I said "is often;" that's the philosophy that Bush used that got us into two wars, an enormous deficit, and so much more.

I said "is often;" that's the philosophy that Bush used that got us into two wars, an enormous deficit, and so much more.

In that link you posted, it only said that Bush received one memo, a full year before the attack, that some planes might be hijacked, not what would be done with them, the others were sent to other people, not just Bush is to blame, I'm sure he gets memos like it all the time.

In that link you posted, it only said that Bush received one memo, a full year before the attack, that some planes might be hijacked, not what would be done with them, the others were sent to other people, not just Bush is to blame, I'm sure he gets memos like it all the time.

[quote=name:WoAHorde]http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/16/september11.usa1 Bush was warned MULTIPLE TIMES about the attack and ignored the thousands of tips[/quote] That's a bad source to use while backing your point. Because if you read what the article says... The president was warned on August 2001 of hijacking. Hijacking doesn't necessarily translate to turning airplanes into missiles and crashing them into the WTC. And this: [quote]"There has been longstanding speculation, shared with the president, about the potential of hijackings in the traditional sense," the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said yesterday. "We had general threats involving Osama bin Laden around the world and including in the United States." He said the administration, acting on the information received in early August, notified the "appropriate agencies" that hijackings "in the traditional sense" were possible. The warning was never made public, he said.[/quote] does not translate into Bush receiving multiple warnings about an attack that would demolish two towers, kill thousands of civilians, and punch a hole in our pentagon. But now, according to that article written may 16th 2002, they are saying that the FBI had been notified by one of their own agents that a group of arabs were seeking piloting and all sorts of airplane/airport training from a particular flight school. Apparently this information also mentioned something about Osama Bin Laden. The FBI did not act on the memo, the article says. Now some key points here: [quote]Mr Fleischer would not discuss when or how the information was given to Mr Bush. But a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said [color=#CE091D]the president was made aware of the potential for hijackings of US planes during one or more routine intelligence briefings[/color] last summer. The CIA would not confirm what it told Mr Bush, but the agency said the[color=#CE091D] issue of Bin Laden's attempting a hijacking was among a number of terrorist methods raised to US government officials at the time.[/color] But t[color=#CE091D]here was no information that suggested hijackers would crash planes into American landmarks[/color] and there was no mention of a date, a CIA official said. Mr Fleischer said the government, acting on the information, had [color=#CE091D]"notified the appropriate agencies"[/color]. [/quote] So yes Bush was warned about just hijackings, but at that time no one not even you, I, or anyone or even the supposed Gore Administration would assume that such hijackings would be deadly and have an impact on our course of history. But one may say why couldn't we just take care of all of these tips in which some may claim the numbers to be in the thousands. Sounds a lot like the Patriot Act. Sure maybe under a different administration a different approach to investigation may be used but again that does not guarantee a prevention of 9/11. In fact maybe the littlest detail or change in methods may prove to be more detrimental than beneficial. But again, who knows? And so apparently the Hijackers, knowing that the security at that time would often overlook knives or sharp edges, brought in box cutters and plastic knives to secure their respective planes. And finally the article ends with this: [quote]A spokesman for Democratic senator Bob Graham, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said yesterday that [color=#CE091D]the revelations in the memos marked an important discovery in Congress's investigation into why the FBI, CIA and other US agencies failed to learn of and prevent the September 11 plot[/color]. [color=#CE091D]"It represents a failure to connect the dots," said Mr Graham's spokesman, Paul Anderson. "This was dismissed rather lightly at FBI headquarters."[/color] The FBI also has faced tough questioning about whether it failed to act aggressively enough after arresting Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected "20th hijacker", in August after he raised concerns by seeking flight training at a Minnesota flight school. The FBI director, Robert Mueller, has repeatedly said that [color=#CE091D]he wished the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads[/color]. But he insists that [color=#CE091D]nothing the FBI possessed before September 11 pointed to the plot.[/color] [/quote] So from this article alone (remember this was written in 2002 before we truly got into all this mess) the articles says that Bush was warned of a hijacking, but due to the failure of the CIA, FBI, and other US agencies, nobody was able to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Now I'm pretty sure other sources out there may say something different, but from the one used here, it emphasizes the blame on things other than Bush

Quote from WoAHorde[MM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/16/september11.usa1

Bush was warned MULTIPLE TIMES about the attack and ignored the thousands of tips

That's a bad source to use while backing your point. Because if you read what the article says...


The president was warned on August 2001 of hijacking. Hijacking doesn't necessarily translate to turning airplanes into missiles and crashing them into the WTC. And this:

Quote

"There has been longstanding speculation, shared with the president, about the potential of hijackings in the traditional sense," the White House press secretary, Ari Fleischer, said yesterday. "We had general threats involving Osama bin Laden around the world and including in the United States." He said the administration, acting on the information received in early August, notified the "appropriate agencies" that hijackings "in the traditional sense" were possible. The warning was never made public, he said.

does not translate into Bush receiving multiple warnings about an attack that would demolish two towers, kill thousands of civilians, and punch a hole in our pentagon.

But now, according to that article written may 16th 2002, they are saying that the FBI had been notified by one of their own agents that a group of arabs were seeking piloting and all sorts of airplane/airport training from a particular flight school. Apparently this information also mentioned something about Osama Bin Laden. The FBI did not act on the memo, the article says.

Now some key points here:

Quote

Mr Fleischer would not discuss when or how the information was given to Mr Bush. But a senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the president was made aware of the potential for hijackings of US planes during one or more routine intelligence briefings last summer.
The CIA would not confirm what it told Mr Bush, but the agency said the issue of Bin Laden's attempting a hijacking was among a number of terrorist methods raised to US government officials at the time.

But there was no information that suggested hijackers would crash planes into American landmarks and there was no mention of a date, a CIA official said.

Mr Fleischer said the government, acting on the information, had "notified the appropriate agencies".

So yes Bush was warned about just hijackings, but at that time no one not even you, I, or anyone or even the supposed Gore Administration would assume that such hijackings would be deadly and have an impact on our course of history. But one may say why couldn't we just take care of all of these tips in which some may claim the numbers to be in the thousands. Sounds a lot like the Patriot Act.

Sure maybe under a different administration a different approach to investigation may be used but again that does not guarantee a prevention of 9/11. In fact maybe the littlest detail or change in methods may prove to be more detrimental than beneficial. But again, who knows?

And so apparently the Hijackers, knowing that the security at that time would often overlook knives or sharp edges, brought in box cutters and plastic knives to secure their respective planes.

And finally the article ends with this:

Quote

A spokesman for Democratic senator Bob Graham, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said yesterday that the revelations in the memos marked an important discovery in Congress's investigation into why the FBI, CIA and other US agencies failed to learn of and prevent the September 11 plot.

"It represents a failure to connect the dots," said Mr Graham's spokesman, Paul Anderson. "This was dismissed rather lightly at FBI headquarters."

The FBI also has faced tough questioning about whether it failed to act aggressively enough after arresting Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected "20th hijacker", in August after he raised concerns by seeking flight training at a Minnesota flight school.

The FBI director, Robert Mueller, has repeatedly said that he wished the FBI had acted more aggressively in addressing the Arizona and Minnesota leads. But he insists that nothing the FBI possessed before September 11 pointed to the plot.

So from this article alone (remember this was written in 2002 before we truly got into all this mess) the articles says that Bush was warned of a hijacking, but due to the failure of the CIA, FBI, and other US agencies, nobody was able to prevent the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Now I'm pretty sure other sources out there may say something different, but from the one used here, it emphasizes the blame on things other than Bush

Anyone read my [url=http://www.staredit.net/83413/]post[/url]? Good proof that Bush is at least partially corrupt, imo.

Anyone read my post? Good proof that Bush is at least partially corrupt, imo.

Yes, it's a bad article. I only skimmed through it and didn't put much effort into finding a strong one. No, we can never know if Gore would have handled things differently, but it's likely that even if the attacks did happen, we wouldn't be stuck in a superfluous war and have horrid nation policy.

Yes, it's a bad article. I only skimmed through it and didn't put much effort into finding a strong one.

No, we can never know if Gore would have handled things differently, but it's likely that even if the attacks did happen, we wouldn't be stuck in a superfluous war and have horrid nation policy.

[quote]Anyone read my post? Good proof that Bush is at least partially corrupt, imo. [/quote] Has he used it? No. And he's a pretty morally strong man, not corrupt like the presidents it looks like we're about to elect.. [quote]No, we can never know if Gore would have handled things differently, but it's likely that even if the attacks did happen, we wouldn't be stuck in a superfluous war and have horrid nation policy.[/quote] Then you get back to the original question, if we hadn't gone to war, how do you know the attacks wouldn't have continued. Circular Reasoning.

Quote

Anyone read my post? Good proof that Bush is at least partially corrupt, imo.

Has he used it? No. And he's a pretty morally strong man, not corrupt like the presidents it looks like we're about to elect..

Quote

No, we can never know if Gore would have handled things differently, but it's likely that even if the attacks did happen, we wouldn't be stuck in a superfluous war and have horrid nation policy.

Then you get back to the original question, if we hadn't gone to war, how do you know the attacks wouldn't have continued. Circular Reasoning.

[quote]Has he used it? No. And he's a pretty morally strong man, not corrupt like the presidents it looks like we're about to elect..[/quote] The fact that he made it at all is (I think) an outrage. But that depends on how you view it.

Quote

Has he used it? No. And he's a pretty morally strong man, not corrupt like the presidents it looks like we're about to elect..

The fact that he made it at all is (I think) an outrage.

But that depends on how you view it.

In simplicity. Alright, so he was left a memo for an attack right? How was he supose to know what would've happened? Was he going to waste millions of tax dollars on tightening security everywhere around the states? [quote]Now I'm pretty sure other sources out there may say something different, but from the one used here, it emphasizes the blame on things other than Bush [/quote] Thank you. This was what I was trying to say before. Everyone blames everything on Bush when it isn't really his fault. Presidents can only do so much.

In simplicity. Alright, so he was left a memo for an attack right? How was he supose to know what would've happened? Was he going to waste millions of tax dollars on tightening security everywhere around the states?

Quote

Now I'm pretty sure other sources out there may say something different, but from the one used here, it emphasizes the blame on things other than Bush

Thank you. This was what I was trying to say before. Everyone blames everything on Bush when it isn't really his fault. Presidents can only do so much.

I'll add to my list of why I despise Bush his sheer hypocrisy, inspired by the South Ossetian Crisis. What, America can bomb Serbia and Iraq, support a separatist Kosovo that has far less legitimacy for independence, from Russia's ally Serbia, NATO can attack Yugoslavia and aim for civilian populations, and Russia can't? Russia can't protect its citizens in a historically independent but internationally unrecognized republic from western-backed aggression? Did not NATO act far more drastically against Serbia to force Kosovo's independence? How hypocritical can you get? I'm counting on China to screw the US over somehow. Or republicans, like McCain. He should win now. The extreme levels of propaganda surrounding the conflict allowed for McCain to reiterate his anti-Russian stance to far greater effect - The bush-clone cut Obama's lead by more then half in a period of a week. As it continues, McCain's gains should increase. I'll add that someone wanting to dispute anything said above, you're really, really welcome to do so :rolleyes: .

I'll add to my list of why I despise Bush his sheer hypocrisy, inspired by the South Ossetian Crisis. What, America can bomb Serbia and Iraq, support a separatist Kosovo that has far less legitimacy for independence, from Russia's ally Serbia, NATO can attack Yugoslavia and aim for civilian populations, and Russia can't? Russia can't protect its citizens in a historically independent but internationally unrecognized republic from western-backed aggression? Did not NATO act far more drastically against Serbia to force Kosovo's independence? How hypocritical can you get?

I'm counting on China to screw the US over somehow. Or republicans, like McCain. He should win now. The extreme levels of propaganda surrounding the conflict allowed for McCain to reiterate his anti-Russian stance to far greater effect - The bush-clone cut Obama's lead by more then half in a period of a week. As it continues, McCain's gains should increase.

I'll add that someone wanting to dispute anything said above, you're really, really welcome to do so .

McCain is not a Bush Clone. McCain is a fucking retard and both canidates are not suited to be presidents.

McCain is not a Bush Clone. McCain is a fucking retard and both canidates are not suited to be presidents.

If you can actually elaborate what is wrong with Barack Obama... then do it.

If you can actually elaborate what is wrong with Barack Obama... then do it.

1) The taxes. A lot of people hate paying huge amount of taxes. Although the richer gets taxed more, the people under it still gets taxed. Even more to be specific. Where do you think all these things Obama will promise will be paid by? The people. 2) Health Insurance. Oh yeah, Everyone wants free health insurance. The majority of voters are ignorant. There is no such thing as free in life, everything has a price. Health insurance is not FREE. Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba. If you ask anyone who has free health insurance, you will know they get a huge chunk of their income taken away for health insurance. 3) Obama is inexperienced and has no knowledge about the war. How will he become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, one who takes control of the military IF HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WAR. Same goes to McCain, he fought a war that was like 3 decades ago. That old man has no experience with modern warefare. Those are just FEW examples of why Obama, and even McCain is not suited.

1) The taxes. A lot of people hate paying huge amount of taxes. Although the richer gets taxed more, the people under it still gets taxed. Even more to be specific. Where do you think all these things Obama will promise will be paid by? The people.

2) Health Insurance. Oh yeah, Everyone wants free health insurance. The majority of voters are ignorant. There is no such thing as free in life, everything has a price. Health insurance is not FREE. Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba. If you ask anyone who has free health insurance, you will know they get a huge chunk of their income taken away for health insurance.

3) Obama is inexperienced and has no knowledge about the war. How will he become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, one who takes control of the military IF HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WAR. Same goes to McCain, he fought a war that was like 3 decades ago. That old man has no experience with modern warefare.

Those are just FEW examples of why Obama, and even McCain is not suited.

[quote=name:EcHo]1) The taxes. A lot of people hate paying huge amount of taxes. Although the richer gets taxed more, the people under it still gets taxed. Even more to be specific. Where do you think all these things Obama will promise will be paid by? The people.[/quote] If the rich get taxed more it won't be my group of people. :bleh: [quote=name:EcHo] 2) Health Insurance. Oh yeah, Everyone wants free health insurance. The majority of voters are ignorant. There is no such thing as free in life, everything has a price. Health insurance is not FREE. Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba. If you ask anyone who has free health insurance, you will know they get a huge chunk of their income taken away for health insurance.[/quote] It's free if the government says it is. :whistling1: [quote=name:EcHo] 3) Obama is inexperienced and has no knowledge about the war. How will he become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, one who takes control of the military IF HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WAR. Same goes to McCain, he fought a war that was like 3 decades ago. That old man has no experience with modern warefare. [/quote] Obama is inexperienced. Okay. That's why he wants to pull out and end the war. No war no problem. :D

Quote from [EcHo]:]

1) The taxes. A lot of people hate paying huge amount of taxes. Although the richer gets taxed more, the people under it still gets taxed. Even more to be specific. Where do you think all these things Obama will promise will be paid by? The people.

If the rich get taxed more it won't be my group of people.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

2) Health Insurance. Oh yeah, Everyone wants free health insurance. The majority of voters are ignorant. There is no such thing as free in life, everything has a price. Health insurance is not FREE. Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba. If you ask anyone who has free health insurance, you will know they get a huge chunk of their income taken away for health insurance.

It's free if the government says it is.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

3) Obama is inexperienced and has no knowledge about the war. How will he become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, one who takes control of the military IF HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WAR. Same goes to McCain, he fought a war that was like 3 decades ago. That old man has no experience with modern warefare.

Obama is inexperienced. Okay. That's why he wants to pull out and end the war. No war no problem.

[quote]Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba.[/quote] All the people I've asked are happy with it. Problem?

Quote

Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba.

All the people I've asked are happy with it.
Problem?

Tax raise cost related to health != Health cost atm

Tax raise cost related to health != Health cost atm

[quote=name:EzDay281][quote]Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba.[/quote] All the people I've asked are happy with it. Problem?[/quote] Echo says those people are ignorant. :rolleyes:

Quote from EzDay281[MM]

Quote

Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba.

All the people I've asked are happy with it.
Problem?

Echo says those people are ignorant.

[quote]Echo says those people are ignorant.[/quote] No, I said people who thinks health care is free. are ignorant. [quote]All the people I've asked are happy with it. Problem? [/quote] All? Many people I talked with complain about how their parent's paychecks are greatly reduced. Some are even like 20% of their paychecks.

Quote

Echo says those people are ignorant.

No, I said people who thinks health care is free. are ignorant.

Quote

All the people I've asked are happy with it.
Problem?

All? Many people I talked with complain about how their parent's paychecks are greatly reduced. Some are even like 20% of their paychecks.

[quote=name:EcHo]1) The taxes. A lot of people hate paying huge amount of taxes. Although the richer gets taxed more, the people under it still gets taxed. Even more to be specific. Where do you think all these things Obama will promise will be paid by? The people.[/quote] Obama accepts optional donations, he does not use taxes to fulfill what he promises. [quote=name:EcHo] 2) Health Insurance. Oh yeah, Everyone wants free health insurance. The majority of voters are ignorant. There is no such thing as free in life, everything has a price. Health insurance is not FREE. Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba. If you ask anyone who has free health insurance, you will know they get a huge chunk of their income taken away for health insurance.[/quote] "Everything has a price?" What the hell? And besides, health insurance affects taxes? If so, how severe? [quote=name:EcHo] 3) Obama is inexperienced and has no knowledge about the war. How will he become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, one who takes control of the military IF HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WAR. Same goes to McCain, he fought a war that was like 3 decades ago. That old man has no experience with modern warefare. Those are just FEW examples of why Obama, and even McCain is not suited.[/quote] Obama clearly said he wants to end the war on Iraq... he is more interested in avoiding war... :-_-:

Quote from [EcHo]:]

1) The taxes. A lot of people hate paying huge amount of taxes. Although the richer gets taxed more, the people under it still gets taxed. Even more to be specific. Where do you think all these things Obama will promise will be paid by? The people.

Obama accepts optional donations, he does not use taxes to fulfill what he promises.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

2) Health Insurance. Oh yeah, Everyone wants free health insurance. The majority of voters are ignorant. There is no such thing as free in life, everything has a price. Health insurance is not FREE. Our taxes will increase from that, just ask someone from Canada or England, heck even Cuba. If you ask anyone who has free health insurance, you will know they get a huge chunk of their income taken away for health insurance.

"Everything has a price?" What the hell? And besides, health insurance affects taxes? If so, how severe?

Quote from [EcHo]:]

3) Obama is inexperienced and has no knowledge about the war. How will he become the COMMANDER IN CHIEF, one who takes control of the military IF HE HAS NO EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO WAR. Same goes to McCain, he fought a war that was like 3 decades ago. That old man has no experience with modern warefare.

Those are just FEW examples of why Obama, and even McCain is not suited.

Obama clearly said he wants to end the war on Iraq... he is more interested in avoiding war...

Now we are just repeating some aspects. [quote]Obama accepts optional donations, he does not use taxes to fulfill what he promises.[/quote] The fuck are you talking about? Optional donations? I'm not talking about his expenses smart one. And if he did use donations to "fufill what he promises", I'm sure that would work out fine. I'm sure that few million or even hundred thousand dollars from his supporters will be able to pay for his energy efficent programs, and his health care, and every thing he says that promises a perfect America. [quote]"Everything has a price?" What the hell? And besides, health insurance affects taxes? If so, how severe?[/quote] Oh gawd. Are you kidding me? Do you really think health insurance is free? Go research and come back. [quote]Obama clearly said he wants to end the war on Iraq... he is more interested in avoiding war...[/quote] He wants to end the war, yeah, so does McCain. Obama said he would withdraw in about 36 months, so within that period, if he is elected, what will he do in 36 months? Just stay there like a sitting duck? Interesting in avoiding war? Okay let's just let America get crushed by our enemies.

Now we are just repeating some aspects.

Quote

Obama accepts optional donations, he does not use taxes to fulfill what he promises.

The fuck are you talking about? Optional donations? I'm not talking about his expenses smart one. And if he did use donations to "fufill what he promises", I'm sure that would work out fine. I'm sure that few million or even hundred thousand dollars from his supporters will be able to pay for his energy efficent programs, and his health care, and every thing he says that promises a perfect America.

Quote

"Everything has a price?" What the hell? And besides, health insurance affects taxes? If so, how severe?

Oh gawd. Are you kidding me? Do you really think health insurance is free? Go research and come back.

Quote

Obama clearly said he wants to end the war on Iraq... he is more interested in avoiding war...

He wants to end the war, yeah, so does McCain. Obama said he would withdraw in about 36 months, so within that period, if he is elected, what will he do in 36 months? Just stay there like a sitting duck? Interesting in avoiding war? Okay let's just let America get crushed by our enemies.

[quote=name:EcHo] The fuck are you talking about? Optional donations? I'm not talking about his expenses smart one. And if he did use donations to "fufill what he promises", I'm sure that would work out fine. I'm sure that few million or even hundred thousand dollars from his supporters will be able to pay for his energy efficent programs, and his health care, and every thing he says that promises a perfect America.[/quote] ... Typical of you. The minimal donation of any American would be five dollars. And hell, there are MILLIONS of donations. [quote=name:EcHo] Oh gawd. Are you kidding me? Do you really think health insurance is free? Go research and come back.[/quote] Canada seems to be fine. Along with United Kingdom. [quote=name:EcHo] He wants to end the war, yeah, so does McCain. Obama said he would withdraw in about 36 months, so within that period, if he is elected, what will he do in 36 months? Just stay there like a sitting duck? Interesting in avoiding war? Okay let's just let America get crushed by our enemies.[/quote] Clearly McCain does NOT want to end the war. He is extending the war and hopes to finish it around by 2012. And how the hell can the United States, a superpower, get crushed by Iraq? Apparently, if the United States were to ever get crushed, the European countries along with Asian and Australian countries helping out... And stop calling the United States "America" for once. This is my third time saying it. McCain approves the Iraq war, following the Bush administration.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

The fuck are you talking about? Optional donations? I'm not talking about his expenses smart one. And if he did use donations to "fufill what he promises", I'm sure that would work out fine. I'm sure that few million or even hundred thousand dollars from his supporters will be able to pay for his energy efficent programs, and his health care, and every thing he says that promises a perfect America.

...

Typical of you. The minimal donation of any American would be five dollars. And hell, there are MILLIONS of donations.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

Oh gawd. Are you kidding me? Do you really think health insurance is free? Go research and come back.

Canada seems to be fine. Along with United Kingdom.

Quote from [EcHo]:]

He wants to end the war, yeah, so does McCain. Obama said he would withdraw in about 36 months, so within that period, if he is elected, what will he do in 36 months? Just stay there like a sitting duck? Interesting in avoiding war? Okay let's just let America get crushed by our enemies.

Clearly McCain does NOT want to end the war. He is extending the war and hopes to finish it around by 2012. And how the hell can the United States, a superpower, get crushed by Iraq? Apparently, if the United States were to ever get crushed, the European countries along with Asian and Australian countries helping out... And stop calling the United States "America" for once. This is my third time saying it.

McCain approves the Iraq war, following the Bush administration.