View Single Post
Old 05-03-2004, 04:21 AM
Crimson Spider's Avatar
Crimson Spider Offline
Experienced Trainer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Vegas Baby Yeah!
Posts: 132
Default Re: George W. Bush: What do you think?

Originally Posted by Alakazam
Heh, myt post was too long <mandatroy double-post >
Wait until you have to mandatorily triple post. That gets annoying.

I realize that no one is a perfect speaker; I myself am not very good at public speaking, but I think that anyone that can make such horrendous errors muct not have much capacity to think about what they say.
Apparently we don't think about the same thing. Even in speach class people made mistakes.
So how am I supposed to believe that he has any greater capacity to think about things before he acts?
I could've sworn that I talked extensively to Kenny about this. But I guess it must be repeated: From what I've observed through many years, the ability to speak in public does NOT effect a persons ability to make a decision in any way, shape, or form.
This is no 'underhanded ploy'; it is nothing more but making people pay attention to the things that he says and does, rather than mindlessly support GWB solely becuase he's a republican or because he wants to lower taxes. (I'm not saying that you fall into this category, but many people do)
Actually, it is. Having to resort to his grammer is a pathetic attempt at best. Why do you do it? You are trying to justify your dislike for him. The very first things you said was that he was an idiot, and then used ONLY this to prove it. You involuntarily seek such tiny things like this to back up your accusations. Basically saying is that "Oh. I'm saying this so people won't like Bush as much because I don't like him." Little note here: you are either going to support a man, or not, or not care. And that decision comes immediatly. It isn't deliberated. When this decision is made, you seek to justify it.

I really don't think I'm being nit-picky about his speech.
I do.
I wouldn't be able to give a perfect speech either, but I can honestly say that my level of speaking is far above what is represented by the quotes above.
O.K. Prove it.

Alright, now that the quotes are done...
DUDE! Please use the [quote ] and the [/quote ] (without the spaces) when you write. It makes things easier.
Heh? Are you really trying to tell me that the PDB (called the Pdb because it is meant for the president) from 8/6/01 was given to Clinton when Bush had been elected some nine months eariler and had been in office since January of that year? Quite frankly, I don't believe you and I resent the concept of using the past administration as a scapegoat to explain away all of the current administration's fallacies.
I am not denying that the PDB was givin to Bush. I am saying that the whole issue of Alqaeda was givin to Clinton near the end of his term. Even the media mentions this. Why do you deny it? My point is that the Al-Qaeda issue was not exclusively Bush's handeling, and can NOT be pointed at Bush for the blame.
[b]I disagree. The title of the report was "bin Laden determined to attack WITHIN United States. Unless you wish to be ridiculous enough to say that embacies are technically on US soil, it is apparent that the title was meant to convey that an attack may happen within our borders. Furthermore, how in the world can a document talking about an attack that may happen in the country NOT be construed as a wraning!? Sure, he reads these every day, but I would hope that such a message would stand out in his mind (unless Bush ignores intelligence that may endanger Americans daily, which I wouldn't put past him)
The U.S. does own many other things besides the main states. But let me clear something up for you: The title "Bin Laden determined to attack with the United States" means little to nothing. That was wording chosen by the person who wrote the document, and does not mean fact. Also the PDB is the least important thing the president sees. If it was a document any higher up, he would've considered it. But seeing as it was the 150th one he's seen. Simply put: this PDB is basically crap. Barely anything at all. It's like taking a wadded up piece of trash from the garbage and treating it like it's an amendment. And you cannot blame Bush for everything in this, either. Bush doesn't remember this thing, neither does the FBI or the CIA or any other organization out there. EVERYONE doesn't remember it, and I find it rediculous that you would point the blame Squarely at Bush, where as it was actually the JOB of the many other people below him to investigate it. It isn't his job to jump at a PDB every day and act like it's the most important thing. It's the most useless thing.

Though I understand how you could say that, I disagree. Unless the President recieved somthing like "Hussein determined to attack within US", those are two completely different scenarios. Let me clarify something for YOU: THERE WAS NO IMMINENT THREAT TO THE U.S. FROM IRAQ! It has not been provenb, or even supported in the least. In fact, because there was no such threat, the Bush administration now denies ever using the term "imminent threat". This, to me, depicts the Bush administration admitting to themselves that there was no threat.
Oh ho ho! There was an imminent threat from Iraq a few years ago! And there still was one! There was more than the most insignificant document in existance to the president that had warnings of Iraq. The evidence against Iraq was a 100 times greater than just one PDB! And the "Imminent threat" from Al-Qaeda doesn't exist either. That was a warning. It could've happened three years later. Not to mention the whole Al-Qaeda thing was handeled by Clinton, and not Bush. And what proof do you have that these documents weren't falsified, like 3 of the 4 documents that spoke of Saddam getting Uranium from Iraq? I find it very peculiar that NO ONE REMEMBERS!

Oh, and IMO, the threat from Al-Qaeda as depicted in the 8/6 PDB was far greater than from Iraq. The threat from Iraq, IMO, was nothing more than ignorant paranoia.
Were born deaf or grown up that way? The decision for a regime change was issued long before Clinton was ever made president. The proven and justified threat from Iraq was because he tried to kill daddy Bush. Bush, after some motivation, decided to allow more ground troops into Iraq. Like I said a 100 times, There was more than a PDB against Iraq. And the 911 thing about the PDB was nothing more than ignorant paranoia, too. Seeing as it's only in a PDB and nothing else.

Prove it? Sure. It says in the PDB that Al-Qaeda may use planes as weapons. Realistically, what more information do they need? Or could they possilbly obtain? Also, Bush claimed that more than 70 FBI investigations were launched on Al-Qaeda, yet no evidence of these have thus far been found. IMO, he (once again) lied to cover himself. Motivation!? Of course Al-Qaeda had motivation: they HATE MODERN WESTERN SOCIETY! It's in their very creed to hate us. Is there any such motive in the so-called "imminent threat" from Iraq?
They need proof! There is much more of a difference from lying than not knowing. And from what I've seen from you, "no evidence" means a frikken lot. And also, he was TOLD that there was 70 FBI investiagions launched on Al-Qaeda, like he was told that there were Uranium Shipments from Africa to Iraq. He doesn't have time to observe each and every single investigation. Motivation for Iraq? Sure, he already tried it!

Not done for Al-Qaeda...hmph. Does it really matter who is flying the planes? Would a soldier think to himself on 9/11 "Oh no! We did something almost exaclty like this in training, but not with Arabs flying the planes! I don't have any idea what to do!" I think not.
Yes, it does matter. You see, you were claiming they were testing the buildings of the trade center for Al-Qaeda. That is not the case. And when they tested the buildings, they passed! The building testing has no motivation for it related to Al-Qaeda.
However, he does have a big influence on the cabinet which cannnot be denied. Have you ever heard of groupthink? Just because other may not have wanted to invade Iraq, they may not have neccessarily brought up their misgivings to Bush.
You do realize that I was lecturing Kenny on group polarization a little bit ago, right? You see, Bush does not hold all the information about Al-Qaeda. Other people do. All he was told was that Osama wanted to attack America possibly with planes, and that's it. He acknowledges this, so he can't do too much about it. Nor does he or any other person who ever had any contact with Al-Qaeda had any will to do it. Ask the FBI why they didn't say anything? It's their job.
No, but I hope it would be considered as valuable information, and not inert data which shouldn't be acted upon.
It would be considered as mild-side information. It's information, not priority.

Meh, my point is they didn't do everything they could to prevent 9/11. I don't think it could've be stopped, but having better security couldn
t possibly be a bad thing, could it?
Actually, it could've. Security costs money. Resources.
[b]Becuase he didn't do anything to help prevent an attack that happened on his watch. He won't even admit that he could've done more. Pride is blind.
Doing more in vain is worse than doing nothing. Don't mistake pride for knowledge.

EDIT: I'll be back for you, Kenny. (have to shower)

Sup, Dog? Check this out.
Reply With Quote