Letter to Kerry

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It doesn't really accomplish anything to point fingers, true... but it's not an entirely baseless indictment either.
It's been proven that the Bush Administration had plenty enough information to know that an attack was imminent. And someone please correct me if i'm wrong, because I hate unknowingly spreading misinformation, but I believe the Bush Adminstration also had intelligence that specifically pointed to certain dates when attacks were most probable.

That he was "only" in office for 9 months is not an excuse. They had information, and they didn't act on it.
What they've done since is like closing the barn-door after the horse ran away.

Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden? Also, intelligence pointed to those certain dates BEFORE Bush even took office.

Look, I really am not a Bush fan. He didn't get my vote in 2000 and he won't in 2004. But I feel I must defend him on this area, as I agree with his decisions. You CANNOT blame 9/11 on him, or at least I haven't seen a reasonable argument for this.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for 9/11. Let's face it, no one TRULY saw it coming. But to blame Bush because he was in charge is ridiculous. Lest we forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. So THEORETICALLY we could blame him for not having Bin Laden locked up right now.

But then, wasn't it our government during Reagan's administration, that trained Bin Laden and his men in the first place?
So the "blame game" goes even farther back than Clinton, no?

[GypsySorcerer]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But then, wasn't it our government during Reagan's administration, that trained Bin Laden and his men in the first place?
So the "blame game" goes even farther back than Clinton, no?

True. We also helped Saddam. We have a tendency to shoot ourslelves in the foot.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden? Also, intelligence pointed to those certain dates BEFORE Bush even took office.

Look, I really am not a Bush fan. He didn't get my vote in 2000 and he won't in 2004. But I feel I must defend him on this area, as I agree with his decisions. You CANNOT blame 9/11 on him, or at least I haven't seen a reasonable argument for this.

I'm not trying to blame anyone here... what happened, happened. And placing blame isn't going to bring back 3,000 lost lives.

All I'm saying is that they did have warning... plenty of warning... and they chose not to act on it.

In regards to Clinton, I don't have enough of the facts on him apparently being offered Bin Laden, and I also don't know the timeline on that... so I can't comment.
But in regards to the intelligence pointing to the plotting of attacks on American soil, that information was coming at the tail-end of his second term in office. So the information was then given to the new president... whose administration chose to ignore that information, and the additional information that came in during his first 9 months in office.

So make of that what you will.

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

But, Joe, it's a completely different ball-game since 9/11.
Anyone in the White House now would have to be "tough on terrorism." There's no choice.

I still don't feel that the Bush Administration has been as effective as they claim.
We're pretty much always in peace negotiations with some country somewhere... that doesn't mean anything will necessarily come from it. So you can cross that off the list of accomplishments.

And nothing changes the fact that the mastermind behind 9/11 is still free, and nothing changes the fact that his al-Qaida organization continues plotting more attacks against our country, to this day (2.5 years after the terror attacks).

The guy they did manage to catch had no weapons of mass destruction (and apparently hasn't had them since 1994 - when Clinton was in office), and didn't play a part in the attacks that cost us thousands of lives (the event that sparked the whole "War On Terrorism" in the first place).

Brian, you're belittlement of Bush's accomplishments pretty much floors me. To assume that any leader of this country would have accomplished the same thing, well is just that, an assumption. The fact is that Bush did it, no other president. Yet you are not willing to give him credit for it because anyone would have done that.


When this war on terror started, the administration said it wasn't going to be accomplished over night. It would be a war drawn out over many years. You can't deny that the taliban's center of command was diffused and to this day I'm sure that the government is doing everything they can to thwart terrorism. It'd be illogical to think otherwise.


The jury's still out on the WMD in Iraq. Surely you wouldn't deny that Hussein being out of power is a good thing? Kay even said that he was more of an imminent threat than we originally thought(WMD or not). Is it so illogical to think that he was a threat to the U.S. either directly or indirectly? I think not. I'd venture to say that he'd still be in power if Bush was not in office right now.


I can respect your opinion but I just disagree with it.


Joe

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

But in regards to the intelligence pointing to the plotting of attacks on American soil, that information was coming at the tail-end of his second term in office. So the information was then given to the new president... whose administration chose to ignore that information, and the additional information that came in during his first 9 months in office.

Was this specific information Brian? I highly doubt that any one knew that planes were going to be flown in to the WTC or the Pentagon. It defies reason to allow it to happen. The taliban had long been known as a threat, as evidenced in what they did in the previous years, before Bush even got in to office. I do agree with both you and GypsySorcerer that that powder keg was created long before Bush and before Clinton. But to blame Bush simply is not right imo.


Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Brian, you're belittlement of Bush's accomplishments pretty much floors me. To assume that any leader of this country would have accomplished the same thing, well is just that, an assumption. The fact is that Bush did it, no other president. Yet you are not willing to give him credit for it because anyone would have done that.

Surely you wouldn't deny that Hussein being out of power is a good thing?
I'd venture to say that he'd still be in power if Bush was not in office right now.

Even if I thought George W. Bush was the only person on the face of this planet who could have accomplished the capture of Hussein, and who could have spear-headed this War On Terrorism, it does not change the fact that he has been absolutely ineffectual in ALL other areas.
The economy... the environment... the educational system... civil rights... the list goes on.

I'm not inflexible, so if you want me to give him credit for what has been accomplished in the War On Terrorism, fine... I'll do that.
But I still feel that we need a president who isn't a "one hit wonder," with accomplishments limited to one area.

Originally posted by jwd
I can respect your opinion but I just disagree with it.

I understand. And like we've said before, we don't have to agree with each in order to be friends.
But forgive me for having my fingers crossed that "your guy" loses in November!

[jwd]

Johnny Stew:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jwd
I can respect your opinion but I just disagree with it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand. And like we've said before, we don't have to agree with each in order to be friends.
But forgive me for having my fingers crossed that "your guy" loses in November!

Cool. And you're right, friends to the end. I've got my fingers and toes crossed that your guy loses in November. If he doesn't, I'm taking out the money in my 401k to invest in a bomb shelter!!

Have a good weekend!


Joe

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
Was this specific information Brian? I highly doubt that any one knew that planes were going to be flown in to the WTC or the Pentagon. It defies reason to allow it to happen.

Someone else might know more of the specifics than I do, but I believe it's been stated that the intelligence they were gathering was in regards to an "aviation-related" terrorist plot.

Of course, I don't think anyone would have ever imagined that they'd fly planes directly into buildings, but we still could have stepped up airport security.

Anyway, hindsight is always 20-20, and again, I'm not trying to point fingers.
Just wanted to discuss another area of apparent ineffectualism.

[Johnny Stew]

Originally posted by jwd
I've got my fingers and toes crossed that your guy loses in November. If he doesn't, I'm taking out the money in my 401k to invest in a bomb shelter!!

*hehehe* But if "your guy" loses, I might actually be able to afford that bomb shelter!
And I might even be allowed to have a husband to share it with!

(By the way, Kerry isn't really "my guy"... but all the money in the world couldn't get me to vote for Bush.)

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
It doesn't really accomplish anything to point fingers, true... but it's not an entirely baseless indictment either.
It's been proven that the Bush Administration had plenty enough information to know that an attack was imminent. And someone please correct me if i'm wrong, because I hate unknowingly spreading misinformation, but I believe the Bush Adminstration also had intelligence that specifically pointed to certain dates when attacks were most probable.

You're right Johnny. It was in his August 6, 2001 presidential daily briefing, issued while he was on his six week vacation clearing brush at the ranch in Crawford. Who knows if he even read it. He won't release it now to the 9/11 commission. He also knoew that a plane had crashed into the WTC before he ever entered Booker Elementary School on 9/11 and failed to act.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
I blame neither Bush nor Clinton for 9/11. Let's face it, no one TRULY saw it coming. But to blame Bush because he was in charge is ridiculous. Lest we forget that Clinton was offered Bin Laden. So THEORETICALLY we could blame him for not having Bin Laden locked up right now. gldstwmn, please tell me how Bush being in charge had anything to do with the greatest security failure in the history of the U.S.

See my reply to Johnny Stew in this thread.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by GypsySorcerer
Johnny, why don't you mention the fact that Clinton was offered Bin Laden? Also, intelligence pointed to those certain dates BEFORE Bush even took office.

Look, I really am not a Bush fan. He didn't get my vote in 2000 and he won't in 2004. But I feel I must defend him on this area, as I agree with his decisions. You CANNOT blame 9/11 on him, or at least I haven't seen a reasonable argument for this.

www.takebackthemedia.org

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
But then, wasn't it our government during Reagan's administration, that trained Bin Laden and his men in the first place?
So the "blame game" goes even farther back than Clinton, no?

Yes it does. Bush was set up in his first oil company partly by Salem Bin Laden. Some of the pilots of the 9/11 planes trained at American military bases. Not nearly enough questions have been asked and the administration is trying to put the 9/11 commission to bed as quick as it can.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Was this specific information Brian? I highly doubt that any one knew that planes were going to be flown in to the WTC or the Pentagon. It defies reason to allow it to happen.

Joe

Actually, some people don't think it defies reason. They have a name for it. It's called LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose). And yes, the information they had was specific to planes flying into a building and the dates were specific as well. One of the sources was Israeli intelligence. i'd be happy to post the links on all of this if you'd like to read about it.