Kids in class with Bush on 9/11 speak out

[clambake]

how could he have enough time from january to september to ignore something if barrack obama couldnt make a difference in a year? as stated earlier by RG bin laden wasnt an overriding priority for bill clinton so how would that change from one pres to the next? "hey theres this guy; kinda been a pain in the ass but i wouldnt worry about him".

wtf?

[ChumpDumper]

like what mistakes? january to september of what years? all you are doing is providing me with entertainment my friend. not pissing me off. i find this rather amusing. so what mistakes and what years? what would you have done differently? seeing as how you have all the intel he had im SURE you could make a reasonable decision.

how could he have enough time from january to september to ignore something if barrack obama couldnt make a difference in a year? as stated earlier by RG bin laden wasnt an overriding priority for bill clinton so how would that change from one pres to the next? "hey theres this guy; kinda been a pain in the ass but i wouldnt worry about him".

So you don't know anything about Bush's policy on terror before 9/11.

Just as I thought.

Arguing from a position of such ignorance isn't a good thing. Just a little FYI.

You're welcome.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm on my phone so ill respond fully later but I find the notion that were not allowed to be critical of a presidents actions because were not president to be flat out laughable.

[ferg]

so if im ignorant chump why dont u educate me? what was bushes police on terror? or are you just gonna keep jumping around?

[ChumpDumper]

so if im ignorant chump why dont u educate me? what was bushes police on terror? or are you just gonna keep jumping around?

No, your display of ignorance is quite enough for my purposes..

If you really want to know, the information is available. It's probably best you not actually read it if you want to maintain your myths about Bush and Clinton.

[ferg]

I'm on my phone so ill respond fully later but I find the notion that were not allowed to be critical of a presidents actions because were not president to be flat out laughable.

i never said you cant criticize him. all im saying is these arm chair quarterbacks that sit there and act like they know what was going on in somebody's head are luaghable. this whole thread is laughable. it happend 10 years ago. u guys really need to move on to criticizing the new president...oh wait its been awhile guess hes not so new but in this places eyes hes the greatest.

[LnGrrrR]

this thread reminds me of a bunch of young troops (or airmen in my case) talking about deploying to iraq or afghanistan for the first time. "man i cant wait to shoot one" or "man if i get in a fire fight im gonna do this or that". knowing damn well they have never been in that position.

I've got one of those airmen too.

Can i remind ya'll that bill clinton dropped the ball on taking care of bin laden? after all 1993 WTC was bombed from below, 1995 attack on us military headquarters in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 US emabssies in Africa, 2000 USS Cole. [/quote]

You are aware that Clinton did try to strike at some terrorists, and it was mostly stopped by Republicans who claimed he was trying to distract from his infidelities?

[clambake]

i never said you cant criticize him. all im saying is these arm chair quarterbacks that sit there and act like they know what was going on in somebody's head are luaghable. this whole thread is laughable. it happend 10 years ago. u guys really need to move on to criticizing the new president...oh wait its been awhile guess hes not so new but in this places eyes hes the greatest.

are you saying, in that ten minutes, that it never crossed his mind to think "I should have listened"?

[DarrinS]

It's merely a statement of fact with you, pussy.

You're a tough guy.

[ChumpDumper]

i never said you cant criticize him. all im saying is these arm chair quarterbacks that sit there and act like they know what was going on in somebody's head are luaghable. this whole thread is laughable. it happend 10 years ago. u guys really need to move on to criticizing the new president...oh wait its been awhile guess hes not so new but in this places eyes hes the greatest.

What qualifies you to criticize Obama?

I'd like to know.

[LnGrrrR]

I'm on my phone so ill respond fully later but I find the notion that were not allowed to be critical of a presidents actions because were not president to be flat out laughable.

I think you can be critical, but I think it should be noted that no one can say for certain what they would have done in the same situation. Everyone likes to think they would act optimally, of course, but the human brain doesn't always process things that way.

Now, you can argue, "He's president! He needs to be responding ASAP" etc etc, and I wouldn't say you're wrong. But you can say that about numerous people in critical/emergency situations who make mistakes, don't think, hes ate, etc etc.

As RG said, I think Bush did enough things I disagree with that this is a minor, minor blemish in his career.

[ferg]

No, your display of ignorance is quite enough for my purposes..

If you really want to know, the information is available. It's probably best you not actually read it if you want to maintain your myths about Bush and Clinton.

my myths about bush and clinton? really? its not myth that bin laden was treated as a "law enforcement problem" by clinton. if clinton disregarded bin laden that much why would anything change from one president to the next?

[ChumpDumper]

my myths about bush and clinton? really? its not myth that bin laden was treated as a "law enforcement problem" by clinton. if clinton disregarded bin laden that much why would anything change from one president to the next?

Again, live with your ignorant myths. I'm sure it's better for your feelings.

[ferg]

I've got one of those airmen too.

Can i remind ya'll that bill clinton dropped the ball on taking care of bin laden? after all 1993 WTC was bombed from below, 1995 attack on us military headquarters in Riyadh Saudi Arabia, 1996 Khobar Towers, 1998 US emabssies in Africa, 2000 USS Cole.

You are aware that Clinton did try to strike at some terrorists, and it was mostly stopped by Republicans who claimed he was trying to distract from his infidelities? [/QUOTE]

mmmm no i was not aware of it. thanks for making me aware of it though without being a smartass about it and calling me ignorant. i appreciate that. must be that USAF bond or something. however, im not making about the parties im making it about the respective presidents. as i said earlier i feel the blame for 9/11 needs to be shared by both clinton and bush. whats that? i blamed bush a little bit? yeah i sure did. he could have/should have taken action pre-9/11. but again like you said earlier its hard to say what one could have/would have done in that situation because NONE of us will ever be in that position of that much responsibility. that is what i have been trying to get through peoples head like chump dumper who just wants to call people ignorant.

chump didnt mean to hurt your feelings there lil guy.

[Drachen]

I'm still waiting for the specifics on what exactly he was supposed to do in that ten minute time frame that would have changed anything. It's your argument to make, so make it.

If you want to say that, from an "image" standpoint, it was the wrong thing to do, it's certainly arguable, but as for policy? I don't think policy dictated he do anything different than what he did.

Havent read the whole thread so maybe someone has already responded, but every time this question has been asked, I keep thinking the following.

"we have a 4th plane flying into downtown Chicago toward the sears tower, our fighters have scrambled, and tried to hail it to no avail, we have a lock, permission to fire?"

[ChumpDumper]

mmmm no i was not aware of it.

No .

blamed bush a little bit? yeah i sure did. he could have/should have taken action pre-9/11.

What qualifies you to say that?

[ferg]

No .

so is that what you were talking about? or u wanna just keep being a ing smart ass about it?

[ChumpDumper]

so is that what you were talking about? or u wanna just keep being a ing smart ass about it?

Nope, that's merely one aspect.

Sorry U mad.

[ChumpDumper]

Seriously ferg, go read a ing book.

[clambake]

hey, did you know where all the nukes were, too?

[ferg]

what book? point me in a direction man... im ASKING....

[LnGrrrR]

mmmm no i was not aware of it. thanks for making me aware of it though without being a smartass about it and calling me ignorant. i appreciate that. must be that USAF bond or something.

No problem. Some examples:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/clinton.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...sama_bin_Laden

On August 7, 1998, bin Laden struck again, this time with simultaneous bombings on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. (see above) The CIA, having confirmed bin Laden was behind the attack, informed Clinton that terrorist leaders were planning to meet at a camp near Khowst, to plan future attacks. According to Tenet, “several hundred,” including bin Laden, would attend. On August 20, Clinton ordered the military to fire cruise missiles at the camp and a pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, where bin Laden was suspected of manufacturing biological weapons. While the military hit their targets, bin Laden was not killed. The CIA estimated that they had missed bin Laden by “a few hours.”[39]

Just FYI.

[LnGrrrR]

Havent read the whole thread so maybe someone has already responded, but every time this question has been asked, I keep thinking the following.

"we have a 4th plane flying into downtown Chicago toward the sears tower, our fighters have scrambled, and tried to hail it to no avail, we have a lock, permission to fire?"

I don't think that requires Presidential permission. I might be wrong.

[ChumpDumper]

I recommend The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright and Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke. The latter might be open to criticism for being political, but the dude did work for both Republican and Democratic presidents.

[MannyIsGod]

I think you can be critical, but I think it should be noted that no one can say for certain what they would have done in the same situation. Everyone likes to think they would act optimally, of course, but the human brain doesn't always process things that way.

Now, you can argue, "He's president! He needs to be responding ASAP" etc etc, and I wouldn't say you're wrong. But you can say that about numerous people in critical/emergency situations who make mistakes, don't think, hes ate, etc etc.

As RG said, I think Bush did enough things I disagree with that this is a minor, minor blemish in his career.

What I don't understand is how people on this board - and this is almost EVERYONE - have such a hard time with context. Its the same thing in the Indian thread. If someone even talks about it - mind you not even having to start a thread - they somehow are obsessed with the issue.

I don't think the 10 minutes is that big of a deal either and I've never said as much but the thread was started and I've simply debated my position. I didn't go home last night and stay up late unable to sleep because Bush was too stunned to react. This gets so tired. You can't debate anything on here because the moment someone disagrees with you they say "OMG 10 YEARS LET IT GO".

As for how the majority of people react, its obvious not everyone acts in an optimum manner when the hits the fan. The opposite has never even been proposed. The only criticism being levied against Bush is that he acted poorly by waiting those 10 minutes. I'm not sure why people can't accept that at face value.

Bush acted poorly. How others would have reacted isn't really relevant to the fact that Bush reacted well below the expectations I set for the president of the United States. Its not an all consuming concern of mine, but that doesn't change anything.