Have you forgotten?

It is amazing to me that anyone would consider voting for Bush again. I want to ask them if they have forgotten that the man was President when 911 happened? Have you forgotten that if he did read that memo about Bin Laden making possible terrorist attacks in the US using hi-jacked airplanes that he did not act on it at all? Have you forgotten that he sat there like a knot on a log waiting to be told what to do when the WTC were confirmed terrorist attacks? Have you forgotten his excuse for that? He did not want to scare the children, for the love of God the president of teh USA could not think how to stand up and tell those children he had to get back to work. Have you forgotten that he did not want a 911 inquiry and did not want to testify? Have you forgotten that this is the man who insisted on leading us into Iraq? Have you forgotten that there are no weapons of mass destruction? Have you forgotten that so far we have lost over 1000 of our (young men and women) military in Iraq and that 7,000 have been wounded. Have you forgotten that there is a coffin ban so that the news media can't show you the coffins arriving back in the USA of our war dead? Have you forgotten that we have the worst dificit in history? Have you forgotten that we now have the patriot act? I have not there are tons more negative stuff I can write about Bush's 3.5 years so why would anyone want him back for four more years?

This is interesting, but is it sure that Kerry will lead to a change in US foreign policy ? So far, he has only articulated his full support for Israel's illegal policies, and i have seen no further statement regarding US policy change. Could it be that Kerry harbors the same basic views of the middle east as Bush ? If yes, it would be better, from a historical perspective, that Bush gets reelected, so that he gets the full historical consequence of his wrongdoings, for example the first elected Iraqi governement asking the US to leave the country. Kerry would, if he hasnt got the guts for a complete US foreign policy change, only mess the situation further up.

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
This is interesting, but is it sure that Kerry will lead to a change in US foreign policy ? So far, he has only articulated his full support for Israel's illegal policies, and i have seen no further statement regarding US policy change. Could it be that Kerry harbors the same basic views of the middle east as Bush ? If yes, it would be better, from a historical perspective, that Bush gets reelected, so that he gets the full historical consequence of his wrongdoings, for example the first elected Iraqi governement asking the US to leave the country. Kerry would, if he hasnt got the guts for a complete US foreign policy change, only mess the situation further up.

Look at Bush's track record so far, in the first years its been this bad the last four are probably going to be even worse.

I know that Bush is a war criminal, i even think he has severe psychological problems and should be locked up. But if Kerry wovs to continue the same US foreign policy, i would prefer Bush for the next four years. That would give us (at least) clear ennemies. Imagine Kerry having the same approach to the mideast as Bush. We would be left with an ennemy we could not effectively combat.

Goose, you never read that memo, I'm sure. You have NO idea what's in it. I think it's funny how some people (I don't know if you do or not, goose) will think that 9/11 is planned, and believe in all these conspiracies, but they believe everything that Michael Moore says. Part of the reason 9/11 happened was because of Clinton and what he did to our defense. PART of it, not all of it. Anyone who blames Bush for 9/11 doesn't know what they're talking about. I mean, the president doesn't have THAT much power! And no, Bush is not a war criminal. Just because we don't put our army under the command of the U.N. does not make us war criminals. We did not attack another country, therefore that alligation is nothing. The U.N didn't say that he COULDN'T go into Iraq (Correct me if I'm wrong).

"We did not attack another country" ?!??

The UN didnt give any permission for the full-scale invasion of Iraq. Invading another country without acting in self-defense or without the written permission of the UN security council is a WAR CRIME. get over it.

Originally posted by Herman
Goose, you never read that memo, I'm sure. You have NO idea what's in it. I think it's funny how some people (I don't know if you do or not, goose) will think that 9/11 is planned, and believe in all these conspiracies, but they believe everything that Michael Moore says. Part of the reason 9/11 happened was because of Clinton and what he did to our defense. PART of it, not all of it. Anyone who blames Bush for 9/11 doesn't know what they're talking about. I mean, the president doesn't have THAT much power! And no, Bush is not a war criminal. Just because we don't put our army under the command of the U.N. does not make us war criminals. We did not attack another country, therefore that alligation is nothing. The U.N didn't say that he COULDN'T go into Iraq (Correct me if I'm wrong).

I have read the memo the memo is online, Bush got the memo in August while he was on one of his vacations and the memo gave full warning from intelligence that Bin Laden was possibly going to attack inside the USA ussing hi-jacked planes. Now one would think that airport security would be beefed up but nothing was done. I will look for a copy of the memo for you but yes there was a memo and anyone can now read it and the whole world not only has an idea of waht was in it they know exactly word for word what was in it.

Here:
www.atsnn.com...

Frankly, 9-11 happened on Bush's watch, and he had warning. In the old days, a captain went down with his ship. There was an important reason for this. Not any more it seems. Bush couldn't give a rats ass about taking responsibility for his inaction. And yes, I'd say the same if it happened during Clintons term as president, too. (Before the Clinton-screechers start up.)

-koji K.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by goose
Look at Bush's track record so far, in the first years its been this bad the last four are probably going to be even worse.

Unfortunately I have to concur. Whatever you may think of GWB as a person, his policies are not in the best interests of the average American worker. Fine, if you're a CEO of a multinational company, I can understand voting for him, but to the average Joe struggling to make ends meet or the kid in High School who could be drafted in a few years - all I can say is 'find an alternative'.

No, we did not go to war against a country. Whatever you may think the underlying reason is, the fact remains that we went into Iraq under the pretense that we were fighting WITH them. The reason we had to replace their govt. is because we couldn't let Saddam stay.

I have read the memo the memo is online

A.) That's online!!! How the hell do you know it's the one he actually got?

B.) The intelligence that Bin-Laden is going to, sometime, somwhere attack the U.S is very general. Bin-Laden is ALWAYS planning to attack the U.S. We had no idea when or where, you can't blame him for this. It's not a monarchy, Bush doesn't do everything.

Bush didn't take responsibility?..... Please think about what you said.

[Edited on 7-9-2004 by Herman]

Herman if you would like to see an exact copy of the memo dated and stamped for Presidents eyes only go to this website it has an exact copy of that memo
www.thesmokinggun.com...

[edit on 7-9-2004 by goose]

Have you forgotten that Kerry and the crew were in shock and couldn't for 45 minutes when the planes hit, untill the point when the pentagon was hit?

Have you forgotten that this could have ended in clintons administration?

Have you frogotten the three terrorist attacks upon us by Al-quaeda that was not acted upon?

Have you forgotten the Embassey bombing?

Have you forgotten the USS Cole?

Have you forgotten the terrorist explosion in the WTC?

Have you forgotten that in the 90's to 2001 when we started the war on terror, we were attacked many times without action?

Have you forgotten that now, finally, after the swift actions of someone finally saying "its time to stop them" that indeed, the terrorist attacks have stopped?

some food for thought.

goose,

Your link didn't work, but here's the memo censored for our eyes only

www.thesmokinggun.com...

It's not too specific, but there is mention of a plan dating back to 1998 to hijack US aircraft. Whether Bush could have acted on the intelligence provided in the memo is debatable, as it is quite vague.

I believe, however, that Bush's reaction post-11th September was poorly planned, rushed and disorganised. The public expected a swift reaction and they got it, but if his defence staff hadn't planned the invasion of Afghanistan so poorly they might have caught Bin Laden. And then there would be no need to invade Iraq to distract the people from the fact that they had failed to catch Osama.

The idea he was responsible is far fetched, but Bush didn't handle 9/11 competently enough and for this reason should not be C in C of a superpower.

Originally posted by Herman
Part of the reason 9/11 happened was because of Clinton and what he did to our defense. PART of it, not all of it. Anyone who blames Bush for 9/11 doesn't know what they're talking about.

The army that Bush used to fight the war on terra, and Iraq, is Clinton's army. The high technology used so effectively, was what Clinton did to our defense. And Clinton's administration WAS working on taking the fight to Al Queda, and tried to pass their knowledge to Bush's team:

The terrorism briefing was delivered by Richard Clarke, a career bureaucrat who had served in the first Bush Administration and risen during the Clinton years to become the White House's point man on terrorism. As chair of the interagency Counter-Terrorism Security Group (CSG), Clarke was known as a bit of an obsessive�just the sort of person you want in a job of that kind. Since the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen on Oct. 12, 2000�an attack that left 17 Americans dead�he had been working on an aggressive plan to take the fight to al-Qaeda. The result was a strategy paper that he had presented to Berger and the other national security "principals" on Dec. 20. But Berger and the principals decided to shelve the plan and let the next Administration take it up. With less than a month left in office, they did not think it appropriate to launch a major initiative against Osama bin Laden. "We would be handing [the Bush Administration] a war when they took office on Jan. 20," says a former senior Clinton aide. "That wasn't going to happen." Now it was up to Rice's team to consider what Clarke had put together.

Read this article before you blame Clinton.

www.time.com...



[edit on 7-9-2004 by 27jd]

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBad
goose,

Your link didn't work, but here's the memo censored for our eyes only

www.thesmokinggun.com...

It's not too specific, but there is mention of a plan dating back to 1998 to hijack US aircraft. Whether Bush could have acted on the intelligence provided in the memo is debatable, as it is quite vague.

I believe, however, that Bush's reaction post-11th September was poorly planned, rushed and disorganised. The public expected a swift reaction and they got it, but if his defence staff hadn't planned the invasion of Afghanistan so poorly they might have caught Bin Laden. And then there would be no need to invade Iraq to distract the people from the fact that they had failed to catch Osama.

The idea he was responsible is far fetched, but Bush didn't handle 9/11 competently enough and for this reason should not be C in C of a superpower.

You guys are so fast I clicked on the link immediately after posting it to see if it worked and it did not so I hit edit to fix the problem, I had put an L where a 1 was supposed to be (can't read my own writing lol) and fixed it with a few minutes and so now it works, thanks for posting it also. I found the memo very informative and thought he should have alerted airlines to step up security and warned them they had intelligence of Bin Laden determined to strike within the US using hi-jacked planes.

Originally posted by WolfofWar
Have you forgotten that Kerry and the crew were in shock and couldn't for 45 minutes when the planes hit, untill the point when the pentagon was hit?

Have you forgotten that this could have ended in clintons administration?

Have you frogotten the three terrorist attacks upon us by Al-quaeda that was not acted upon?

Have you forgotten the Embassey bombing?

Have you forgotten the USS Cole?

Have you forgotten the terrorist explosion in the WTC?

Have you forgotten that in the 90's to 2001 when we started the war on terror, we were attacked many times without action?

Have you forgotten that now, finally, after the swift actions of someone finally saying "its time to stop them" that indeed, the terrorist attacks have stopped?

some food for thought.

Good job

The army that Bush used to fight the war on terra, and Iraq, is Clinton's army. The high technology used so effectively, was what Clinton did to our defense. And Clinton's administration WAS working on taking the fight to Al Queda, and tried to pass their knowledge to Bush's team:

No, Bush has changed the army since. He's made it stronger over his 4 years in office.

Originally posted by Herman
No, Bush has changed the army since. He's made it stronger over his 4 years in office.

Well, he began the Afghanistan campaign in Oct. 2001, also, please give me some examples of how Bush has strengthened the military, references if possible, and how Clinton made it weaker, if you can.

Also, read this (couple years old, but it proves my point):

www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com...

However, dramatic changes to the U.S. military -- its structure, organization, technology, personnel -- take time. Bush has only been in office for two years. Yet, in those same two years, Bush has sent troops into battle in two major theaters, and if it's not too early to consider Iraq a victory, the military was overwhelmingly successful in both instances.

This won't make our neo-con, hawk friends happy, but there's a point raised by these truths. Bush was clearly wrong when he said during the campaign that the U.S. armed forces had been hallowed out. Clinton/Gore, therefore, were not as bad for the military as the conventional wisdom would have you believe.

Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the centrist Brookings Institution, raised this point, much to the conservatives' chagrin, as fighting was nearly completed in Afghanistan in 2002.

"Just over a year ago, George Bush and Dick Cheney were campaigning hard on the theme that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had run down the United States military," O'Hanlon wrote. "Picking up a traditional Republican refrain, they claimed that defense cuts under President Clinton had gone too far, that the armed forces had been overused badly, that readiness was poor. But now President Bush stands on the verge of winning a war with the military that Bill Clinton bequeathed him.... The administration developed an effective war plan that defeated the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and it has a sound broader strategy in the struggle against terrorism. But it is still Bill Clinton's military that has actually been winning this war."

[edit on 7-9-2004 by 27jd]

27jd, this is turning into the exact same argument I just had with you on another thread, lol. I would argue it, but I already have! I've said my peice. You know that Bush is strong on defense. I don't study our military very often, but we both know that Bush likes a strong military, Clinton did not. You can look it up, I know you'll find it.

[Edited on 7-9-2004 by Herman]

Originally posted by Mokuhadzushi
"We did not attack another country" ?!??

The UN didnt give any permission for the full-scale invasion of Iraq. Invading another country without acting in self-defense or without the written permission of the UN security council is a WAR CRIME. get over it.

ok say we didnt go into irag\q but iran nukes us? should we ask permission then? the best thing that would happen to the us is to get out of the UN. the UN is on of the weakest organizations on the planet. and when the un wants to do something, the US gets stuck with the bill.

Originally posted by Herman
27jd, this is turning into the exact same argument I just had with you on another thread, lol. I would argue it, but I already have! I've said my peice. You know that Bush is strong on defense. I don't study our military very often, but we both know that Bush likes a strong military, Clinton did not. You can look it up, I know you'll find it.

But I clearly laid out the reasons that is a myth, why do you, in your efforts to defend Bush at all costs, ignore the facts I have given you? You are just parroting what you have been told, and you will not allow any information in your brain that contradicts that, you should think for yourself, and I am not saying Bush is "soft" on defense, but neither was Clinton. It's not a partisan thing, don't believe the BS. Also, on the other thread, we were arguing the legitimacy and practicality of the war in Iraq, not the legacy of Clinton's military.





[edit on 7-9-2004 by 27jd]