Bush Justified in Wiretapping

[Gunny]

The gov is messed up, and i still dont get why people voted him into office on relection when he failed to do anything big for the sept. 11?

Pretty simple. Look at the alternatives.

Our response to Sept 11 was to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power; which, has been done successfully. So you'll have to explain "failed" a bit more in-depth.

 

[Chad2000k]

Pretty simple. Look at the alternatives.

Our response to Sept 11 was to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban from power; which, has been done successfully. So you'll have to explain "failed" a bit more in-depth.

He failed cuz there wasnt much than a big funeral or ceremony sorta thing. What im getting at is why didnt he immediately call for action, and wtf did he know how to be in florida at that right moment.

 

[MtnBiker]

and wtf did he know how to be in florida at that right moment.

Where should he have been? And what are you suggesting?

 

[Gunny]

He failed cuz there wasnt much than a big funeral or ceremony sorta thing. What im getting at is why didnt he immediately call for action, and wtf did he know how to be in florida at that right moment.

Bush's whereabouts on 9/11 are irrelevant.

Our military response took place once sufficient forces to accomplish the mission were built up. If you look at the history of US military responses to attack, they are almost NEVER immediate.

There is also the fact that invading Afghanistan was not at first the US's goal. The US attempted to get the then-current government in Afghanistan -- the Taliban -- to vountarily surrender bin Laden. They refused, and got their asses kicked for harboring him.

The only immediate response we have are nukes.

 

[manu1959]

He failed cuz there wasnt much than a big funeral or ceremony sorta thing. What im getting at is why didnt he immediately call for action, and wtf did he know how to be in florida at that right moment.

would you please translate your gibberish into proper english

 

[musicman]

The only immediate response we have are nukes.

Which is why it's good that I wasn't president on Sept. 12, 2001.

 

[Annie]

Bush's whereabouts on 9/11 are irrelevant.

Our military response took place once sufficient forces to accomplish the mission were built up. If you look at the history of US military responses to attack, they are almost NEVER immediate.

There is also the fact that invading Afghanistan was not at first the US's goal. The US attempted to get the then-current government in Afghanistan -- the Taliban -- to vountarily surrender bin Laden. They refused, and got their asses kicked for harboring him.

The only immediate response we have are nukes.

Whoa, you are sounding French, Gunny! We have much more than nukes, as they came to find out. Now, IF we are hit with WMD, yeah, we have a few nukes lying around. Unlike the French, they are not our first resort.

 

[Chad2000k]

Whoa, you are sounding French, Gunny! We have much more than nukes, as they came to find out. Now, IF we are hit with WMD, yeah, we have a few nukes lying around. Unlike the French, they are not our first resort.

NUKES?!? Go ahead and launch them, the president was out of range at the time.

 

[Annie]

NUKES?!? Go ahead and launch them, the president was out of range at the time.

You are not so quick. WTF are you talking about now? I thought better of you when you first appeared.

 

[Chad2000k]

You are not so quick. WTF are you talking about now? I thought better of you when you first appeared.

I'm simplying saying that his decision was a poor one. I watched Flight 93 and there was a few planes in the air near the tower. If the plane was smart enough couldnt they decide to hit the planes? If you ask any pilot, they would be prolly more than honored to protect their country by somewhat bumping the big airliner.... So yeah i dunno hmmm..... I would prolly be happy to try and catch the jet and just mess up its wing or something.

 

[Annie]

Making this simple. The reason few if any are getting what you say:
1. Funeral? He was at a school on 9/11, enough press and jokes that even a feeble minded person would know.

I'm simplying saying that his decision was a poor one. I watched Flight 93 and there was a few planes in the air near the tower.

Simplying is not a word. Do you mean simply, how? A 'few planes?' Pray tell pics/links

If the plane was smart enough couldnt they decide to hit the planes?

Planes are not 'smart' pilots may or may not be.

If you ask any pilot, they would be prolly more than honored to protect their country by somewhat bumping the big airliner.... So yeah i dunno hmmm..... I would prolly be happy to try and catch the jet and just mess up its wing or something.

Again, wtf are you talking about?

 

[Chad2000k]

Making this simple. The reason few if any are getting what you say:
1. Funeral? He was at a school on 9/11, enough press and jokes that even a feeble minded person would know.

Simplying is not a word. Do you mean simply, how? A 'few planes?' Pray tell pics/links Planes are not 'smart' pilots may or may not be. Again, wtf are you talking about?

Im sayin the FAA made a poor decision to ground allll planes cuz that puts an even higher risk cuz theres no one to see the plane or even be able to tip it.

 

[Annie]

Im sayin the FAA made a poor decision to ground allll planes cuz that puts an even higher risk cuz theres no one to see the plane or even be able to tip it.

the worst that has been said about grounding all planes is that it should have come sooner, which may have fit into your original complaint.

There are way too many leads that more attacks were planned and thwarted, without subsequent arrests made.

 

[Chad2000k]

There wasnt gonna be anymore attacks cuz thats all the suicide bombers that came. If you can do the math this sorta makes sense. 4 planes were hijacked, each carrying somewhat five guys. That makes twenty, im sayin that cuz 9-11 is twenty as well. So i know im goin no wheres.
This is totally out of the point as well prolly too cuz but im saying it anyways. I dont think the guys are from the foreign countries anyways. I think they have a religious group here thats basically fighting back bec of the gulf war since we won it. Sort of a revenge for the guys that are here if u will. Without thinking they did that and didnt think that we may defend ourselves and attack overseas which we are doing. Which is also giving the rebels and whatnot a reason to fight because we came and invaded thier country. I also think if i can remember right, the U.N. didnt find any weapons of mass destruction there. So that sorta makes sense because the leaders and whatnot of the army in the gulf war may have made it back to Iraq or Afghanistan and sort of didnt plan anything and didnt really want an attack here cuz they know we can simply just nuke them in order to keep them off our tails and to stop attacking us in any way.

 

[Gunny]

Whoa, you are sounding French, Gunny! We have much more than nukes, as they came to find out. Now, IF we are hit with WMD, yeah, we have a few nukes lying around. Unlike the French, they are not our first resort.

My response to Chad questioning why there was no immediate response. Of course we have many more options, and using nukes was ruled out.

My point was that nukes are really our only option for an immediate response with guaranteed results. I doubt they were even considered where the plan is to take out only the despotic regime and not everyone else with it. Wrong tool for the job.

I consider war in itself to be an act of last resort, and using nuclear weapons the last resort of war.

 

[Annie]

My response to Chad questioning why there was no immediate response. Of course we have many more options, and using nukes was ruled out.

My point was that nukes are really our only option for an immediate response with guaranteed results. I doubt they were even considered where the plan is to take out only the despotic regime and not everyone else with it. Wrong tool for the job.

I consider war in itself to be an act of last resort, and using nuclear weapons the last resort of war.

Gotcha! A very good reason for having a 'robust military,' as I think Europe may be divining now, but unfortunately for them, too late and too expensive. They certainly have been sleeping for the past 40 years at least.

 

[G Edward Cook]

Ben Franklin said it so well; "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither.

 

[Annie]

Ben Franklin said it so well; "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Oh thanks for sharing that quote. We never heard it before.

 

[dilloduck]

Ben Franklin said it so well; "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither.

At least get the quote right

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

her's another of his gems that's appopriate.

"The cat in gloves catches no mice."

 

[MtnBiker]

Ben Franklin said it so well; "Those that trade liberty for security deserve neither.

Hmmm........

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

This statement was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759) which was attributed to Franklin in the edition of 1812, but in a letter of September 27, 1760 to David Hume, he states that he published this book and denies that he wrote it, other than a few remarks that were credited to the Pennsylvania Assembly, in which he served. The phrase itself was first used in a letter from that Assembly dated November 11, 1755 to the Governor of Pennsylvania. An article on the origins of this statement here includes a scan that indicates the original typography of the 1759 document. Researchers now believe that a fellow diplomat by the name of Richard Jackson to be the primary author of the book. With the information thus far available the issue of authorship of the statement is not yet definitely resolved, but the evidence indicates it was very likely Franklin, who in the Poor Richard's Almanack of 1738 is known to have written a similar proverb: "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Many variants derived from this phrase have arisen and have usually been incorrectly attributed to Franklin:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither"
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security"
"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"
"If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both."
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin