The real agenda behind the "Bush Knew" news.

[madkiwi]

Unfortunately so many people in this country are mindless boobs- and they are Congressmen too.

If the government had specific knowledge, no matter how unco-ordinated and ineffectual these bureaucratic alphabet agencies are, the attacks would not have happened.

It is insane (not to mention logically retarded) to draw a connection between "clues" and "knowledge". I "knew" that terrorist attacks would happen in the US one day. How? We piss off a lot of angry people in the world, Arabs tried to destroy the WTC before, the USS Cole, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassy bombings, the Saudi air force barracks.

Let's face it, everyone "knew" it was going to happen, except the same idiots now bleating about what the President knew and when he knew it.

I can't believe that people are so stupid, until I remember that Ted Kennedy and Feinstein keep getting re-elected.

Madkiwi

 

[bikeguy]

The cold hard fact that we all have to face is that we were not prepared for this - NONE of us. It would not have mattered who was in office, it would not have been stopped.

There was a huge failure that allowed this to happen, and there is enough blame for all of us to take some. Was the failure Bush's? Cheney's? Rumsfeld's? No, it was a failure in the system and a false sense of security that this whole country has allowed ourselves to lapse into. And we are going right back to it as we speak (or type). Should there be an investigation? Hell yeah - figure out if we can prevent this from ever happening again or at least how we can keep from being caught off guard when it does. If Bush did know that this was going to happen (yeah right), the press will uncover it. Spending public money on that is nothing but using taxpayer money for political gain ala the Lewinsky scandal.

BTW - think honestly about what your reaction would be if Clinton or Gore had been in office when this happened. If you would not have been here defending him (on this issue )just as you are now defending Bush, then you are no better/different than the people now attacking Bush. Think about it.

 

[Skorzeny]

Yeah, there were plenty of clues about the fall of Soviet Union, too. Yet it caught most, if not all, by surprise.

As a supposed defense analyst, I knew that there would be some sort of a terrorist attack of a signficant nature on the US. I expected NBC or attacks on a critical infrastructure (like communications or power grids).

I was NOT in any way prepared for what happened. It was so high concept, yet low tech and at the same time so destructive both physically and symbolically. I was simply flabbegasted. From what I hear so was Bin Laden - at the unexpected extent of his success.

Not only that, even if we had known about the nature of the attack, without knowing WHEN specifically the warning would be meaningless - unless one is prepared to ground the life of the country to a halt and live like besieged people everyday. Even Israelis don't live like that despite all the suicide bombers who get through.

Skorzeny

 

[Don Gwinn]

I'll tell you what I tell my 13-year old students: it does not good to apologize and then continue to misbehave. You apologized for being combative (though not for being dishonest) and then continued both. What would make you think anyone would take such a clearly false apology seriously?

Fanta, I'm a very patient man. I teach 13-year-old children for a living. And dissenting points of view are encouraged here. On most boards, you'd have been banned simply for coming in with the tone you did. Here, you will be considered a member in good standing unless you violate very clearly defined standards. With all that said, I don't mind admitting that you are straining my considerable patience.

When you call someone a felon and he isn't, that's a falsehood. When you call a Harvard graduate illiterate, that's a falsehood. When you claim that someone lost an election he clearly won, that's a falsehood. These are not matters of opinion. It doesn't matter how many people "agree" with your "point of view." Ignorance is not a point of view.

When you repeated those falsehoods for the fifth and sixth time AFTER being shown repeatedly that they are false, they became "wild" falsehoods, and I stand by that description. I'll say it again; you've thrown away a lot of dignity and a lot of credibility. Had you come in to discuss issues with Bush's positions or his leadership, you'd have found a lot of people ready to chime in, but no one wants to join in with slandering their President whether they agree with his politics or not.

 

[Master Blaster]

You might consider this small Undeniable Factoid:

The Israelis Always KNOW that another suicide bomber is on the way, tomorrow. They have every entrance covered with experienced armed anti terror guards Every Day

GUESS FREAKIN WHAT???

The suicide bombers still get in and STILL KILL People.

You might mention that to any DEMOCRAPPER you see who bashes Bush on his inability to read the future.

People are not stupid as the Demonrats may think, and they will not be fooled by this nonsense.

I expect that alot of demorat seats will be filled with republicans in the fall elections if they keep this nonsense up.

 

[416Rigby]

Difference between a troll and a non-troll

Okay, Fanta, let me spell it out for you. Here is the same argument presented in two different ways: 1) by a troll; 2) by someone who wants to engage in an intelligent debate.

1) I do think Bush is very very bad. I think he is a pampered rich boy who gets what he wants through nepotism in a country renowned for being a meritocracy. Frankly, I do not care what Republican supporters or other apologists for Bush think.

2) I don't agree with many of Bush's policies. For instance, I was surprised with the promptness with which he signed the Campaign Finance Reform bill, which makes me wonder how high his regard for the Constitution really is. In light of this, I am starting to wonder whether he may be bad for America. Furthermore, I remain a little suspicious about the circumstances surrounding his election, and I wonder whether a different Supreme Court would have produced a different result.

Clearly, example 1 is highly uncritical, emotional and sticks labels without presenting facts. Mix this with a primarily Libertarian/Republican board, and you got flames - i.e. the typical flames produced by trolling. So don't resent the moniker if you are unwilling to shake off all the traits.

The second one, instead, presents facts as well as how your negative opinion was formed. Example 2 is obviously more conducive to debate, and would speak a little more highly of the poster and the sincerity of his argument.

I see you still have a few posts here, and you can still set your image straight after this bad start. TFLers are a fair bunch, and we have all slipped up from time to time. But remember this is a venue of high-quality discussion, whether we are talking about agreement or disagreement. You would do yourself a great favor by adopting the same critical mindset and raising the level of your discussion. In the immortal words of Ben Stein, "Stick around, you may learn something".

Tom

 

[Fred Hansen]

Amazing, I wish I could tell the difference between the truth and propaganda.

I wish you could too.