PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 commission report today 10 am est - C-Span



Gayle in MD
12-05-2005, 07:08 AM
This should be very interesting to watch. We will see what kind of grade the republicans will get regarding their determination to implement the safety factors which were recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to protect American from another attack.

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-05-2005, 09:27 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> This should be very interesting to watch. We will see what kind of grade the republicans will get regarding their determination to implement the safety factors which were recommended by the 9/11 commission in order to protect American from another attack.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue">Perhaps. However, my test of a good plan is not what a bunch of breaucrats recommend, it's how well we have been protected from the next attack. There has been no other 9/11. Most of the violence is in Iraq. Perhaps an added benefit of the war is the fair amount of isolation of terrorists activities to that area, and, of course, Europe (that stronghold of Islamics).

If we have left so much open to the terrorists, why has there not been several 9/11 style attacks. Could it be that GWB is a little smarter than you give him credit for? If we had sit silently with a democratic response (This will not stand, again), maybe they would be able to concentrate on us here. Ever think of that?

I mean, we are the most hated people in the world, the terrorists have no better target to show their strength, right? I think they are waiting for a weak democratic president so they can do unto us with little risk of reprisal. GWB no matter how you hate him has kept your liberal tush safe for several years since 9/11/2001. I realise you might prefer a softer, gentler, feel good president even if many had to suffer here because of it. Some presidents look out for you even if you don't have sense enough to want it.

I can see it now, John Kerry respondes to a major attack in 2010 by declaring that "Bush made this happen." "I was a virtual Nevel Chamberlain and even showed my soft side when dealing with the Arabs but they didn't return my love because GWB attacked Iraq back in 2003..." Vice President Hillary Clinton asked her husband Bill to "feel the pain" of the poor Islamis people but even his tears could not overcome GWB's legacy of protecting the U.S." Viva la France....
</font color>

Deeman
even JFK would have said, "Bomb their asses."

moblsv
12-05-2005, 09:44 AM
Maybe a good test would be how many attacks occurred on his watch. or maybe the progress on getting bin laden. maybe WMD's found in iraq. or net change in attacks worldwide during his watch. Maybe relations with foriegn countries, or maybe how many more muslims now believe that we are anti-muslim and are engaging a holy war for which they need to join.

Clinton seemed to do a pretty good job defending us despite the right wing attacks claiming he was 'wagging the dog' when he went after bin laden and terrorists. How about how well Bush followed up on the progress Clinton made and all of the direct warnings about Bin Laden when Bush took office?

Bush has not only done a poor job, he has been flat out negligent on the issue while focusing on Iraq instead and only making things worse.

Gayle in MD
12-05-2005, 10:01 AM
Instead of focussing on personal attacks against me, perhaps you might be interested in going to C-Span.Org to see a report card on how well this administration is graded by a bi-partisan commission.

Also, I would like to remind you how many years passed between the first bombing at the WTC, and 9/11.

It will be the people who refused, due to their own partisanship, to hold our elected officials to accountability, for their follow up to 9/11 in implementing the findings of the 9/11 commission who will be most responsible when next we are attacked, IMO. Those who have failed to stay abreast of these failures, are the true blind partisans among us.

I take it you were satisfied with the Federal Emergency Response, and Homeland Security, after Katrina. Perhaps, if you lived forty minutes from Washington D.C. as I do, you would not feel so satisfied with our emergency response record.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
12-05-2005, 10:07 AM
Bravo, my friend. Review the results of a Republican President and Congress and Senate at C-Span.Org.

The radical partisans are those who continue to turn their eyes away from the truth, but they can't deny the findings of the commission. Five Republicans, and Five Democrats, still, this administration gets a failing grade, while we fight a war in a country which had absolutely no connection to what happened to this country on 9/11, and one of the lowest marks given by the commissions is on the issue of addressing weapons of mass destruction! 12 D's, 5 F's and 2 incomplete, our of forty one points, how much worse could it be?

Gayle in Md.

Deeman3
12-05-2005, 12:18 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> Maybe a good test would be how many attacks occurred on his watch. or maybe the progress on getting bin laden. maybe WMD's found in iraq. or net change in attacks worldwide during his watch. <font color="blue"> Why, his job is to protect the US, not France. </font color> Maybe relations with foriegn countries, <font color="blue">Why are you so concerned of what everyone thinks of us? They didn't like us before, so now they like us a little less. </font color> or maybe how many more muslims now believe that we are anti-muslim and are engaging a holy war for which they need to join. <font color="blue"> Well, it is Muslims that are doing this. Do you really think appeasement would have stopped 9/11? It encouraged it. </font color>

Clinton seemed to do a pretty good job defending us despite the right wing attacks claiming he was 'wagging the dog' when he went after bin laden and terrorists. <font color="blue"> When did he do this? He went after Bin Laden? Is this revisionist?</font color> How about how well Bush followed up on the progress Clinton made and all of the direct warnings about Bin Laden when Bush took office? <font color="blue"> What progress that Clinton made? You were just not paying attention, were you? </font color>

Bush has not only done a poor job, he has been flat out negligent on the issue while focusing on Iraq instead and only making things worse. <font color="blue"> O.K. I was wrong. We have been attacked several times in the U.S. since 9/11. i was mistaken.LOL </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

Deeman
left wing noise, just respond loudly....

Deeman3
12-05-2005, 12:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Instead of focussing on personal attacks against me, perhaps you might be interested in going to C-Span.Org to see a report card on how well this administration is graded by a bi-partisan commission. <font color="blue">personal attacks on you? Gayle you are not even the standard bearer for the Democrats, just a very liberal person who I see pandering to the very far left. That is not a personal attack, just a fact. As a far left person, you don't want debate. You want to post, copy and paste to the exclusion of everyone else. I do have a right to my opinion, despite your trying to turn this into a conservative vs. liberal, how much can you sling debate. Just post your, "You are attacking me, Bush is the Devil" drivel and let's just read the responses. I know I'll not be agreed with by you, probably by most but I can still state my oipinion until the Democrats get elected anyway.

Deeman</font color>

Also, I would like to remind you how many years passed between the first bombing at the WTC, and 9/11.

<font color="blue">But, the first bombing of the WTC was not an attack on us as Americans (Clinton was in office) and there was probably no clear connection between the friendlier Islanics who did that and the Hypered Up by Bush SuperIslamics we are facing now..... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif </font color>

It will be the people who refused, due to their own partisanship, to hold our elected officials to accountability, for their follow up to 9/11 in implementing the findings of the 9/11 commission who will be most responsible when next we are attacked, IMO. <font color="blue"> See, getting the blame lined up already...It's those pesky republicans.. </font color> Those who have failed to stay abreast of these failures, are the true blind partisans among us. <font color="blue"> I don't disagree wiht you because I am partisan but because I feel you are wrong, there is a difference. </font color>

I take it you were satisfied with the Federal Emergency Response, and Homeland Security, after Katrina. <font color="blue"> No, I think the local, sate and federal governemnt was too slow, now stayong involved too long in this situation. </font color> Perhaps, if you lived forty minutes from Washington D.C. as I do, you would not feel so satisfied with our emergency response record. <font color="blue"> That's one very good reason for me not to live 40 miles from DC. We agree on this. </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

eg8r
12-05-2005, 12:47 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Also, I would like to remind you how many years passed between the first bombing at the WTC, and 9/11. <hr /></blockquote> Well, while your memory is so good, maybe you could tell us who was running the country and did nothing to prevent that action from happening again? At least we now have a President who is willing to take action, whether you agree with it or not.

eg8r

moblsv
12-05-2005, 01:02 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>

<font color="blue"> Why, his job is to protect the US, not France. </font color><font color="blue">Why are you so concerned of what everyone thinks of us? They didn't like us before, so now they like us a little less. </font color>
<font color="blue"> Well, it is Muslims that are doing this. Do you really think appeasement would have stopped 9/11? It encouraged it. </font color>

Do you really think making enemies and not working with your neighbors is good for anyone? These people think they brought down the USSR and now think they can bring down the US, and Bush is helping them do it. Remember the USSR in Afghanistan? That did bring them down and we helped them by supplying stingers when it looked like the Soviets were starting to win. That is exactly what is happening in Iraq, the terrorists see that we have gotten ourselves into a mess and see an opportunity to draw this thing out just like what the think they did with the Soviets in Afghanistan.

I, for one, prefer a world that will not stand for terrorism, not a holy war between Christians and Muslims.

<font color="blue"> When did he do this? He went after Bin Laden? Is this revisionist?</font color>

Did you pay attention during the whole Monica deal? or did you follow the misdirection and focus on Monica while ignoring foriegn policy with the rest of the right wing?

<font color="blue"> What progress that Clinton made? You were just not paying attention, were you? </font color>

Who wasn't paying attention? Again, look at the budget appropriations and the authorizations given during the Monica days. Do you need a link to the .gov address? look up his counter-terrorism strategy he developed, look up the so called "terrorism czar", look up, attacks in afghanistan and sudan. Be sure to add "site:.gov" to your google searches to get to the horses mouth and bypass the liers at right wing sites (watch out for lying republican officials sites too). other keywords "infinite reach", "infinite resolve", "plan Delenda". Or it's in the 9/11 report if you care to read it.

<font color="blue"> O.K. I was wrong. We have been attacked several times in the U.S. since 9/11. i was mistaken.LOL </font color>

They don't need to attack us physically, they have us in a war that's around $200 Billion and counting. They seem to be doing just fine in thier long term objective, thanks to Bush.

<hr /></blockquote>

Deeman3
12-05-2005, 01:26 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman3:</font><hr>

<font color="blue"> Why, his job is to protect the US, not France. </font color><font color="blue">Why are you so concerned of what everyone thinks of us? They didn't like us before, so now they like us a little less. </font color>
<font color="blue"> Well, it is Muslims that are doing this. Do you really think appeasement would have stopped 9/11? It encouraged it. </font color>

Do you really think making enemies and not working with your neighbors is good for anyone? <font color="purple">

No, but what are those neighbors doing or what have they done when faced with terrorism? Nothing. So, what is their value or opinion in the matter. France can't even handle their problems with the Muslims internally. How can they contribute to the overall fight against terrorism, if they have the desire? </font color> These people think they brought down the USSR and now think they can bring down the US, and Bush is helping them do it. Remember the USSR in Afghanistan? That did bring them down and we helped them by supplying stingers when it looked like the Soviets were starting to win. <font color="purple">

Yes, our experience in Afghanistan has been a little diferent from the USSR. Thanks to GWB. </font color> That is exactly what is happening in Iraq, the terrorists see that we have gotten ourselves into a mess and see an opportunity to draw this thing out just like what the think they did with the Soviets in Afghanistan. <font color="purple">

There was never an attempt to set up a democracy in Afghanistan and no constitutional vote, no attempt to form a representative government, even according to your google search. </font color>

I, for one, prefer a world that will not stand for terrorism, not a holy war between Christians and Muslims. <font color="purple">

I believe we asked for the world's help in that and were not helped or even encouraged. Who, aside form the few who supported this would have stood up against terrorism? Name them. These countries are professional capitulators, they have done this for so long, it's in their political blood. You know this. </font color>

<font color="blue"> When did he do this? He went after Bin Laden? Is this revisionist?</font color>

Did you pay attention during the whole Monica deal? or did you follow the misdirection and focus on Monica while ignoring foriegn policy with the rest of the right wing? <font color="purple">

No, he went after Monica, we know that. The question was, did he go after Bin Laden? </font color>

<font color="blue"> What progress that Clinton made? You were just not paying attention, were you? </font color>

Who wasn't paying attention? Again, look at the budget appropriations and the authorizations given during the Monica days. Do you need a link to the .gov address? look up his counter-terrorism strategy he developed, look up the so called "terrorism czar", look up, attacks in afghanistan and sudan. <font color="purple">

Worked real well, didn't it? </font color>

Be sure to add "site:.gov" to your google searches to get to the horses mouth and bypass the liers at right wing sites (watch out for lying republican officials sites too). other keywords "infinite reach", "infinite resolve", "plan Delenda". Or it's in the 9/11 report if you care to read it.

<font color="blue"> O.K. I was wrong. We have been attacked several times in the U.S. since 9/11. i was mistaken.LOL </font color>

They don't need to attack us physically, they have us in a war that's around $200 Billion and counting. They seem to be doing just fine in thier long term objective, thanks to Bush. <font color="purple">

Well, here we have to wait and see if Iraq can become a democracy or if they wither away and become an even more Islamic state. Or course, eighter way, we will be out of there in time. I just hope it is with a better Middle East. </font color>

<hr /></blockquote>
<hr /></blockquote>

pooltchr
12-05-2005, 05:19 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote moblsv:</font><hr> Clinton seemed to do a pretty good job defending us <hr /></blockquote>

I know I'm getting old, but my memory isn't that bad. I believe there were a few terrorist attacks against us that Slick Willie managed to fail to protect against or even take any action to deal with. The first attack in the parking deck at those big buildings in NYC, some little embassy, oh yeah..seems like there was one of our navy boats that took a beating too.
I'd much rather have my "fuzzy memory" than "selective memory".
Steve

Gayle in MD
12-06-2005, 09:32 AM
Good post,
This bunch of right wing neocons on here don't care about facts. They don't care that Clinton's people were jumping on tables trying to warn Bush, and Rice, in particular, about the impending al Qaeda attack, and they wouldn't listen. They blame Clinton for 9/11 when he had been out of office for eight months at the time of the attack.

They don't care about the fact that America has lost its credibility with the rest of the world. Nor do they care that every war expert who isn't in the Bush circle of neocons, believes that Bush has put us in a trick bag that we can't get out of, and made it easier for alQeada to recruit suicide bombers. They don't care that the republicans have gotten failing grades from a non partisan committee on protecting us. They don't care that republicans in power have twisted the constitutional meanings of the rules of the House of Representatives to unrecognizable illegal tactics which are basically used to steal money from the American people for their pork barrel spending.

They have a lot of nerve saying that Clinton didn't do anything! Guess they were watching Fox back then too. Where is bin Laden? Bush didn't get him, that's for sure! On top of that, we don't even have a universal list of known terrorists at the airpots!

The money for beefing up our national security was supposed to be used for the areas in our country that are at the greatest risk, but instead, that money has become a dipping pool for the crooked neocon right-wing, and their cronies. There has never been a time when Congress has been this corrupt, never. But the right wing automatons who still support Bush, don't care about any of this.

When you see the Vice President of our country go to a dinner to raise money for a crook like Delay, you know exactly what kind of administration you have.

The compiled average of the polls puts Bush at a 75% disapproval rate. That's the important part, and the disapproval rate of the Republican majority Congress is just as bad. If they had any real facts to stand on to defend this administration, and its policies, they wouldn't get so angry, condescending and just plain rude when confronted with the truth.

This administration is a failure so far. That is the truth, and John Kerry was right. This was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. Believe me, when you talk with those poor people who are now trying to face their lives with no arms, and no legs, and a devastated future, they know that we are failing in Iraq. But, don't expect the right to ever admit it. They love war, they'd rather see thousands more of our young people maimed and broken than to admit that this war was a mistake, is unwinnable, and Bush has implemented a failed foriegn policy! And that is the opinion of the War College, and the majority of the people in this country, but this bunch on here will never admit it.

BTW, how many people do you know who are so ignorant, and mentally compromised that they could live in this country for a half a lifetime and not know the words to Jingle Bells? !!!! You got it, George Dubya Bush, and It was a scream watching him at the National Christmas Tree Lighting, trying to move his chimpy lips when he didn't know the words. He is the dumbest person to ever be in the White House. No question! There is absolutely NO leadership in this administration. No leadership, and NO truth! They know it, and all they can do about it now, is try to insult those of us who knew all along that Bush was an idiot, and that he would pull the country down. Just look at the deficit, and the number of troops who have died and been injured, There is no defending Bush with any logical facts, so all they can do is keep on spinning....
Results of the 9/11 investigation....Bush Fails! Bottom Line!

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
12-06-2005, 09:52 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Good post,
This bunch of right wing neocons on here don't care about facts. They don't care that Clinton's people were jumping on tables trying to warn Bush, and Rice, in particular, about the impending al Qaeda attack, and they wouldn't listen. <hr /></blockquote> If you interest is in facts, then why do you like to ignore the big FACT that your buddy did nothing while he was in office. All Clinton did was do nothing and then "jump on tables" so the next guy could fix his procrastinations.

eg8r