Anything Forums

I am for bush 100 % of the way, I am hoping he will get relelected because he is acutally fighting terroism. Answer this question for me what did Bill Clinton do when the USS Cole was hit? He did nothing at all to fight that. He just let it go. What kind of president lets people get killed for nothing, and does nothing? Also people may forget that yea we are losing family members and loved ones over there in Iraq, but we lost 3,000 + people in the attack of 9/11, and we finally had a president with enough guts to do something about it. If you didnt like the war then blame it on congress, because before Bush can say we are going to war Congress has to say that they will fund it. Dont tell me its all bush's fault on going to war. Also answer this What would you of done if Bush just left 9/11 alone and did not go to war? I bet you $100.00 that if we didnt go to war then there would have been another terroist attack would of killed thousands of more people. I am for the war because if those stupid ragheads can think they can just come over here and kill 3,000 + of americans. They are wrong. I am glad President Bush did what he did, and if you are for Kerry I hope you change your mind on who you vote for because if Kerry gets elected, this world is going to need help. A lot of help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14465

I concur Mr. Bulldog

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14475

People get things mixed up, the iraq war does not have much to do about 9/11, it's the Afghanistan war that has to do with 9/11 and last time I checked that's pretty much over, they're having their first democratic election this saturday.

Iraq war was more of a threat bush did because he thought they had weapons of mass destruction, but it turned out there was not.

The iraq war did fix some stuff though, but it's not really stuff that affected the US... much. But it also turns out so damn insane was connected with al queda in some way so the fact that they got him is a good thing.


At least that's how I understand the situation, I may be totally wrong, I did not really follow the Iraq war that much.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14477

First of all, Red, I just gained a lot of respect for you after reading your last post. (That's not to say I didn't respect you before, just kind of suprised you haven't fallen for Bush's "good vs. evil" smoke screen). Perhaps it's the fact that you don't live in the U.S.? It seems like the only people who are still illusioned about this war are people who live here.

daltonbulldog055644618 wrote: Also people may forget that yea we are losing family members and loved ones over there in Iraq, but we lost 3,000 + people in the attack of 9/11, and we finally had a president with enough guts to do something about it.

Yup, he attacked a country that had nothing to do with it.

daltonbulldog055644618 wrote: If you didnt like the war then blame it on congress, because before Bush can say we are going to war Congress has to say that they will fund it. Dont tell me its all bush's fault on going to war. Also answer this What would you of done if Bush just left 9/11 alone and did not go to war?

I don't understand why this is always the alternative offered by the pro-war people? Why is it either "Invade Iraq" or "Do Nothing" in response to 9/11? I'd like to know what would have been so wrong with hunting down and bringing to justice the people who were actually responsible for 9/11? In reality, all we have done is focused the war on terrorism in the country of Iraq. Which is great in comparison to fighting a war on our own soil, but the fact is, we have this distorted belief that if we kill enough descension and insurgents in Iraq, that we will eventually get to the people responsible for 9/11. Like if we kill off enough Al Qaida, that eventually Bin Laden himself will come running to Iraq and join in the fight. But this is not the case. Bin Laden will stay hidden, the true leaders of terrorist organizations will stay hidden and are constantly cultivating more terrorist. What we are doing in Iraq is simply fuel for their propaganda. As I've said before, if you can look at 9/11 and all the people who died there, and then look at the current state of Iraq and all the people who have and continue to die there, and feel like justice has been served or feel satisfied in anyway, there is something severely wrong with your head. Bush didn't have the guts or the good judgment necessary to bring the people responsible for 9/11 to justice, so he settled for second best, and look what second best has cost us. Over one thousand more of our citizens dead and our credibility as a country trashed. If you're happy with that, great. I think "we can do better."

daltonbulldog055644618 wrote: I bet you $100.00 that if we didnt go to war then there would have been another terroist attack would of killed thousands of more people.

Oh, but now that we've captured Saddam Hussein, the likelyhood of Osama Bin Laden launching another large-scale terrorist attack is next to nothing. Your logic is slightly skewed.

daltonbulldog055644618 wrote: I am for the war because if those stupid ragheads can think they can just come over here and kill 3,000 + of americans. They are wrong. I am glad President Bush did what he did, and if you are for Kerry I hope you change your mind on who you vote for because if Kerry gets elected, this world is going to need help. A lot of help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Okay, Cheney.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14480

Can this be the new "Bush is the anti-Christ" thread?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14493

what did Bill Clinton do when the USS Cole was hit? He did nothing at all to fight that. He just let it go. What kind of president lets people get killed for nothing, and does nothing?

While in a Dubai hospital receiving treatment for a chronic kidney infection last July, Osama bin Laden met with a top CIA official -- presumably the chief of station. The meeting, held in bin Laden's private suite, took place at the American hospital in Dubai at a time when he was a wanted fugitive for the bombings of two U.S. embassies and last year's attack on the USS Cole. Bin Laden was eligible for execution according to a 2000 intelligence finding issued by President Bill Clinton before leaving office in January. Yet on July 14, 2001 he was allowed to leave Dubai on a private jet, and there were no Navy fighters waiting to force him down. - Oct. 31 French daily Le Figaro Hmmm..... what did Bush do?

Let's look at some evidence.

German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." : reported in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Sept. 14, 2001

Jordanian intelligence, the GID, makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message got through it was passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message: A major attack was planned inside the U.S., and aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was "The Big Wedding." "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before Sept. 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." This case was authenticated by ABC reporter John K. Cooley. International Herald Tribune (IHT), May 21, 2002

Russian intelligence notifies the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots have been specifically training for missions involving hijacked airliners. This is reported in the Russian press and news stories are translated for FTW by a retired CIA officer. (Note: The story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph.) Izvestia, Sept. 12, 2001

Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. MSNBC interview with Putin, Sept. 15, 2001

President Bush receives classified intelligence briefings at his Crawford, Texas ranch indicating that Osama bin Laden might be planning to hijack commercial airliners. Summer 2001

The Dow Jones Industrial Average drops nearly 900 points in the three weeks prior to the attack. A major stock market crash is imminent. CNN, May 15, 2002

Now I'm not saying that Bush should have seen everything and solved everything, but the evidence was there, his administration missed it. And Iraq wasn't the issue, Osama is, where is he now? We can do better.

This world does need help, it's because Bush is in office.

edit in red

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14505

it's not because bush is in office, it's because of the republican and democratic partisans in congress. there is important clarification here, because quite a bit of what bush has done is as a result of congress's blessing.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14526

fragged one wrote: it's not because bush is in office, it's because of the republican and democratic partisans in congress.  there is important clarification here, because quite a bit of what bush has done is as a result of congress's blessing.

I'm not sure that is much of a clarification. Sure, it is Congress that blesses a president's proposed action, but it is the president who proposes the action. Congress based its decision on the same information the president was using, but the point MrSelf was making was that the president had available information that he wasn't using. I'm not sure I agree with that point. Hind sight is 20/20, and it is too easy to look back over the multitude of information the president gets and say,"Hey, I see this piece, and this piece, and see what it led to. The president should have had his oracle glasses on and seen it too."

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14529

Bookworm wrote:

fragged one wrote: it's not because bush is in office, it's because of the republican and democratic partisans in congress. there is important clarification here, because quite a bit of what bush has done is as a result of congress's blessing.

I'm not sure that is much of a clarification. Sure, it is Congress that blesses a president's proposed action, but it is the president who proposes the action. Congress based its decision on the same information the president was using, but the point MrSelf was making was that the president had available information that he wasn't using. I'm not sure I agree with that point. Hind sight is 20/20, and it is too easy to look back over the multitude of information the president gets and say,"Hey, I see this piece, and this piece, and see what it led to. The president should have had his oracle glasses on and seen it too."

I agree hindsight is 20/20, thats why no one is making a big deal about these things that should have been caught. They were mistakes, but the biggest mistakes have been in the direction the president, not congress, and pushed us in. Yes congress is at fault too, but the president is in control here and his 'vision' for America is an incomplete one. My point was that Bush did not do everything before 9/11 to keep us safe, and now Iraq, which has nothing to do with terror (unless you make the claim that we are creating a hotspot for terrorist to come to so we can destroy them rather than having to search for them... ), is his centerpoint for the war on terror. He is not doing what is necessary to do things correctly and completely, he simply won't put in the effort before hand, it's a constant theme from this administration. Afghanistan is getting better, but is still in really bad condition, we're just not putting in the time, money, or effort to reform that country like it is our responsibility if we invade, we can't just keep kicking over ant hills and expecting others to fix the problem.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14552

Vice President Cheney - "What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing to do. If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the same course of action. The world is far safer today because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his government is no longer in power. And we did exactly the right thing."

Jon Stewart - "Nothing like 20/20 blind sight!"


Yup. Do you think Cheney read the 9/11 Commission report?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14556

(unless you make the claim that we are creating a hotspot for terrorist to come to so we can destroy them rather than having to search for them...)

you might have a strategy there...


Cheny on Meet the Press

MTP: You've been quoted as having said "It was pretty much confimed"
VP: No. I never said that.

VP on Meet the Press earlier date

VP: "and it's been pretty much confirmed that he did go to Iraq and he did meet with Sadam."

Thanks to the Daily Show for that...



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14557

Theres not much more here to be said that I can say... it's ridiculous to say that the president isn't to blame just because he's the not the ONLY one to blame. He's the Commander and Chief and it's his watch that this happened on.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14558

shenbaw wrote: Yup. Do you think Cheney read the 9/11 Commission report?

Probably, but you know how the mind can carelessly substitute words like 'no link' for 'probably a link', or 'Iran' for 'Iraq' (come on, someone say it!), or maybe even 'everyone who opposed our views' for 'terrorist'! To be fair, at least in the end, Iraq will be free and afghanistan better off, but we could actually do something, rather than have half an idea and hardly following through...

He's the Commander and Chief and it's his watch that this happened on.

The check stops with him. Its like the assault weapon ban. Sure, congress should have done something, but when congress fails, it's up to the president to push for these things, he is the highest single position in our government, no one person holds as much power as the president, not a judge or member of Congress. If he can't handle it, maybe he shouldn't be president? The way he has used his powers, it seems more like he wants to be in intel like his daddy, rather than run a country.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14567

In our business communication class we are talking about making ethical communication (reports, messages etc...). For some reason I keep thinking about the US goverment.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14581

ethical communication reports? Why would this make you think of the US government?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1147, old post ID:14602