Obammy Political Timebomb? :: Free Realms

Quote Reply

#52 Oct 16 2008 at 5:55 AM Rating: Decent

Debalic

Prodigal Son

20,643 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

Pensive,

Quote:

The main reason we laugh at republicans who have affairs is because the republican party is supposedly the party of family values and such.

You realize republicans who attend church are just as susceptable to temptation as the rest of us don't you? We attend church to ask forgiveness, not as some sort of religious currency. Where the gop and dems differ is the dems don't think there is anything wrong with say violating the oath you made to your wife.

Yeah, the dems also don't think that dinosaurs and humans co-existed 6,000 years ago.

But I guess I'm neither because I don't believe in either adultery or creationism.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#53 Oct 16 2008 at 6:22 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

You realize republicans who attend church are just as susceptable to temptation as the rest of us don't you? We attend church to ask forgiveness, not as some sort of religious currency.

And that's fine; but they fail to take that into account when judging others.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#54 Oct 16 2008 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good

Nadenu

Gurue

16,299 posts

Jophiel wrote:

gbaji wrote:

If "starting a relationship with another woman while separated from your wife and then immediately asking for a divorce" is cheating, then I guess you're right.

Yeah... you're the only one who actually believes that line.

/Ross

"We were on a break!!"

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#55 Oct 16 2008 at 9:49 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1657498616216

View User Forum

Scholar

10,012 posts

gbaji wrote:

Ok Genius. Explain to me exactly what Bush could have done differently between January and September of 2001 that would have prevented 9/11 from happening.

For starters, he could have listened to the intellegence reports from the FBI, NSA, British and German Intelligence saying an attack on American soil by Al Qaeda was imminent. That might have helped.

Edited, Oct 16th 2008 12:46pm by Kaelesh

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#56 Oct 16 2008 at 10:27 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591814706327

2,847 posts

DaimenKain wrote:

knoxsouthy wrote:

Shadow,

Quote:

we dont care. didnt care about clinton either, he left with a 73 percent approval rating.

He also left us wide open for 911 when he refused to seriously deal with the radical muslim issue.

Are you ready to take the chance that Obama will treat national security the same way?

So...if Bill Clinton supposedly left us wide open for 9/11, then that means George Bush didn't realize this after almost a year in office and therefore did nothing to prevent it.

He left us wide open for 9/11 you say but 9/11 didn't happen on his watch did it?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

the japaneese have used suicide bombers since WW2.

EVERY president during and since WW2 left us open to an attack like this. ALL of them, including your beloved regan. you wana know why this couldnt happen in israel? because there is a seperate interance to the cockpit and it is on the OUTSIDE of the plane.

such a simple little thing. why didnt we do it?

because we are cheap bastards who dont spend a dime for anything untill AFTER we get burned with it. the leveys in new orleans? the bridge collapse in minnosota?

not clintons fault. its all of our faults. couldnt you see the screaming from the airlines if the government tried to force them to spend a few billion dollars to make that change?

bin laudin is still breathing air. after 7 years. not acceptable.
we attacked a defenseless sovergn country, reguardless of the bad intel, not acceptable.
we tortured prisoners. not acceptable.
we walked away from international treties. not acceptable.

the repubs need to go at all costs. even if carter was running again.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#57 Oct 16 2008 at 10:30 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

I am not a Bush fan, but I'm not going to blame him for crazy people hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I'm not going to blame Clinton for that, either. It's the fault of the men who orchestrated the attack, not the president simply because it was "on his watch," or because they were given some vague warning.

I will, however, blame him for his reaction of invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#58 Oct 16 2008 at 10:36 AM Rating: Decent

bsphil

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

I am not a Bush fan, but I'm not going to blame him for crazy people hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I'm not going to blame Clinton for that, either. It's the fault of the men who orchestrated the attack, not the president simply because it was "on his watch," or because they were given some vague warning.

I will, however, blame him for his reaction of invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks.

I will, however, blame him for not doing anything when given a report stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US on it's own soil, and for sitting there like an idiot in a kindergarten class after receiving word that the World Trade Center had been attacked.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#59 Oct 16 2008 at 10:42 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

bsphil wrote:

I will, however, blame him for not doing anything when given a report stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US on it's own soil...

What would you have had him do, exactly?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#60 Oct 16 2008 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

bsphil wrote:

I will, however, blame him for not doing anything when given a report stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US on it's own soil...

What would you have had him do, exactly?

Issue an executive order that the FBI and other agencies share data instead of protecting jurisdictional turf?

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#61 Oct 16 2008 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Samira wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

bsphil wrote:

I will, however, blame him for not doing anything when given a report stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US on it's own soil...

What would you have had him do, exactly?

Issue an executive order that the FBI and other agencies share data instead of protecting jurisdictional turf?

Would sharing data have stopped an attack, though? We would've known that Bin Laden was planning "something," but would we have known what, when, and where in order to stop it?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#63 Oct 16 2008 at 11:13 AM Rating: Excellent

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

bsphil,

Quote:

I will, however, blame him for not doing anything when given a report stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US on it's own soil

How about blaming the president who was offered bin laden on a silver platter by the sudanese and refused?

Quote:

The commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks issued a stinging condemnation yesterday of the U.S. government's failed hunt for Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda terrorist network, finding that both the Clinton and Bush administrations focused too heavily on diplomacy that did not work and were reluctant to consider aggressive military action.

What a terrible idea: trying to reason with people instead of beating the **** out of them. Because we all know violence solves everything.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#64 Oct 16 2008 at 11:14 AM Rating: Good

Uglysasquatch

Soulless Internet Tiger

35,474 posts

knoxsouthy wrote:

How about blaming the president who was offered bin laden on a silver platter by the sudanese and refused?

Can't we just blame both?

____________________________

Donate. One day it could be your family.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#66 Oct 16 2008 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

This may be a stupid question, but did Bin Laden do anything prior to 9/11 that Clinton could've legally arrested him (or whatever) for?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#67 Oct 16 2008 at 11:24 AM Rating: Good

AshOnMyTomatoes

View User Forum

Bloodle-Oodle-Oodle

13,007 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

This may be a stupid question, but did Bin Laden do anything prior to 9/11 that Clinton could've legally arrested him (or whatever) for?

I think he orchestrated the bombing of the US Cole and the original WTC bombing. I may be incorrect.

____________________________

Anyway, there was a hippo sat there waiting to do his act. -Karl Pilkington

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#68 Oct 16 2008 at 11:45 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

This may be a stupid question, but did Bin Laden do anything prior to 9/11 that Clinton could've legally arrested him (or whatever) for?

I think he orchestrated the bombing of the US Cole and the original WTC bombing. I may be incorrect.

I don't know about those, but Wiki says:

Quote:

He has been indicted in United States federal court for his alleged involvement in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, and is on the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's Ten Most Wanted Fugitives list.

But even if we had been able to capture him, would that have really stopped the attacks on 9/11?

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#69 Oct 16 2008 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent

Samira

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Belkira wrote:

Would sharing data have stopped an attack, though? We would've known that Bin Laden was planning "something," but would we have known what, when, and where in order to stop it?

If you read the 9/11 Commission Report, you'll see that we were much closer than that, even to suspecting some of the actual participants. But that knowledge was never shared with, say, local authorities who could have sent out an alert that they were on the move.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#70 Oct 16 2008 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Samira wrote:

Belkira wrote:

Would sharing data have stopped an attack, though? We would've known that Bin Laden was planning "something," but would we have known what, when, and where in order to stop it?

If you read the 9/11 Commission Report, you'll see that we were much closer than that, even to suspecting some of the actual participants. But that knowledge was never shared with, say, local authorities who could have sent out an alert that they were on the move.

Wow. I was never aware of that.

Well, sounds like both Clinton and Bush dropped the ball a bit.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#71 Oct 16 2008 at 12:38 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1670199487804

Scholar

8,619 posts

Quote:

Wow. I was never aware of that.

Well, sounds like both Clinton and Bush dropped the ball a bit.

Not really, that sort of data probably never came close to reaching executive levels, other than in update reports that would have encompassed huge range of threats most of which have and always will come to nothing.

9/11 was a totally unpressidented attack, I doubt even the people whose job it is to envisage this type of thing would have come up with a co-ordinated 4 plane hyjacking with those planes used not for leverage to release prisoners (As every other hyjack by middle east terrorists had in the past) but be used as a suicide attack on the WTC and pentagon.

I call out Bush on many things but the idea that 9/11 was somehow the fault of Bush not reading a report from the CIA is laughable.

Now if you want to talk about foriegn policies of sucessive US governments that could have stopped the attack then we can have a sencible discussion about what effect those policies had and how they may have lead eventually to 9/11.

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#72 Oct 16 2008 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Samira wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

bsphil wrote:

I will, however, blame him for not doing anything when given a report stating that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US on it's own soil...

What would you have had him do, exactly?

Issue an executive order that the FBI and other agencies share data instead of protecting jurisdictional turf?

Except that many of the restrictions were legislative in origin. So. You're saying that if Bush had proposed something like the Patriot Act on Jan 18th 2001, you'd have supported it? Or do you think that everyone would have called it a massive power grab, complete with conspiracy theories about how now the protections against sharing of data between national security and police organizations would result in a police state for us all? Yeah. I think so...

Those very changes in the Patriot Act are soundly attacked today *after* the 9/11 attacks occurred. You can't possibly believe that those changes would have been possible before then, can you?

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#73 Oct 16 2008 at 12:40 PM Rating: Decent

gbaji

Encyclopedia

35,568 posts

Baron von tarv wrote:

Now if you want to talk about foriegn policies of sucessive US governments that could have stopped the attack then we can have a sencible discussion about what effect those policies had and how they may have lead eventually to 9/11.

And the answer to that one is simple. We failed to resolve the status quo cease fire situation with Iraq.

____________________________

King Nobby wrote:

More words please

▲ Page top

Quote Reply

#74 Oct 16 2008 at 12:44 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1670199487804

Scholar

8,619 posts

Quote:

And the answer to that one is simple. We failed to resolve the status quo cease fire situation with Iraq.

Of course the refusal of NATO to remove troops from the region and siteing of US bases close to Islamic holy ground has nothing to do with it.

The middle east situation is massively complex and the idea that Iraqi sanctions is the only factor is very naive, in fact the idea that it was the major factor is naive.

▲ Page top

Obammy Political Timebomb?Follow