| To: The Philosopher who wrote (1029) | 5/9/2003 10:46:40 AM | | From: TigerPaw | | | | Especially when you consider how Junior George skipped on his obligations that was keeping him from being drafted. At least Clinton stayed in school for his deferrment.
TP |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1038) | 5/9/2003 10:50:43 AM | | From: rrufff | | | | I have to take issue with the "warning" of 9/11. There is a whole thread here on SI with paranoid posters claiming this.
The problem with the "intelligence" received is so massive. There are warnings every day of stuff like 9/11. Imagine yourself in a job like that, particularly if you have the "government employee" mentality.
No doubt there were warnings. I'm sure there were warnings today of someone hijacking a plane. Problem is how do you know which warning out of thousands is the one upon which to follow? Where do you put the resources?
I agree with you if your point is that government needs to be streamlined and become efficient in all areas. I agree with you that the "intelligence" operations need to be better monitored and be made efficient.
However, it defies common sense and moderation for anyone to think that the Bush administration did 9/11 or did not stop if if they had been able to do so.
I'm not saying you posted that Bush was to blame, so forgive me if I am mischaracterizing some of your thoughts in posting what you did. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: rrufff who wrote (1043) | 5/9/2003 10:59:58 AM | | From: tsigprofit | | | | I believe there are facts showing that they had
indications of an attack before 9-11. Not that they
caused it - but that they had indications an attack
was imminent, of some kind.
I also believe they came out just after 9-11, and said
they had no indication something like this could happen.
I believe this is lying to the American public.
Also - I believe it is well documented that a bi-partisan
panel had recommended the creation of the Homeland Security
Dept. months before 9-11. I believe John Ashcroft actually
cut security funding just before 9-11.
For all of these reasons - I believe an investigation of them all is in order.
Surely, if it was OK to investigate a personal affair that
Clinton had, or a real-estate deal that happened years before he was elected (where he lost money) - it is only
fair to investigate:
* 9-11 - and what was known before
* how funds for security were cut before 9-11 by the Bush
admin.
* conflict of interest links between Bush, Cheney, and Enron and the oil industry.
This is only fair.
Also - if these investigations confirm some of these things, then I think there is more than enough grounds for Impeachment. Cheney would have to be removed also though.
t |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1044) | 5/9/2003 11:10:35 AM | | From: rrufff | | | | Agree on investigations. Agree that wasting money on Clinton investigation was ridiculous. (If you spent $60 million investigating the Pope, you'd probably find some nasties.)
However, the logical and the moderate approach would be to investigate but not to pre-judge. The risk of something going wrong and getting public if government collusion were to be found in 9/11 is so high that it really is ludicrous to think that it is possible.
As for inefficiency and incompetence, those are synonyms for government beaurocracy. Our government is better than most or maybe even all others (IMO) but still needs significant improvement.
As I posted before, there are warnings every day that airplanes are being highjacked with evil intent. How does one know which one is the real OBL plot? |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1044) | 5/9/2003 11:18:09 AM | | From: TigerPaw | | | | It is not by their words, but by their actions that we know that they knew.
cbsnews.com
July 26, 2001
In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term.
Maybe they didn't know which airline or how many would be hyjacked, or what might be done with the hyjacked planes, but the neocons did know that they needed the equivalent of a Reichstag fire to galvinize the public and make their puppet leader George more complient to their goals.
TP
iht.com |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (3) |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1032) | 5/9/2003 11:30:12 AM | | From: The Philosopher | | | | Sometime we could also discuss whether if, by
not going to Baghdad in 1991, Bush I made a fatal
mistake, that led inevitably to 9-11.
I agree it was a tactical mistake not to do that, though whether or not 9-11 would have been avoided is questionable, since I don't think Saddam was actually suporting al-Qaeda in any significant way. But if we had overturned Saddam then, we would not have had to base so many troops in Saudi Arabia to enforce the no fly zones and protect against future incursions, and it was those troops which were the nominal catalyst for Bin Laden's hatred, so maybe he would have focussed more on Israel than the US.
But at the time, I don't think the US public would have accepted the overthrow of Saddam, given that we were working under a UN mandate at the time and the UN was strongly against going beyond the liberation of Kuwait. And arguably at that time the balance of power and ability between US forces and the Republican Guard was much more equal, ten years of sanctions hadn't attrited their military equiment, we didn't have JDAMS, we had used many of our cruise missles up already, their air defenses were stronger (they shot down many more planes in Gulf War I than II), we hadn't developed the friendly fire protections or the coordinated strategies we have now (as I recall, our losses to friendly fire in Gulf I were more than our total losses in Gulf II, and that was just the easy fighting in the desert in Gulf I), we know that they had chemical weapons then and the willingness to use them and we were nowhere nearly as prepared for chems then as we are now.
So strategically, I don't think it was really a possible option to go to Baghdad in 1991.
Though I wish we had had that ability. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1033) | 5/9/2003 11:35:19 AM | | From: The Philosopher | | | | Hmmm.
You consider Michael Moore, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand, as not responding to right wing criticisms?
The right wing has the preachers attacking for them, the left has Hollywood. Pretty even, IMO.
And would you say that nobody is attacking Bush for his flying onto the carrier? Some pretty vicious attacks, including one on the Senate floor by an ex-KKK member Dem, if I hear the news correctly.
I frankly don't think either side has any monopoly on vicious attacks. Which is too bad, because it would be really nice of there were a party out there on ANY side composed of decent people who eschewed personal attacks and focussed on issues and the good of the country. But in that regard, there's little to choose among them. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: TigerPaw who wrote (1046) | 5/9/2003 11:38:05 AM | | From: rrufff | | | | OK - so your post says that Ashcroft had received threats (likely to his own safety). That is very logical. I'm sure every member of the Cabinet gets threats, particularly one as controversial and (IMO) inappropriate for the job as Ashcroft.
You then use TigerPaw logic to make that equal to a knowledge that 9/11 would occur.
Next case. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: tsigprofit who wrote (1038) | 5/9/2003 11:41:20 AM | | From: The Philosopher | | | | And what about Bush riding on the Enron jet many times
during the campaign? Again, to me, that's a 5-7 on the scale.
Are we really going to hash over this stuff again?
If we are, don't forget to bring up the wholesale sale of the Lincoln Bedroom, which compared to riding on an Enron Jet is, IMO, far worse. Bush used the donations of a corporation, which paid the bill for his trips. Clinton used the resources of the White House, which is owned by and paid for by the American people and which he was using as a public trust supposedly for the benefit of the people, not to line his and his party's pockets.
And let's not forget the deal with financing his house in Westchester . . .
well, do we really want to hash all that stuff out again?
Neither side comes out smelling very good. But then, I don't think you can find a single national politician who comes out smelling very good out of any political campaign.
A plague on both their houses. |
| | Moderate Forum | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| |
