do, we just have to deal with that fact.

That's why I see Bush as no better against terror than Kerry.
Logged
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2004, 08:52:54 PM »

Quote from: "gameoverman"
I like that person vs person/ person vs guy who's been Pres for last four years approach. smile

My take:  ANYONE who is President is going to do about as well when it comes to national defense as anyone else who might be President.  Take the Cold War for example- were we any safer from the Soviets because so and so was Pres vs someone else? No , I think that's obvious because the Soviets didn't take over the world on anyone's watch, Democrat or Republican.

Anyone who is President is going to use the exact same apparatus to fight terrorism. He will be under the same pressures to appear to do it well.  Re-election concerns alone guarantee that. Not to mention wanting to provide coattails so that party members can win seats in the House and Senate.  Anyone who appears lame against terrorism will be out on his ass PLUS destroy his party for the foreseeable future.

If the terrorists get lucky, they get lucky no matter what we do, we just have to deal with that fact.

That's why I see Bush as no better against terror than Kerry.

While I agree with you that, at least in so far as we can tell, Kerry and Bush's stances on the "War" seem to be similar approaches with different nuances, but I think if we have learned anything at all in the last 4 years it's that one president can DEFINITELY be worse than others.  I've also learned that it's not neccessarily in the policies where the real difference lay, it's in the details of how those policies are carried out that can make or break an administration.

This is honestly the first election that I have really been caught up in, and I think that is completely because I can now clearly see what a poor president can do to the country.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2004, 09:00:24 PM »

I hope no one thinks I was trying to say that no one can be worse than another, I was just saying that, in the case of fighting terrorism, I don't believe anyone can be 'better' than anyone else.  
Better' being defined as keeping us safer in any practical sense.
Logged
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2004, 09:53:49 PM »

Quote from: "farley2k"
I mean that seriously.  

Here is what I see.


We are attacked on 9/11 and Bush responds by attacking Afgahnistan.  Ok, fine but it was actually Al Queda who were in Afgahnistan with the permission of the Taliban who attacked the US.  As far as I can tell Al Queda is still going strong.  We haven't captured their leader, we haven't disrupted their network very much, nor have we stopped (or even slowed) world support of them.  



That is mind boggling to me, with all due respect.

I stopped reading there actually.
Logged

Wake up.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2004, 10:10:37 PM »

Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
Quote from: "farley2k"
I mean that seriously.  

Here is what I see.


We are attacked on 9/11 and Bush responds by attacking Afgahnistan.  Ok, fine but it was actually Al Queda who were in Afgahnistan with the permission of the Taliban who attacked the US.  As far as I can tell Al Queda is still going strong.  We haven't captured their leader, we haven't disrupted their network very much, nor have we stopped (or even slowed) world support of them.  



That is mind boggling to me, with all due respect.

I stopped reading there actually.

What you have bolded there is absolute fact.

Osama Bin Laden is still a free man (well as free as you can be with a dialysis(sp?) machine attached to you. Tongue), there are still monthly terrorist attacks around the world, our soldiers and citizens are attacked and killed on a daily basis in Iraq, and recruitment in terrorist organizations is through the roof thanks to the anger generated by our invasion of Iraq.

With all due respect.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
dfs
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 96


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2004, 02:42:29 PM »

I know where you are coming from Farly. I apologize for puttine inflamatory langauge into your thread and promise to cease and dissest after this post.

I'm honestly flabergasted at the naivete of the American public. When I listen to the my friends who are Bush supporters, it''s like they live on a different planet or something where Bush is given tremendous credit for things he deserves horrific blame for.

This administration has publicly admitted to lying to congress and the public in order to bring my country into an unjust war. How can anybody turn around and vote for that? How can anybody claim that voting for that "supports the troops?" Now that we've marched off to war based on a lie told from the white house, where are all the people who were morally outraged that Bill Clinton lied?

I could go on and on, but it would just get worse. I am horribly worried about my country. Thanks for letting me vent a bit.
Logged
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2004, 02:58:31 PM »

First of all Farley, what I bolded isn't a fact...  To say we haven't disrupted their network very much is asinine.  We've caught 75% of their known leaders, numerous attacks have been stopped and we're still pursuing them.  


Quote from: "dfs"
I know where you are coming from Farly. I apologize for puttine inflamatory langauge into your thread and promise to cease and dissest after this post.

I'm honestly flabergasted at the naivete of the American public. When I listen to the my friends who are Bush supporters, it''s like they live on a different planet or something where Bush is given tremendous credit for things he deserves horrific blame for.

This administration has publicly admitted to lying to congress and the public in order to bring my country into an unjust war. How can anybody turn around and vote for that? How can anybody claim that voting for that "supports the troops?" Now that we've marched off to war based on a lie told from the white house, where are all the people who were morally outraged that Bill Clinton lied?


No one buys the lying thing anymore.  Incorrect intellegence brought to us by the top intellegence agencies in the world, yes, but outright lying, not even close.
Logged

Wake up.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2004, 03:19:46 PM »

Quote

We've caught 75% of their known leaders, numerous attacks have been stopped and we're still pursuing them.

I've heard Rice et al. expounding about those 75% of leaders that we've captured, but you know what Condoleezza Rice said when Wolf Blitzer asked her how many that was?

Paraphrasing:
"Tens to hundreds"

If they don't even know how many 75% is how in the hell could they know that they've caught 75%?  Also ignoring the fact that terrorists are flocking to Osama's banner in recent month undoing any good this administration may have inadvertantly done.  I mean, temporarily disrupting terrorist activities is one thing, and yes, that has been done, but when thier losses are being replaced 10 fold, how is that winning?

And attacks being stopped is well and good, but it sure doesn't help us if people are still dieing and attacks are still being carried out.

I mean, look at what has happened in just the last week in Iraq:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/28/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/27/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/24/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/24/iraq.diplomat/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/23/iraq.main.intl/index.html

To think they are weakened in any way is like thinking Lynne Cheney has a nice rack. smile

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 28, 2004, 03:40:48 PM »

To think we haven't disrupted their network at all is ignorant.
Logged

Wake up.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 28, 2004, 03:51:00 PM »

Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
To think we haven't disrupted their network at all is ignorant.

Allow me to requote myself. smile
Quote from: "Sepiche"

I mean, temporarily disrupting terrorist activities is one thing, and yes, that has been done, but when their losses are being replaced 10 fold, how is that winning?

You're absolutely right, to think we haven't done any damage is completely ignorant, and I don't argue the fact we have captured a lot of terrorists (and a lot of innocent Iraq's, but I digress), but to look at all the facts is to realize we only driving more and more men to the terrorists. Those men previously had no reason no fight us, but now they have a reason: We attacked their country on false pretenses and killed their friends and family.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2004, 04:05:44 PM »

Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
To think we haven't disrupted their network at all is ignorant.

Allow me to requote myself. smile
Quote from: "Sepiche"

I mean, temporarily disrupting terrorist activities is one thing, and yes, that has been done, but when their losses are being replaced 10 fold, how is that winning?

You're absolutely right, to think we haven't done any damage is completely ignorant, and I don't argue the fact we have captured a lot of terrorists (and a lot of innocent Iraq's, but I digress), but to look at all the facts is to realize we only driving more and more men to the terrorists. Those men previously had no reason no fight us, but now they have a reason: We attacked their country on false pretenses and killed their friends and family.

s


OK, sorry for my tone.

I don't agree though.  The War on Terror as a whole energized the terrorists just as the War with Iraq did.  Personally, I would much rather the terrorists congregate in Iraq with our forces than elsewhere, not to say they're not elsewhere as well.  Also, who gives a shit if we're driving more men to become terrorists?  I think they pretty much showed what they're capable of on September 11, and any retaliation by us would naturally lead to an increase in their numbers.
Logged

Wake up.
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3320



View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2004, 04:06:27 PM »

Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
Quote from: "farley2k"
I mean that seriously.  

Here is what I see.


We are attacked on 9/11 and Bush responds by attacking Afgahnistan.  Ok, fine but it was actually Al Queda who were in Afgahnistan with the permission of the Taliban who attacked the US.  As far as I can tell Al Queda is still going strong.  We haven't captured their leader, we haven't disrupted their network very much, nor have we stopped (or even slowed) world support of them.  



That is mind boggling to me, with all due respect.
I stopped reading there actually.


So it is your belief that these are incorrect statements.  Ok I can understand that.

I have to admit I am not an expert on terrorism or Al Quida (hell I can't even spell it consistently)  Everything I said is what I have gattered from the news.  

There are many, many reports about how support for Al Quida has grown since we attacked Iraq.   It is pretty much a known fact that we haven't caught Osama, and as for the disruption - again I remember news reports that Al Quida was not seriously dsicrupted - some CIA report I believe abut 6 months ago said that.




I am not making this stuff up.  Now I think the debate comes from how much is a big disruption, etc.  So it is matters of degree not whether the basic fact (say that Al Quida still exists and is committing terrorist acts) are true.  Is that your preception as well?
Logged

Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2004, 04:24:51 PM »

Quote

OK, sorry for my tone.

No worries man, it gets me worked up too.  Next time your out buy yourself another drink on me. smile

Quote

Personally, I would much rather the terrorists congregate in Iraq with our forces than elsewhere

That's a valid point.  I think it is clear that a lot of the resources that would have been going into attacking us at home is going into Iraq.  Ethically, I have serious problems with us attacking the innocent people of Iraq just to further our own ends, but I can't deny that you're right about the focus on Iraq.  I'm sure there are still plenty of terrorists to go around though. Tongue

Quote

I think they pretty much showed what they're capable of on September 11, and any retaliation by us would naturally lead to an increase in their numbers.

You're right in that anything we do will cause an increase in recruitment, but I think there is a level of severity to that as well.  Simply striking back at countries that are actually harboring terrorists and making surgical strikes is one thing, but the amount of collateral damage, both physical and political, kicked up by our invasion is, I think, forcing many more to side with the terrorists than otherwise would have.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2004, 04:29:56 PM »

Farley, I understand the numbers have grown which is a natural occurrence when you're at war.

We've disrupted the terrorists, you can view the homeland security webpage or do a good search and see how.
Logged

Wake up.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2004, 04:50:39 PM »

Quote

We've disrupted the terrorists, you can view the homeland security webpage or do a good search and see how.

I agree with Farley on this one, your definition of disruption must be far different than mine.  Taking out a few terrorist cells is just a drop in the bucket.  The problem with fighting a terrorist organization is that it's cells are able to operate independantly, and as long as they have an excess of manpower, losses can be replaced at staggering rates.

It's simply not enough to just disrupt them, and it's that one dimensional aspect of Bush's war, and his inability to recognize it, that is one of his biggest failings.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2004, 06:16:15 PM »

Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote

We've disrupted the terrorists, you can view the homeland security webpage or do a good search and see how.

I agree with Farley on this one, your definition of disruption must be far different than mine.  Taking out a few terrorist cells is just a drop in the bucket.  The problem with fighting a terrorist organization is that it's cells are able to operate independantly, and as long as they have an excess of manpower, losses can be replaced at staggering rates.

It's simply not enough to just disrupt them, and it's that one dimensional aspect of Bush's war, and his inability to recognize it, that is one of his biggest failings.

s


We're continuously going after them though.  How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?  How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.  Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists?  Do you think the military tactics would change?  

I don't get your logic at all.
Logged

Wake up.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2004, 06:38:39 PM »

Quote

We're continuously going after them though. How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?

That's only one dimension.  Going after the terrorists is well and good, but at what point do we recognize what turns a young man into a terrorist and actually try to attack that problem?  That is what needs to be a focus, not perpetuating the violence, but finding a way to end it.

Quote

How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.

Hmm... a war started under questionable circumstances, against a well equiped, well motivated group of ideological guerillas.  Hmm, yeah, I can't think of any past wars in southeast Asia that sound like that. smile  While war against large groups of muslim terrorists is new, clandestine wars against insurgents have been going on since the beginning of time.

Quote

Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists? Do you think the military tactics would change?

My point is that is irrelevent.  It doesn't matter how many more we kill under any president.  That's not going to win this "war".

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Falator
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 222


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2004, 08:00:44 PM »

I think bush has just told us to vote for kerry. He semi-recently just said something similar to "a president should not jump to conclusions without knowing all of the information" (similar, i don't remember the exact quote) when talking about Kerry's comments on the missing explosives. Remind you of any other recent events that he himself has done? I guess Chaney hasn't told him that we invaded Iraq yet, eh? :lol:
Logged
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2004, 08:25:46 PM »

Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote

We're continuously going after them though. How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?

That's only one dimension.  Going after the terrorists is well and good, but at what point do we recognize what turns a young man into a terrorist and actually try to attack that problem?  That is what needs to be a focus, not perpetuating the violence, but finding a way to end it.

Quote

How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.

Hmm... a war started under questionable circumstances, against a well equiped, well motivated group of ideological guerillas.  Hmm, yeah, I can't think of any past wars in southeast Asia that sound like that. smile  While war against large groups of muslim terrorists is new, clandestine wars against insurgents have been going on since the beginning of time.

Quote

Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists? Do you think the military tactics would change?

My point is that is irrelevent.  It doesn't matter how many more we kill under any president.  That's not going to win this "war".

s


And Bush has made it clear that he understand the threat, and that this is a war that will take a long time to win.  I don't think dimplomacy is even an option in this war as it's their hatred that has been around sine the beginning of time.

Falator, no sane person should believe that Bush intentionally mislead anyone.  The simple fact that the top intellegence agencies in the world all came to the same conclusion regarding Iraq pretty much flies in the face of that entire argument.
Logged

Wake up.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2004, 08:26:12 PM »

Quote from: "Falator"
"a president should not jump to conclusions without knowing all of the information"

hehe Yeah I heard that one.  Almost as good as the "Our enemies never stop thinking of ways to harm us and our citizens... and niether do we." quote. smile

/classic

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3320



View Profile
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2004, 09:02:51 PM »

Quote from: "Eco-Logic"


We're continuously going after them though.  How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?  How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.  Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists?  Do you think the military tactics would change?  

I don't get your logic at all.



Yes but I think it can be called one dimensional because Bush has closed off many avenues to get them.  Take the use of alies.  Bush has worked hard to alienate a bunch of countries thus making it harder to get shared information.  I doubt France would purposefully not give us important information but I bet their enthusiasm to help is a lot less than it was - so they are probably not doing the best job they could.

Alienating allies makes the war less robust and I would say more one dimensonal.


"he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are"  This seems to need special attention.  He doesn't go after terrorists where they are.  He invade Iraq - which had nothing to do with Al-Quida!  He hasn't invaded/been tough on some other countries with much, much closer ties to Al Quida.  Look at Pakistan, look at Saudi Arabia.  Both get a free pass from the Bush administration for some reason.  They are major sources of terrorist funding, they are places (the Northern part of Pakistan in particular) where terrorists can find safe haven!  How can it be argued that Bush is going after terrorists wherever they are when he ignores these two countries?



It just seems indefensible to me to say that Bush is truly waging a mult-deminsional war when he alienates valuable allies, and ignores countries with known terrorist ties!
Logged

farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3320



View Profile
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2004, 09:04:53 PM »

Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
Farley, I understand the numbers have grown which is a natural occurrence when you're at war.

We've disrupted the terrorists, you can view the homeland security webpage or do a good search and see how.



Lets be fair.  If I suggested going to a anti-gun site for details on how bad guns are you would not take that as an unbias source - rightly.

I can't take the dept. of homeland security as unbias. They have a vested interest in making themselves look good.  Heck they could even be said to have a responsiblity to do so. It makes Americans feel safer to believe they are doing a good job.
Logged

Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2004, 09:09:27 PM »

Quote from: "farley2k"

He invade Iraq - which had nothing to do with Al-Quida!

Good point man, I missed the forest for the trees about that fact.

The terrorists didn't in fact start pouring over the borders until after the war was turning into an occupation.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Crux
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1543



View Profile
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2004, 09:36:43 PM »

Eco, I know you and I don't get along particularly well, but hopefully we can keep our mutual antagonism down some and have a rational discussion here.

To explain something from a different perspective:

When 9/11 happened and the U.S declared it was going to invade Afghanistan, Australia was the first national to pledge troops. The moment they did that, I was about as proud to be australian as I ever have, because we were stepping up to do the right thing. Nearly the entire world was behind the invasion of Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. At worst some countries were ambivalent. Up to this point, with the tax cuts, I thought Bush was doing a pretty solid job as president.

Since that initial invasion of Afghanistan however my opinion has changed dramatically, and with it the opinion of much of the world.

1) The job in Afghanistan was never finished. Whatever you might say, Bush pulled the majority of troops out of Afghanistan prematurely before the country was secure in order to invade Iraq. He did this despite his own CIA saying at the time that Saddam was not an immediate threat to the U.S. I cannot quote exactly the words, but their comments were something to the effect of "If Iraq does hold weapons of mass destruction, they are unlikely to use them unless attacked."

Now if you look at the mess which is Afghanistan, you cannot pretent for a second that the job there was finished properly. Large regions of the country are still under Taliban control, the elections were incapable of including large portions of the population because of said Taliban control. And it is patently obvious at this point that Iraq was not any sort of an immediate threat to the U.S.

2) The invasion of Iraq. I could have forgiven the Iraqi invasion if a couple of things had taken place. The first being that Afghanistan were properly secured and the job there completed first. It wasn't. The second thing being that there be a comprehensive plan of action of how to deal with the occupation of Iraq once the invasion was complete. I don't care how partisan you are or how often you watch Fox news, NOBODY can say that the occupation of Iraq was properly planned.

Now yes you have now made Iraq the centerpiece of the 'war on terror', but that isn't necessarily as good of a thing as you might think. I mean consider it for a moment. The U.S's borders are at least moderately secure. Within the U.S, your intelligence gathering abilities are a thousandfold greater than in Iraq.

In comparison Iraq is a sieve. People cross the borders practically at will, which is part of the reason you have these incredibly large numbers of terrorists in the country right now causing all this trouble. You have poor intelligence. You have limited manpower, with limited logistics. In other words, you have presented your weakest front to the enemy at their strongest point. That's like having the better football team, but isntead of playing them out on the field sending your *kicker* into their locker room before the game to piss on their lockers. All you've done is make everyone really really angry, and you're not at your strongest to fight them.

So sure, you have americans dying every day in Iraq instead of americans dying here in the U.S. But ask yourself this: how effectively do you really think the terrorists could bring the fight over here? They have to come halfway around the world, find their way into the country somehow, plan, prepare and then execute. All of this at their weakest, with you at your strongest. Imagine too if those soldiers in iraq were instead back here shoring up the borders instead of being shooting gallery ducks in iraq. Wonder how many americans would be dead from the terrorists in the last year and a half then? A lot less than you have now I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money. Because let's not forget that 9/11 was the last terrorist attack on U.S soil. You can sure bet they had opportunity before the troops landed in Afghanistan, but they didn't strike a second time. They probably have opportunity now but they aren't striking. Why would they when they can go to their own freaking locker and beat the shit out of your kicker? Except over there, random people from the stands who would otherwise be staying out of the game are joining in for the hell of it.

Anyways, my point is there is a reason that support for the U.S is waning around the world. It isn't because the french are a bunch of pansies who are afraid to fight. If you take a look around, the populations of the U.S two most stalwart allies, Brittain and Australia, are against what is happening. And both those countries are democracies. If you think their leaderships will continue to support Bush's efforts forever you're mistaken.

Now I'm not going to pretend that everything I have said here is 100% correct. I am sure I've made an error or two along the way. But I seriously challenge you to stop, take a deep breath, forget the partison rhetoric for a moment and read what I wrote with an open mind. If you can't see even ONE valid point in what I've written then I don't fruitful political discussion is even possible.
Logged
Eco-Logic
Gaming Trend Member
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3004


Gamertag: St0ckBroker


View Profile
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2004, 09:52:13 PM »

Quote from: "aussie77"

1) The job in Afghanistan was never finished. Whatever you might say, Bush pulled the majority of troops out of Afghanistan prematurely before the country was secure in order to invade Iraq. He did this despite his own CIA saying at the time that Saddam was not an immediate threat to the U.S. I cannot quote exactly the words, but their comments were something to the effect of "If Iraq does hold weapons of mass destruction, they are unlikely to use them unless attacked."


I don't agree.

Quote from: "General Tommy Franks"
Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom, we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May, we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.


It's also a fact that our intelligence agency wasn't the only one giving us intel which lead to the invasion.  Bush in no way intentionally misled us.

Ultimately though, the UN had a responsibility to uphold their resolution and didn't and that alone was reason enough to invade.  



Quote
2) The invasion of Iraq. I could have forgiven the Iraqi invasion if a couple of things had taken place. The first being that Afghanistan were properly secured and the job there completed first. It wasn't. The second thing being that there be a comprehensive plan of action of how to deal with the occupation of Iraq once the invasion was complete. I don't care how partisan you are or how often you watch Fox news, NOBODY can say that the occupation of Iraq was properly planned.

Now yes you have now made Iraq the centerpiece of the 'war on terror', but that isn't necessarily as good of a thing as you might think. I mean consider it for a moment. The U.S's borders are at least moderately secure. Within the U.S, your intelligence gathering abilities are a thousandfold greater than in Iraq.

In comparison Iraq is a sieve. People cross the borders practically at will, which is part of the reason you have these incredibly large numbers of terrorists in the country right now causing all this trouble. You have poor intelligence. You have limited manpower, with limited logistics. In other words, you have presented your weakest front to the enemy at their strongest point. That's like having the better football team, but isntead of playing them out on the field sending your *kicker* into their locker room before the game to piss on their lockers. All you've done is make everyone really really angry, and you're not at your strongest to fight them.

So sure, you have americans dying every day in Iraq instead of americans dying here in the U.S. But ask yourself this: how effectively do you really think the terrorists could bring the fight over here? They have to come halfway around the world, find their way into the country somehow, plan, prepare and then execute. All of this at their weakest, with you at your strongest. Imagine too if those soldiers in iraq were instead back here shoring up the borders instead of being shooting gallery ducks in iraq. Wonder how many americans would be dead from the terrorists in the last year and a half then? A lot less than you have now I'd be willing to bet a whole lot of money. Because let's not forget that 9/11 was the last terrorist attack on U.S soil. You can sure bet they had opportunity before the troops landed in Afghanistan, but they didn't strike a second time. They probably have opportunity now but they aren't striking. Why would they when they can go to their own freaking locker and beat the shit out of your kicker? Except over there, random people from the stands who would otherwise be staying out of the game are joining in for the hell of it.

Anyways, my point is there is a reason that support for the U.S is waning around the world. It isn't because the french are a bunch of pansies who are afraid to fight. If you take a look around, the populations of the U.S two most stalwart allies, Brittain and Australia, are against what is happening. And both those countries are democracies. If you think their leaderships will continue to support Bush's efforts forever you're mistaken.

Now I'm not going to pretend that everything I have said here is 100% correct. I am sure I've made an error or two along the way. But I seriously challenge you to stop, take a deep breath, forget the partison rhetoric for a moment and read what I wrote with an open mind. If you can't see even ONE valid point in what I've written then I don't fruitful political discussion is even possible.


As I said, I feel the War in Iraq is a just war.  I'm sure we can agree to disagree on that.  I do agree that we were not as prepared for Iraq, after the fall of Saddam as we should have been.  

It's 10 minutes till closing time at work and I have to lock up so I have to go, I will try and add more thoughts later smile

*oh, by the way, I think we get along ok, we just don't agree smile
Logged

Wake up.
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2004, 01:01:45 AM »

Suggestion:  Watch Fahrenheit 9/11.  Yes, I know it's anti-Bush.  But listen to the facts presented.  Look at the ties between Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Bush Sr., James Baker, the Bin Laden family, the Taliban, and the companies that tie them all together.  It's freaking -scary-.  Look at Bush's INITIAL reaction on 9/11, and how long it took him to even respond normally.  Look at what happened in the month or so -after- 9/11.  Look at who the Patriot Act targetted (Civic Peace Groups, a guy venting at a gym, et al).  

If you can honestly say, after watching that film, that Bush has done a good job against terror, or a good job in general....then I honestly have no hope for you.

This isn't a slam, either.  Just watch it.  Please.

And Vote your conscience on 11/2.
Logged
me3000
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2004, 01:57:39 AM »

You do realize Kerry talked about how he spent an hour in a daze not knowing what to do?   F9-11 jumps Bush for spending a few minutes with kids.   Compare that with what Kerry said he did...

I hope you realize F9-11 isn't just anti-bush but chock full of massive distortions of the truth?   Hate Bush all you want but you might want to fact check your movie a bit.
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2004, 02:05:34 AM »

Here's the difference though.  Kerry was a senator at the time.

BUSH WAS THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF OUR COUNTRY.

See the difference in the level of responsibility there?  

By the way?  Every fact noted in F9/11 is -documented-.  Bush sitting there blankly?  On film.  Bush spending 40% of the first 3 years of his time in office on vacation or en route?  Documented.  The ties between the people I mentioned, including the Bin Ladens, the Taliban, and the companies?  All documented.   Moore -did- check his facts, and then wrote a book listing each of them as a huge bibliography.

I can provide links easily enough. smile
Logged
me3000
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2004, 02:15:36 AM »

Take from: www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm  

Bush on September 11

Cheap Shot

 

Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read the book My Pet Goat to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks. Actually, as reported in The New Yorker, the book was Reading Mastery 2, which contains an exercise called "The Pet Goat." The title of the book is not very important in itself, but the invented title of My Pet Goat makes it easier to ridicule Bush.

 

What Moore did not tell you:

Gwendolyn Tose’-Rigell, the principal of Emma E. Booker Elementary School, praised Bush’s action: "I don’t think anyone could have handled it better." "What would it have served if he had jumped out of his chair and ran out of the room?"…

 

She said the video doesn’t convey all that was going on in the classroom, but Bush’s presence had a calming effect and "helped us get through a very difficult day."

"Sarasota principal defends Bush from ‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ portrayal," Associated Press, June 24, 2004. Also, since the President knew he was on camera, it was reasonable to expect that if he had suddenly sped out of the room, his hasty movement would have been replayed incessantly on television; leaving the room quickly might have exacerbated the national mood of panic, even if Bush had excused himself calmly.

 

Moore does not offer any suggestion about what the President should have done during those seven minutes, rather than staying calm for the sake of the classroom and of the public. Nor does Moore point to any way that the September 11 events might have turned out better in even the slightest way if the President had acted differently. I agree with Lee Hamilton, the Vice-Chair of the September11 Commission and a former Democratic Representative from Indiana: "Bush made the right decision in remaining calm, in not rushing out of the classroom."

 

Moreover, as detailed by the Washington Times, Ari Fleischer was in the back of the classroom, holding up a legal pad with the words, "DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET." The Secret Service may well have been cautious about moving Bush, not only because of hijackings, but also because on the morning of September 11, a Middle Eastern man had tried to gain personal access to the President by falsely claiming that he was a journalist with a scheduled interview, and by asking for a Secret Service agent by name

 



Josef Gobels would have loved Moore.   Distort & Twist.   Moore should be running for office himself.   He'd make a good canadate.
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2004, 02:25:25 AM »

Actually, it stands to reason that if you're the President, and you're told flat out that "Our country has been attacked." that the intelligent and responsibile thing to do would have been (to the teacher) "Excuse me, ma'am.  I'm going to have to call this short.   I'm sorry."  (to the children), "It's been a pleasure visiting with you all today, take care."  then get out of the room, calmly and rationally, and FIND OUT WHAT THE HELL WENT DOWN.

The point remains that Bush did enough dicking around that he was pretty damn ineffectual.  

See, I even voted for Bush for Governor of Texas, and for President in 2000.  It won't matter that I'm voting for Kerry next week, because Bush'll win Texas.  The fact still remains that if he was in a job that he was hired to do (instead of elected), that he'd have long since been fired.  

It's not that Kerry's the right man for the job.  It's that Bush has proven over the past 3.5 years that he's the wrong man for the job.

At the best, it shows that Bush has been led by the hand by his staff and 'advisors' for the past four years.  At the worst, he's nothing more than a puppet President, and we don't need that.  

Oh, and there's also the fact that he himself has said that he views himself as more of a 'war president'.  Gee.  That's what we needed.  More war.
Logged
me3000
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2004, 02:33:03 AM »

Ahh - so you think Kerry is a better leader?   Perhaps a decisive decision maker.   A strong legislator perhaps?

Bush probably isn't going to be seen as the greatest president of our time.  Between Bush 1, Clinton 1 and Bush 2 we've had almost 16 years of so-so presidents.  However Kerry's past hasn't shown anything like the ability to be better than Bush as a president.
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2004, 02:49:47 AM »

I think that Kerry deserves the chance to -show- that he can be a better leader and President than Bush has been.  Viewing Bush's presidency has been akin to watching a long car wreck.  It's horrifying to see, terrifying to experience, but you just can't turn your head away from it, for fear of what you might miss, and for fear of what's going to happen next.

Bush terrifies me.  The ties he has with the Taliban, the Saudis, and the Bin Laden family, as well as the ties the inner core of the Bush Presidency has with Big Business, which has grown immensely wealthy off of the war in Afghanistan and Iraq and 9/11 itself, scares the hell out of me.

The thought of four more years of Bush in office, making America the most hated country in the world, and where he might decide to invade -next- (Iran?  North Korea?) makes me want to cry.  

Oh, and as far as flip-flopping goes?  The Bush presidency has shown enough of -that- on Saddam Hussain himself.  As far as Kerry goes, the one thing he's been guilty of is believing in our president, and following his leadership.  He voted for the war in Iraq because he believed what he had been told.  Yes, we had bad information.  However, the President and John Ashcroft both had information before 9/11 about terrorist activities.  Bush ignored it as late as August of 2001.  Ashcroft flat out told the interim head of the FBI that he didn't want to hear it.

Then you've got the fact that no one even READ all of the Patriot Act before they voted it in.  

This presidency scares me to my very core.
Logged
me3000
Welcome to Gaming Trend

Offline Offline

Posts: 7


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2004, 03:06:25 AM »

As to those ties to the Saud family, etc.   I hate to tell you this but so does everyone else.   Those folks have been building relationships with everyone for decades.   Kerry knows them too.

Anyhow, I've seen ineffective presidents before - I go back to Carter myself.   Carter has a moral center to him, he couldn't lead but you could respect him as a person.   I just don't see anything in Kerry but an opportunist.   He comes across as a less talented Clinton.   A political hack if you will.

He does have a knack for finding rich widows though  smile
Logged
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2004, 03:32:24 AM »

Oh, that's definitely true.  In fact, F9/11 -says- that the Saudis own like 850 billion dollars of US stuff, and have close to between 1 and 2 Trillion in our banks and the stock market.  

But hey, it dosen't mean you adopt them into your family, like the Bush family did. *grin*

Like I said, and as the pollster guy on tonight's Daily Show put it...for me, it's not Bush vs. Kerry.  It's Bush vs. Not-Bush.  And Not-Bush gets my vote.
Logged
Falator
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 222


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2004, 03:34:14 AM »

Quote from: "Eco-Logic"
Quote from: "Sepiche"
Quote

We're continuously going after them though. How do you figure Bush's war is one dimensional when he promises to go after the terrorists wherever they are?

That's only one dimension.  Going after the terrorists is well and good, but at what point do we recognize what turns a young man into a terrorist and actually try to attack that problem?  That is what needs to be a focus, not perpetuating the violence, but finding a way to end it.

Quote

How can you fault a President for not disrupting the terrorists enough, when as a country we've never fought a war like this.

Hmm... a war started under questionable circumstances, against a well equiped, well motivated group of ideological guerillas.  Hmm, yeah, I can't think of any past wars in southeast Asia that sound like that. smile  While war against large groups of muslim terrorists is new, clandestine wars against insurgents have been going on since the beginning of time.

Quote

Do you honestly think that if Clinton were in power right now we would have caught/killed more terrorists? Do you think the military tactics would change?

My point is that is irrelevent.  It doesn't matter how many more we kill under any president.  That's not going to win this "war".

s


And Bush has made it clear that he understand the threat, and that this is a war that will take a long time to win.  I don't think dimplomacy is even an option in this war as it's their hatred that has been around sine the beginning of time.

Falator, no sane person should believe that Bush intentionally mislead anyone.  The simple fact that the top intellegence agencies in the world all came to the same conclusion regarding Iraq pretty much flies in the face of that entire argument.


No sane person would believe Bush misled us intentionally? What led you to that conclusion other than your radical conservatism? Of course the administration misled us! Then they misled us later on when they tried to convince us that we went to Iraq to free the people after they couldn't find links to 9/11 or WMDs there. Now, I don't believe Bush Lied to us (Chaney would have advised him against direct lying), but only so many things can go wrong before you start to question him....
Logged
Graham
Managing Editor
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4017


View Profile WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2004, 04:51:18 AM »

Zarkon:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20040702.html

Quote
Moore also uses the power of insinuation to play on the relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens. The facts are thin, but that doesn't stop him from making ominous suggestions about the connections between the two.

After discussing the September 11 attacks, Moore presents clips from an interview between Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar and CNN's Larry King in which Bandar describes Osama Bin Laden as a "simple and very quiet guy." Moore then intones the following over video of Bush in a Florida classroom after being told of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center:

Hmm. A simple and quiet guy whose family who just happened to have a business relationship with the family of George W. Bush. Is that what he was thinking about? Because if the public knew this, it wouldn't look very good.
"Just happened" to have a business relationship? What does Moore mean? He doesn't say precisely, of course, but he draws a series of tenuous and often circumstantial links between Bin Laden family investments and Bush's actions as President.

For instance, Moore shows that the White House blacked out the name of another Texas Air National Guard pilot who was suspended along with Bush - James R. Bath - in service records released earlier this year. He suggests that the White House was not concerned about privacy and instead wanted to hide Bath's links to Bush:

Why didn't Bush want the press and the public to see Bath's name on his military records? Perhaps he was worried that the American people would find out that at one time James R. Bath was the Texas money manager for the Bin Ladens.
Moore notes that Bath was retained by Salem Bin Laden, and describes Bush's founding of the Arbusto oil company. James Moore, an author, appears next, saying in an interview that "there's no indication" Bush Sr. funded Arbusto and that the source of the firm's investments is unknown. Michael Moore then piles on the innuendo in his narration:

So where did George W. Bush get his money?... [archival clip of Bush saying "I'm George Bush"] One person who did invest in him was James R. Bath. Bush's good friend James Bath was hired by the Bin Laden family to manage its money in Texas and invest in businesses. And James Bath himself in turn invested in George W. Bush.
This phrasing suggests that Bath invested Bin Laden family money in Arbusto. But as Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball note in an online Newsweek column and Matt Labash points out in a Weekly Standard article on the film, Bath has stated this investment was his money, not the Bin Ladens'. Moore presents no evidence to the contrary.

The film also notes investments in United Defense, a military contractor, by the Carlyle Group, a firm that Bush and his father have been involved with which counts members of the Bin Laden family among its investors. He states:

September 11 guaranteed that United Defense was going to have a very good year. Just six weeks after 9/11, Carlyle filed to take United Defense public and in December, made a one-day profit of $237 million. But sadly, with so much attention focused on the Bin Laden family being important Carlyle investors, the Bin Ladens eventually had to withdraw.
Moore's phrasing suggests that the Bin Ladens profited from the post-Sept. 11 buildup with the United Defense IPO but were forced to withdraw after the stock sale. However, Labash notes that the Bin Ladens withdrew before the initial filing, not afterward, missing the big payday Moore insinuates that they received.

Finally, Moore drops a big number - $1.4 billion - claiming "That's how much the Saudi royals and their associates have given the Bush family, their friends and their related businesses in the past three decades," adding that "$1.4 billion doesn't just buy a lot of flights out of the country. It buys a lot of love." But Isikoff and Hosenball show that nearly 90% of that total comes from contracts awarded by the Saudi government to BDM, a defense contractor owned by Carlyle. But when the contracts were awarded and BDM received the Saudi funds, Bush Sr. had no official involvement with the firm, though he made one paid speech and took an overseas trip on its behalf. He didn't actually join Carlyle's Asian advisory board until after the firm had sold BDM. And though George W. Bush had previously served on the board of another Carlyle company, he left it before BDM received the first Saudi contract. As usual, the connections are loose and circumstantial at best.


Emphasis mine.  That's just a portion of wat they have to say.  Michael Moore's lies are larger than his waistband.
Logged

Partial Owner of the World Champion Green Bay Packers
Zarkon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 4848


View Profile WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2004, 06:23:15 AM »

I take it they have sources for all of their data, as Michael Moore does?

From F 9/11:  "As the attack took place, Mr. Bush was on his way to an elementary school in Florida.  When informed of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, where terrorists had struck just eight years prior, Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with his photo opportunity."

Note:  it should be emphasized that at the time Bush was notified of the first plane attack, he (unlike the rest of America) was already aware that Osama bin Laden was planning to attack America by hijacking airplanes, per the August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief (PDB).  He was also aware, of course, that the World Trade Center had been historically a target for terrorist attacks.  he nonetheless went ahead with this photo opportunity in a school full of children.

Source:  "Mr. Bush arrived at the school, just before 9 AM, expecting to be met by its motherly principal, Gwen Rigell.  Instead he was pulled sharply aside by the familiar, bulky figure of 51-year-old Karl Rove, a veteran political fixer and trusted aide of both Mr. Bush and his father, George Sr.  Mr. Rove, a fellow Texan with an expansive manner and a colorful turn of phrase, told the President that a large commercial airliner (American Flight 11) had crashed into the North Tower of the World Trade Center.  Mr. Bush clenched his teeth, lowered his bottom lip and said something inaudible.  Then he went into the school."  William Langley, "Revealed:  What Really Went on During Bush's 'Missing Hours,'" The Telegraph, December 16, 2001.

Source:  "The airborne attack on the World Trade Center was at least the second terrorist attempt to topple the landmarks.  In 1993, terrorists sought to bomb one building so that it would explode and fall into the other.  The plot did not succeed, but six people were killed and more than 1,000 injured." Cragg Hines, "Terrorists Strike from Air; Jetliners Slam into Pentagon, Trade Center" Houston Chronicle, September 11, 2001.

Source:  August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief (PDB), "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US":  "Al-Qa'ida members--including some who are US citizens--have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.... FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."  August 6, 2001, "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike Inside US," http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf


As far as the Carlyle Group goes, they forget to note the fact that GWBush was on the board of directors for Caterair, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.  This was in the early 1990s.  Article title is:  "Little-Known Carlyle Scores Big,"  New York Times, March 26, 1991.   He was with them until 1994, according to the Houston Chronicle in a September 17, 1994 article titled "Campaign '94 Fisher's Staff Slips Up on Spanish".  

Then you've got GHWBush joining the Carlyle Group along with James Baker and former Defense Secretary Frank C. Carlucci in the mid 90s, "The Barreling Bushes; Four Generations of the Dynasty Have Chased Profits Through Cozy Ties with mideast Leaders, Spinning Webs of Conflicts of Interest," Los Angeles Times, October 26, 2001.

You've got the Bin Laden Family investing in Carlyle in 1994, and GHW Bush visited their family HQ in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.  "Bin Laden Family Liquidates Holdings with Carlyle Group," New York Times, October 26, 2001.

As far as more ties, you've got the fact that James Baker, former British PM John Major, GHWBush, Shafiq bin Ladin (OBL's half-brother), and others were in the same room in Washington DC on 9/11 when the towers were hit.  Dan Briody, The Iron Triangle (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003), pp 139-140.  Also, "What Do George Bush, Arthur Levitt, Jim Baker, Dick Darman, and John Major Have in Common? (They All Work for the Carlyle Group)," Fortune, March 18 2002.

The bin Ladens had to withdraw from the Carlyle group (aforementioned NYT article) due to the scrutiny after 9/11, but GHWBush stayed on the Asia Board until October 2003, as per http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/news/l4-presskit681.html#8

Oh, and Moore never says the Saudis gave -The Bushes- 1.4 Billion.  The quote is:

"Another group of people invest in you, your friends, and their related businesses $1.4 billion over a number of years."

Source:  "In all, at least $1.46 billion had made its way from the Saudies to the Houst of Bush and its allied companies and institutions." Craig Unger, House of Bush, House of Saud (Scribner, 2004), p 200.  For a complete breakdown of the investments, see Unger's Appendix C, pp. 295-298.  This number includes investments made and contracts awarded at the time Bush's friends were involved in the Carlyle Group.  

I'm counting about a page and a half of sources on this one.  I wish I could just OCR it, my hands are getting sore smile

All of the stuff I'm getting is from The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader by Michael Moore.  For the screenplay alone, it's worth $10.  Add in all the letters, essays, newspaper articles, and the sources for everything...

But hey...if you're bound and determined to vote for Bush, this won't change your mind.  In fact, you'll find a website to refute it, back and forth smile
Logged
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3320



View Profile
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2004, 01:44:40 PM »

Quote from: "me3000"
Ahh - so you think Kerry is a better leader?   Perhaps a decisive decision maker.   A strong legislator perhaps?

Bush probably isn't going to be seen as the greatest president of our time.  Between Bush 1, Clinton 1 and Bush 2 we've had almost 16 years of so-so presidents.  However Kerry's past hasn't shown anything like the ability to be better than Bush as a president.


The honest answer for me is I have no idea if Kerry would be a better leader.  I don't know how we can say at this point.

An obvious knee-jerk liberal response would be - hell yes look at what he did in Nam!  He was a decorated hero.  Those who served under him think he is a very good leader!

But I don't know.  I do know how Bush has done.  And for me it isn't good ehough.  That doesn't mean Kerry wouldn't suck, I just have no first hand information about how well or poorly Kerry sucks.... :roll:
Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.206 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.045s, 2q)