Fahrenheit 9/11 Review by FOX NEWS

[Guest MikeSC]

Standing up calmly, telling the children that you have important Presidential matters to attend to, promising them that you'll be back to read to them real soon, thanking them all for being there.....then nicely walking out of the room.

When you know squat, can't do squat to prevent it, etc.

 

Yeah, sure.

There we go. We found a calm way to get Bush out of the classroom and deal with one of the most important matters that this country has ever dealt with. And....*gasp*.....it would have only taken a minute. Possibly less.

Except, of course, there was NOTHING he could do. You seem to be missing that. Jets WERE scrambled, but couldn't get there in time.

It would have been absurdly easy for President Bush to have left the school without scaring all of the children. I really don't think that's a proper excuse for sitting there for 11 minutes and doing absolutely nothing while the country was in turmoil.

Because, if not for those 11 minutes, none of this would have happened.

Oh, I know. Good god, I am just such a terrible person. I would rather have the President of the United States dealing with the matter at hand - that being a devastating terror attack - instead of sitting in a room and reading a meaningless story to children.

"Screw the kids! Sure, he can't do anything to stop anything --- but SCREW them. Yeah, Secret Service might have wanted him to stay until they knew what was going so as to not leave him at more risk than necessary --- but that's immaterial"

At that point, there is still a high possibility of many other planes being hijacked.

And, again, in your world --- what would Bush have been able to do?

 

Order the planes shot down because they MIGHT have been hijacked?

You would think the President needs to take a course of action....and very soon.

Screw maintaining calm and figuring out the situation --- blind irrational action is the answer!

But, then again.....we could prolong making some earth-shattering decisions and instead choose to sit there and read.

 

Look at where my priorities stand. Humanity doesn't have a chance.

Your priorities work nicely --- in Fantasy Land.

 

In the REAL world --- not nearly so well.

As opposed to immediately having conversations with your top advisers and coming up with the best tactical counterattack? His Chief of Staff was right there.

Talking with the Vice-President, Secretary of Defense, etc. They were all just a few phone buttons away, and they could have possibly offered intelligent insight into getting the problem under control as quickly as possible.

 

Surely this would have been the better tactic than Bush sitting in that classroom and thinking about it on his own.

Hate to break it to you --- but there was NO POSSIBLE COUNTER-ATTACK. None whatsoever. And they had virtuallty NO evidence to go on.

 

Hmm, go to war with Iraq --- NOT ENOUGH INFO THERE TO JUSTIFY IT.

But, launch counter attacks on 9/11 --- WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' INFO!

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Frankly, I just stopped giving a fuck about Moore and his shennanigans.

 

Sure its fun for me to make fat jokes, laugh at his movie being distributed by terrorists in the middle east, and shake my head at his glaring hypocracy but in the end it will change nothing.

 

It will win awards that no one has given a damn about in years (it's already won one), it will be panned by most mainstream liberals, fellatioed by not-so-mainstream and celebrity liberals, and of course conservatives will dig up every fact as if the movie was a doctorate thesis at Harvard. It will preach to the choir, it will not convince anyone who isn't already convinced that Bush is a bad president. It won't change any minds, just reaffirm minds already rigidly in place. It will be a rallying point for an increasingly anti-American Europe while it is ignored by most of America. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[NYU 0]

Standing up calmly, telling the children that you have important Presidential matters to attend to, promising them that you'll be back to read to them real soon, thanking them all for being there.....then nicely walking out of the room.

When you know squat, can't do squat to prevent it, etc.

 

Yeah, sure.

 

Don't you think it'd be in the best interest of the United States for the President to be dealing with the situation hands-on, making the decision that need to be made, instead of sitting in a room? He knew that two planes had already hit the Twin Towers. He knew the country could be in grave danger. I think he knew a little more than squat at that point....

 

There we go. We found a calm way to get Bush out of the classroom and deal with one of the most important matters that this country has ever dealt with. And....*gasp*.....it would have only taken a minute. Possibly less.

Except, of course, there was NOTHING he could do. You seem to be missing that. Jets WERE scrambled, but couldn't get there in time.

 

You're forgetting the unknown variables at the time. During that morning, nobody really knew what targets had been hit and what targets were next. There were crazy rumors that Disneyworld had already been hit, the terrorists were targeting Camp David, etc. What President Bush SHOULD have done....from the instant moment he heard that we were under attack....was send jets to the prime locations of the country. He should have been out of that seat and making sure that defenses were immediately sent to the major cities of the country. New York City, Washington D.C., Los Angeles. We might not have known for sure what was going on, but those steps should have definitely been taken. Without an 11-minute wait.

 

It would have been absurdly easy for President Bush to have left the school without scaring all of the children. I really don't think that's a proper excuse for sitting there for 11 minutes and doing absolutely nothing while the country was in turmoil.

Because, if not for those 11 minutes, none of this would have happened.

 

No, but those 11 minutes definitely could have been better utilized. And, despite your conservative roots, I would hope that even you could see that.

 

Oh, I know. Good god, I am just such a terrible person. I would rather have the President of the United States dealing with the matter at hand - that being a devastating terror attack - instead of sitting in a room and reading a meaningless story to children.

"Screw the kids! Sure, he can't do anything to stop anything --- but SCREW them. Yeah, Secret Service might have wanted him to stay until they knew what was going so as to not leave him at more risk than necessary --- but that's immaterial"

 

YEAH! There you go! Sitting in a school classroom in Florida - a location which the terrorists could have definitely discovered if they had done the proper research - is INFINITELY more safe than being whisked away on Air Force One. Forget the fact that Bush would practically be untraceable on Air Force One - yet still have the capabilities to meet with his top advisers. Forget the fact that the appointment to read to the children could have been handled calmly in under a minute. Forget all that. Surely, Bush made the right decision that morning because....well....it's Bush.

 

At that point, there is still a high possibility of many other planes being hijacked.

And, again, in your world --- what would Bush have been able to do? Order the planes shot down because they MIGHT have been hijacked?

 

Send jets to the major cities of the U.S. IMMEDIATELY just in case there was another hijacked plane on the way. Then, those hijacked planes could be shot down. Because, well.....if we already had several terrorist attacks that day, then suddenly see a plane flying by who's radar has been mysteriously shut off....I don't think it'd take a genius to discover that this plane might just not be safe after all.

 

You would think the President needs to take a course of action....and very soon.

Screw maintaining calm and figuring out the situation --- blind irrational action is the answer!

 

With thousands of lives at stake the way they were that morning, action certainly needed to be taken very quickly. At that point, he didn't have all day to try to "figure out the situation." I don't get it - how are you trying to justify his early inaction in that school?

 

Hate to break it to you --- but there was NO POSSIBLE COUNTER-ATTACK. None whatsoever. And they had virtuallty NO evidence to go on.

 

Hmm, go to war with Iraq --- NOT ENOUGH INFO THERE TO JUSTIFY IT.

But, launch counter attacks on 9/11 --- WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' INFO!

 

Coming with a plan to shoot down the planes that had their radar shut down, and the FAA couldn't get in contact with.

 

Immediately sending defense jets to the major cities, just in case something had been planned.

 

These are possible counterattacks - and counterattacks that could have been handled sooner than they were.

 

Hmmm, go to war with Iraq - sending thousands of troops over there for a war in which there wasn't really any immediate threat. Months to plan our case, yet still had practically no world backing with the war. Something that wasn't immediately needed at the time, but something that nearly everyone knew would eventually turn into a difficult situation between the actual war AND the rebuilding of Iraq - I WOULD SAY THERE SHOULD BE INFO TO JUSTIFY IT.

 

-Launching counterattacks on 9/11 when the country was still in turmoil and wrapped in deadly mystery, there was still the risk of so many people losing their lives that day, and trying to find a quick end to something that could have been a hell of a lot worse - PERHAPS THE SITUATION OF A SURPRISE TERRORIST ATTACK CALLS FOR A LITTLE LESS BACK-UP INFO THAN A DRAWN-OUT, PLANNED IN ADVANCE WAR!

[Firestarter 0]

I'm just curious - have you ever heard of a chain of command?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

"You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here."

 

- Jayne, Firefly.

 

[NYU 0]

Yes. The orders would go down from the President to the Secretary of Defense, otherwise known as going from Bush to Rumsfeld. Cheney wouldn't really be involved at all.

 

Which does mean that Bush needs to give the initial order.

 

.....I don't really understand the point you're driving at.

[Guest MikeSC]

Don't you think it'd be in the best interest of the United States for the President to be dealing with the situation hands-on, making the decision that need to be made, instead of sitting in a room? He knew that two planes had already hit the Twin Towers. He knew the country could be in grave danger. I think he knew a little more than squat at that point....

Seeing as how there's nothing he could do that OTHERS couldn't do equally well --- no. There are times when the military is better at handling things than the civilian leadership.

There we go. We found a calm way to get Bush out of the classroom and deal with one of the most important matters that this country has ever dealt with. And....*gasp*.....it would have only taken a minute. Possibly less.

Except, of course, there was NOTHING he could do. You seem to be missing that. Jets WERE scrambled, but couldn't get there in time.

You're forgetting the unknown variables at the time. During that morning, nobody really knew what targets had been hit and what targets were next. There were crazy rumors that Disneyworld had already been hit, the terrorists were targeting Camp David, etc. What President Bush SHOULD have done....from the instant moment he heard that we were under attack....was send jets to the prime locations of the country.

And do WHAT? Shoot ANY plane out of the sky that approaches these areas? Every non-military plane was grounded as quickly as humanly possible.

 

Since we weren't sure which planes WERE hijacked --- there ain't much that could have been done.

He should have been out of that seat and making sure that defenses were immediately sent to the major cities of the country. New York City, Washington D.C., Los Angeles.

Planes WERE scrambling towards NYC. We know that for a fact. And, most likely, they were scrambling towards Washington.

We might not have known for sure what was going on, but those steps should have definitely been taken. Without an 11-minute wait.

Steps WERE taken. The FAA asked the military to scramble jets to intercept. The Chain of Command worked quite well.

It would have been absurdly easy for President Bush to have left the school without scaring all of the children. I really don't think that's a proper excuse for sitting there for 11 minutes and doing absolutely nothing while the country was in turmoil.

Because, if not for those 11 minutes, none of this would have happened.

No, but those 11 minutes definitely could have been better utilized. And, despite your conservative roots, I would hope that even you could see that.

Again, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE THAT WASN'T DONE?

 

Were planes scrambled? Yup.

 

Nothing ELSE could be done.

Oh, I know. Good god, I am just such a terrible person. I would rather have the President of the United States dealing with the matter at hand - that being a devastating terror attack - instead of sitting in a room and reading a meaningless story to children.

"Screw the kids! Sure, he can't do anything to stop anything --- but SCREW them. Yeah, Secret Service might have wanted him to stay until they knew what was going so as to not leave him at more risk than necessary --- but that's immaterial"

YEAH! There you go! Sitting in a school classroom in Florida - a location which the terrorists could have definitely discovered if they had done the proper research - is INFINITELY more safe than being whisked away on Air Force One.

Yeesh.

 

Considering the PLANNING OF THE ATTACK, the odds of the terrorists going to a school in FL is slim. Bush was safer THERE than he would've been in the air or in Washington.

Forget the fact that Bush would practically be untraceable on Air Force One - yet still have the capabilities to meet with his top advisers.

He couldn't in the school? As you mentioned, they were with him.

Forget the fact that the appointment to read to the children could have been handled calmly in under a minute. Forget all that. Surely, Bush made the right decision that morning because....well....it's Bush.

If Clinton was in office and did the EXACT SAME THING, I would definitely not criticize him.

At that point, there is still a high possibility of many other planes being hijacked.

And, again, in your world --- what would Bush have been able to do? Order the planes shot down because they MIGHT have been hijacked?

Send jets to the major cities of the U.S. IMMEDIATELY just in case there was another hijacked plane on the way.

Again, there was a "possibility" of other jets being hijacked. A possibility, mind you, that is not correct.

 

So, let's send the military out to shoot down planes that AREN'T hijacked. Gee, THAT would be a MUCH better idea.

Then, those hijacked planes could be shot down.

Provided, of course, that we KNOW WHICH PLANES WERE HIJACKED. Which we didn't until it was a bit too late.

Because, well.....if we already had several terrorist attacks that day, then suddenly see a plane flying by who's radar has been mysteriously shut off....I don't think it'd take a genius to discover that this plane might just not be safe after all.

The governor of KY, I believe, had his plane's transponder fail when he was approaching Washington for Reagan's funeral.

 

In your scenario, he would've been shot down due to a technical glitch.

 

And woe be to those on planes who have similar problems.

You would think the President needs to take a course of action....and very soon.

Screw maintaining calm and figuring out the situation --- blind irrational action is the answer!

With thousands of lives at stake the way they were that morning, action certainly needed to be taken very quickly. At that point, he didn't have all day to try to "figure out the situation." I don't get it - how are you trying to justify his early inaction in that school?

You know, there is something you need to realize:

 

Doing nothing is better than blindly doing the wrong thing.

Hate to break it to you --- but there was NO POSSIBLE COUNTER-ATTACK. None whatsoever. And they had virtuallty NO evidence to go on.

 

Hmm, go to war with Iraq --- NOT ENOUGH INFO THERE TO JUSTIFY IT.

But, launch counter attacks on 9/11 --- WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' INFO!

Coming with a plan to shoot down the planes that had their radar shut down, and the FAA couldn't get in contact with.

Let's say even ONE plane shot down in your theoretical scenario WASN'T hijacked.

 

What then?

 

"Sorry your daddy was killed --- his plane MIGHT have been hijacked. Yeah, we know it wasn't now --- but we had to do something."

 

Would YOU want to be the one to tell a child that?

Immediately sending defense jets to the major cities, just in case something had been planned.

That was done.

These are possible counterattacks - and counterattacks that could have been handled sooner than they were.

*Sigh* Short of shooting out ANY random plane that they can't immediately identify --- which would only add a few more hundred innocent deaths --- nope, there isn't much that could be done.

Hmmm, go to war with Iraq - sending thousands of troops over there for a war in which there wasn't really any immediate threat.

Provided you assume Putin, who OPPOSED the war, is lying.

Months to plan our case, yet still had practically no world backing with the war. Something that wasn't immediately needed at the time, but something that nearly everyone knew would eventually turn into a difficult situation between the actual war AND the rebuilding of Iraq - I WOULD SAY THERE SHOULD BE INFO TO JUSTIFY IT.

We had INFINITELY more info about this when we would've had on 9/11 involving the hijackings. Just kill innocents IN CASE their plane MIGHT be hijacked.

-Launching counterattacks on 9/11 when the country was still in turmoil and wrapped in deadly mystery, there was still the risk of so many people losing their lives that day, and trying to find a quick end to something that could have been a hell of a lot worse - PERHAPS THE SITUATION OF A SURPRISE TERRORIST ATTACK CALLS FOR A LITTLE LESS BACK-UP INFO THAN A DRAWN-OUT, PLANNED IN ADVANCE WAR!

Ah, so to clear this up --- a surprise attack is best dealt with by blind action?

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I'd like to hear an explanation how a situation of this magnitude wouldn't require immediate attention by the president. They _knew_ that Bin Ladin was planning attacks on the U.S. which included the use of Airliners. I think "A Jet flew into one of the Twin Towers" would set off some alarms.

 

Of course, I don't think that Bush was _needed_ in that time because there were people -better than him- handling it. Sadly, that is not a good thing when the President -the top dog- isn't needed when terrorist attacks on America occur. Truly, all he is good for is photo ops and "reading to children".

[Guest MikeSC]

I'd like to hear an explanation how a situation of this magnitude wouldn't require immediate attention by the president.  They _knew_ that Bin Ladin was planning attacks on the U.S. which included the use of Airliners.

Ah, so ANY plane crash or hijacking HAD to be Osama's master plan, right?

I think "A Jet flew into one of the Twin Towers" would set off some alarms.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Of course, I don't think that Bush was _needed_ in that time because there were people -better than him- handling it.  Sadly, that is not a good thing when the President -the top dog- isn't needed when terrorist attacks on America occur.  Truly, all he is good for is photo ops and "reading to children".

Stick to the WWE folder. You're REALLY out of your element here.

 

Read my post before yours.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

Yes. The orders would go down from the President to the Secretary of Defense, otherwise known as going from Bush to Rumsfeld. Cheney wouldn't really be involved at all.

 

Which does mean that Bush needs to give the initial order.

 

.....I don't really understand the point you're driving at.

That once an emergency occurs, the President is given information by his officials and military advisors through a structured process. In the eleven minutes immediately following an attack of such a magnitude, the information is being collected and collated. The President of the United States does not make tactical decisions as a matter of course; these are delegated to lower levels of the chain of command. On 9/11 the President took strategic decisions once the necessary information was available. Before it became available he remained calm and didn't try to second-guess the people on the ground. He trusted them to do their jobs. To me, that's the definition of the word "presidential."

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Ah, so ANY plane crash or hijacking HAD to be Osama's master plan, right?

 

One that involved a Jumbo Jet and The Twin Towers, uh, is more than a mere accident. Doncha think?

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

 

Foresight is better, IMO.

 

Stick to the WWE folder. You're REALLY out of your element here.

 

Clearly. The WWE Folder actually has more open-minded discussion. THE WWE FOLDER. I like politics and poltical things, but the absurd amount of Spin Doctoring in this folder is too much even for me.

 

Read my post before yours.

-=Mike

 

They knew of the potential threat - you say they knew "squat". I read your post, you're wrong. And rather than address my point, you completely ignore it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Ah, so ANY plane crash or hijacking HAD to be Osama's master plan, right?

One that involved a Jumbo Jet and The Twin Towers, uh, is more than a mere accident. Doncha think?

Seeing as how planes were already flying to NYC before the 2nd plane hit the tower --- the response was damned good.

 

As Marney pointed out, there are people on the ground who are more than capable of handling emergency situations. Bush makes big decisions once the INFO IS IN. The people on the ground are highly trained to HANDLE THESE SITUATIONS.

 

To override them would be the height of idiocy.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

Foresight is better, IMO.

Yup. because Osama had only been threatening violence for --- oh, A FEW YEARS. That's right. This was a fairly constant thing. But, I guess THIS time, we should've known he was doing it.

Stick to the WWE folder. You're REALLY out of your element here.

Clearly. The WWE Folder actually has more open-minded discussion. THE WWE FOLDER. I like politics and poltical things, but the absurd amount of Spin Doctoring in this folder is too much even for me.

Toodles.

 

WWE folder has "open-minded" discussion?

 

BWA HA HA HA HA.

Read my post before yours.

-=Mike

They knew of the potential threat - you say they knew "squat". I read your post, you're wrong. And rather than address my point, you completely ignore it.

So, we should plan on attacks EVERYTIME we get ANY intel?

 

Do you have a clue how much intel about possible attacks on us we get EVERY SINGLE DAY?

 

Heck, I remember people bitching just a few weeks ago when a possibility of an attack this summer was mentioned.

-=Mike

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Okay, now I know to ignore EVERYTHING NY Untouchable says. What a fucking nutjob.

[Firestarter 0]

Do you have a clue how much intel about possible attacks on us we get EVERY SINGLE DAY?

I do. Our embassies alone get 600-800 individual threats per day.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Why oh why didn't Bush change into his Superman outfit and save the day?!? How far was the nearest phone booth, couldn't he have there and changed in time to stop those planes?

 

Any person that says that we should have shot down the planes immediately is using hindsight to say what was the 'right' thing to do. Normally when a plane is highjacked, it's taken to an airport and the hijackers negotiate. So, not shooting the planes was standard operating procedure at the time.

 

Yes, the first tower being hit could have been a clue, but it also could have been an accident. Once the second tower was hit, then what we were dealing with became obvious and the need to potentially shoot down planes became a priority.

[Guest MikeSC]

Do you have a clue how much intel about possible attacks on us we get EVERY SINGLE DAY?

I do. Our embassies alone get 600-800 individual threats per day.

And we don't have jets circling our country 24/7 to protect us?

 

Damn, Bush IS negligent.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Why oh why didn't Bush change into his Superman outfit and save the day?!? How far was the nearest phone booth, couldn't he have there and changed in time to stop those planes?

Well, he didn't have Cheney with him, so that means he would have been stuck in the phone booth since nobody would have been able to open the door for him -- cuz he's st00pid...

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

You're confused Mike and are responding to points I simply haven't made. This doesn't generally happen in the WWE folder and certainly not to this degree.

 

I'm just saying that Bush should have left immediately after he got word of the attack rather than continuing to read to school children. *The President* should have taken a more active role. And before you go misinterpreting THAT like you have done a ghastly amount of times in this thread, that does NOT mean planning counter-attacks or scaring the children by telling them he had to go cause the world was blowing up. What it _does_ mean is that he shouldn't have taken such a passive role. In my view, the alarm should have went off in his head that this was something important that required his immediate attention because he KNEW of the threat and the situation SHOULD have smelled a lil fishy. I don't know what the proper response for the president in that situation is - I'm not an expert by any means - however, I *do* know the proper response WASN'T continuing to read to school children and doing nothing. I don't know how you could think any differently.

 

I mean, jesus christ Mike, where are you getting this stuff from? Did I say they should "plan on attacks EVERYTIME (they) get ANY intel" - did I say ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THIS?

 

Your misdirection, while appreciated, will not be tolerated. Somehow you read "immediate attention" and thought "overide highly trained specialists" and "counter-attack". You're a piece of work, Mike. Hmm, maybe "work" isn't the appropriate word in this case. Planes - especially Jumbo Jets - just don't crash into buildings, Mike. But this wasn't just an ordinary building - it was one of the World Trade Centres'. In New York City. That's not a mistake. That's not pilot error. You just don't "accidently" crash into a landmark. And it's not hindsight that makes this reasoning sound, it's fucking logic. When they're getting Intel that says "Arabs with ties to terrorist groups are taking flying lessons" and a situation like the one above happens, I think that the alarms should go off and the president should maybe take a closer look than just going back to his photo op.

[Guest MikeSC]

You're confused Mike and are responding to points I simply haven't made.  This doesn't generally happen in the WWE folder and certainly not to this degree. 

 

I'm just saying that Bush should have left immediately after he got word of the attack rather than continuing to read to school children.  *The President* should have taken a more active role.  And before you go misinterpreting THAT like you have done a ghastly amount of times in this thread, that does NOT mean planning counter-attacks or scaring the children by telling them he had to go cause the world was blowing up.  What it _does_ mean is that he shouldn't have taken such a passive role.  In my view, the alarm should have went off in his head that this was something important that required his immediate attention because he KNEW of the threat and the situation SHOULD have smelled a lil fishy.  I don't know what the proper response for the president in that situation is - I'm not an expert by any means -  however, I *do* know the proper response WASN'T continuing to read to school children and doing nothing.

He allowed the men trained and paid by the gov't to handle emergencies to HANDLE THE EMERGENCY. There was, yet again, NOTHING he could do that wasn't done.

I mean, jesus christ Mike, where are you getting this stuff from?  Did I say they should "plan on attacks EVERYTIME (they) get ANY intel" - did I say ANYTHING REMOTELY CLOSE TO THIS? 

No, you said he SHOULD know because we received threats. I simply mentioned --- and Marney provided numbers --- of the SHEER VOLUME OF THREATS we receive EVERY SINGLE DAY. We CAN'T respond to all of them.

Your misdirection, while appreciated, will not be tolerated.  Somehow you read "immediate attention" and thought "overide highly trained specialists" and "counter-attack".  You're a piece of work, Mike.  Hmm, maybe "work" isn't the appropriate word in this case.  Planes - especially Jumbo Jets - just don't crash into buildings, Mike.

Correct. Accidents CAN happen and you can't automatically assume that a plane hitting a building is a terrorist attack. The response came when WHAT WAS HAPPENING BECAME CLEAR.

But this wasn't just an ordinary building - it was one of the World Trade Centres'.  In New York City.  That's not a mistake.  That's not pilot error.  You just don't "accidently" crash into a landmark.

YOU. DON'T. KNOW. THAT.

 

Is it LIKELY? No. But CAN a plane possibly fly into a building accidentally? Absolutely.

And it's not hindsight that makes this reasoning sound, it's fucking logic.  When they're getting Intel that says "Arabs with ties to terrorist groups are taking flying lessons" and a situation like the one above happens, I think that the alarms should go off and the president should maybe take a closer look than just going back to his photo op.

When you get the SHEER VOLUME OF THREATS WE GET EVERY SINGLE DAY, you could assume any car accident is a terrorist attack.

 

A car accidentally plows into a building? Terrorist attack.

 

Plane crashes in the field? Probably terrorists who couldn't fly too well.

-=Mike

[Guest BDC]

"Arabs with ties to terrorist groups are taking flying lessons" and a situation like the one above happens, I think that the alarms should go off and the president should maybe take a closer look than just going back to his photo op.

 

There was an entire media blitz about how this wasn't reported all the way up the chain of command, so holding it against the Pres doesn't work.

[nl5xsk1 0]

EDIT: other people already made my point ... I guess I took too long before hitting the button to post my comment.

 

Move along, nothing to see here.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

He allowed the men trained and paid by the gov't to handle emergencies to HANDLE THE EMERGENCY. There was, yet again, NOTHING he could do that wasn't done.

 

There was something and that was exactly it, SOMETHING. He could have got up, said there was something that commanded his attention, and kept his ear to the ground. That _at least_ is taking an actual role in the matter, even if it is just listening. What actually happened was he continued on reading and had himself separated from whatever was going on behind the scenes for those 10 minutes. It's not much, but it is still something. It's better than nothing.

 

No, you said he SHOULD know because we received threats. I simply mentioned --- and Marney provided numbers --- of the SHEER VOLUME OF THREATS we receive EVERY SINGLE DAY. We CAN'T respond to all of them.

 

Don't you think that an Airplane flying into the WTC is a little different from the normal threats they get? Especially since it lines up with some of the intel they've been getting?

 

Correct. Accidents CAN happen and you can't automatically assume that a plane hitting a building is a terrorist attack. The response came when WHAT WAS HAPPENING BECAME CLEAR.

 

This wasn't just "a plane hitting a building" Mike. This wasn't just a fucking twin engine that flew into a hardware store in some small town in Idaho. It was a jumbo jet hitting the WTC in NYC. This is an important specific, Mike. You know the World Trade Centre? The place, where in 1993, was home to a terrorist attack that was connected to AQ? Ones that happen to stand out pretty fucking well in the NYC sky line. And you know those big planes? The ones that have auto navigation as well as well-trained pilots? The ones that would be nearly impossible to crash into a building like the WTC by mistake?

 

YOU. DON'T. KNOW. THAT.

 

Is it LIKELY? No. But CAN a plane possibly fly into a building accidentally? Absolutely.

 

I think -taking the situation into account which you aren't doing- there would be a greater possibility of a terrorist attack than an accident, Mike

 

When you get the SHEER VOLUME OF THREATS WE GET EVERY SINGLE DAY, you could assume any car accident is a terrorist attack.

 

A car accidentally plows into a building? Terrorist attack.

 

Plane crashes in the field? Probably terrorists who couldn't fly too well.

-=Mike

 

Again, misdirection. Mike, this is a very specific incident that was happening. This wasn't "any car accident".

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

There was an entire media blitz about how this wasn't reported all the way up the chain of command, so holding it against the Pres doesn't work.

 

So should I just talk about the detailed and lengthy meeting Bush had a few weeks before on the very subject of a BinLadin attack? The point remains, it should have been on his mind and sounded the alarms.

[Guest BDC]

I'm curious though, how do you know it didn't? Just b/c he left the task to the field workers and didn't bolt out in a panic? He continued on with what he was doing. Okay, and? It's been said before, what could he have done or what could he be expected to do? He left it up to those trained to handle the situation.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

I'm curious though, how do you know it didn't?

 

He would have left 10 minutes earlier. He would have shown concern. He wouldn't have continued reading. Of course, I don't "know" this -none of us do- but from where I sit and in my opinion, even if he did know he made the wrong response.

 

Just b/c he left the task to the field workers and didn't bolt out in a panic?

 

Again, taking one thing and calling it another. Where did I say "bolt out in a panic"? This is getting ridiculous, people. Almost everything I say in this thread is getting misinterpreted. Am I speaking a different language? Are my words coming out altered on your screen? Or are you shifting my words conveniently?

 

He continued on with what he was doing. Okay, and?

 

And it was the wrong thing to do and was indicative of his actual role in the running of the country. I swear, this post is pretty-much exactly like my first one (which still hasn't actually been answered - at least, answered on topic.) How on earth can anyone think this place is better than the WWE folder when at least there I could get an suitable response rather than the bullshit I'm being fed here.

 

It's been said before, what could he have done or what could he be expected to do? He left it up to those trained to handle the situation.

 

I gave an example of what he could have done. What was he expected to do? STOP READING. God damn, I'm sure you people are smart, but quit being so fucking stupid. I make a post with a question in it - that question not only doesn't get answered, it gets taken somewhere completely different and then followed up with another -irrelevant- question. Is this how this folder usually is?

[Guest Riots bloodlust]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNew...tate010911.html

 

 

Accidents do happen.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

This wasn't just "a plane hitting a building" Mike. This wasn't just a fucking twin engine that flew into a hardware store in some small town in Idaho. It was a jumbo jet hitting the WTC in NYC. This is an important specific, Mike. You know the World Trade Centre? The place, where in 1993, was home to a terrorist attack that was connected to AQ? Ones that happen to stand out pretty fucking well in the NYC sky line. And you know those big planes? The ones that have auto navigation as well as well-trained pilots? The ones that would be nearly impossible to crash into a building like the WTC by mistake?

[C Dubya 04 0]

RRR, just to give you a little support since it seems like no one else is reading your posts, I'd say you've been spot on with everything.

 

Accidents happen. This I agree with. Thinking for a split second that two jumbo jets flying into the WTC could possibly be an accident. This I don't agree with.

[Guest Anglesault]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/index.html

 

CBC re-aired this the other week and it probably has a lot of the same content F911 has - infact, it probably is a better version of it (I like Moore, but I don't like his movies.) I guess the point is not what GWB was doing, but what Bush Sr. was.

THE INDUSTRY OF CONSPIRACY

On September 11, 2001, pilotless airplanes were guided into the World Trade Center by homing beacons. It wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, but a missile. U.S. Air Force planes weren't scrambled to intercept the hijacked planes that morning because the White House was behind the events of that tragic day

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Misinterpretation? Check.

Misdirection and Spin Doctoring? Check?

Taking things out of context?

 

Incredible? Definitely. Outlandish? Absolutely. But, there are lots of people who believe that at least some parts of these stories are true.

(aka what followed that)

 

Check.

 

The entire thing is "facts behind the myths".