And now for something completely different...

[manu1959]

And you have trouble coming to grips with any view which contradicts your own narrow, blinkered, black-and-white view of the world. Bye-bye.

he does not seem to struggle with it any more than you

 

[007]

And you have trouble coming to grips with any view which contradicts your own narrow, blinkered, black-and-white view of the world. Bye-bye.

Hey pulit, I'm with OCA. He nailed your America hating, terrorist coddling, communist ass to the fucking floor like the steaming pile of ultra radical leftist zealot communist dog shit you are. He's not the only one you make feel like puking. You make me sick as well, and all the pencil necked, clintonian, it takes a village, kerry voting, baby killing, God hating, mickey moore worshiping, America bashers that are like you.

Here's an idea... why the hell don't you get your sorry ass out of America. Maybe the terrorists in Iraq would love and adore as you tell them of how you hate America and it's President. But then again, maybe they'd saw your fucking head off, and unknowingly do the world a favor.

 

[sagegirl]

<center><h1><a href=http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=609895&host=3&dir=70>It just gets better and better...</a></h1></center>

<blockquote><h2>Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida</h2>

<b>By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

11 February 2005</b>

Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.

Critics say the new information undermines the government's claim that intelligence about al-Qa'ida's ambitions was "historical" in nature.

The independent commission investigating the attacks on New York and Washington concluded that while officials at the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) did receive warnings, they were "lulled into a false sense of security". As a result, "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures".

The report, withheld from the public for months, says the FAA was primarily focused on the likelihood of an incident overseas. However, in spring 2001, it warned US airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable".</blockquote>

Gosh, didn't Condi testify before the 9/11 Commission that she had "no recollection" of any such warnings? Didn't she say that the warnings were "historical" in nature? And she was promoted after these grave "lapses" of memory. But promoting incompetence seems to be a habit with this administration. How does anyone continue to justify any faith and confidence in this administration when it suppressed this report until after the elections? Are they really that credulous?

Im not going to debate this because I have to agree.....I think there was an opportunity for the administration to foresee some sort of attack and at least quietly pass on the word to alert the various agencies in our government to be on alert,.(FAA, immigration).....would have been alright to let the public know too ,so that we could all have raised our awareness but..... less they panic the complacent flock. I think they lose all their credibility to say there was no way that they could have known/prevented 9-11, and then for us to have any confidence in the capabilities of homeland security. (that was condi's responsibility at the time, and she sure failed us)
And there is a subtle benefit for this in an administration that had a predisposed desire to interfere in the region. That was to establish a connection with the terrorist attack that came from bases in Afgahanistan and al- Quida to the regime of saddam in Iraq, which was obviously the desired target as far as the neophytes were concerned. That transition was only possible and playable to the american public in the aftermath of a huge event that affected the whole of our country. Remember GW sees the greater picture and for him the end JUSTIFIES the means.
What really gets me is the uncontested faith that you all seem to adhere to that there were no prior indicators and no way to know this was coming, and that the intelligence was wrong on wmd's and that saddam was responsible for the attacks in the first place...it just goes on and on....all rhetoric spewed out by those who should have known as their excuse for not knowing...and you have no problem just letting GW and his administration off. I know if the tables were turned the rap would be that dems were soft on defense and lacked the skills to govern and kept information contained in small groups rather than sharing and discussing issues. Why is it that rep's are so afraid to put blame or criticise the administration? This is an administration that fought the investigation into the whole issue .....doesnt that tell you something.
I am baffled by your failure to question or express any skeptcism on this issue.

 

[Johnney]

Im not going to debate this because I have to agree.....I think there was an opportunity for the administration to foresee some sort of attack and at least quietly pass on the word to alert the various agencies in our government to be on alert,.(FAA, immigration).....would have been alright to let the public know too ,so that we could all have raised our awareness but..... less they panic the complacent flock. I think they lose all their credibility to say there was no way that they could have known/prevented 9-11, and then for us to have any confidence in the capabilities of homeland security. (that was condi's responsibility at the time, and she sure failed us)
And there is a subtle benefit for this in an administration that had a predisposed desire to interfere in the region. That was to establish a connection with the terrorist attack that came from bases in Afgahanistan and al- Quida to the regime of saddam in Iraq, which was obviously the desired target as far as the neophytes were concerned. That transition was only possible and playable to the american public in the aftermath of a huge event that affected the whole of our country. Remember GW sees the greater picture and for him the end JUSTIFIES the means.
What really gets me is the uncontested faith that you all seem to adhere to that there were no prior indicators and no way to know this was coming, and that the intelligence was wrong on wmd's and that saddam was responsible for the attacks in the first place...it just goes on and on....all rhetoric spewed out by those who should have known as their excuse for not knowing...and you have no problem just letting GW and his administration off. I know if the tables were turned the rap would be that dems were soft on defense and lacked the skills to govern and kept information contained in small groups rather than sharing and discussing issues. Why is it that rep's are so afraid to put blame or criticise the administration? This is an administration that fought the investigation into the whole issue .....doesnt that tell you something.
I am baffled by your failure to question or express any skeptcism on this issue.

im not sure on this, but did i miss the part were they terrorist published the days, times, and numbers of the people they were using? so there was a warning, ok.
how about this, im warning you that im going to do something in the future. now use your time machine and tell the world what im going to do. see, you can not predict the future. someones going to do something bad. ok, lets try to figure it out and see if we can stop it. but to sit there and say there was a warning and we should have known is retarded

 

[Annie]

im not sure on this, but did i miss the part were they terrorist published the days, times, and numbers of the people they were using? so there was a warning, ok.
how about this, im warning you that im going to do something in the future. now use your time machine and tell the world what im going to do. see, you can not predict the future. someones going to do something bad. ok, lets try to figure it out and see if we can stop it. but to sit there and say there was a warning and we should have known is retarded

I also want our friends here to imagine what pre-9/11 was like. I can see it now, an emergency broadcast comes on, which I don't even remember being tested for a long time, warning people that they have 'intel' that some terrorists might try taking planes and crashing them at domestic targets.

They don't know when, or where, but would everyone just keep their eyes open, please!

Now I know that the democrats would not have made political hay out of the administration just 'trying to make Bill Clinton look bad' in a way that no American President had ever done. What Sagegirl is asking for would have been insane.

 

[sagegirl]

I also want our friends here to imagine what pre-9/11 was like. I can see it now, an emergency broadcast comes on, which I don't even remember being tested for a long time, warning people that they have 'intel' that some terrorists might try taking planes and crashing them at domestic targets.

They don't know when, or where, but would everyone just keep their eyes open, please!

Now I know that the democrats would not have made political hay out of the administration just 'trying to make Bill Clinton look bad' in a way that no American President had ever done. What Sagegirl is asking for would have been insane.

I dont know that we could have prevented 9-11 or a terrorist attack in the future, but our mindset now is definitely to be on the alert....there could have been some safety measures taken.....locked doors to cockpits, better screening at airports like we have implemented, a commited effort to share information between gov. agencies....some of this would have been almost transparent to the public....and I think most citizens would have accepted measures to insure or at least improve safety.....I hope we dont have to learn everything thru the school of hard knocks. I know there are civil rights groups who would have opposed the loss of some privacy as they do now , and they are necessary and usually a small bump in the road and tend to curb some overzealousness. If we give up too much of our freedoms and rights to privacy, the terrorist have partially won.
My point is that our system failed us big time. It was the dems when they were in power and the reps on their watch... both are to blame.
Perhaps, this tragedy could have been prevented, or at least not been the great "wake up call" that it is so often called. We all should have been made more aware of the threat however vague or undeterminable. We were seemingly OBLIVIOUS, at least alot of people were.
In my opinion, some of our foriegn policies put us in harms way. I dont think we should be isolationists but neither do I think it is our duty or our business to "save the world " from all that ails it. I think we should build strong alliances so our options have a greater impact. I think as an economic power (which is declining ) we can seriously bring about changes by persuasion.....trade embargoes , and other restrictions, and if push comes to shove we can choose sides with our military might. To proceed with politically biased foriegn policies makes us a target and so far has not won us much allegiance or respect, both of which are in decline also. It use to be that the US was undeniably the most respected (not necessarily feared) country in the world. If we spent some of the money we use to support our military into foriegn aid and development, the results might be a better world and a friendlier world.
Oh well.......

 

[dilloduck]

I dont know that we could have prevented 9-11 or a terrorist attack in the future, but our mindset now is definitely to be on the alert....there could have been some safety measures taken.....locked doors to cockpits, better screening at airports like we have implemented, a commited effort to share information between gov. agencies....some of this would have been almost transparent to the public....and I think most citizens would have accepted measures to insure or at least improve safety.....I hope we dont have to learn everything thru the school of hard knocks. I know there are civil rights groups who would have opposed the loss of some privacy as they do now , and they are necessary and usually a small bump in the road and tend to curb some overzealousness. If we give up too much of our freedoms and rights to privacy, the terrorist have partially won.
My point is that our system failed us big time. It was the dems when they were in power and the reps on their watch... both are to blame.
Perhaps, this tragedy could have been prevented, or at least not been the great "wake up call" that it is so often called. We all should have been made more aware of the threat however vague or undeterminable. We were seemingly OBLIVIOUS, at least alot of people were.
In my opinion, some of our foriegn policies put us in harms way. I dont think we should be isolationists but neither do I think it is our duty or our business to "save the world " from all that ails it. I think we should build strong alliances so our options have a greater impact. I think as an economic power (which is declining ) we can seriously bring about changes by persuasion.....trade embargoes , and other restrictions, and if push comes to shove we can choose sides with our military might. To proceed with politically biased foriegn policies makes us a target and so far has not won us much allegiance or respect, both of which are in decline also. It use to be that the US was undeniably the most respected (not necessarily feared) country in the world. If we spent some of the money we use to support our military into foriegn aid and development, the results might be a better world and a friendlier world.
Oh well.......

trying to be everything will result in being nothing

 

[sagegirl]

trying to be everything will result in being nothing

Im not sure I understand your response but I know I cross the lines on alot of issues. I do not think of things from just 2 sides or having to conform to some predetermined set of standards (liberal or conservative). Yes I am idealistic....we can never attain perfection, but if we dont strive for it what is the point..anyway. If you build a house a small error in the foundation results in exponential problems later on.....keep as close to perfect as you can from the beginning and the problems you encounter later on are minimized.