Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why Doesn't Bush Work?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 23, 2006.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Is he just lazy? He had a clear warning just as before 9-11, and chose to cut brush. It boggles the mind. The guy spends so much time on vacation (about 20% of his time in office), that he simply has no use for putting in the work that could prevent tragedies. And yet, the conservatives who rail against the free loaders are letting him get a pass. This president is a free loader. Today he campaigns in Ohio. Tommorrow he'll probably visit a meat packing plant to massage the beef lobby. Couple days off, then he'll talk to a bunch of pre-screened shills at a town hall meeting in Kansas about his tax cuts.

    Seriously, he didn't know about the UAE deal? He didn't know about the Katrina flood? He didn't know about the pending attack on the US? He didn't know there are several different groups of Iraqis under Hussein? Is he really that dumb, or just intellectually lazy??

    There is a country you invaded completely falling apart before our eyes. Your program has elected a terrorist organization to head up the Palestinian Authority. There is genocide in Darfur. The UAE wants to control our ports. There are tens of thousands of homeless as a result of Katrina. You are busy fundraising and campaigning?

    Get to work you imbecile!!
  2. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Would you mind explaining to all of us what the "clear warning" regarding 9-11-01 was?
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    August 6th pdb for starters. I'm sure you are aware of it.

    There were others...but this was the most blatant.
  4. Tunescribe

    Tunescribe PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    Messages:
    16,185
    Likes Received:
    202
    Ratings:
    +420 / 5 / -9

    #61 Jersey

    Bush has no conscience. He abdicated it to "God."
  5. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    If by GOD you mean multinational corporations, I'll agree. He's a religious fraud as much as a fraud leader.
  6. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I think he had warning about Cheney too!

    White House Had Prior Knowledge Of Cheney Threat Aug. 2005 Briefing Warned, 'Cheney Determined To Shoot Old Man In Face'
    February 20, 2006 | Issue 42•08

    WASHINGTON, DC—Government documents declassified today reveal that President Bush was briefed last summer of "a substantial risk" that Vice President Dick Cheney would shoot an elderly male in the face sometime in the next several months.

    In a Presidential Daily Briefing given to Bush in August 2005, the CIA warned that the vice president was a potent threat to the senior population at large, and in particular "possessed the capabilities and intentions to spray a senior citizen with projectiles fired from a shotgun or other weapon." A second brief identified the population at risk as those "between 70 and 80 years of age," and warned that the vice president posed the greatest threat to "seniors in close proximity to the vice president when he is armed."
  7. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Thats funny...I was reading that Onion article when I began the post (in jest). The post then went serious.

    Do you disagree that the august 6th pdb was a direct warning?
  8. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I do disagree. I believe it was a general warning that those bastids were up to something but there was no way to know exactly what, when and where they were up to it. Nor was there a realistic way to envision the pure scope of what they were up to.

    Not that I absolve them of all blame, obviously the CIA and FBI screwed the pooch this time as well as the INS. I also think that the Bush admin didnt take the threat of terrorism as seriously as it should have but then again, pretty much each and every one of us didnt think that "it could happen here" in the manner that it did.

    I just hope that we havent hit the collective snooze button on our wakeup call.
  9. BlueTalon

    BlueTalon Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yes, I disagree that it was a direct warning. It was indirect and obscure, at best.
  10. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I wouldn't go so far as to suggest Bush had warning or should have had warning about 9/11. Chatter like on the August 6 memo probably comes through every day. One day they're looking to blow up bridges, the next it's flying planes into buildings.

    That still doesn't change the fact that Bush IS a lazy piece of crud. He's taken more vacation than any other president, and he seems to not know about some major decisions that come out of his own administration. I think it only furthers the point that Bush is not the real president, but a figurehead meant to stand up in front of the cameras and look nonthreatening for the folks elected him. A lot of those people wouldn't vote for Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rove because they look evil and coniving. Bush, though, is a bumbling idiot, and his supporters can relate to him.
  11. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside US"


    Okay, if thats obscure then the least one would expect a president to do is to assemble a counterterrorism meeting upon receiving this titled pdb to discuss the "obscurity" of it.

    The righties just do not want to admit that Cheney took the reigns of counterterrorism in early 2001 and did nothing to assemble a meeting until AFTER 9-11.

    This FACT is lost in the fog of our right's delusional collective "blame Clinton" mentality.
  12. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    A warning stating "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" is basically a brief telling them that "the sky is blue and water is wet"

    We ALL knew that.
  13. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I somewhat agree. Bush should have been more proactive about counterterrorism (I don't think he said the word until after 9/11), but even if, I think 9/11 would have occured. The chance would have been a little lower, but not much lower.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2006
  14. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    You knew what? That the pdb was not a sufficiently clear warning to raise an alert?

    Would you require a disclosure of the method of attack (hijacked airplanes)? Would that have been enough? Or you are saying you wanted a time and date of the pending strike?

    Recall this statement?: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

    Is this your position?


    It was unpredictable? Not according to Clarke, who maintains Bushs obsession with Iraq minimized the ability to deal with the REAL threat to our security- Al Qaeda. His "hair was on fire" I believe was the quote he used in his book.
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/jan-june04/clarke_03-22.html
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2006
  15. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    AAB, its easy to think in such terms now because we're living in a "post 9/11 world".

    Pre 9/11, many Americans including our government most likely underestimated Al-Qaeda's capability and the threat of terrorism in general. We simply didnt believe it could happen here.

    To take a general vague warning and to expect our government to come up with exactly the right solution isnt fair.

    Should the Bush administration (and the Clinton one prior) have taken more proactive steps in dealing with this threat? Absolutely

    But without a clear, imminent warning with specifics, its impossible to say whether or not 9/11 would have been prevented.
  16. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Please reread the part about averting the millenium bombing. Was there something more specific about that threat? (obviously not knowing all the details of either case)

    Also, I ask you this: if the current administration has released voluntarily the august 6th pdb, which was fairly incriminating in gross negligence and directly contradicted Rices statements before Congress about having no idea that they would use airplanes as missiles, have you asked yourself what did our intelligence agencies know that they haven't declassified???

    See, the argument you are making is weak on both counts. 1) we have currently a very secretive government so much of what came from the 911 commission was redacted before release. Therefore, there is alot of infromation that would probably have sunk Bush in 2004 if it had seen the light of day- and for political (and/or national security) purposes was classified. So we can probably safely assume there were plenty of "specifics" that you and I would never come to know.

    And 2) based on limited understanding of what was involved in the millenium plot, we do know now that a major attack was successfully averted through competance and due diligence. We don't need specifics- only the intelligence agencies needed those. The follow up is what I want to see out of my government. And if 911, Iraq, and Katrina are not clear enough examples of lack of competance in preparation and planning, then I don't know what possibly could be for you.
  17. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    By the way....has anyone ever been tried in the anthrax cases? No. Apparently, biological terrorism is not on this governments radar either, which should scare the hot piss out of everyone.
  18. pats-blue

    pats-blue Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    I don't think you really have a true understanding of the volume of "chatter" and the scope it would take to "protect" this country. Law enforcement, includding the FBI is near its breaking point just with "domestic" law enforcement issue caused by "everyday" criminals. Solving crimes and "preventing" certain activities becomes pretty easy with 20/20 hindsight. I can tell you even now it takes a fair amount of "luck" mixed with dilegence and skill to prevent anything. Anyone that thinks thier government can and should protect them from everything is living in a fantasy world. If everyone just sits around fat and happy or complaining about government and pissy yet takes no steps to be self aware and responsible the government is only putting a thumb in the dyke.

    People are talking about things they have no clue about but are reading talking points that people have used to make themselves look better AFTER the fact. "Security" is not a gaurantee it is more a state of mind really, scary but the truth.
  19. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    So by your logic we have no reason to worry about thee UAE port deal. Our intel is so bad, that we are defenseless. Is that the case?

    Because for 50 years we have given the CIA and NSA a black box budget to do what needs to be done to intercept and preempt attempts to attack our nation. You are of the opinion that these billions of dollars, unchecked by Congress are insufficient to prevent anything??

    That is the right's position, correct?
  20. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Why doesn't Bush work? The Senior Bowl is over and the combine is just starting up......er...wha, you don't mean Reggie? Oops, wrong forum. :D

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>