Lets say it was Al Queada

[BeFree]

And that it happened just as the OCT claims.

****************

That means American defense forces, the military, the intelligence, and the political agencies completely failed the U.S. citizenry. A complete and utter failure.

And who has been held responsible? Who in government paid the price for their ineptness? Who got fired? Who went to jail? Not one damn person. NO one.

The biggest failure in American history and not one government chief, cook or bottle washer had even the balls to stand up and say: "I need to be held responsible", and was held responsible. Not one. NO one.

That means it could easily happen again, and if there is anything to fear, it is just that: the government could let it happen again.

*****************
It is time bushco paid for their failure.

Eh?

[zappaman]

1. Nice to see you admit it was Al Queda

and not BUSHCO.
Finally...eh?
And yes, incompetence ruled the day and pretty much every day of that horrible administration.

[chimpymustgo]

14. Cheney overseeing wargames with Norad that morning. No jets scrambled. That's not incompetence.

[KDLarsen]

16. *pst*

Jets were scrambled. 2 F15's out of Otis and 2 F16's out of Langley.

[BeFree]

22. Yeah

They sent them over the Atlantic. And were they armed? And who decides to give the shoot order?

And there were no jets for Air Force One, same day, same time.

[chimpymustgo]

36. Thank you for clarifying. And the 'hi-jacked" planes had flown nearly halfway across the country,

TURNED around and flown back to hit the towers. Good GOD. I've got to see if I can find the flight pattern recreation - these with pilots who COULD NOT FLY LITTLE CESSNAS!!! Did some mighty fancy flying that day!

[KDLarsen]

81. Halfway across the country?

Maybe halfway across the state.. :eyes:

As for their piloting skills, all they had to do was tune a specific VOR (not harder than tuning a radio station on an old car radio), follow the arrow, wait until they had the towers in sight and then keep them in the middle of the windscreen. Hell, Marwan al-Shehhi almost missed the south tower, since he wasn't correcting for the crosswind, and had to a last minute bank to line up.

[cherokeeprogressive]

96. AA Flight 11 was in the air for 47 minutes. UA Flight 175 was in the air for 49. HALFWAY ACROSS?

Those must have been some pretty fast airplanes huh?

Do you just make shit up as you go?

Nearly halfway across country AND back in 47 and 49 minutes respectively? Fucking A those were fast planes! Was that part of the conspiracy too? To use really fast planes?

[zappaman]

97. "halfway across the country"

:rofl:

[DrSteveB]

43. You falsely state that BeFree "admitted" it was Al Qaeda

It was a hypothetical case.

[IScreamSundays]

46. Don't bother...

I would put the whole lot on ignore but I like to watch them work.

[hack89]

2. Doesn't Clinton share a lot of that blame?

It is not like Bush could have significantly changed the military and intelligence services in the 8 months between his inauguration and 911. There were still many mid-level Clinton appointees at both the Pentagon and Langley. Why are Bush's 8 months more significant than Clinton's 8 years?

And if you are right and 911 was MIHOP than Clinton is even more culpable - the military and CIA were infiltrated and subverted under his very nose and he was oblivious to it all.

[BeFree]

3. I've about seen it all now

Someone on DU blaming Clinton for 9/11. JFC.

hack89 writes:
"Doesn't Clinton share a lot of that blame?
Posted by hack89


It is not like Bush could have significantly changed the military and intelligence services in the 8 months between his inauguration and 911. There were still many mid-level Clinton appointees at both the Pentagon and Langley. Why are Bush's 8 months more significant than Clinton's 8 years?

And if you are right and 911 was MIHOP than Clinton is even more culpable - the military and CIA were infiltrated and subverted under his very nose and he was oblivious to it all."

[hack89]

10. Care to answer the issues I bring up?

tell me exactly how much the military and CIA changed in 8 months. Are you telling be that if 911 happened 8 months earlier everything would have worked perfectly?

And are you really saying that the 911 plot didn't start during the Clinton administration? So tell me why that was not possible?

[BeFree]

20. Are you really, really, blaming Clinton for 9/11?

No, You fucking can't be. Seriously?

[deconstruct911]

21. But you admit

that the FBI and DA knew about the 93 bombing?

and you admit it's ridiculous how Barry Seal flew at least 5 tones on cocaine into Mena?

[BeFree]

23. I don't

The topic is 9/11 and the lead up to that.

Not only was poppy bush a CIA head, but rummy was as experienced as cheney and they were deeply involved in the bushco national security ops. Each should have done their parts for stopping 9/11. They didn't. They could have and should have, but they didn't.

Remember that Clinton attacked OBL? And Clarke, a Clinton holdover told bushco about OBL and was ignored. In fact, Clarke was the only person in government to apologize for the failure, and whoa, he was soon let go.

[deconstruct911]

24. 93 wasn't leading up to 9/11?

Remember they came back to "finish the job"

[BeFree]

26. All those facts

And you go back 8 years? The perps were nabbed and no wars were started. There was a trial. I tend to grok trials.

What I find odd is that with all the bs that is attributed to OBL, et al, no other countries suffered planes being used as weapons. How easy would it have been to hit London, or Tel Aviv, on the same day? Why just in the US? And just once? Is it because the US is the only one that 'couldn't imagine'?

[deconstruct911]

27. Yea

I always thought about that. The whole post 9 11 cockpit thing made me think about that.

And the problem with LIHOP. Nuclear facilities.... Are they going to let 19 rag-tags fly around in jumbo jets? Really? How easy could they hit a nuclear facility if they can hit the pentagon? MIHOP for sure.

Make no mistake Bushco is guilty, however I stress again the official story of 93 is far different from the reality. As for the drug part, think about Afghanistan and also Clinton's director of CIA, John Deutch.

[chimpymustgo]

37. Please share what you know about '93. I was SO not paying attention then, and bought the "official"

story. Not 9/11 though. Not at all.

[deconstruct911]

44. Emad Salem

was an FBI informant (and I believe he still works for the FBI) who said we know the bomb start to be built by your confidential informant. He was also the governments star witness in the trial for the "official" bombers. According to a source close to the case Emad Salem checked into a Manhattan hospital 3 hours after the blast complaining of a severe ringing in his ears. A hospital spokesperson refuses to confirm or deny the report.

"Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!"



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e88_1192741655

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmcidzFa4hg

One other thing. The bomb went off under the plaza, not under the towers. That was not part of the plan if you want to topple them.

[hack89]

29. So answer my questions.

there was plenty of blame to go around. What were all those Democrats on the 911 commission hiding?

[BeFree]

49. Your questions

Lets say Al Gore had rightfully been in the White House.

Do you think 9/11 would have happened?

Of course not. Al Gore, when given the August 6, daily CIA briefing would have taken action.

Surely you won't argue there would have been no difference with a Gore administration?

In a sane world, I would not think you would, but as it stands, I won't be surprised when you do.

[hack89]

50. You know the 6 Aug PDB was not specific

what would he have done? That PDB also said the FBI had 70 active investigation into suspected terrorism- would Gore have ordered another investigation?

Lets hear some specifics - what could have Gore done with the information in the 6 Aug PDB that would have prevented 911?

[BeFree]

51. Eh?

You really are suggesting there wouldn't have been a different outcome?

Lets be clear. If I have to educate you, I first need to know just how ignorant you are.

[LARED]

57. This could be the ironic post of the week nt

[mcollins]

84. What would President Gore have done?

Arrested people on what? Let's say President Gore arrest 12 persons for plotting to fly planes into buildings in three seperate locations. Then what? Trials? Prison time?

The Taliban and OBL would have then still been in control in Afghanistan to 'plan' the next attack. What would have come next?

[BeFree]

85. Heh

Arrested, Deported. Maybe jailed.

Then Gore goes to congress and lays out the case for a limited attack of OBL.

Congress, and the American people decide, via a democratic open process, what to do.

3,000 Americans alive, the towers still standing, and American peace instead of terror and war.

In other words, just the opposite of bushco.

[terrafirma]

86. If I could borrow your crystal ball

when you're done with it, that would be awesome!

Powerball is up to 94 million ya' know.

Or you could be honest and admit that you truly have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty how Gore would've prevented or handled the attacks.

[BeFree]

87. heh

The Aug. 6, PDB informing the president Gore of the information ....

Have you read any of rschops details about some of the info that was available?

Maybe you don't have a clue about Al Gore?

In school, one of the first things taught was 2 + 2. Did you miss that day?

Later came critical thinking......

Thing is.... with an honest president in office, and the same info all around, and knowing what we know about bushco, how can anyone not imagine that a different path would have been taken?

Sure, I am postulating what Gore might have done. F'n duh.

But I know what bush did and that was deceive, obstruct and deny. 2 + 2.

[hack89]

32. 911 would have happened regardless of who was President.

there is no reason to believe that the Bush administration knew any more specific facts than Clinton did.

[chrisa]

34. Yup. That's why I think it's a little funny to.

Personally blame Bush or Clinton for 9/11. If anything, it was a failure of our intelligence community, who face the same bureaucracy problems as anywhere else.

[dflprincess]

25. It wasn't Clinton who disregarded the Aug 6 PDB

and didn't Clinton or his try to war Bush's security people that they could never take their eyes off Al Qeada?

[hack89]

30. Yet it was Clinton's military

that failed on 911 - unless you want me to believe that it went to shit in only 8 months.

911 would have happened whether or not Bush was president. The Aug 6 PDB did not specifically warn of 911 - it simply said that OBL wanted to strike within America.

[BeFree]

77. ""Yet it was Clinton's military that failed on 911 ""

[MrMickeysMom]

28. Jesus...

:crazy:

President Chimp and the real President Cheney were warned repeatedly about the threat posed by Al Qaeda for months before 9/11.

Departing Clinton officials warned them.

So did former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke and C.I.A. director George Tenet.

But they dismissed the Clinton warnings, demoted Mr. Clarke, ignored Mr. Tenet and threw the Hart-Rudman report in the garbage.

When the President asked Vice President Cheney to convene a task force on terrorism, he literally did nothing until days before the attacks--and the President never bothered to find out why.

You may want to get your memory checked. Quick- write this down!

:rofl:

[hack89]

31. All of that is true

but doesn't explain the military's failure on 911 - does it? Tell me what would have happened differently on 911 if Clinton was still president.

[MrMickeysMom]

38. You really think this consideration is worthy?

If so, you might as well use Clinton's past practice to predict "what would have happened differently on 9/11". So, go with that logic. Since you like fantasy, use logic and you'll find his past practice on this was proactive rather than the LIHOP theory that I associate with GWB. King George the idiot son preferred having others tell him what to do.

Knock yourself out!

[hack89]

39. Proactive?

So why was the military so ill prepared? If 911 could have been foreseen, why weren't policies and procedures changed well in advance?

[MrMickeysMom]

41. Okay, you like pain, so explain this-

Explain your above "So why was the military so ill prepared?"

Explain EXACTLY what that means. Go ahead... and finish a complete thought on that.

[hack89]

42. I don't think they were ill prepared

I am simply taking the OP to its logical conclusion - if they were ill prepared then the blame cannot be lay solely at Bush's feet..

I believe that 911 was not the fault of any one President or any particular administration. The OP wants Bush punished - I think that there are many other, both republican and democrat would should have been punished.

[MrMickeysMom]

45. OOOhhhh, I see... You didn't really mean what you said...

"So why was the military so ill prepared?", and, "It was Clinton's army that failed 911" was just something that rolled off the old keyboard and you never meant it.

You just think the OP is being a little too hard on Bush, EVEN THOUGH YOU AGREED with the events surrounding the LITHOP mindset I described and you further think that "there are many other, both republican and democrat would should have been punished", whatever that is supposed to mean.

:crazy: Hoo-kay... Good luck with the cognitive dissidence, there hack89.
:crazy:

[hack89]

47. I was simply accepting what the OP said

he thinks the military was ill prepared. I simply asked who was responsible. If the OP is right, then it is true - Clinton shares some of the blame.

I know the truthers are literal, black and white people, but even you should be able to figure this out.

[MrMickeysMom]

63. You know nothing of the kind...

As evidenced by your willingness to jump around and make less anything that you might have meant to say about military operations.

[hack89]

65. If you were to look at my posting history on the issue

it is clear that I know a hell of a lot more about military operations than most truthers. BeFree made a typical simplistic "its Bush's fault" truther argument - my point is that if you really believe that the military should have been able to stop 911 than the blame for that failure goes back a lot further than Bush. I have consistently argued in this forum that the military has never been trained or equipped to handle a 911 type scenario so it should be clear to anyone how I feel about military readiness.

[BeFree]

66. Military stopped 9/11

Because NORAD functioned as designed? Nope, didn't happen.


Clinton was nowhere close, eh? How can you possibly blame Clinton? Doing so is fucking idiotic.

[OnTheOtherHand]

68. "the military has never been trained or equipped to handle a 911 type scenario"

Misreading hack's point might be construed as "fucking idiotic," but language like that only injects pointless acrimony, don't you find?

[BeFree]

69. Acrimony deserved

NORAD's only fucking job is to secure the fucking skies.

hack couldn't even fly a damn kite, much less grok NORAD, evidently.

hack thinks Clinton was in charge of NORAD that day?

Who was? It was Cheney in the White House who was in charge of NORAD that day.

NORAD failed to do it's only fucking job that day.

Acrimony highly deserved.

[OnTheOtherHand]

73. obviously you are misrepresenting hack's position

No one has said that Clinton was in charge of NORAD that day. It's not at all hard to understand what hack actually did say.

[BeFree]

74. I got it

hack proposes it was Clinton's military that allowed NORAD to stand down.

It is easy to see hack's position. Clear as a bell.

He must be glad you are here to defend him? Eh, hack?

[OnTheOtherHand]

75. no, that obviously isn't hack's position either

You're building quite a record of accomplishment here.

[BeFree]

76. Quoting hack, verbatim

"Yet it was Clinton's military that failed on 911 "

Heh, you think you can get under my skin with the personal attacks?

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. you mean "Quoting hack, selectively"

If you quoted to the end of the sentence, it would be obvious that hack didn't say that Clinton ran NORAD on September 11 -- which would, of course, be a silly thing for hack to have said. And he didn't say anything about a stand down. So, your verbatim quotation fails to support your assertions, as I've noted.

So, your record of accomplishment continues to grow. You can construe that as a personal attack, an expression of grudging admiration, or anything you like; it's true regardless.

[MrMickeysMom]

79. OTOH...

Unless you have two DU accounts under the same persona as hack89, then this is not your question to answer, is it?

[zappaman]

80. catfight!

:popcorn:

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. what on earth?

I can't read hack's mind, but I can read his words, and so can you. If you don't think it's acceptable to point out when someone's words are being misrepresented, then what do you think is the point of having a discussion board at all? I'm mystified.

[MrMickeysMom]

83. You'll remain mystified then...

Anyone can type and read, but when you read someone's response, then assume to interpret for someone else, you either fill a role to act as cheerleader for their cause, or you are them.

I assume you are the former. I can think of better ways to weigh in on the OP besides interpreting someone else's responses.

Speak for yourself.

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. I consider reality a cause in itself

I'm sorry if you see everything as a team sport. It makes for really crappy discussions.

[MrMickeysMom]

89. Crappy discussions...

... start with assumptions that an opposing response is equivalent to "team sport".

It's called opinion, and it's the product of informing oneself... try it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

90. here, let me walk you through this...

...when you read someone's response, then assume to interpret for someone else, you either fill a role to act as cheerleader for their cause, or you are them.

That makes no sense whatsoever. The very concept of responding to someone else's post (as such) entails some attempt to interpret their words. To say that my attempt to interpret someone else's post has anything whatsoever to do with "act(ing) as cheerleader for their cause" is risible.

And if the phrase "cheerleader for their cause" doesn't imply a team sport, then, well, I think that would come as a surprise to actual cheerleaders all around the country.

You may be more informed about something or other than I am, but you've given no hint of it on this thread. As far as I can tell, you're just picking a fight. It's an interesting choice.

[MrMickeysMom]

91. Yeah, we're here for the mud-slinging benefit, right?

Bullshit.

If what I post makes no sense to you, then quit making your face red trying to figure out what I'm saying. I've posted here countless times weighing in on theories that end up being called "truther" (whatever that intends, frankly, it's so narrow, I don't care). Meanwhile, I get a little tired of the 9/11 thread posters (you included) having no other target than to deny and attack competing theories. As others have said here, some meaningful conversation on this thread always seems to be thwarted by derogatory comments. So, naturally, when you're called on them, you can't make sense of what you read. Poor you.

Deal with the fact that you've been doing here and elsewhere is equal to "yeah, what HE/SHE said!"

So, I say, with all rights is BULL SHIT! Now get up, dust yourself off and go make a point. I won't hold my breath though.

[OnTheOtherHand]

92. projection, much??

Umm, ma'am, what point is it that you think you've made? Because you sure haven't raised a finger to respond to a single one of mine.

It just seems lazy, and rude. Worse, you seem to think you're fighting for truth and right. Not well, ma'am, not well.

[MrMickeysMom]

93. Keep telling yourself that....

with someone else.

Signed,

Umm Ma'am

[OnTheOtherHand]

94. I accept your concession n/t

[MrMickeysMom]

95. Isn't that a sign of hypoplasticgenitalia?

Yes, I think it is...

[rschop]

54. re: Why are Bush's 8 months more significant than Clinton's 8 years?

Bush permitted the CIA and FBI HQ to deliberately allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out the attacks on 9/11 and murder almost three thousand people in the US. These intelligence agencies first had criminally withheld information from the FBI Cole bombing investigation, particularly the information that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at the January 2000 al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur, but then permitted them to shut down all investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, again in particular the FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, when they clearly knew that these terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

Clinton had also allowed the FBI HQ and the CIA to criminally obstruct the Cole bombing investigation, to hide the CIA culpability in the Cole bombing, but I don't think he would have allowed the FBI HQ and CIA to shut down all of the FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists if he knew that as a result thousands of Americans would be killed in the al Qaeda attacks the CIA, FBI HQ and even the National Security Council knew about in the spring and summer of 2001.

[Ohio Joe]

4. It can always happen

Sorry but there is pretty much no way to stop a terror attack. They occur even in the most repressive regimes.

[BeFree]

5. Right?

"No one could ever imagine"

Is that what you are saying?

Joe writes:

"Sorry but there is pretty much no way to stop a terror attack. They occur even in the most repressive regimes."

Keep digging, Joe. You're almost there.

[Ohio Joe]

6. Not very good reading comprehension there huh?

Not being able to imagine an attack and acknowledging that one cannot always stop a terror attack are not even close to the same thing. A determine person can attack just about anything. I suppose you would curtail our civil liberties even more to protect us?

[BeFree]

7. Do I have this right, Joe?

You are against bushco being held responsible >even if they< were incompetent?

The BIT strikes again, and you are willing to just say: "Oh well, it was bound to happen. Nothing anybody could do"?

Joe, bushco, one way or another failed in a thousand ways leading up to 9/11, and I, for one, want them held responsible. Don't you?

[Ohio Joe]

8. You just love to put words in peoples mouths, don't you?

"You are against bushco being held responsible were incompetent?"

I don't know... Thats not even a real sentence so I do not know what you mean.

"The BIT strikes again, and you are willing to just say: "Oh well, it was bound to happen. Nothing anybody could do"?"

I never said what you are quoting me as saying, making up quotes is a very dis-honest thing to do. You really should stop putting words in peoples mouths.

"Joe, bushco, one way or another failed in a thousand ways leading up to 9/11, and I, for one, want them held responsible. Don't you?"

I never said I didn't, in fact I've said many many times that I do want them prosicuted for their real crimes surrounding 9/11.

[BeFree]

9. What crimes are those, Joe?

See the question marks? It means I am asking a question. Questions because I want to clear up what your point maybe, because I sure can't tell what it is your point might be.

And if you get offended, you can just not click my threads eh?

Here it is, cleaned up:
"You are against bushco being held responsible even if they were incompetent?"

[Ohio Joe]

11. Do you understand what putting things in quotes means?

Adding a question mark at the end does not change that. When you quote someone, you should use their exact words, otherwise, you are putting words in their mouth... as you have done once again. This is dis-honest. I don't get offended when you do it, I expect you to do it, it is an old habit of yours. I just enjoy pointing out when you do it. I also enjoy pointing out when you duck giving an answer to a question, you do that all the time as well. I also enjoy pointing out when you insinuate the person you reply to is a bush supporter, that happens all the time as well.

I, on the other hand, do always answer your questions though. I also always do so in a straight forward manner, saying exactly what I mean. Try reading what I say and not attempt to twist it into support for silly CT's, try having an "Honest Discussion".

Now, on to your question.

"What crimes are those, Joe?"

The bush crimes are far to numerous to name them all. They range from election theft, to lying to congress, to lying to the American people, to outing a CIA agent, to illegal wars and on and on, I simply cannot name them all.

"And if you get offended, you can just not click my threads eh?"

As I said, I enjoy your threads.

"Here it is, cleaned up:
"You are against bushco being held responsible even if they were incompetent?""

That is not cleaned up, that is simply another quote I never said. Again. You are putting words in my mouth, it is bad form to quote someone with things they never said. Should I say this differently? Are you not understanding? Should I use smaller words?

[BeFree]

12. Heh

I enjoy your threads too, Joe.

No, wait, you don't do threads.

I find this hilarious: "
The bush crimes are far to numerous to name them all. They range from election theft, to lying to congress, to lying to the American people, to outing a CIA agent, to illegal wars and on and on, I simply cannot name them all."

The uhm, topic, Joe, since you seemed to have wandered off, is the bushco crimes re: 9/11.

So this too is hilarious: "I, on the other hand, do always answer your questions though."

Who do you think you are fooling? Besides yourself?

[Ohio Joe]

13. What do you find funny?

"I enjoy your threads too, Joe."

Good, too bad you never used any to try and prove your silly CT's.

"No, wait, you don't do threads."

Untrue. It is true I do not start many threads but I do indeed start some threads. For instance, my thread with the link to the TV footage from 9/11 that not a single CT'er ever was able to use to prove shit... or even tried.

"I find this hilarious: "
The bush crimes are far to numerous to name them all. They range from election theft, to lying to congress, to lying to the American people, to outing a CIA agent, to illegal wars and on and on, I simply cannot name them all."

The uhm, topic, Joe, since you seemed to have wandered off, is the bushco crimes re: 9/11.

So this too is hilarious: "I, on the other hand, do always answer your questions though."

Who do you think you are fooling? Besides yourself?"

I will admit that election theft may be off topic... The second may not be, iffy though I admit. Regardless, I apologize that one of four was off topic.

Are you claiming that lying to congress and the American people about WMD's in Iraq is unrelated to 9/11?
Are you claiming the outing of a CIA agent is unrelated to 9/11?

I have admitted that one of four bush crimes was off topic, are you now going to admit you have tried several times in this thread to mis-quote me and apologize? or just keep ignoring that you even tried such dis-honest discussion?

[BeFree]

15. Like I said Joe

I still don't know how you really feel about bushco paying for the failures leading up to 9/11, as I wrote in the op.

You tell me that "...pretty much no way to stop a terror attack"

That: "A determine person can attack just about anything"

And: "I do want them prosicuted for their real crimes surrounding 9/11."

Then you ask me:
"Are you claiming that lying to congress and the American people about WMD's in Iraq is unrelated to 9/11?
Are you claiming the outing of a CIA agent is unrelated to 9/11?"

Try to stick with the topic Joe. That topic being the failure of buchco leading up to and allowing the OCT to take place. Is that really so hard to do, Joe?

So both of your questions are false, in that both sets of lies (WMD & Plame) came after 9/11.

Joe, I have a thread about Honest Discussions. You have kicked it many times. I suggest that now, you go and read it this time, and see how it applies here. And to you.

Now, we are done here. I don't know what silly game you are playing, and I don't think you can say that bushco is to blame for the failure of the government to prevent 9/11.

But bushco can, should, and is to be blamed for allowing the attacks to happen.

But you just can't put it into words can you?

[Ohio Joe]

17. So no apology for intentionaly mis-quoting me?

Next you move on to cherry picking things I've said and putting them in order that suits you. Typical CT'er tactics.

Is this clear enough?

bush did not do enough to prevent 9/11.

Many should have been fired, at the least, that 9/11 happened.

bush used 9/11 to commit many crimes.

I have been completely honest and clear, it is plain to see for anyone reading this thread. Truthers, chime in and state if you feel I have been less then honest and clear, tell me where and I will clarify. Now... about that apology? or are you still going to ignore that and continue your dis-honest discussion?

[BeFree]

18. Apologize? Are u f'n kidding?

Sure, Joe, I apologize for misusing a few quotes. BFD.

"bush did not do enough to prevent 9/11."

Whoa, dude, you are going all CT on us, careful, dude, next thing you know you'll be saying he should be 'prosicuted'(sic).

From here on, I am sorry, but all you get from me is sarcasm and belittlement. I give up trying to have honest discussions with you and several others. I've just got to hand it to you.

[Ohio Joe]

19. bwahahahahahahaha

oh yes, mis-quoting is no big deal... it is the CT'ers bread and butter, why should anyone expect anything else.

"From here on, I am sorry, but all you get from me is sarcasm and belittlement. I give up trying to have honest discussions with you and several others."

Like you have ever done anything else, bwahahahahahahaha, too funny, don't ever change.

[chrisa]

62. I disagree. You can stop a terror attack with good intelligence / domestic forces.

We've stopped many terrorist attacks from occuring.

[chrisa]

33. Counter points

That means American defense forces, the military, the intelligence, and the political agencies completely failed the U.S. citizenry. A complete and utter failure.

Yeah, so? It's not so hard to believe. Our military and intelligence is not 100% perfect. They even continue to fail in Iraq and Afghanistan (best example is the wikileaks leak).

And who has been held responsible? Who in government paid the price for their ineptness? Who got fired? Who went to jail? Not one damn person. NO one.

How do you know this? Do you have evidence of this? I'm sure at least someone got fired, but it's not like they would scream that all over the media, especially in matters inside of the intelligence community.

The biggest failure in American history and not one government chief, cook or bottle washer had even the balls to stand up and say: "I need to be held responsible", and was held responsible. Not one. NO one.

Where, in any place, would you ever see somebody who failed take responsibility for their actions and not try to blame it on somebody else? Very few people would actually rise up and admit that they failed / did something wrong, because it's still a bureaucracy where people can advance or have their jobs be put in jeopardy.


That means it could easily happen again, and if there is anything to fear, it is just that: the government could let it happen again.

Any terrorists can strike at any time, and a train can derail off the tracks and smash into my house right now. It doesn't mean we have to be afraid of those things. Fear of terrorism is irrational, because it almost never happens. However, stopping terrorism is an important task.

[BeFree]

35. On the 12th I'll be back

for today: Why not kick this?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9102686

[BeFree]

48. Recipe for disaster

Such mixing of facts lies and excuses is a recipe for more of the same.

I dunno, if yours is the prevalent mindset, no wonder things are so fucked up?

What I take away from your missive is just this:

We can't do anything about the problem, therefore no one should be blamed for not doing anything about the problem.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. perhaps if you responded to people's actual words

chrisa wrote that "stopping terrorism is an important task," yet you purport to "take away" that "We can't do anything about the problem."

chrisa wrote that "I'm sure at least someone got fired," yet you purport to "take away" that "no one should be blamed for not doing anything about the problem."

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it.

:shrug:

[BeFree]

53. And here you are

Nothing to say on your own behalf except to attack me.

Nothing about the premise of the OP.

I responded quite clearly to what I perceived the Chrisa message to be:
That shit happens, nothing can be done about shit, so relax.

And with my reasoning that attitudes such as that is a reason things are so fucked up.

Every intelligent person knows 9/11 didn't have to happen. You aren't claiming it was bound to happen are you? That 9/11 could NOT have been avoided?

[chrisa]

56. Reread my post.

That's far off from what I actually wrote.

[OnTheOtherHand]

67. indeed it is

Funny how stuff like that happens.

[OnTheOtherHand]

64. that's untrue

I criticized the content of your post, and my criticism stands.

It isn't of general interest what you "perceive()" people's "message" to be, if your perception can't be supported with reference to people's actual words.

[chrisa]

55. It's being realistic.

Reread what I said about the whole intelligence community being a bureaucracy plagued by political problems. You haven't offered any evidence to your claims that nobody was fired for 9/11, which is a very simplistic view of the event. Do you really think people would be jumping for joy to yell that they screwed up on 9/11, yelling "It's my fault! Blame me!!!" That just doesn't happen.

People were blamed for 9/11, including Bush. Everybody recognizes the fact that the intelligence community screwed up. What you get in these types of things, though is people pointing fingers at each other and playing the blame game, which really helps nobody.

[BeFree]

58. Yes political problems

The politics interfered and allowed it to happen.

Nobody, in my memory, has paid any price in a court of law, or been fired, or demoted for their failure. Instead, several players were promoted. If you are ignorant of that, or have proof that I am wrong, post it up.

And somebody fuck up and now I am the bad person for pointing it out?

WTF?

[chrisa]

59. You don't seem to have any proof either.

If you are ignorant of that, or have proof that I am wrong, post it up.

You made the original statement, but have not shown any proof that nobody was fired on 9/11. That sounds very simplistic. Also, what leads you to believe that anybody was promoted after 9/11? Who would this be?

I never claimed to have proof that somebody was fired on 9/11. I just said that the idea that not a single person was fired on 9/11 sounds ridiculous. My original post was, "How do you know this? Do you have evidence of this? I'm sure at least someone got fired, but it's not like they would scream that all over the media, especially in matters inside of the intelligence community."

And somebody fuck up and now I am the bad person for pointing it out?

Not sure what that means, but I'm just arguing against the points in the OP. No need to make it personal.

[BeFree]

60. OK

What is it you are trying to say? You seem to be after me.

I take this conversation just as I have stated.

And my perception is that if someone points out the obvious fuck ups, that doesn't mean they are wrong to do so, or even need to be grilled. It is those who made the problem appear that interest needs to be directed.

The idea that we shouldn't point fingers at those who obviously screwed up, yet question those who point out the screwups, is asinine.

[chrisa]

61. lol. I'm not after you. I promise.

No, pointing out screw-ups is a good thing. I just disagree with your points in the OP.

I am just getting from your OP that you think it's far-fetched that the events you posted happened. I responded in saying that I believe that they are very realistic, considering how I percieve the US intelligence community to be. I also disagree with your statement that nobody was fired. Of course, I don't know this for sure, but I just expressed doubt, as it seems very far-fetched. I also challenged you to prove, as you said in your counter-point, that somebody was promoted because of 9/11.

The idea that we shouldn't point fingers at those who obviously screwed up, yet question those who point out the screwups, is asinine.

We should point fingers at those who screw up, because they deserve it. I'm not sure I even said this, so it's a bit of a red-herring. No offense.

[BeFree]

70. You disagree?

OMG, No!! Someone disagrees with me?

How could you?!?!?!

Because you don't know much. Yet you "challenge" me "to prove" something that, if you did know much, you wouldn't feel this desire to be fucking challenging me, but instead challenging bushco and the OCT.

That, along with your admonishment that I not "point fingers" and you can see why it seems you are just stirring the pot. AKA offensive.

[chrisa]

71. I simply responded to your OP.

My original challenge stands. Do you have any proof for what you said? You keep saying that I don't know much, but you never actually addressed my points.

I can't see how that qualifies as "stirring the pot." This is an internet forum. If you don't like it, you don't have to respond, but I was hoping you would debate me on my points with counter-points.

Once again, you have posted another red-herring and strawman argument. I never told you to not point fingers. If you feel like I don't know as much as you do, please enlighten me on the statements you made in the OP (as I challenged you to do in my original reply). So far you have not.

[BeFree]

72. So

You just don't believe me?

Disbelief is a job description of Truthers, ya know?

Questioning authority is the foundation.

You must be a Truther, eh?

Good for you, but you are barking up the wrong tree.

[hack89]

40. Because the Democrats have things to hide too, perhaps?

remember there were still many Clinton appointees still in government service on 911, especially at the mid-level positions. And I doubt that they would want a discussion on cuts in the defense budget and its impact on readiness to respond to attacks like 911.

There has to be a reason why the Democrats went along with the 911 Commission report.