The frightening legacy of George W Bush

Remove this Banner Ad

just maybe said:
Michael Moore did not lie, and the source Monkster (NOT you) posted even admits Moore could actually be RIGHT.

Oops, should check your sources before quoting them

My source was the 9-11 commission, no reason to provide a link, if you can't find that on the internet you're an idiot. oh wait, now I understand... ok here goes:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
 
skipper kelly said:
You never said foreign attack either, but you tell me I must assume that. Now you are telling me that your supposed external attack as opposed to internal doesnt have to be carried out by non US citizens. So external can also mean internal and US citizens can carry out external attacks and non US citizens can carry out internal crimes. All of course depending on what best suits your argument at the time. And of course all this is to be assumed from your lil ole statement "the first attack on mainland US soil since the 19th century"

Wrong. Explain why no one else challenged it except for you, and why thousands of other commentators have said EXACTLY the same thing? Please explain why you are right and everyone else is wrong?

The fact was, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi citizens. So your argument is irrelevant anyway.

Lets look at examples.

WTC 1993 by your reckoning is a domestic crime.
WTC 2001 by your reckoning is an external attack.

WTC 1993 was a botched attempt.

It is quite clear that you are making it up on the run.

No, it's just quite clear you are running against the grain and unable to support in any way except going against common understanding.

Now it is clearly established that your 1st statement is incorrect,

Doesn't matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make you right.

can we move onto the next point, which is yes the WTC 2001 was and still is frightening, and yes it did occur under the watch of the Bush Presidency. Great. Well done. Lets state the bleeding obvious. Can you tell me what cause the Bush presidency had in the events preceeding 911. Can you tell me what policy's the Bush presidency had that led to 911. Can you tell me when the 911 attacks were planned. Were there threats of this attack prior to the Bush presidency? Was the attack and subsequent murder of 3000 people a direct result of the Bush presidency?

I think the incompetence of the Bush Administration in the lead-up to the attacks has been clearly established.

And whether or not he caused it, it still counts as the legacy of his presidency. If it had occurred during Clinton's presidency, it would be part of Clinton's legacy. But it didn't.

And there is no shred of doubt that the Bush Administration has a far worse reputation in the Middle East than the Clinton Administration.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Monkster said:
I'm upset JM won't respond to my post about Tim McVeigh attacking the US mainland :(

Already answered, might want to actually read before trying to be smart.
 
Deceitful little swine, eh?

Don't like getting pantsed, do you?

Once again, might want to read your sources first. Now you're doing worse than Murray - taking the words of the report and implying a meaning into them that they do not say at all. You might like to take that out of the words, but they're not there.

Once again, read your sources and what they ACTUALLY say, not what you want them to say.

Nice try.
 
just maybe said:
Already answered, might want to actually read before trying to be smart.

umm where? you said it wasnt an attack it was a crime, you also said you really meant foreign attack, i'm not seeing anywhere you challenged my dictionary meaning of attack.
 
just maybe said:
Deceitful little swine, eh?

Don't like getting pantsed, do you?

Once again, might want to read your sources first. Now you're doing worse than Murray - taking the words of the report and implying a meaning into them that they do not say at all. You might like to take that out of the words, but they're not there.

Once again, read your sources and what they ACTUALLY say, not what you want them to say.

Nice try.

Mate, you even admitted that your list was phrased in order to give a certain impression, if that isn't deceitful, what is?

your thread is getting repeatedly shot down, and I didn't edit the 9-11 quote, you're just getting shown up for the chicken little that you are.
 
rick James said:
Mate, you even admitted that your list was phrased in order to give a certain impression

No I didn't.

your thread is getting repeatedly shot down, and I didn't edit the 9-11 quote, you're just getting shown up for the chicken little that you are.

Oh dear, I completely showed you up for not even reading your sources and now you're having a childish tantrum.

Real class, rick James.
 
Monkster said:
umm where? you said it wasnt an attack it was a crime, you also said you really meant foreign attack, i'm not seeing anywhere you challenged my dictionary meaning of attack.

Yes it is a crime, not an attack, for everyday purposes. Otherwise you might as well call any violent crime an 'attack'.

There is a difference between dictionary definitions and the way people use language every day.

Pedants like you, unfortunately, seem to have problems understanding the social uses of language.
 
just maybe said:
No I didn't.



Oh dear, I completely showed you up for not even reading your sources and now you're having a childish tantrum.

Real class, rick James.

As I said, I quoted it earlier, go and read it, and get back to me on what I quoted.

i read my sources, and my sources back me.

If you won't do that, you're just showing how infantile you are. you can't show someone up when you haven't ONCE shown any sign of logic or fact this entire thread.

This thread strikes me as completely self indulgent crap, you don't look intelligent or even logical, you look like you were bored and were trying to get responses. In this I salute you.

But until you actually back up your claims, or AT LEAST reply to those people who show you credible resources and investigation that goes against what you say, you're never going to convince anyone of anything.

when you have the balls to reply properly, let me know, I'll be happy to read it, and will willingly admit if i'm wrong. Til then, please try and get with the program.
 
rick James said:
Taken directly from the 9-11 Commission:

Fearing reprisals against Saudi nationals, the Saudi government asked for help in getting some of its citizens out of the country….we have found that the request came to the attention of Richard Clarke and that each of the flights we have studied was investigated by the FBI and dealt with in a professional manner prior to its departure.

No commercial planes, including chartered flights, were permitted to fly into, out of, or within the United States until September 13, 2001. After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin. We have found no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace.

The Saudi flights were screened by law enforcement officials, primarily the FBI, to ensure that people on these flights did not pose a threat to national security, and that nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country. Thirty of the 142 people on these flights were interviewed by the FBI, including 22 of the 26 people (23 passengers and 3 private security guards) on the Bin Ladin flight. Many were asked detailed questions. None of the passengers stated that they had any recent contact with Usama Bin Ladin or knew anything about terrorist activity.

Putting aside the questions surrounding the 9/11 Commission, please explain to me where

1. it is denied that the Saudis were flown around the United States before 9/11
2. it is denied that a plane may have left the US on or before the 13th?

You see, rick, you're just guilty of reading what you want into your source. Might help if you bothered to read it next time.

The only challenge to my list has been that on the global warming point, but the point itself is genuinely correct, it is not a statement on whether or not global warming exists, merely that GW refuses to admit it is a manmade phenomenon.

Perhaps you need to think before you type.
 
just maybe said:
Putting aside the questions surrounding the 9/11 Commission, please explain to me where

1. it is denied that the Saudis were flown around the United States before 9/11
2. it is denied that a plane may have left the US on or before the 13th?

You see, rick, you're just guilty of reading what you want into your source. Might help if you bothered to read it next time.

The only challenge to my list has been that on the global warming point, but the point itself is genuinely correct, it is not a statement on whether or not global warming exists, merely that GW refuses to admit it is a manmade phenomenon.

Perhaps you need to think before you type.

dude, you notice straight after "no commercial flights" it says "including chartered flights", don't you? also notice that is says after airspace was reopened? It's easy to have a go at three words, maybe YOU should read things in their entirety.

sure, the wording says leads way for a POSSIBILITY of military flights being used to move Saudi's. but there's no CREDIBLE evidence of it. please show me YOUR evidence that they were flown around at the time, before September 13.

And what is your p[roblem with the quote "no credible evidence"? would you prefer non-credible evidence to be taken into account?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

rick James said:
dude, you notice straight after "no commercial flights" it says "including chartered flights", don't you? also notice that is says after airspace was reopened? It's easy to have a go at three words, maybe YOU should read things in their entirety.

So all flights are commercial flights and chartered commercial flights?

Notice that it defines it to airspace reopening?

And what is your p[roblem with the quote "no credible evidence"? would you prefer non-credible evidence to be taken into account?

What defines credible? And notice that it is limited to chartered flights. Again, are all flights commercial flights and chartered commercial flights?

You seem to have a very limited understanding of legal commissions narrowly define issues so that many things can fall outside the definition if necessary. It's called professional drafting.
 
just maybe said:
So all flights are commercial flights and chartered commercial flights?

Notice that it defines it to airspace reopening?



What defines credible? And notice that it is limited to chartered flights. Again, are all flights commercial flights and chartered commercial flights?

You seem to have a very limited understanding of legal commissions narrowly define issues so that many things can fall outside the definition if necessary. It's called professional drafting.

i added more. Left it a bit thin initially.
 
rick James said:
i added more. Left it a bit thin initially.

And my reply still stands.

Please show where they've covered the issues that fall outside their narrow definitions, otherwise you have not established anything.
 
just maybe said:
And my reply still stands.

Please show where they've covered the issues that fall outside their narrow definitions, otherwise you have not established anything.

What are those parameters exactly?

Military plane? I guess it's possible, but there's no evidence to support that, unless you've got some?

Otherwise, it's definitely a lie, at BEST an opinion that you're backing.
 
rick James said:
What are those parameters exactly?

Military plane? I guess it's possible, but there's no evidence to support that, unless you've got some?

Otherwise, it's definitely a lie, at BEST an opinion that you're backing.

It's not a lie at all. You throw that word around way too much without understanding its meaning. It's not an opinion either.

I'm simply asking where your evidence of the issues outside the narrowly defined parameters (as discussed in my second to last reply) provided in the 9/11 report.

If you don't have them, you are leaving a swathe of options - military flights, private planes, government planes etc, out of your assumptions - which is what the 9/11 commission deliberately did, because they only wanted to make a narrow definition.

That is where the 9/11 Commission is so questionable - it deliberately uses narrow definitions that upon closer examination leaves out a number of possibilities. I mean, the likelihood of the Bin Ladens using a commercial flight was very small, yet the 9/11 Commission presented it like it was the main and only issue.

You need to stop taking what the government feeds you so literally. Look a bit deeper.
 
just maybe said:
Yes it is a crime, not an attack, for everyday purposes. Otherwise you might as well call any violent crime an 'attack'.

Ummm most people DO refer to any violent crimes as an "attack" you must be about the only person who doesn't.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16808842-2,00.html?from=rss

"Judge orders knife attacker jailed indefinitely"

"A MAN who repeatedly stabbed a Brisbane schoolteacher in a bushland attack "

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16797578-1242,00.html?from=rss

" was walking to her car when a man attacked her."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16787574-421,00.html?from=rss

" The attack occurred in George St, Liverpool,"

Would you like me to find anymore references to attack being used in the case of a violent crime? Or does that shut you up?

ETA:

a quick google search of "Oklahoma City Attack"

found me this:

Despite the enormity of the Oklahoma City attack--it was, at the time, the worst act of terrorism ever to strike the United States--

From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Even CNN seem to think OK was a terrorist attack:

http://www.cnn.com/US/OKC/daily/9512/12-30/index.html

This article is from Dec 1995 mind you

"Oklahoma City was the site of the deadliest terrorist attack in U.S. history."

I can find more if you like?
 
just maybe said:
It's not a lie at all. You throw that room wtf? around way too much without understanding its meaning. It's not an opinion either.

I'm simply asking where your evidence of the issues outside the narrowly defined parameters (as discussed in my second to last reply) provided in the 9/11 report.

If you don't have them, you are leaving a swathe of options - military flights, private planes, government planes etc, out of your assumptions - which is what the 9/11 commission deliberately did, because they only wanted to make a narrow definition.

That is where the 9/11 Commission is so questionable - it deliberately uses narrow definitions that upon closer examination leaves out a number of possibilities. I mean, the likelihood of the Bin Ladens using a commercial flight was very small, yet the 9/11 Commission presented it like it was the main and only issue.

You need to stop taking what the government feeds you so literally. Look a bit deeper.

Why don't you show me the 'deeper' evidence?

if you really want to bring people around to your way of thought or stimulate debate (and hell, I'm young and impressionable neough that I'll buy into anything if it's presented to me convincingly enough) you could start by showing us what YOU know.

The added benefit is, if there are holes in what you say, you might learn something. Noone has all the answers on everything.

Of COURSE there are holes in hwat I posted from the commission, but it's better than anything you've posted to bcak your argument in the contrary.

IMO the bin ladens probably WERE flown around the country before airspace was reopened, but as it stands, the evidence I've seen and read says otherwise.

You're a law student right? what would be hte likelihood of succesfully trying someone based on 'common knowledge' with no factual back up?

I think you mistake my vitriol for a hatred of what you're saying, when it's actually a hatred of how you say it.

I'd like nothing more than for you to show me why the commission is wrong and some evdience to explain exactly where the bin ladens were flown and by whom.

Cause it will mean my original opinion is backed up by facts. Unfortunately, all I've got to go on is the reports and facts I KNOW.
 
Monkster said:
Ummm most people DO refer to any violent crimes as an "attack" you must be about the only person who doesn't.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16808842-2,00.html?from=rss

"Judge orders knife attacker jailed indefinitely"

"A MAN who repeatedly stabbed a Brisbane schoolteacher in a bushland attack "

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16797578-1242,00.html?from=rss

" was walking to her car when a man attacked her."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,16787574-421,00.html?from=rss

" The attack occurred in George St, Liverpool,"

Would you like me to find anymore references to attack being used in the case of a violent crime? Or does that shut you up?

ETA:

a quick google search of "Oklahoma City Attack"

found me this:

Despite the enormity of the Oklahoma City attack--it was, at the time, the worst act of terrorism ever to strike the United States--

From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

OK, so any crime on US soil is an attack therefore attacks on the US are going on every day?

Cool, I'll let you email everyone who said the same thing as me and explain how they're wrong and need to explain they should have specified it as a 'foreign' attack of 'massive' scale, because the minority of people like you and skip feel the need to pedantically nitpick how specifically it is stated, despite the fact that majority of people understand exactly how they are referencing the attack and its status.

I expect you to send all those emails, if you're so pedantic about language and how specifically it must be defined and all people clearly mustn't be able to understand something unless it is completely and utterly defined to the exact specification.

Or do you REALLY think people are that stupid?
 
rick James said:
Why don't you show me the 'deeper' evidence?

if you really want to bring people around to your way of thought or stimulate debate (and hell, I'm young and impressionable neough that I'll buy into anything if it's presented to me convincingly enough) you could start by showing us what YOU know.

The added benefit is, if there are holes in what you say, you might learn something. Noone has all the answers on everything.

Of COURSE there are holes in hwat I posted from the commission, but it's better than anything you've posted to bcak your argument in the contrary.

IMO the bin ladens probably WERE flown around the country before airspace was reopened, but as it stands, the evidence I've seen and read says otherwise.

You're a law student right? what would be hte likelihood of succesfully trying someone based on 'common knowledge' with no factual back up?

I think you mistake my vitriol for a hatred of what you're saying, when it's actually a hatred of how you say it.

I'd like nothing more than for you to show me why the commission is wrong and some evdience to explain exactly where the bin ladens were flown and by whom.

Cause it will mean my original opinion is backed up by facts. Unfortunately, all I've got to go on is the reports and facts I KNOW.

Erm...if it wasn't covered by the commission how can I possibly find anything you'll consider fact? It will all be conjecture to you.

But you're missing the major point anyway: I NEVER presented this issue as one of my factual legacies of Bush's Administration. That was something someone else said, that I never added to my list, which you claimed was a lie. All I was saying was that it was not a lie - it was simply a grey area that has not been covered by the commission.

I do not suggest anything happened - in fact, you admit you believe they were flown around before airspace opened. So exaclty like me, you think there was a possibility that it occurred. That is all I am saying - it is not a lie, merely a reference to a possibility.

But it is not a fact either - and I never said it was. And that is what you're completely misconstruing, you seem now to be pinning the original point to me when it never was.
 
just maybe said:
OK, so any crime on US soil is an attack therefore attacks on the US are going on every day?

Cool, I'll let you email everyone who said the same thing as me and explain how they're wrong and need to explain they should have specified it as a 'foreign' attack of 'massive' scale, because the minority of people like you and skip feel the need to pedantically nitpick how specifically it is stated, despite the fact that majority of people understand exactly how they are referencing the attack and its status.

I expect you to send all those emails, if you're so pedantic about language and how specifically it must be defined and all people clearly mustn't be able to understand something unless it is completely and utterly defined to the exact specification.

Or do you REALLY think people are that stupid?

You just don't know when you've lost do you? I have cited many places that refered to the OK bombing as a TERRORIST ATTACK which WAS actually caused by a president mind you (McVeighs reasoning for the attack was he was upset at how the federal government treated Waco) and yet you still want to sit here and say it wasn't an attack, regardless of whether you had foreign attack in the original post you are still DEAD WRONG, 9-11 wasnt the first terrorist attack on the US mainland since the 19th century it was the first since 1995.
 
Monkster said:
You just don't know when you've lost do you? I have cited many places that refered to the OK bombing as a TERRORIST ATTACK which WAS actually caused by a president mind you (McVeighs reasoning for the attack was he was upset at how the federal government treated Waco) and yet you still want to sit here and say it wasn't an attack, regardless of whether you had foreign attack in the original post you are still DEAD WRONG, 9-11 wasnt the first terrorist attack on the US mainland since the 19th century it was the first since 1995.

Er...nothing was said about 'terrorist'.

I'm simply asking if you're willing to email the thousands of commentators who described it in the exact same way I did, and tell them they're all wrong and you're right.

And even more fundamentally, are you making the remarkable assumption that all people are too stupid to figure out the terms of reference with the statement myself and other commentators made? If you break it down to the most specific definition, you of course can be considered correct by dictionary terms. But in reality, that's not how people understand things and you are simply being pedantic in demanding so. You might as well write to all journals and newspapers and speech writers and tell them how wrong they are for not using dictionary perfect English, that's how pedantic your statement is.
 
just maybe said:
Erm...if it wasn't covered by the commission how can I possibly find anything you'll consider fact? It will all be conjecture to you.

But you're missing the major point anyway: I NEVER presented this issue as one of my factual legacies of Bush's Administration. That was something someone else said, that I never added to my list, which you claimed was a lie. All I was saying was that it was not a lie - it was simply a grey area that has not been covered by the commission.

I do not suggest anything happened - in fact, you admit you believe they were flown around before airspace opened. So exaclty like me, you think there was a possibility that it occurred. That is all I am saying - it is not a lie, merely a reference to a possibility.

But it is not a fact either - and I never said it was. And that is what you're completely misconstruing, you seem now to be pinning the original point to me when it never was.

Ok cool, but you could have just admitted it was your opinion (for now at least) too a while back and saved us both the trouble. ;)

Anyway, the only ones I think you've really missed hte mark on are the attack on US soil one, and the global warming one.

With global warming it's easy for us to accept it, but it makes a MASSIVE difference if the president acknowledges it without 100% factual evidence.

As I said earlier, the best thing to do with global warming is invest a lot mroe money into alternative resources, even though they have their own drawbacks. It's impossible to have a mandate to FORCE people to use less oil, but then, that wasn't your point now anyway was it?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The frightening legacy of George W Bush

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top