Is Bush the worst president ever?

[cycle454]

He had a decent first term, but is making a run in his second. But there have been worse. We've had some very bad presidents.

:hatsoff:

 

[colleguy_1]

Time will tell if he's the worst ever. I believe he's definitely up there among the worst though. :2 cents:

 

[Dirty Sanchez]

Watch Fahrenheit 9/11

I would suggest to you to go watch FahrenHYPE 9/11. It should give you a new light on the lies and miss representation of facts Moore used to spin his web of deceit.

You're probably talking about the minor WTC bombing right? That has nothing to do with this.

Minor?!?! MINOR!??!! Are you fucking kidding me? How was that “minor”? Just because the buildings weren’t destroyed, doesn’t mean it was minor.

Again, this is a prefect example of how the left completely ignores or discounts events and facts to try and prove their stand. OBL wanted to destroy the WTC. He failed in ’93. He succeed in his next attempt. Maybe if Clinton had taken custody of OBL when he had the chance, 9/11 would not have happened.

Show some respect.

Indeed. Show some intelligence and you’ll get some respect.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993?

You're probably talking about the minor WTC bombing right? That has nothing to do with this.

Bullshit! It has everything to do with this!
They tried to bring down the WTC back then! It didn't work. They were built too good.
The level of explosives required to take down a building of similar size and structure of the WTC could not take them down because of the internal design of the WTC.

So they found another way to bring them down -- to test the "next President."
And it took fully loaded 757's with 30+ minutes of jet fuel burning intense heat to finally melt the superstructure!
That's what finally did it -- the WTC's were a marvel of engineering design -- almost terrorist proof!

Clinton was tested.
W. was tested.
The next US President will be tested.
A new approach to terrorize Americans we just didn't think of before.
They'll find a way and it will succeed -- even if only partially.
And then they'll come back in another 4-8 years to attempt again.

I don't like being talked down to ... Don't tell me what I know and don't know. Show some respect.

Now listen here ...
I have gone out of my way to show respect
Yet you continue to ignore history, and call things like the original WTC "minor."

Every engineer understands both bombings of the WTC and what they tried to do, and why the WTC almost survived the second attempt too!
The first one was not "minor" at all! -- the second one was just more effective!

People are labeling, demonizing and repeatedly insulting Americans -- not giving one consideration to any ounce of logic!
I'm not sitting there and insulting the nationality of others, going out of my way to interpret events and otherwise trivalize and demonize events to fit a political agenda!

Terrorists board planes, use box cutters to cut the necks of stewards and stewardesses and tell the passengers they have a bomb.
You are instructed not to be a hero and obey, because your actions can get others killed.
The first 3 planes go down within minutes of each other -- before anyone knows what is going on.

And yet, that 4th plane -- when the passengers, largely American commuters, know and learn what is going to happen -- the numbers make the choice clear.
And yet, you still spew the non-sense on conspiracy theories, disregard the actual, historical events and expect me to take you seriously?!

I don't blame Clinton for the 1993 WTC bombing, countless other events that happened during his administration and his failure to put things together into the realization that Al Quieda was behind all -- until he finally "woke up" in 1998?
It's all hindsight, I can excuse that, I can even understand that.
But then not only do I see the same people who excuse Clinton blaming W. for 9/11, but even suggesting he was behind it?
Because they can't believe that Americans wouldn't do anything if terrorists started using boxcutters to slit throats and claim to have a bomb on-board?

Sorry, I really don't respect your opinion at all after all that.

You're saying we Americnas are stupid, and I'm sorry, we're not.
And unlike Al Gore, some of us Americans can actually dislike the President without feeling the need to hate, blame or otherwise disown ourselves as Americans.
Let alone we're not going to lengths to spew rhetoric that is so insulting to our intelligence that it just doesn't fit at all!

So if you really think I'm "insulting you," you outta stop and consider what you're saying in the first place!

 

[Member2019]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993?

I have a 3.8 in college, I had the best grades in the history of my high school in England (withstanding), I have an A-Level grade A in history, I have a $40,000 academic scholarship, and I went to Oxford University last semester and did pretty well. So I don't give a damn if I'd fail your history course. Obviously not a very fair grader. People who get good grades know the difference between writing what we REALLY think and writing the bullshit that fits the professor's narrow mind (not you, any single-minded professor). You can't get A's by saying what you really think.

It was a figure of speech.
But you get an A in political-based rhetoric.
And utter disrepect for some of us Americans.

 

[Member2019]

Yes! Ulysses S. Grant is up there!

U.S. Grant was the worst President in our history. I find it discouraging that this far into the thread, I have to be the first to mention him. Either know your history, or shut the fuck up.

Thank you!
33rd (out of 36 was it?) in his graduating class from West Point.
Spent most of his time drunk -- probably more than any President.
And yes, this is the man who replaced Andrew Johnson!
A.J. being the President people ass-u-me is the "worst" merely because he underwent impeachment proceedings and saved by only 1 vote.
Someone the "radical Republicans" wanted to get rid of because he wasn't "tough enough on rebels."

Sigh, thank you so much for a great answer!

Now I can't agree that Ulyssess S. Grant was the worst, but merely because of timing and circumstance. He was too drunk to do much at all. You have to have and wield power -- effectively or ineffectively -- to garner my respect or criticism. In fact, a drunk in the Whitehouse who didn't get anything done was probably the best thing for the US in 1868. Andrew Johnson was too admirable and fair for the "radical Republicans" of the time, and that's why he got shafted.

Sometimes the greatest Presidents are those who garner the greatest criticisms abroad and among the people.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993?

I get an A in every class I take and I don't even try because I hate school because half of it is biased patriotic bullshit dressed as fact.

Again, it was a figure of speech.

You said in the above post I should show some intelligence ... Read every word I wrote and tell me where I said Americans were stupid.

Your entire and continual logic suggests some of us are stupid.
I invite you to re-read my response here:
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=726316

When you completely make up quotes and attribute them to people, it destroys all credibility. You are not as smart as you think you are, you just think you know everything. I don't think I know everything, but I know that you don't.

I have accidentally attributed the wrong quote to the wrong person and apologized for that in the past.
It wasn't intentional or a political ploy, but the fact that I often try to append multiple responses into one message, and accidentally copy the wrong name in the wrong place sometimes.
I haven't done it in weeks.

Fox, who promised not to respond, but has a habit of defending his integrity when it is repeatedly attacked by people who can't help from getting personal when people state their opinions in a supposed environment of free speech.

I'm sorry, but I'm not continually attacking the nationalities of others like I've seen here.
You (among others) have disgraced Americans, our intelligence and made all sorts of comments that I don't think you realize how far the actually go!

PS BTW, you're the one with "utter disrespect for Americans" every time you make blanket statements like "Americans know not to be heroes" and so on and so forth. You can't speak for your country, 99% of them are NOTHING LIKE YOU, THANK GOD!

So if you were on a plane and someone cut the steward's throat and another said they had a bomb, you'd rush them and endanger the lives of all the other people on the plane?
Remember, this is before you knew they were going to crash the plane into buildings and everyone was going to die anyway.

I honestly don't see your logic at all -- whereas I have painstakenly taken the time and effort to explain -- IN DETAIL -- my logic.
I have defended Americans, its decision makers (including Clinton and others, not just W. -- he just seems to be more popular of a target than Clinton here) and other and not attacked anyone's nationality or other reasons.

For once, can someone at least admit that I have done that!
My nationality is continually attacked -- we're not all stupid.
And for God sakes, I didn't even vote for W.!
I don't like him but this conspiracy theory bullshit is really getting old!
Especially when I have shown SOUND LOGIC and yet you continue to insult our collective intelligences.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993?

Your logic is based on your facts given by your media.
I doubt their credibility.

And the 9/11 investigations and Congressional findings too then I assume?
The actual tapes reviews?
I mean, if terrorists came on board, cut the pilot's throats, cut one or more stewards/stewardesses and claimed they had a bomb, what would you do?

But let's say you're right for a moment.
Are you saying they didn't use box cutters?
Or are you saying there were no terrorists?
Or what are you saying happened? -- With specifics for once!

It's not my problem if you're tired of hearing conspiracy theories.
I have my right to voice what I believe.

Well can you give us anything -- any piece of information on what happened?
I haven't seen that out of you yet!

I don't want this to be a conspiracy. I don't want it to have ever happened.
But I know it did happen, and I believe there's a lot more to it than any of us know.

Have you read the available Congressional reports on this?
Things that aren't exactly "controlled by the White House"?
Again, you have given 0 specifics or explainations!

All the meanwhile, I have explained how terrorists could and would subdue the passengers by killing the pilots, killing a steward/stewardest or two and claiming to have a bomb -- at least with the first 3 planes.
It is very logical, very well explained, and some of it is based on the factual evidence of what happened on the 4th flight!

And I know for sure that none of us can know for sure because none of us were there.
But there is proof, one way or the other, somewhere.

But can you give me *1* logical set of information, theories or anything?
At this point, I'll take any logical explanation -- even if I don't believe it.
You haven't seen fit to even to that -- yet dismiss a very, very logical set of explanations -- some backed up by recorded phone calls and transponder data from the 4th plane.

Which is when the hostages learned they were going to die anyway, and take others with them. Which is why they logically realized it didn't matter if they had a bomb or were going to kill others on the plane -- they needed to stop them.

I'm tired of explaining things like this.
Why the terrorists hijacked 757s -- very well built aircraft designed in the '80s that carries quite a bit of fuel for its size and has very powerful engines for its size.
How badly the terrorists flew the planes according to the transponder data -- which the 757, unlike a 727/737/747, could take -- even you could fly one (take-off/landing is another story).
And countless other "conspiracy theories" in this and other threads.

Let alone the moon landings and other threads.
But what the fuck do I know?
I'm just a dumb fucking engineer who seems to know US history at least a little better than you do.
The 1993 WTC bombing "minor"? Ha!

 

[hedgehog]

My :2 cents:

In 1993, the WTC was bombed. This was the US's first major domestic attack by Islamic extremists. After this attack, the Clinton administration devoted itself to determining the source of the attacks and to the development of intelligence assets which would allow future attacks to be prevented.

What were the effects, well the mastermind of the 93 WTC bombing is now in the same federal "super-max" prison that Moussoui is heading to. Clinton then began a bombing campaign against the Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. Of course his campaign was ended pre-maturely due to the growing "blow-job heard round the world" crisis.

Would Al Gore have prevented the 9/11 attacks, I'd like to think he could have, but in truth I do no know. I do sincerely believe that he would not have been SO focused on a possible invasion of Iraq that he would have ignored a Presidential Daily Brief titled, "Al Qaeda determined to strike in the US."

The current administration has been focused from day one (and before the election I believe) on removing Saddam Hussein from power. I personally feel that this is some form of vendetta gone bad for the failed assasination attemp against Bush the elder.

Will Bush be seen historically as the worst president ever. I believe yes.

1. When he was first elected this government was posting surpluses, now it has record deficits which will continue to depress the value of our currency and be inherited by our grand-children (and their grand-children too probably). Was the decline in the economy totally his fault, no. However, the outrageous rise in spending which has occured under his watch is absolutely unforgivable. I would further assert that Republicans have lost all credibility when it comes to "fiscal responsibility."

2. Under Bush's command the policy of the US government is now officially to use military force pre-emptively. In a world where the US is the sole remaining super-power this policy has led to more countries feeling threatened by US force than feeling protected by it. The world no-longer trusts the US to use its military responsibly as a result of the debacle of Iraq.

3. The Bush administration has time and time again used the "Global War on Terror" as an excuse to circumvent the expressed meaning of the Constitiution and the international treaties to which the United States is a signatory (i.e. the Geneva Convention).

4. Following 9/11, the world was united with the US to end terrorism, the Bush administration squandered that good-will by insisting on an un-necessary war of choice in Iraq, based on now discredited assumptions of Iraqi/Al Qaeda collaberation. Leading our historic allies to abandon us.

In conclusion, by weakening American standing worldwide ethically and morally, the Bush administration has placed this country on the cusp of a real crisis involving Iran. We now lack the diplomatic legitamacy to effect real change in this situation. I feel at this time the best course of action is to hope and pray that this sitiuation does not escolate.

 

[4G63]

Watch Fahrenheit 9/11

It will make most people think it's a conspiracy, just like the Google video documentary. But that does not change the fact that it is propaganda. Not clear facts, it's designed to make you think a certain way, just like the BS the US government handed out. The real story is a grey area in between that the populace will never hear.

As for Foxilipsus and Prof V. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rofl:

POSERS :1orglaugh

 

[4G63]

That's an insult there. He kept saying I was an idiot and was lacking in intelligence. I wanted to set the record straight. I have a great education, why does that make me a poser? I'm not posing at all. I am what I am. So I've been in great schools getting good grades for years but I'm not allowed to say that to bolster my credibility? I have problems with high school teachers that think they are Stephen Hawking.

Your fighting over other peoples deaths. I won't say I'm any better.

I'll only concede that I'm in the same boat, I won't take it back.
(never say anything to anyone, that you aren't prepared to say to yourself) Right Mr. Hawking?

 

[Member2019]

Now this is how you make an argument!

My :2 cents: ...

Now that was a well-written piece!
I can't fault your logic, and almost everything you say is true, just disagree with some (although not too many) of your conclusions.

1. When he was first elected this government was posting surpluses,

Not in 2000. By 2000, the .COM bust and related financial fall-out caused some record negative growth too.

now it has record deficits which will continue to depress the value of our currency and be inherited by our grand-children (and their grand-children too probably). Was the decline in the economy totally his fault, no.

Okay, we agree there.

However, the outrageous rise in spending which has occured under his watch is absolutely unforgivable. I would further assert that Republicans have lost all credibility when it comes to "fiscal responsibility."

Now that I do very much agree with!
Excellent points again!

2. Under Bush's command the policy of the US government is now officially to use military force pre-emptively. In a world where the US is the sole remaining super-power this policy has led to more countries feeling threatened by US force than feeling protected by it. The world no-longer trusts the US to use its military responsibly as a result of the debacle of Iraq.

Agreed as well. We already had to start "walking on eggshells" because of the loss of the Soviet Union meant anything we do would be criticized.

The thing I constantly question is how much other countries were already criticizing the US on before W. got in -- merely because the Soviet Union didn't exist anymore. The Clinton administration constantly came under fire by European nations for many actions it took as well! Which is why I don't see this as merely a problem that "ends with W.'s term."

3. The Bush administration has time and time again used the "Global War on Terror" as an excuse to circumvent the expressed meaning of the Constitiution and the international treaties to which the United States is a signatory (i.e. the Geneva Convention).

I agree and disagree.
I agree that the "Global War on Terror" is wrongly being used by the US Executive Branch to bypass protections and separations.
While I believe Clinton started and it was good that W. got approval from Congress, I don't think W. is properly executing it as it was intended by Congress.
And that includes by-passing many of the "secret courts" that were designed to implement due-process.

His consolidation of power of federal agencies has been a bit too scary.
Clinton was too much the other direction, and that was hurting more than protecting.
But I have to think W. has gone far too much the other way.

But I disagree on many treaties -- which we have fully abided by. This not only includes not mistreating detained terrorists (which many independent organizations have verified), but also the full justification for the invasion of Iraq in UN resolutions. At some point, when the UN fails to act, the US does and will continue to do so. Part of the problem is the fact that many countries have their own, selfish, nationalistic interests -- many times far more than the US. And that results in a lack of an "united front" and voice.

As much as I do agree that W. has caused many problems, both Clinton and W. have had to deal with the fact that countries continue to ignore UN resolutions because too many security council members are just damn selfish. If they provided an "united front" and voice on some issues, far many more countries would be listening to the UN security council.

4. Following 9/11, the world was united with the US to end terrorism, the Bush administration squandered that good-will by insisting on an un-necessary war of choice in Iraq, based on now discredited assumptions of Iraqi/Al Qaeda collaberation. Leading our historic allies to abandon us.

At least abandon the US militarily, not always financially. Remember, many countries are supporting us on Iraq because of their strategic interests as well. A lot of decisions being made are because of selfish, nationalistic interests of other countries as much as people paint the US as such.

And there is some truth to the notion of "old Europe." NATO is no longer an alliance that is of the common interests of the US and Europe. I think France and Germany have shown that in how they've handled many situations that were in the world's interest -- including Iraq in the '90s. God knows if they would have prevented a united front in the security council, Iraq might have actually adhered to its UN resolutions and we wouldn't have given them another thought.

As such, I predict NATO will cease to be meaningful in the next 20 years and the US will built a new set of alliances. It will form out of the 40-something countries assisting us in Iraq now.

In conclusion, by weakening American standing worldwide ethically and morally, the Bush administration has placed this country on the cusp of a real crisis involving Iran. We now lack the diplomatic legitamacy to effect real change in this situation. I feel at this time the best course of action is to hope and pray that this sitiuation does not escolate.

Now I have to agree with you there. Iran is foolishly thinking the US has lost its credibility and ability to have its judgement taken seriously.

But I don't think this all started with W. Did W. make it far worse? Absolutely! But I personally think W. will go down in the same breath as Monroe and Teddy -- hated abroad, but set the US policy for the next 20-40 years. Something his successors will also implement and possibly implement better. It also means that just like Monroe's and Teddy's parties, the Republican party will be weak for years to come as a result.

Thank you very much for your intelligent, logical and well-thought out statements. Again, I don't agree with all your conclusions. But you did make many, many statements that I do agree with and bare facts no one can deny. Excellent piece!

 

[Member2019]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993? (1/2)

Fine. What I have believed is, ever since I first heard about the first plane going into the first building, knowing Bin Laden's CIA history and a lot about the Muslim world in general...

Yes, we helped train Bin Laden via the CIA. The CIA has done a lot of harm for the US in its history.

This is nothing new. We help people and it comes back to bite us. We put the Shah in Iran. We put Manuel Norega in power in Panama. One could say the absolutely most damaging doctrine in the history of the US has been the Monroe Doctrine -- a very much internally disliked US doctrine to this day!

Can't disagree 1 iota with you there!

I don't usually say this because people don't like it. But I'm entitled to this belief, and I don't want to hear about how IMPOSSIBLE or ILLOGICAL it is because I've heard it all; and I still believe it, for reasons that could fill a novel. But I can't prove it, obviously. I believe the U.S. government not only knew about 911, but carried it out, planned it, executed it. I always have. I don't trust the American powers that be an inch.

The US has 3 branches of government. The reason why no coup every happens in this country is because the Executive and Legislative Branches never work together.

The first, last and only US President to ever "waddle down to Congress to work something out" was ole GW himself (and I mean George Washington). Within a hour, they were criticizing him personally and not the bill, and he took his leave rather quickly. Again, he was the first, last and only US President to every come to Congress directly -- since then, the US President only goes to "address Congress."

During the Cuban Missile Crisis JFK experienced massive insults and other outcry from Congress. There are just too many cooks in the kitchen to make immediate decisions, and JFK learned that right then. But after any Executive Decision, the US President will be analyzed, criticized and otherwise have his administration interrogated my committee after panel after investigation.

So I don't see any Executive or Legislative action against this country ever escaping exposure. And when it comes to the Judicial branch, even the recently appointed, overly demonized and so-called "ultra-conservative" Judge Roberts has been slamming the W. administration on protections and use of power.

So if you have a theory on how the elected civilian government could possibly coerce the rest of itself, please let me know. Really, it would be a good civics review for myself. The US is not the UK -- we do not have our Legislative Branch elect our Executive -- and the US Legislative and Executive constantly war with each other, even when they are from the same party. Our Founding Fathers set this up on purpose, to keep up scrutiny.

I am all ears.

I don't know who is in on it, I don't know who exactly carried it out

I'd take any theory at this time.

- I would guess U.S. military -

The US military not only has 0 power to enact or influence civilian policy, every US officer knows the reasons why. One major reason for the US' separation from the UK -- if not the primary reason (and not the popular "taxation without representation") -- was in the core belief the leaders must be civilian and elected, while the military has no aristocratic conflict-of-interest and absolutely no power. It was one of the very strongest beliefs of George Washington himself (God bless him -- he is never remembered for his dedication to what made this country, when he could have easily been this country's first aristocrat).

US military personnel die every year because of the irresponsibility of their elected civilian leaders. Their oath is to follow those elected leaders, no matter how hurtful, harmful, irresponsible or otherwise stupid. Every US officer takes this oath, and knows why the US has never, ever -- in its entire 230 year history -- made a single policy because of military action or decision. If that has changed with 9/11, please, please, I'm all ears. I would like to know how our military is making policy -- because that would scare me to death!

but it doesn't matter what any of you say. Believe me, I have heard everything in contrary to this. There are, in my defense, a few western thinkers in Europe who have forwarded the same theory - so in a European context, it is not completely out of this world.

That might be the case in various Europe nations, but it has never, ever been the US. The UK, the French, the Germans, etc... have had many generations and many governments where the military ruled, the aristocracy ruled and countless other and total lack of balance of power, or the need for the military to follow the civilian leadership regardless of how stupid they thought they were. The US government and the US military has never once had the history of many European countries -- the government has always been a set of in-fighting branches and the military has always followed the word of the elected, civilian leadership.

Yes, there have been criticisms of the elected, civilian leaderhip by military leaders. It happened during Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Teddy, FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, H. Bush, Clinton and now W. Bush. Active military personnel are quickly quelled or dismissed, and fully admit they "cross the line" in questioning their elected, civilian leader. Retired military personnel are allowed to become civilians, although several never go anywhere after they "cross the line" -- no matter how popular they may have been.

The clandestine military operation Able Danger tried to prevent 9/11. But that secret military operation defaulted to the decisions of the elected, civilian leaders -- both Clinton and W. Bush.

Maybe that's where your theory can start? Seriously, look up Able Danger and related issues. At least give me some conspiracy theory based on events -- I'll listen. To this date, you have give 0 theory at all which is why you're not above question. Especially when you bark back and say "you weren't there" -- sorry, at least I'm taking events and explaining them, which you have never done.

This doesn't in any way cheapen what happened. Thousands died. It means no more or less to me than when thousands die anywhere else in the world, though, to be honest. What bothers me most is the truth. I want to know. I want to be sure I am crazy, but I can't help believing what I believe. No-one loved those buildings more than I did. They inspired me and I adored them: I miss them, and I hate what happened, no matter who was responsible.

Then why feel the need to trivilize the events? Not only what we know of that happened in 9/11, but the prior 1993 bombing? The fact that you don't rush a terrorist in a plane when they've slit the throats of others and claim to have a bomb -- unless you think everyone else is going to die anyway, and possibly hurt others (which is what the 4th plane found out but the first 3 did not know).

I hope none of you hate me for being honest about what I think happened. I am not a conspiracy theorist: if I believe the cover story, then I believe it. It just so happens that despite all the evidence to the contrary, all the evidence to the contrary is not entirely dissuasive, and I cannot shake this deep fear, this sick feeling in my stomach... that this was not ever anything to do with Islamic terrorists.

Here's the thing ...
Americans look at them as "terrorists"!
We do NOT call them "Islamic terrorists"!
(even if our media, the biggest institution of bigotry, sexism and nationalistic pride)
The US has a rather large Islamic population, and they are outstanding Americans!

People died. Our economy, which was already in bad shape, was gutted even more. I personally not only got laid off because of the economy in early 2001, but laid off again as a direct result of 9/11. One of the founders at my current employer lost everything, and many friends, due to 9/11 as his business was based in the WTC.

But do I blame Islam? No! Especially not since we have many outstanding Islamic Americans!
The only thing the US blames is hatred -- regardless of how it is projected, uses religion/doctrine/nationalistic pride, etc...
It doesn't matter what it is, it happened.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Does anyone remember what happened in 1993? (2/2)

I don't really need to go into WHY American authorities would self-inflict. From a realist perspective (which I am not) it makes sense and was actually a good move to some degree.

Huh? What "benefit" did we get? We devistated our economy $400B overnight, and set it up for trillions in lost revenue for years. We killed Americans. We are now expending time, money, lives and international standing lashing out, not always in the correct way. And we've signed up for a Doctrine comparable to those of Monroe and Teddy in the prior centuries, which are still debated today.

If this really happened, I will find it out and expose it and I will tell the American people. If I don't, someone else will. Such a lie cannot stay buried forever. If I am wrong, then thank god, and shame on the terrorists.

Well, do you have any "deeper" insight/theories?
I mean, you're extremely shallow (and that's being very nice) in your insight here.
What do you have?
Do you even have a "motive" for the US, whomever it was?

I can also say that Islamic terrorists are a real threat, but like all terrorists, they are not machines. They are human beings; we must understand them in order to stop them. I believe it is economic circumstances and desperation and lack of fulfilled expectations that lead to terrorism. Men who have nothing left to lose. Give them something to lose; take care of their country as we do our allies... and then terrorists will crumble from within and there will be no men desperate enough to be indoctrinated.

Understand that state-sponsored hatred is a real problem is some areas of the world. While the US has to respect the right of countries to implement a theocracy -- including Afganistan to a point -- it is also part of the problem. And that's where these "bad apples" come from in most cases -- they grow up with complete intolerance, and even feel their governments are theocratic and radical enough.

Islamic Americans I personally know from Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, etc... have explained this to me. Everyone from Congressmen/women to the US President understand this. If there is one nation on the face of the Earth filled with more immigrants and understand, you will find none better than the United States.

Even if our US media is filled with simplistic, bigoted, sexist and otherwise foolhearty people who project ideas that make you think otherwise. If I lived in another country and watched the US media, I'd think far different of Americans as well. Understand only about 1/4th of Americans actually tune in our media, less and less everyday. Why? Because it has been increasingly catering to those Americans who watch 8+ hours of TV/day, which is who advertisers try to reach more and more.

 

[ÆGEAN]

yes he would be the worse one ever. I thought Reagan and Bush I were bad.

 

[georges]

Not the worst president ever there were far worse presidents than him, for me they are Johnson, Nixon and Clinton.
When it comes to American politics I support Republicans because a big part of my family who lives in the US is Republican. The best democrat USA President USA had in my opinion was FDR.
Basing your opinion on Fahrenheit is far to be the best option, Michael Moore's sources are obscure, unknown and often filled of half truths.
If you read the various political threads, you would and will know what I think about Michael Moore, Kerry and Clinton. My opinion about these people hasn't changed and will not change.

regards

georges

 

[joshua123]

don't talk shit about Bush
he's the only one helping Israel

 

[Member2019]

Don't blame governments for what the media says ...

I don't feel like explaining myself.

Obviously.

from knowing they could have shot down those planes as soon as they were on the radar as off course

The busiest air traffic control in the world is NJ-NY. At 500mph, the controllers had maybe 1 minute to figure out what was going on -- if they even noticed! They are too busy directing take-off/landings. I have 2 friends who work ATC for that area -- they said they didn't even know until it was reported on CNN!

and especially as soon as the first plane hit...

Do you know how many miles it is between JFK, Laguarda, etc... and downtown? Less than 10 miles! That is 60 seconds at 500mph! There was no time to scramble USAF aircraft until a half hour later!

Before 9/11, the US did not actively patrol its own, internal borders. Only the US Navy and Coast Guard did maritime patrol off the coast. But even then there was a Cuba Mig-29 that defected in the '90s and it totally evaded US radar on its flight into Florida!

But yes, the 4th aircraft was detected as off-course very early on by United Airlines itself, and not the FAA or its ATCs. The US had a very "hands-off" attitude on personal liberties and freedom before 9/11, and wasn't in the business of tracking its own, intra-state travel. Heck, it still isn't in many regards!

and from what 911 was used to facilitate and will be used for... from the election results of 04.

So what you're saying is that this was used to boost W., correct? Or are you still claiming no specifics of who was behind it? And still claiming 1993 was "minor"?

From what I have always believed the U.S. gvmt capable of. From my own gut feelings. There is so much to it, and yet no one explanation will quite explain why...

To date your analysis of "US defense capabilities" has been absolutely dead-wrong. It's based on assumptions, which I can only assume is based on the "security" you are used to in the UK, and not the US. Anyone who came to the US pre-9/11 would always comment how "lax" we are on security -- especially for travel. We used to rely on European outbound locations for most checks before 9/11.

I just believe it. And I will not try and expose it until I can prove it.

Put you already have made your theories! Or did I not understand what this thread is about? It's about W.! Or are you hijacking it into the continued, anti-US government rhetoric that you are so continually displaying?

You say you don't dislike Americans, just the US government. Well, I'm sorry, but despite the fact that I don't even belong to the political parties running 100% of the US, I still believe in the checks'n balances, the infighting between the Executive, Judicial and Legislative (especially the recent moves by W. appointed Roberts, who has slaming the same administration who put him on the bench), UN resolutions, our particpation in the Security Council (sans maybe Rowanda in 1994), etc...

Now I've been you leadway. I really do want to hear some good ideas on these theories. But so far, you've shown utter ignorance on 1993, internal US security, how the FAA and its ATCs work, the reaction time it took to scramble fighters, etc... Hell, every since Americans were so easy to jump on the Oklahoma City bombing as an "act of terror**," almost every American thought it was an accident! I've flown into JFK many times myself, and marvelled how close I come to downtown and all the towers!.

**NOTE: Of course, after 9/11, we re-opened this and found some of the same (among other) Al Quieda operatives were in Oklahoma City for that bombing. It's all circumstantial of course -- but we were just naive. First we blamed terrorists, then we shyed away from doing so (prior to and including 9/11) because it made us look like fools to be blaming others for what seemed to be (at least at the time) an internal, American struggle. In fact, it is because of such foreign attitudes as yours that the US assumed many events, several that are now confirmed terrorist incidents, were the cause of and by the US -- but we now know, after the investigations due to 9/11 -- they were not!

So give us Americans a break for once! Even we blamed ourselves first!

I'll write a book on it one day. You can read it and tell the world how all my evidence is trumped up like Michael Moore's, but it won't be.

Michael Moore is not respected because of his last 2 movies. In 911, he not only fabricated "evidence" about the 2000 election, but he played many games with "smoke'n mirrors" on state v. federal law enforcement, interviewed someone who had lost his limbs due to an on-base vehicle accident (neither combat nor even combat operations), lied about the time between W. being informed about 9/11, etc... It ended up being a joke because he didn't need to hurt his own professional integrity by intentionally misleading and even lying at many points in his own movie.

As for saying the first WTC bombing was minor, it was. Compared to the second, it was.

That's because the first one failed. Had it worked, it wouldn't have been so "minor" as you say. Heck, the second attempt almost failed as well! The planes failed to bring down the buildings. It was only after 15+ minutes of burning fuel creating the intense heat that it collapsed.

Compared to a hundred major acts of terrorism (in terms of death toll) around the world before and since, it was. No incident where people die should be labelled minor, but compared to larger terrorist attacks, that bombing was minor. I think it's partially irrelevant.

And the US did think little of 1993, Oklahoma City and many other events -- until after 9/11! We blamed ourselves. We blamed "disgruntled Americans." We blamed everyone but terrorists before 9/11 -- even as 9/11 happened and the first plane hit!

What I get sick and tired of is people both blaming W. for not acting in ignorance / assumption that the first hit on the tower was an accident and then turning around and blaming us for finally acting on a long, long, LONG sequence of DIRECT Al Quieda acts, as well as "circumstantial" Al Quieda presence around other attacks in the '90s. Again, I don't blame Clinton. But I don't immediately pull my guns on W. either.

Americans naively blamed themselves before 9/11. Now if you're saying that we used that as an excuse for 9/11, and that W. was behind it, I'm all ears. But please give me something believable, and not evidence that our radar is great, the FAA/ATC would even notice and then act in those 60-something seconds, that the US maintains "ready alert" for F-16/F-15 on-the-ground or that US Navy carriers hundreds of miles off our coast could do a damn thing in 60 seconds!

If that is 100% of your basis that it was an "inside job," then I think you're just hoping it was. And you're just ignoring all the history of the '90s and the real defensive posture of the US prior to 9/11.

Only when American lives are lost does an incident become important. It's the same in England. I hate how on the news they say things like... three hundred killed in Ecuador today... INCLUDING THREE BRITONS. Mark Savage of Hampstead Heath was on holiday... Dude, 300 people just died, and you're reporting it as if it's three. I hate that shit. American/British lives are always more important than any. I bet a lot of countries do that, but I don't. That's why 911 didn't phase me the way it did the rest of America. I have the same reaction to any incident that kills 5000, whether they're Americans or Chinese or Iranians.

Sigh, you seem to get upset about nothing. They report the nationalities of many casulties, although it does make sense to comment that the local nationality has X dead too.

Futhermore, that is the media, not the government. Now I don't know how much your media is state-controlled, but here in the US, even Russian President Putin openly complained in front of W. and asked him, "can't you control your media?"

I loved W.'s response, "I can't even get as much airtime as Bin Laden."

It's clear to me that you base way too much on the TV media -- what it does and what is says. Try not watching or listening to the media for a full year. That really helps.

 

[hedonis]

Ha ha! I left for a day or two, and I see that Foxe and Prof. Voluptuary are *still* at it. Good debate, fellas!

H

 

[smoke2029]

Bush has had a lot to deal with straight of 911, but before he got saddam out of power everyone is complaining someone needs to get him out of power the Bush does and everyone hates him there is a lot I like about Bush I personally would vote him again if he could go a 3rd term clinton did a lot of dumb crap in office just before Bush took over and thats why some things arent as great as they used to be, there are a lot of people to blame not just Bush. The man is a great President