Cheney-"voting for kerry will ensure another terrorist

This came out of Cheney's mouth in Des Moines, Iowa...

I wonder what he'll blame it on if there's another attack before the election? On voters just THINKING about voting for Kerry?

What a piece of shit.


another classic example of "foot in mouth disease"

www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6450422

The Curse of Dick Cheney

The veep's career has been marred by one disaster after another

By T.D. ALLMAN


Should George W. Bush win this election, it will give him the distinction of being the first occupant of the White House to have survived naming Dick Cheney to a post in his administration. The Cheney jinx first manifested itself at the presidential level back in 1969, when Richard Nixon appointed him to his first job in the executive branch. It surfaced again in 1975, when Gerald Ford made Cheney his chief of staff and then -- with Cheney's help -- lost the 1976 election. George H.W. Bush, having named Cheney secretary of defense, was defeated for re-election in 1992. The ever-canny Ronald Reagan was the only Republican president since Eisenhower who managed to serve two full terms. He is also the only one not to have appointed Dick Cheney to office.
This pattern of misplaced confidence in Cheney, followed by disastrous results, runs throughout his life -- from his days as a dropout at Yale to the geopolitical chaos he has helped create in Baghdad. Once you get to know his history, the cycle becomes clear: First, Cheney impresses someone rich or powerful, who causes unearned wealth and power to be conferred on him. Then, when things go wrong, he blames others and moves on to a new situation even more advantageous to himself.

And you guys want 4 more years of this guy's BS!?

Another example of a sensationalist title misrepresenting what was actually said.

If you read the article, the point he is making is that Kerry will not be as assertive in fighting terrorists before they strike. He said that this approach is more dangerous for America, and that it is better to mroot the terrorists out before they can effectively plan a strike.

Is it still a scare tactic? To some degree. But it's far different from "ensuring" that a terrorist attack "will happen" if Kerry is elected. If his words are truly as revolting as you claim them to be, then why don't you print what he actually said instead of exaggerating them?

By the way, Rolling Stone is shit.
*

Hell, I'll say it.

I think the terrorists are trying their damnedest to strike before the election in hopes that we'll blame Bush and elect Kerry. But, regardless of the reason, if Kerry wins, the terrorists stand a better chance of striking after next January 21 than they've had over the past 3 years.

10 out of 10 Terrorists prefer John F. Kerry.

Ain't it the truth!:flipoff

That's BS. Terrorists will strike no matter who the president is. So, is Cheney saying that Dubya has some sort of "power" that the terrorists are scared of?

I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Joe Chalupa:

"That's BS. Terrorists will strike no matter who the president is."

---

Well, it's not President Bush that's promising to fight a more "sensitive" war on terrorism.

It's not President Bush that wants to hand over our national security apparatus to the United Nations.

It's not President Bush that can't make up his mind over whether or not going into Iraq was the right thing to do.

It's not President Bush that voted for an $87 billion dollar package, to outfit our troops, before he voted against it.

It's not President Bush who's been the most dovish and liberal Senator, with respect to defense and the military, over the past 20 years.

It's not President Bush who can't point to one single accomplishment -- in national security or any other area of any import, over 20 years in public office.

Quote:

---

Joe Chalupa:

"So, is Cheney saying that Dubya has some sort of 'power' that the terrorists are scared of?"

---

Yeah, it's called resolve. Three years since Osama bin Laden unleashed the dogs of war and no subsequent attacks? That's no accident.

Quote:

---

Joe Chalupa:

"I don't think so."

---

Of course you don't, Joe. But, I think you're in a shrinking minority.

10 out of 10 Terrorists prefer John F. Kerry!

Joe....just go ahead and vote for Bush(because you know it's the right thing to do) and don't tell anyone. That way, you won't be hated by the other liberals on this board.:lol

In my experience I've learned that terrorists will strike at any time and any place. Let us remember that just because a terrorist attack hasn't happened doesn't mean it is because of this president's war in Iraq.
Who is to say that Osama Bin Laden simply didn't have plans to attack again so soon? It took years for the plans for 9/11 to come to action.
This is not a "I'm better than you" argument!!

Are you guys really so hateful towards the other party that you would actually believe that!!?? :cuss

If anything this administration has called the terrorists out with his "bring 'em on" attitude. I'm all for a stronger America, but also a wiser one too.

Quote:

---

"In my experience I've learned that terrorists will strike at any time and any place."

---

I won't argue with that logic. However, in light of that, would you rather have a President in office who institutes policies that make it more difficult or that make it easier for terrorists to strike with impugnity?

Quote:

---

"Let us remember that just because a terrorist attack hasn't happened doesn't mean it is because of this president's war in Iraq."

---

Let us also remember that, when the Twin Towers fell, Osama bin Laden said it was just the beginning.

Quote:

---

"Who is to say that Osama Bin Laden simply didn't have plans to attack again so soon? It took years for the plans for 9/11 to come to action."

---

Actually, he indicated at the time, that we were in for a bad year.

But, that aside, what better argument for hunting them down, wherever they may be, and eliminating them. I'm sorry if Osama bin Laden can't seem to put together a war plan that doesn't take years to play out. But, in my mind, that's to our advantage and doesn't lessen the urgency and importance of the war on terrorism.

(Caveat: I happen to believe Osama bin Laden is dead and greasing the space between two boulders in a Tora Bora mountainside and unable to mount his feet, much less another attack.)

Quote:

---

"This is not a 'I'm better than you' argument!!"

---

You're right, it's a "who's got their eye on the right ball," argument.

Quote:

---

"Are you guys really so hateful towards the other party that you would actually believe that!!??"

---

This is no time to play nice. The policies and positions of the liberal left are capable of destroying this country if they were to gain the White House or Congress at this particular point in history. I believe that with all my heart. **** playing nice.

Quote:

---

"If anything this administration has called the terrorists out with his 'bring 'em on' attitude."

---

And, they came! What a stroke of genius...that one call had them streaming into Iraq to be slaughtered. Better to fight them over there than to have my 6 year old looking down the barrell of a AK-47 at his local elementary school.

Quote:

---

"I'm all for a stronger America, but also a wiser one too."

---

I hear ya! Voting for Kerry ain't too wise.

I see nothing wrong with those comments. If it's acceptable to claim that "Bush lied" and that "Bush knew" then it's certainly acceptable to claim that an opponent will not be effective when it comes to defending this nation.

All of you little whining bitches :baby had no problem when the Demos and the left threw everything and the kitchen sink at the current administration.

I can also ensure another terrorist attack will happen.
To me, it is not a matter of if, but when.

People voted for Bush and 9/11 happened.

commander McMoron,

No one ever said less terrorism had happened/we hadn't been attacked because Bush went into Iraq.

They have said that our actions since 9/11, from Iraq to Afghanistan to new security measures at home to special forces operating in places and doing things you'll never hear about on the news, have.

your stretch is quite pathetic...just admit it, we all know already, if kerry says it, you blast him, if bush says it, you go into spin mode...case closed
:next3

Wow! To have such a "nuanced" candidate running for President, you're not much on the actual nuances of the english language, are you?

Of course, you could have responded before I had a chance to put the context and usage examples up there so, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you hadn't read the rest of my response before accusing me of blind partisanship.

Clearly, in his quote, Kerry is talking about sensitivity to others. And, just as clearly, President bush is talking about the sensitivity with which to balance two ideals, assessing intelligence vs. exacting justice.

Where's the stretch?

Quote:

---

commander McMoron,

No one ever said less terrorism had happened/we hadn't been attacked because Bush went into Iraq.

They have said that our actions since 9/11, from Iraq to Afghanistan to new security measures at home to special forces operating in places and doing things you'll never hear about on the news, have.


AHF

---

Aggie Hoopsterdoofus,

Are you really that ignorant? Please tell me you are not basing your support on what comes out of Cheney's pot hole.
You know damn well what Cheney is alluding to!!

McMoron vs. Hoopsterdoofus.

Which is funnier? You be the judge.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," -Dick Cheney.

How does Cheney know we'll get hit again and in a big way? Is there something Cheney should be telling us? Is he threatening democracy? What the hell is wrong with him?

No, he just knows what al Qaeda is trying to do and what John F. Kerry has stated he will do.

Putting 2 and 2 together...If John F. Kerry becomes President, they will succeed.

"The danger is" does not mean "It is inevitable that".

Well, they succeeded under Bush's watch...so what does that tell you?

It tells me that someone wasted their time in the White House from Jan. 1993-Jan. 2001.

^^I agree with that^^

Just what were the priorities for this country on September 10, 2001?

Oh yeah...the economic recovery from Clinton's .com, WorldCom, GlobalCrossing, Enron, ignorances...

We also now know, because of the extensive 9/11 post-mortem, that the Bush administration was getting up to speed on security threats as fast as possible. But, really, 8 months is hardly time for an administration to filter through all the transitionary information passed down from one administration to another. Hell, I bet they hadn't even got all the porn off the White House computers yet.

Quote:

---

It tells me that someone wasted their time in the White House from Jan. 1993-Jan. 2001.

---

who was wasting time when handed a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Inside U.S?"

Oh yeah, eight fucking weeks. Someone had eight years and ample reason to strike against terrorism. What other threats were facing the US at that time? We saw what happened when you treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

And I'm sure if Bush had decided to launch a strike against Afghanistan back then that everyone in this nation would have been happy about it.

By the summer of 2001 it was too late.

Quote:

---

Oh yeah, eight fucking weeks

---

who cares if it was the next damn day? a warning is a warning, too bad bush didnt give a shit

Quote:

---

Someone had eight years and ample reason to strike against terrorism.

---

yeah, like the time he thwarted the attack on LAX...i guess that doesnt count for anything, and the amount of spending for counter terrorism measures

Quote:

---

What other threats were facing the US at that time?

---

from all the info bush was receiving at the time, it seems like many...but go ahead and apologize for him

Quote:

---

We saw what happened when you treat terrorism as a law enforcement matter.

---

an now we see how the bush doctrine has created more terrorists and put us into a losing war

Quote:

---

"who cares if it was the next damn day? a warning is a warning, too bad bush didnt give a shit"

---

Please, there was nothing specific in that memo.

Maybe he should have shut down all of the airlines and called for everyone to stay home from work.

Yeah, until the 5th of Never.

Quote:

---

who cares if it was the next damn day?

---

What exactly was he supposed to do? He got a fucking generic warning that Islamist terrorists were determined to strike in the US. Did not Clinton get a real example of that in 1993? Again, eight fucking years.

Was Bush supposed to invade Afghanistan? Was he supposed to immediately start investigating ME nationals and restricting their movement? I'm sure a lot on the left would have gone along with him on that.

Quote:

---

a warning is a warning, too bad bush didnt give a shit

---

Oh yeah, it's Bush fault.

Quote:

---

yeah, like the time he thwarted the attack on LAX...i guess that doesnt count for anything, and the amount of spending for counter terrorism measures

---

That was fucking luck. A customs officer operating on her own and doing what they have long been allowed to do.

Quote:

---

from all the info bush was receiving at the time, it seems like many...but go ahead and apologize for him

---

They were generic threats, and again, what was he exactly supposed to do? The plot to attack the WTC had already been set in motion. There was an opportunity to shut it down and that would have been a real response to the original WTC attack instead of treating it as a criminal matter.

Quote:

---

an now we see how the bush doctrine has created more terrorists and put us into a losing war

---

Has the US been attacked? "Losing war"? Wake the **** up. The only war to be lost is doing nothing about the terrorists and praying they go away (you know, the Clinton strategy).

Ooohhh..I like all the rough talk by you tough conservatives!

Quote:

---

"Did not Clinton get a real example of that in 1993"

---

Actually, wasn't it reported that Cholesterol Clinton got the same exact warning in 1996 and then, after 9/11, tried to suppress this fact?

I seem to recall something to that effect.

I'll google it and see what come up.

Yeah, here it is:

Clinton Was Warned of bin Laden Hijacking Plot

For those of you that want to kill the messenger (Newsmax.com) look it up in the 9-11 Commission report. It's there.

So, for those of you that think Bush should have been able to devine a date, place, and means of the al Qaeda September 11th attacks; where's your similar criticism of Clinton who got pretty much the same PDB, (in 1998 instead of 1996)?

Given the left's response to the efforts of the Bush administration to deal with the threat of Islamist terrrorism post-9/11 I have no doubt as to what the response would have been prior to 9/11 if Bush had decided to invade Afghanistan, step up airport screening, begin investigations into terrorist ties among Muslim-Americans, etc...

Damn, is war the answer for everything for you conservatives?

You don't like muslims so you attack them.
You don't like gays so you attack them.
You don't like atheists so you attack them.
You don't like those who speak out against this administration so you attack them.

I guess you all are into corporal punishment at home too?

Do you all smack you kids before they go to school as a "pre-emptive strike" against bad behavior?

Do you kick your pet before you leave as a "pre-emptive strike" against pissing on the floor?

That's a bit of a stretch, Clit.

Quote:

---

Do you all smack you kids before they go to school as a "pre-emptive strike" against bad behavior?

---

Well, if I found out their itinerary for the day was murdering those that don't love Yu-Gi-Oh as much as they do and have better clothes, I certainly wouldn't sit on my ass and let them wonder out the front door knowing that. My parents never had a problem dishing it out when it was warranted, and I don't need therapy. I do, however, have a healthy respect for authority. :wink


And if you want to speak in simplistic analogies, are you up-to-date on your vaccines? Or are you going to wait until you have full-blown small pox before you seek medical attention?

:)

http://photos.imageevent.com/loonman...l/pieman10.jpg

Quote:

---

Given the left's response to the efforts of the Bush administration to deal with the threat of Islamist terrrorism post-9/11 I have no doubt as to what the response would have been prior to 9/11 if Bush had decided to invade Afghanistan, step up airport screening, begin investigations into terrorist ties among Muslim-Americans, etc...

---

:rolleyes

This hasn't stopped you from attacking Clinton for not going to Sudan and forcibly taking Usama. Even though there was no International or U.S. warrants issued for Usama at the time.

Quote:

---

So, for those of you that think Bush should have been able to devine a date, place, and means of the al Qaeda September 11th attacks; where's your similar criticism of Clinton who got pretty much the same PDB, (in 1998 instead of 1996)?

---

This is why when W, found out that a second plane had hit Tower 2 of the WTC complex, he knew immediately that it wasn't just a 'bad pilot' and put us in a state of Emergency, made sure NORAD was adequately contacted and the country protected, and called for a independent commission to investigate who was responsible for the attacks - oh, wait a minute. No he didn't.

He was to busy ducking for cover. Probably in Alabama.

NORAD was contacted before the planes hit the towers. Granted, the FAA contacted NORAD too late after the planes became unresponsive, but it's not the President's responsibility to contact them.

Everything he needed to do can be done aboard Air Force One. There's no reason he should have taken a direct flight to New York City.

Quote:

---

This hasn't stopped you from attacking Clinton for not going to Sudan and forcibly taking Usama. Even though there was no International or U.S. warrants issued for Usama at the time.

---

Well if you are going to bash Bush for not taking care of bin Ladin in his first 8 months of the presidency how is the man who had 8 years to do so (and plenty of reason) above blame?

I'm blaming W. for not working to prevent the largest Domestic terrorists attack on U.S. soil, not failing to capture Usama. Instead of spending 40% of his first few months in office on vacation maybe W. could have met with his terrorist chief Richard Clarke at least once.

Again, what was he supposed to have done?

Oh, so now it's meeting with Clarke. Clarke, the man who knew everything, at least he would have you believe.

Quote:

---

Everything he needed to do can be done aboard Air Force One.

---

That's why he spent another hour and a half at the elementry school where he was too busy reading "My Pet Goat" instead of helping to protect the nation. There was a international airport less than a hour flight from that school and there was no way of knowing whether a plane had been hijacked from that airport, but there Bush sat putting himself, the nation, and especially the kids in the school in jeopardy.

Quote:

---

what was he supposed to have done?

---

He could have done something, anything. If the CIA was under such bad shape under Tenet why did W. keep him around?

Apparently, Nbadan is unaware that there is a whole infrastructure that supports the President's office in times of emergency. Things like the military, the FAA, the FBI, CIA, and Secret Service. Then there's local and state officials of New York and Pennsylvania that immediately went into action on September 11.

I guess you think the President is supposed to run into a closet, emerge with his Superman outfit on, and immediately start making the operational decisions on everything from evacuations to fire suppression to air traffic control?

If that's the case, thank God Kerry wasn't President. He sat in stunned silence for 40 minutes, unable to fathom the magnitude of the attacks, until he was shaken from his shock by an order to evacuate.

That's what we need, a President frozen by fear.

When a professional, like a Medical examiner, hires people to do a job for him, he can be held accountable for any mistakes they make even to the point where his professional license can be revoked. Even though he did not have anything to do with the mistake.

Shouldn't we hold the President of the U.S. to the same standard we would a Medical Examiner in any large city?

LOL!

An hour and a half? Try 30 minutes.


From the 9/11 Commission Report:

Quote:

---

The President and the Vice President The President was seated in a classroom when, at 9:05, Andrew Card whispered to him:“A second plane hit the second tower.America is under attack.” The President told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis.The press was standing behind the children; he saw their phones and pagers start to ring. The President felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening.203

The President remained in the classroom for another five to seven minutes, while the children continued reading. He then returned to a holding room shortly before 9:15, where he was briefed by staff and saw television coverage. He next spoke to Vice President Cheney, Dr. Rice, New York Governor George Pataki, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. He decided to make a brief statement from the school before leaving for the airport. The Secret Service told us they were anxious to move the President to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door. 204

Between 9:15 and 9:30,the staff was busy arranging a return to Washington, while the President consulted his senior advisers about his remarks. No one in the traveling party had any information during this time that other aircraft were hijacked or missing. Staff was in contact with the White House Situation Room, but as far as we could determine, no one with the President was in contact with the Pentagon. The focus was on the President’s statement to the nation. The only decision made during this time was to return to Washington. 205

The President’s motorcade departed at 9:35,and arrived at the airport between 9:42 and 9:45.

---

Spurm, I was going to ignore the exaggeration.

Nbadan went from criticizing the President's direct actions to criticizing something that would have been the case whether he'd of pulled a Henny Penny or did exactly what he did.

Nbadan, can't stick to a theme...why nitpick him on the facts he can't seem to retain?

That's still 40 minutes that he sat there, at a photo op. instead of protecting the nation.

And for those of you who really give a shit where Air Force One was going, and why Bush didn't fly directly to Washington or NYC...

Quote:

---

About this time,Card,the lead Secret Service agent,the President’s military aide,and the pilot were conferring on a possible destination for Air Force One. The Secret Service agent felt strongly that the situation in Washington was too unstable for the President to return there, and Card agreed. The President strongly wanted to return to Washington and only grudgingly agreed to go elsewhere.The issue was still undecided when the President conferred with the Vice President at about the time Air Force One was taking off.The Vice President recalled urging the President not to return toWashington.Air Force One departed at about 9:54 without any fixed destination.The objective was to get up in the air—as fast and as high as possible—and then decide where to go.207

---

NORAD and the rest (FAA, airlines, etc) are supposed to function automatically in such a situation. That was the real problem on that day. And it's not like the info on which planes were hijacked, the location of those planes, and which planes had crashed was known. The FAA still thought Flight 11 was airborne well after it had crashed into the north WTC tower.

The way the system was set to deal with a hijacking was to assume that the plane(s) would eventually land.

Quote:

---

That's still 40 minutes that he sat there, at a photo op. instead of protecting the nation.

---

No, it's 30.

Nobody saw a need for him to rush out of there. Not the Secret Service, not the FBI, not the Vice President. It's easy for you to sit here and say what he should have done, but there are people much smarter than you or me advising the President in situations like these.

The only thing that leaving immediately and signaling for Batman would have done is give you guys one less thing to bitch about... and made F911 a few minutes shorter.

Wait, scratch that... If Bush had run out of there, F911 and Bush Haters would have had even better video of "cowardly Bush running away from an Elementary School to save his own ass."

Bush left Florida with no air cover even though there may have been hostile aircraft in the area...

Quote:

---

108) 9:59 a.m.: Air Force One Departs Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, Sarasota, Florida bound for Washington D.C. Air Force One departed with no extra military protection, even though 2 of the 7 military air stations we had on full alert to protect the continental United States that day were based in Florida. Homestead Air Station in Homestead is 185 miles and the Tyndall Air Station in Panama City is 235 miles from Sarasota.

These two air stations should have been ordered to scramble their fighters at 8:20 or 8:40 or 8:43 or 8:46:26 or 9:02:54 or at the very least, at 9:24. Flying at top speed, both of these air stations fighters could have been in Sarasota in about 20 minutes to protect Air Force One. Where were the fighters from both of these air stations? Did both of these air stations have something better to do that day than protect Air Force One? Please, this just does not happen.


Also, is the place to be in the air when there are still hundreds of airliners in the air, and who knew then how many of them were hostile or not?

---

911 Timeline

Uh, Nbadan, correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there Police, Fire, and EMS personnel responding to the resulting emergencies? And, wasn't the military, as well as the federal law enforcement agencies, also in on the act?

I'm sorry, exactly what kind of "protecting the nation" are you trying to suggest the President could have done in the time he spent at the school?

Seems to me the ball was rolling...

And, not to nitpick -- because I don't think the timespan is important, but he spent an additional 7 minutes with the children and the next 20 minutes or so in a private room at the school being briefed.

Would you have rather he run from the school in a panic?

Quote:

---

97) 9:45 a.m.: Bush's motorcade leaves the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida headed for Air Force One at the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport.

---

40 minutes.

Quote:

---

Also, is the place to be in the air when there are still hundreds of airliners in the air, and who knew then how many of them were hostile or not?

---

Well sure, it's not like Air Force One is some kind of single engine prop plane. Bush's location in Florida was known. He was informed of the attack, his security detail made arrangements, he addressed the nation, and then got the F out of there.

Spurm is right. No matter what Bush and his posse did that day he would have been attacked for it.

Imagine if Bush flew into DC immediately and landed safely. Then that would be pointed to as evidence that "Bush knew"...

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, exactly what kind of "protecting the nation" are you trying to suggest the President could have done in the time he spent at the school?

---

He was at a very public photo op that was being televised locally. At the very least he could have gotten the hell out of the school as quickly as possible to protect the kids.

Quote:

---

102) 9:49 a.m.: The F-16’s from Langley AFB finally arrive over Washington, D.C. to perform Combat Air Patrol over the city. It takes these F-16’s 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB which is about 130 miles to the south.

If these F-16’s were flying at top speed it should have taken them just over 7 minutes to reach the Pentagon. They should have been there at about the same time the Pentagon is hit by American Airlines Flight 77, at 9:37.

By arriving in Washington D.C. at 9:49, that would mean these F-16’s average flight speed was only 410.5 MPH. This means their average flight speed was only 27.4% of their top speed in trying to protect our nations capital. Langley AFB is 130 miles from the Pentagon and F-16's have a top speed of 1500 MPH. 60 minutes divided by 19 minutes = 3.16 x 130 miles = 410.5 MPH divided by 1500 MPH = 27.4%.

These F-16’s took-off at 9:30, this is 43 minutes after American Airlines 11 impacts the North Tower of the WTC and 27 minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 slams into the South Tower of the WTC. Knowing this, these F-16’s fly at only 27.4% of their top speed in trying to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 and protect our nations capital, Washington D.C. How could that possibly be?

Why were all of these ultra-sophisticated fighter jets averaging flight speeds only one quarter of their top speed when sent to intercept hostile aircraft and protect New York City and our nation's Capital, Washington D.C.? What exactly is the purpose of these fighter jets being able to go 1875+ MPH and 1500 MPH, yet when the United States is being attacked and needs them the most they are only somehow capable of doing one quarter of their top speed?

The United States Air Force is the most technologically advanced, and the most dominant military force ever known to man, and yet we didn’t have any other fighters on routine patrols or training missions anywhere within 1000 miles of New York City or Washington D. C. that morning? I have talked to a few people in the Air Force, and this totally impossible. There are always fighters up on routine patrols or training missions. So where were they?

And lastly, why didn't the Air Force follow procedure and immediately scramble a recon aircraft or two to monitor any of these 4 flights like they did for the late great golfer Payne Stewart when his Lear jet went off course? This is not Oshkosh, Wisconsin we are talking about protecting here, it is New York City and the Capital of the United States, Washington D.C., and its air defenses were left total unguarded for almost an hour and a half by the same country who have the greatest air superiority by far ever known. What type of a preposterous wag of the NORAD tale is this?

Both of these groups of fighters, the F-15’s out of Otis, and the F-16’s out of Langley were put in the air merely as window dressing. To make the public actually think they were valiantly trying to intercept these 4 hijacked planes. There is only one explanation for this -- our Air Force was ordered to stand down on 911.

---

911 Timeline

That's the Secret Service's job. He was waiting on his advisers to ascertain the situation and establish communications with the White House.

Again, NORAD and the FAA had scant info on the planes as it was.

Quote:

---

These F-16’s took-off at 9:30, this is 43 minutes after American Airlines 11 impacts the North Tower of the WTC and 27 minutes after United Airlines Flight 175 slams into the South Tower of the WTC. Knowing this, these F-16’s fly at only 27.4% of their top speed in trying to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 and protect our nations capital, Washington D.C. How could that possibly be?

Why were all of these ultra-sophisticated fighter jets averaging flight speeds only one quarter of their top speed when sent to intercept hostile aircraft and protect New York City and our nation's Capital, Washington D.C.?

---

Take a look at the 9/11 Commission Report. The FAA had no clue where the hijacked planes were. Some of the fighter pilots were told that Flight 11 (the first one to be crashed that day) was headed south across New Jersey.

Get a fucking grip, NORAD and the FAA didn't know where those planes were.

Your assumption of perfect, instantaneously shared information to all actors is absurd.

Read the text I quoted Dan. It specifically states that the motorcade left at 9:35. I don't know where you got your 9:45, but if the 911 Commission Report has inconsistencies like this, then maybe they were right to put it off for so long.

Not that 10 minutes would mean much anyway. It's certainly not the hour and a half you were thinking.

Quote:

---

Commission Report has inconsistencies like this, then maybe they were right to put it off for so long.

---

The 911 Commission is a cover-up and there are many inconsistencies in its final report not the least of which involve tracking Muhammed Atta's connections with sympathyers inside the U.S. during the planning stage of the attacks.

Quote:

---

The FAA had no clue where the hijacked planes were. Some of the fighter pilots were told that Flight 11 (the first one to be crashed that day) was headed south across New Jersey.

---

Even with it's transponders off, the plane would still have been visible on conventional radar.

Bullshit. Without a transponder those planes were considerably difficult to locate.

Quote:

---

"He was at a very public photo op that was being televised locally. At the very least he could have gotten the hell out of the school as quickly as possible to protect the kids."

---

Protect the kids from what?

Are you suggesting the attackers had no clue where he was and, so, they flew planes into the World Trade Center to "flush" him out?

You are a piece of work there Nbadan.

If Bush was a target, the school would have been hit...before, during, or after his visit -- I'm thinking the hijackers didn't have very good sit-reps while in the air and were pretty much going on a preconceived plan.

(This post is missing and can not be restored)

(This post is missing and can not be restored)