It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

John Kerry couldn't think for 40 minutes on 9/11

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
secret service should have done the thinking for him. Thinking does not come easily to George.

Those children were in extreme danger-




posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
" Welcome to this episode of ARM CHAIR QUARTERBACK."

On todays episode a bunch of people are going to say they new exactly what should have been done as opposed to the President Of the United States!!!"

Just stop it!

Jumping up and leaving would have done..... I am waiting!! Oh GWB would have been able to personally prevent the second tower from being hit. ooops. It was hit before he left.

Well he could have stoped the Pentagon hit? Nope. Already smoking.

Face it. If you hate The Bushman he would not done anything right at all under any situation. If he did stop the second hit then you would say he should have stopped the first.

We should have seen Pearl Harbor coming so it was roosevelts fault.
Wooda, shoulda,coulda...



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Actually while I didnt like Michael Moores conclusions at all, I do have a better question than his. Why wasn't the secret service taking control of the President and rushing him off to a more secure and unknown location. I mean obviously they didnt know the first plane was an attack but when the second one hit, wouldnt they have had to go to some kind of severity plan for securing the President? Multiple people knew where he was at that point and they didn't wisk him away at all.

Can someone answer me that?

- Was



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wassabi
...........Why wasn't the secret service taking control of the President and rushing him off to a more secure and unknown location. I mean obviously they didnt know the first plane was an attack but when the second one hit, wouldnt they have had to go to some kind of severity plan for securing the President? Multiple people knew where he was at that point and they didn't wisk him away at all.

Can someone answer me that?

- Was


- That's a very good question and I've yet to hear a good plausible answer to it.

[edit on 7-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 12:54 PM
link   

John Kerry couldn't think for 40 minutes on 9/11


- Lame in the extreme.

(and like it or not Bush-fans but that 'my pet goat' footage will be part of the political scenery from now on)

[edit on 7-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Since I am not the secret Service I can only suppose...

The First attack happend. Ok.

The second attack happened Bush was told.Ok. Is that the start of the infamous seven minutes or from the first attack?

2 buildings 1100 miles away. Nothing else was heard. Why would you move the president?

If you remember when they heard of the third and forth he was on the way to air Force one. What else should have been done?
Is this a backdoor slam of "why did he sit for 7 minutes?'



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by crmanager
Since I am not the secret Service I can only suppose...

The First attack happend. Ok.

The second attack happened Bush was told.Ok. Is that the start of the infamous seven minutes or from the first attack?

2 buildings 1100 miles away. Nothing else was heard. Why would you move the president?

If you remember when they heard of the third and forth he was on the way to air Force one. What else should have been done?
Is this a backdoor slam of "why did he sit for 7 minutes?'


- the thing is crmanager the President's visit to the school was public knowledge for at least 24 hrs before the 9/11 attacks.....so once the attacks began why would anyone assume he was safe?



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 01:20 PM
link   
No Im not slamming the President. He has very little control over his schedule or where he is and when. Im more just curious as to why the Secret Service wasn't moving him to a secure location the moment the words, "New York is under attack" were uttered. Just think that at that point they would have secured the President from flying bombs immediately, not let him sit there like a lump.

Now if you want to get into a possible slam at President Bush I would have to ask why he sat there and did nothing. I don't agree at all with the completley one sided approach that the 9/11 movie took, but everyone has to admit it ended up looking pretty bad that he didnt stand up excuse himself and then go outside to get more information about what was happening.

You cant argue with it because a shill like Moore ended up using it as great cannon fodder for his hate-fest movie. (Please note I call it a movie because there was about as much truth to it as Star Wars).

- Was



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Well Bush sent us to war without justification, not Kerry so he has got to go. I do agree however that Bush did the right thing with the classroom when he got the news. Kerry really had no power to do anything as senator so he had no leadership role to fullfill so this is a mute point.

X



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   
THE POINT IT: CHILDREN WITH BUSH WERE IN HORRIBLE DANGER-
Attacks are generally aimed at presidents.

HOW DID THEY KNOW, BUSH WOULD BE OK?????
hOW DID THEY KNOW CHILDREN WOULD BE OK??

IM WAITING FOR YOUR BUTT TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF TAKING THE CONTEXT OF WHAT EVERYONE IS SAYING AND TWISTING THINGS.

YOU SAY ATTACK WAS FAR AWAY? SO????
DID THIS MEAN THAT PRESIDENT MUST BE SAFE BECAUSE ITS HAPPENING SOMEPLACE ELSE?????


PLEASE DONT MAKE ME ILL. Instead of blasting me you should try to answer the REAL questions WE smart people have.

the fact is you dont have the answer.....

no one has the answer. This is something most of us would like answered intelligently.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I wonder if Kerry would have applied for another purple heart?



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Here is my take on the situation:

First off, it is very easy for all of us to come up with some reaction to the terrible events almost 3 years later.

You must remember, the aide whispered into the President's ear, "America is under attack." He didn't say, "a second plane has hit the second tower." It is quite possible that President Bush thought he was refering to the first plane. At the time, all of America was just beginning to realize what was going on.

I don't place the blame on President Bush, I place it on his aides. They should have said, "Mr. President, a second plane has hit the other tower. We need to get you to a secure location immediately."

It is quite possible that behind the scenes the Secret Service and other members of the entourage were preparing to evacute Bush. Since none of us were there, we just don't know.

I know this seems like a stretch, I just think these are possibilities.



posted on Aug, 7 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
But Kerry wasnt there. Neither was Clinton.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
You are right. We werent there. But the secret service shouldnt take time to think.....they should know what to do immediately.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
This sad little spin on using Kerry's colorful description of watching TV after the second explosion as "we realized nobody could think" (which was my exact reaction too watching the news reporters wet themselves with wild speculation), is MOST TELLING in that it took NEWSMAX an ENTIRE MONTH of skimming the transcripts to come up with this one:


Friday, Aug. 6, 2004
Hypocrite Kerry 'Couldn't Think' for 40 Minutes on 9/11


That's just sad. The biggest Larry King interview of the year, and a month later this is headline? A spin on one line? Please. :shk:

I'm really sorry your guy Bush is on tape as a deer in headlights people for the duration of 9/11. I REALLY am. But this "Kerry just as bad" stuff doesn't wash at all considering the interview in it's entirity.


RANT,

The reason it took an entire month is that with the exception of Michael Moore's inept effort to portray President Bush as Saudi Arabia's number one travel agent, there hasn't been an issue with the "Seven Minutes That Everyone Would Have Done Differently, SMTEWHDD". One month? How about three years? John Kerry brought this upon himself, he politicized the "SMTEWHDD", and he obviously by his own admission would choose not to think.
John Kerry and his handlers must see President Bush's image as a wartime leader as a strength, why else challenge him on this issue? It's a huge gamble, people have very clear recollection of the event, and of what they think of Mayor Giuliani, Governor Pataki, President Bush, NYPD, and FDNY; I would be loathe to go against those deep rooted feelings, the far Left may hate cops, firemen and Republican Mayors, Governors, and Presidents... the rest of America does not... not on that day.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
Why is it that when supposedly thinking people run out of sensible things to say along the lines of constructive criticism, that discussions deteriorate into grammer school food fights??!!? "Mr Ed called; he wants his face back" -- come on...!!
No one bothered to react against the initial complaint about Kerry -- that he had big hair, so now let's insult the way his facial features are put together.


Maybe it's just my own misconception, but I had hoped when I recently joined this board that I had found a place where people conversed about a variety of issues, engaging their high functioning brains to explore ideas. The general population mindlessly repeats that they don't know enough about John Kerry to have an opinion about voting for him. And those who dislike Kerry here can only cite thing about his appearance from the neck up. Jeez, we've already had the depths of facially ugly with Nixon and LBJ.

Let's get real. The best way to choose a president is to discover who can pee further in the snow.



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whodathunkit
Why is it that when supposedly thinking people run out of sensible things to say along the lines of constructive criticism, that discussions deteriorate into grammer school food fights??!!? "Mr Ed called; he wants his face back" -- come on...!!
No one bothered to react against the initial complaint about Kerry -- that he had big hair, so now let's insult the way his facial features are put together.


Maybe it's just my own misconception, but I had hoped when I recently joined this board that I had found a place where people conversed about a variety of issues, engaging their high functioning brains to explore ideas. The general population mindlessly repeats that they don't know enough about John Kerry to have an opinion about voting for him. And those who dislike Kerry here can only cite thing about his appearance from the neck up. Jeez, we've already had the depths of facially ugly with Nixon and LBJ.

Let's get real. The best way to choose a president is to discover who can pee further in the snow.


Ummm, and the correlation between your post, and this thread is...? If this isn't "high minded" enough for you, I suggest that you try the "Campaign 2004" section where I believe you will find all the dry statistics about the candidates, including "pee for distance, snow" (GW wins out despite not being "powered by beer").

Bad monkeys, not just for vivisection anymore...



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 10:03 PM
link   
ummm, and Kerry is made up of spare parts.

Isnt this real adult of us?



posted on Aug, 8 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   
7 minutes is muchhhhh too long when there are little innocent kids involved.

For 7 agonizing minutes we watched as Bush's only reaction was his NOSE flaring, like a frog waiting to leap!

He shoulda been whisked away by the SS even if he went kicking and screamming.

THE CHILDREN WERE IN DANGER. BELIEVE IT OR NOT.



posted on Aug, 9 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
My above post was in direct response to what I read on this thread, albeit on a preceding page, putting Kerry down for his apperance, quoting a late night interview show/comedy host's joke.

There is far too much evidence showing the shortfalls of the current president. I'm just tired of seeing the bulk of the complaints about Kerry as a viable replacement focusing on his facial appearance and his hair. Obviously we all have our own opinions who who would make a better president based on our values and perspectives on the issues; this make sense. If there are valid reasons why Kerry would be a danger to the country as president, lets get them out on the table. The subheading of this site is "Deny Ignorance" not support it.

If appearance is the primary thing we are seeking in a president, let's nominate Bambi. He is adorable, and it wouldn't be inappropriate if he frequently appeared to look like a deer.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join