Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: militarymuscle69 on March 16, 2007, 02:02:50 PM
-
Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age.
http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm
-
"A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America"
Brilliant research. Basically the author came to that conclusion while skimming over what exactly?
-
"A survey of the American military's endlessly compiled and analyzed demographics paints a picture of a fighting force that is anything but a cross section of America"
Brilliant research. Basically the author came to that conclusion while skimming over what exactly?
Actually you copied that from the paragraph dealing with race, not education
-
The military isn't dumb.
They have standards that are higher now than 30 years ago.
Any run of the mill idiot cannot just join up.
-
Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age.
http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm
Why are you so defensive bro? No one here said you were dumb or that us servicemen are dumb. Does your false anger drive your opinions? ::)
-
The original link was from 2003 and I suspect that the composition of the military might have changed a bit since then.
Here's a link from October 2005: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78111,00.html
Army Lowers Bar for Recruits
Army Secretary Noel Harvey and Gen. Richard Cody, the vice chief of staff, said Monday that the Army is using looser Defense Department rules that permits it to sign up more high school dropouts and people who score lower on mental-qualification tests, but they denied that this meant it was lowering standards
-----------
maybe the dicipline of the military environment is helps these people to develop the basic skills that they couldn't or wouldn't in the public school system
-
Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age.
http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm
You're really riding Kerry's dumb joke for everything it's worth ::) Now it's not just Kerry that joked about it, the righty grape vine now has it as the "Dems Claim" Milk it baby, milk it... ::)
-
You're really riding Kerry's dumb joke for everything it's worth ::)
Hey, Bush might be a crazy warmonger.
But Clinton got a blowjob.
-
Hey, Bush might be a crazy warmonger.
But Clinton got a blowjob.
The leader of the most powerful nation on earth and all he got was Monica? :'(
-
Hey, Bush might be a crazy warmonger.
But Clinton got a blowjob.
Didn't Clinton authorize the bombing of a suspected terrorist bomb making facility or something like that and it turned out to be some kind of benign factory? If I remember correctly quite a few innocent people were killed and many suspected Clinton authorized the bombing to deflect attention away from the whole Lewinski mess.
While Clinton is no where near the level of Bush he was by no means an honorable man. I think Clinton is benefiting from the fact that Bush's Presidency has nearly imploded.
-
Didn't Clinton authorize the bombing of a suspected terrorist bomb making facility or something like that and it turned out to be some kind of benign factory? If I remember correctly quite a few innocent people were killed and many suspected Clinton authorized the bombing to deflect attention away from the whole Lewinski mess.
While Clinton is no where near the level of Bush he was by no means an honorable man. I think Clinton is benefiting from the fact that Bush's Presidency has nearly imploded.
Clinton was crap. But he avoided big wars and never caved to the military industrial complex.
In 5 years, haliburton will be gone with 1 trillion borrowed US dollars. Bush will be living in paraguay. nation pillaged.
-
Clinton was crap. But he avoided big wars and never caved to the military industrial complex.
In 5 years, haliburton will be gone with 1 trillion borrowed US dollars. Bush will be living in paraguay. nation pillaged.
Borrowed US dollars? ...that implies they'll repay the money. What are the chances are of that ever happening?
-
Borrowed US dollars? ...that implies they'll repay the money. What are the chances are of that ever happening?
I meant the US borrowed it from China to give it to Haliburton.
-
The military isn't dumb.
They have standards that are higher now than 30 years ago.
Any run of the mill idiot cannot just join up.
There are waivers for everything.
-
Why are you so defensive bro? No one here said you were dumb or that us servicemen are dumb.
I did.
-
I think Clinton is benefiting from the fact that Bush's Presidency has nearly imploded.
AMEN.
I've expressed the same opinion. I was anti-Clinton from Day One. But these last few years under Bush have made even the biggest Clinton critics forget all about him. Way to go, W.
Jackass.
-
Today's servicemen and women may not be Ivy Leaguers, but in fact they are better educated than the population at large: reading scores are a full grade higher for enlisted personnel than for their civilian counterparts of the same age.
http://www.rcnv.org/rcnv/archives/2003/militarydemographics.htm
When did either party claim that the military was dumb?
-Hedge
-
Hey, Bush might be a crazy warmonger.
But Clinton got a blowjob.
Clinton let 9/11 happen.
But I'm sure you forgot about that.
-
When did either party claim that the military was dumb?
-Hedge
lol, that's what I was wondering... several months back Kerry made that retarded joke and here we are today all taking the blame.
-
When did either party claim that the military was dumb?
-Hedge
Tre just said he called the military dumb.
-
Tre just said he called the military dumb.
How's that translate to the "Dem's Claim" ?
-
I did.
were you not once in the army?
-
How's that translate to the "Dem's Claim" ?
It doesn't. Just supports his contention that some Dems believe our service members are dumb (assuming that was his point).
-
Clinton let 9/11 happen.
But I'm sure you forgot about that.
Explain how that one worked.
-
Explain how that one worked.
An immigration policy that allowed the assholes to stay in the country. OH, and I almost forgot...
... letting Osama go multiple times.
-
An immigration policy that allowed the assholes to stay in the country. OH, and I almost forgot...
... letting Osama go multiple times.
Bush was alerted on August 5, 2001, that a terrorist attack using planes would take place on either sept 10 or 11 of that year. He was told NY and possibly DC would be hit. He was given 5 of the hijackers' names.
This info came form the german ambassador, who also told his own local newspapers right after 9/11, as he (an ally) was outraged that Bush had outright ignored his information. The White House asked the German govt to no longer speak on this matter, and to this day will not address it, but will not back down from their original statement.
Do you think Bush might hold a *little* responsibility?
-
Bush was alerted on August 5, 2001, that a terrorist attack using planes would take place on either sept 10 or 11 of that year. He was told NY and possibly DC would be hit. He was given 5 of the hijackers' names.
This info came form the german ambassador, who also told his own local newspapers right after 9/11, as he (an ally) was outraged that Bush had outright ignored his information. The White House asked the German govt to no longer speak on this matter, and to this day will not address it, but will not back down from their original statement.
Do you think Bush might hold a *little* responsibility?
Maybe a little. Nothing compared to the negligence Clinton was guilty of. Especially considering how many warnings and threats the FBI, CIA, etc. get every day.
-
Maybe a little. Nothing compared to the negligence Clinton was guilty of. Especially considering how many warnings and threats the FBI, CIA, etc. get every day.
Fair enough. In that case, since 9/11 happened NINE MONTHS into the Bush administration (giving GWB and his team enough time to get working, and even take August off for vacation)...
How long into the Bussh Presidency would the blame have fallen upon Bush and not Clinton? if they had attacked in 2002? 2003? 2004?
You blame Clinton, that is fair. But please share with us a cutoff point in the Bush Admin where his team would be held responsible for the attacks.
-
Fair enough. In that case, since 9/11 happened NINE MONTHS into the Bush administration (giving GWB and his team enough time to get working, and even take August off for vacation)...
How long into the Bussh Presidency would the blame have fallen upon Bush and not Clinton? if they had attacked in 2002? 2003? 2004?
You blame Clinton, that is fair. But please share with us a cutoff point in the Bush Admin where his team would be held responsible for the attacks.
I would say after he had been in office for a long enough time to make up for clintons lack of immigration control (which, of course, is only BEGINNING to take place, a point I am NOT proud of). Even at that point Bush has never had the same opportunities to nab Osama that Clinton did so it is difficult to say. Certainly by a second term I would think, and probably sooner.
I will say I'm glad Bush was IN office when it happened because if we had someone like Clinton I don't beleive he would have done nearly enough to stop terror here opposed to bringing the fight to them. Just my opinion.
-
I would say after he had been in office for a long enough time to make up for clintons lack of immigration control (which, of course, is only BEGINNING to take place, a point I am NOT proud of). Even at that point Bush has never had the same opportunities to nab Osama that Clinton did so it is difficult to say. Certainly by a second term I would think, and probably sooner.
I will say I'm glad Bush was IN office when it happened because if we had someone like Clinton I don't beleive he would have done nearly enough to stop terror here opposed to bringing the fight to them. Just my opinion.
I guess I'm still not seeing it.
Bush was in office for 260 days. He had his own people in every agency. He was able to view every piece of confidential intelligance. He was confortable enough to take a 6-week vacation in July/August.
I could see blaming Clinton for it, if it happened in jan of 2001. But it was 9 months. Hell, Reagan and Bush I were the ones who trained Bin laden to fight Russia in the 80s/90s. What % of responsibility do Reagan/Bush I hold?
ALSO - we're not talking about nabbing Osama - Bush could have bombed him on Day 1 of the presidency, and 9/11 still would have happened. KSM and Atta did 9/11. osama was just the poster child. The CIA and White House agree it was kalid sheikh mohammed, NOT Osama, who planned it.
So who do we blame here?
-
Bush was in office for 260 days. He had his own people in every agency. He was able to view every piece of confidential intelligance. He was confortable enough to take a 6-week vacation in July/August.
I could see blaming Clinton for it, if it happened in jan of 2001. But it was 9 months. Hell, Reagan and Bush I were the ones who trained Bin laden to fight Russia in the 80s/90s. What % of responsibility do Reagan/Bush I hold?
ALSO - we're not talking about nabbing Osama - Bush could have bombed him on Day 1 of the presidency, and 9/11 still would have happened. KSM and Atta did 9/11. osama was just the poster child. The CIA and White House agree it was kalid sheikh mohammed, NOT Osama, who planned it.
So who do we blame here?
Sounds more like you'd rather just place guilt on a prez you don't like. He might've had enough time, he might not have... you and I aren't really in a great position to make that judgement. I personally don't think he had enough time to undo all the danger Clinton put us in. And considering how many terror warnings every agency has been getting for many years it seems understandable that one REAL threat somewhere in there could be overlooked.
Nor does it matter that we trained him in the 80's/90's... he waasn't a threat to us then and his efforts benefitted us at the time. Different goals, different time.
And just because Osama might not have planned the details is that supposed to make me think that someone who financed it and definitely motivated or lead the group that did it doesn't claim responsibility? I think not. Do I think getting Osama when we had the chance would've stopped it or at the very least postponed the attack? Absolutely. Nabbing him would probably have produced a whole menu of new options opportunities and information.
-
Sounds more like you'd rather just place guilt on a prez you don't like. He might've had enough time, he might not have... you and I aren't really in a great position to make that judgement. I personally don't think he had enough time to undo all the danger Clinton put us in. And considering how many terror warnings every agency has been getting for many years it seems understandable that one REAL threat somewhere in there could be overlooked.
Nor does it matter that we trained him in the 80's/90's... he waasn't a threat to us then and his efforts benefitted us at the time. Different goals, different time.
And just because Osama might not have planned the details is that supposed to make me think that someone who financed it and definitely motivated or lead the group that did it doesn't claim responsibility? I think not. Do I think getting Osama when we had the chance would've stopped it or at the very least postponed the attack? Absolutely. Nabbing him would probably have produced a whole menu of new options opportunities and information.
So can we blame the failure to capture/kill Osama on Clinton, but the inability of Bush to act on NEW intel, arriving during HIS administration about attacks on HIS watch, planned IN 2001 by Atta and KSM - can we blame THAT on Bush?
I guess I"m not seeing how Clinton - who spent 2001 giving lectures - was responsible for Atta & KSM's actions that year.
-
So can we blame the failure to capture/kill Osama on Clinton, but the inability of Bush to act on NEW intel, arriving during HIS administration about attacks on HIS watch, planned IN 2001 by Atta and KSM - can we blame THAT on Bush?
I guess I"m not seeing how Clinton - who spent 2001 giving lectures - was responsible for Atta & KSM's actions that year.
Look buddy... Clinton allowed the players to set up and BE HERE in the first place. THEN he let the guy who had all the money and led the terror group itself get away multiple times after it was clear he was behind various acts of terrorism in the 90's.
Bush failed to act on intel that every intel agency hears everyday and has NO WAY of following up on all of them or stopping in many instances until after 9/11 happened and various resources were given to thier persuit.
Now you can assign whatever responsibility you want to whomever you want... but it seems pretty fuckin obvious to me Clinton did about less than nothing while Bush has been doing whatever he can whenever he can, even despite a country misled into hating him and everything he does.
-
Bush failed to act on intel that every intel agency hears everyday and has NO WAY of following up on all of them or stopping in many instances until after 9/11 happened and various resources were given to thier persuit.
I don't know.
Bush was called by the German ambassador himself, and given those 5 names, with detailed info on the targets. I find it hard to believe the most powerful nation on earth couldn't send one agent to visit those 5 guys, in the 6 weeks after this warning, before 9/11.
He called Bush directly. It smells funny.
-
I don't know.
Bush was called by the German ambassador himself, and given those 5 names, with detailed info on the targets. I find it hard to believe the most powerful nation on earth couldn't send one agent to visit those 5 guys, in the 6 weeks after this warning, before 9/11.
He called Bush directly. It smells funny.
Believe what you want.. after what I've seen I can say the gov't often gets it's hands tied on even the most important things (often for stupid reasons) and yeah, even the most powerful nation in the world can't stop everything bad that can happen. Remember the assholes only have to be right once while we have to get it 100% of the time or we fail.
-
And to me I AM happy that Bush has acted with an appropriate response.
-
Believe what you want.. after what I've seen I can say the gov't often gets it's hands tied on even the most important things (often for stupid reasons) and yeah, even the most powerful nation in the world can't stop everything bad that can happen. Remember the assholes only have to be right once while we have to get it 100% of the time or we fail.
Fair enough.
Okay, what would you think about an executive order from the White House which ended the investigation of Muhammad Atta and his friends in hollywood, FL? Completely froze it.
It wouldn't just be failure to act (which could be blamed on clinton) - but this is an order given to stop the investigation of those men. By Bush. And it pissed off a lot of FBI guys.
I'll dig up the executive order # so you can research it yourself (anyone have it? alex jones speaks of it a lot). It halted the investigation in Hollywood FL.
-
Fair enough.
Okay, what would you think about an executive order from the White House which ended the investigation of Muhammad Atta and his friends in hollywood, FL? Completely froze it.
It wouldn't just be failure to act (which could be blamed on clinton) - but this is an order given to stop the investigation of those men. By Bush. And it pissed off a lot of FBI guys.
I'll dig up the executive order # so you can research it yourself (anyone have it? alex jones speaks of it a lot). It halted the investigation in Hollywood FL.
If he or his advisors didn't deem the threat worthy then yeah I'm sure he would've stopped it. Obviously the threat ENDED UP being worthy but this can only be explainable when taking into consideration ALL the threats being reported or investigated at the time.
Like I said... mistakes were probably made but I'm sure it wasn't due to negligence, incompetence, or outright ill will (negligence was also something Clinton was notorious for). After all look at who we were dealing with... a bunch of people who can exploit ANY loophole and despite the strength of our nation we aren't perfect and it is unreasonable to expect us to be so.
What I think is important is how bush has responded. Everyone forgets how bad things might be with any other prez in office and how much this prez has done to stomp terror at home.
-
If he or his advisors didn't deem the threat worthy then yeah I'm sure he would've stopped it. Obviously the threat ENDED UP being worthy but this can only be explainable when taking into consideration ALL the threats being reported or investigated at the time.
Like I said... mistakes were probably made but I'm sure it wasn't due to negligence, incompetence, or outright ill will (negligence was also something Clinton was notorious for). After all look at who we were dealing with... a bunch of people who can exploit ANY loophole and despite the strength of our nation we aren't perfect and it is unreasonable to expect us to be so.
What I think is important is how bush has responded. Everyone forgets how bad things might be with any other prez in office and how much this prez has done to stomp terror at home.
You didn't answer - if i showed you the executive order which said "STOP INVESTIGATING ATTA", what would you say? That isn't an inaction which allowed it - it's an ACTION which led directly to it, and an inexplicable action at that.
-
What I think is important is how bush has responded. Everyone forgets how bad things might be with any other prez in office and how much this prez has done to stomp terror at home.
AMEN to that.
-
If he or his advisors didn't deem the threat worthy then yeah I'm sure he would've stopped it. Obviously the threat ENDED UP being worthy but this can only be explainable when taking into consideration ALL the threats being reported or investigated at the time.
Like I said... mistakes were probably made but I'm sure it wasn't due to negligence, incompetence, or outright ill will (negligence was also something Clinton was notorious for). After all look at who we were dealing with... a bunch of people who can exploit ANY loophole and despite the strength of our nation we aren't perfect and it is unreasonable to expect us to be so.
What I think is important is how bush has responded. Everyone forgets how bad things might be with any other prez in office and how much this prez has done to stomp terror at home.
you mean like how Bush ignored all the warnings or how Cheney's terrorist task force never had a meeting (or was it one meeting?) and on, and on and on
I honestly can't think of how anyone in charge could have done any worse than Bush. He had military advisor's telling him he needed many more troops. He failed to get the other power players in the region involved. Let's not forget the massive graft and corruption....... man the list is endless
BTW - the argument that we've had no more terrorist attacks/stop terror at home argument only works on dolts.
First of all, the absence of any additional attacks is not proof that "something" is working. We haven't had any alien attacks either and Godzilla hasn't attacked NYC. Just because something didn't happen doesn't constitute proof that Bush can take credit for it
During the Bush administration we had 5 terrorist attacks that all happened on the same day. That's more than any other President.
-
You didn't answer - if i showed you the executive order which said "STOP INVESTIGATING ATTA", what would you say? That isn't an inaction which allowed it - it's an ACTION which led directly to it, and an inexplicable action at that.
I already gave you my answer by stating why that could've happened and why it could be explainable. See above and produce this report so I can read it.
-
you mean like how Bush ignored all the warnings or how Cheney's terrorist task force never had a meeting (or was it one meeting?) and on, and on and on
I honestly can't think of how anyone in charge could have done any worse than Bush. He had military advisor's telling him he needed many more troops. He failed to get the other power players in the region involved. Let's not forget the massive graft and corruption....... man the list is endless
BTW - the argument that we've had no more terrorist attacks/stop terror at home argument only works on dolts.
First of all, the absence of any additional attacks is not proof that "something" is working. We haven't had any alien attacks either and Godzilla hasn't attacked NYC. Just because something didn't happen doesn't constitute proof that Bush can take credit for it
During the Bush administration we had 5 terrorist attacks that all happened on the same day. That's more than any other President.
I can think of a shit ton of reasons why bush would've done better than anyone else. You're forgetting all the people in DC trying to stop the prez from getting any more troops and have been since day one.
You're an idiot and I've dealt with your arguements before... there is no godzilla, there are no aliens... but there HAS been terrorism and a constant threat from them for a long time. Bush has utterly ruined thier attempts in this country and it's obvious you just ignored that tidbit since you hate so much... I pity you.
Lots of bad shit happens during ANY admin but your hatred blindy makes you blame bush beyond what's reasonable.
-
I can think of a shit ton of reasons why bush would've done better than anyone else. You're forgetting all the people in DC trying to stop the prez from getting any more troops and have been since day one.
You're an idiot and I've dealt with your arguements before... there is no godzilla, there are no aliens... but there HAS been terrorism and a constant threat from them for a long time. Bush has utterly ruined thier attempts in this country and it's obvious you just ignored that tidbit since you hate so much... I pity you.
Lots of bad shit happens during ANY admin but your hatred blindy makes you blame bush beyond what's reasonable.
Hey Bulldog - you sure do have a hair trigger on that temper. Are you ever able to have a dialogue with someone who doesn't agree with you without flying into a rage?
The alien/godzilla scenario was just a simple example of why you're making a specious argument. Just because we haven't had a terrorist attack is not proof that Bush has prevented it from happening or that we would have been attacked again were it not for Bush. I've used this example before and I stole it from the Simpsons but you might still be able to undertand it. Let's say I have a magic rock that keeps tigers out of my backyard. So far, there have been no tiger's in my backyard. Does that prove my rock is what's keeping them away. The answer of course is NO. That's a simple example of logic and it would help you in your life if you learned something about it.
Regarding your comment about troop levels the fact is that the Bush administration ignored the advice of Shinseki and others BEFORE the war started which is part of the reason why we're still stuck there now. That's such a well known fact that I'm not even going to bother to give you a link.
Save your pity for yourself. Someday you're going to need it.
My only question is how far up your ass does Bushs' dick have to be before you realize he fucking you?
-
Hey Bulldog - you sure do have a hair trigger on that temper. Are you ever able to have a dialogue with someone who doesn't agree with you without flying into a rage?
The alien/godzilla scenario was just a simple example of why you're making a specious argument. Just because we haven't had a terrorist attack is not proof that Bush has prevented it from happening or that we would have been attacked again were it not for Bush. I've used this example before and I stole it from the Simpsons but you might still be able to undertand it. Let's say I have a magic rock that keeps tigers out of my backyard. So far, there have been no tiger's in my backyard. Does that prove my rock is what's keeping them away. The answer of course is NO. That's a simple example of logic and it would help you in your life if you learned something about it.
Obviously you haven't noticed any of the terror plots foiled since 9/11... but that's okay. I didn't expect you to acknowledge that fact regardless.
Regarding your comment about troop levels the fact is that the Bush administration ignored the advice of Shinseki and others BEFORE the war started which is part of the reason why we're still stuck there now. That's such a well known fact that I'm not even going to bother to give you a link.
Are you trying to tell me that Bush has been the reason we don't have enough troops in Iraq??!!! OH brother....
Save your pity for yourself. Someday you're going to need it.
My only question is how far up your ass doesn't Bushs' dick have to be before you realize he fucking you?
ah hahahahahah... it's nice to see who's pissed off now!
-
ah hahahahahah... it's nice to see who's pissed off now!
The only thing you do is amuse me.
You didn't mention any "terror plots" that were foiled and all the ones that I'm aware of were pretty much proved to be non-operational at best and wishful thinking at worst.
Feel fee to show me examples to the contrary
Just to be clear YES I'm telling you that the Bush administration (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) are the reasons that we went to Iraq with too few troops and they did that contrary to the advise of the military.
-
The only thing you do is amuse me.
Well then I guess that little meltdown in your above post was the result of a fit of amusement.. LOL!
You didn't mention any "terror plots" that were foiled and all the ones that I'm aware of were pretty much proved to be non-operational at best and wishful thinking at worst.
Feel fee to show me examples to the contrary
Found in less than 2 minutes.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/10/us.security/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207710,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-09-bush_x.htm
Just to be clear YES I'm telling you that the Bush administration (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) are the reasons that we went to Iraq with too few troops and they did that contrary to the advise of the military.
It doesn't really matter what Bush or his admin does... every bush hater like yourself will find a "flaw" in everything they do. Congratulations on marginalizing yourself.
-
It doesn't really matter what Bush or his admin does... every bush hater like yourself will find a "flaw" in everything they do. Congratulations on marginalizing yourself.
your 4 links refer to 2 incidents - the alleged plot to blow up a building in LA and the alleged plot to blow up planes using liquid explosives. As I said previoulsy, non-operational at best and wishful thinking at worst. They apparently scared you though so I guess they had the required terrorizing effect.
Regarding the LA "plot":
An October 8, 2005, LA Times story, headlined "Scope of Plots Bush Says Were Foiled Is Questioned," cited "several counter-terrorism officials" as saying that "the plot never progressed past the planning stages.... 'To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,' said one senior FBI official….At most it was a plan that was stopped in its initial stages and was not an operational plot that had been disrupted by authorities."
On Feb. 10, 2006, the LA Times quoted a "US official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism," who said that "the Library Tower plot was one of many Al Qaeda operations that had not gone much past the conceptual stage….The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, saying that those familiar with the plot feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan that that of the president."
Michael Scheuer, an al Qaeda expert in the CIA's counter-terrorism center, told the Voice of America: "This doesn't sound like anything that I would recall as a major threat, or as a major success in stopping it….My impression [was that the National Security Council] culled through information to look for something that resembled a serious threat in 2002. It doesn't strike me, either as someone who was there or as someone who has followed al Qaeda pretty closely, that this was really a serious sort of effort."
A February 10, 2006 Washington Post story cited "several U.S. intelligence officials" who "said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the Library Tower scheme and whether it was ever much more than talk."
A February 10, 2006, New York Daily News story cited one senior counterterrorism official who said: "There was no definitive plot. It never materialized or got past the thought stage."
Back on June 17, 2004, the New York Daily News quoted John Pistole, the FBI's counterterrorism director. Asked to comment on a CIA agent's statement that "I think we've probably prevented a few aviation attacks against both the East and West coasts," Pistole at first said he was "not sure what [the CIA] was referring to." The Daily News reported that "Even after consulting CIA officials, Pistole still would not call the alleged threat uncovered in the summer of 2003 an advanced plot."
Regarding the UK plot:
Well, the British "authorities" did arrest two dozen people at the insistence of the Bush Administration, but numerous reports found consensus among experts that those arrested could not have possibly mixed together on an airplane the liquid explosives they allegedly planned to use. And common sense suggested that if they had managed such a sophisticated plot, it was unlikely anyone else was working on the same thing (the assumption that prevents us all from traveling with toothpaste and deodorant unless sealed in a proper protective plastic bag, and leads to government employees carelessly tossing deadly dangerous toothpaste tubes into trashcans in the middle of unsuspecting crowds).
Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, summed this case up well:
"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time. In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
"What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth."
http://www.davidswanson.org/?q=node/710/print
-
Every one of the sources you posted above is left wing and would downplay/contort/ or otherwise manipulate the facts to, once again, bash bush and destroy any credit to be taken.
Not to mention how many plots have been thwarted and are as yet still classified.
Even despite all that it should be obvious that terrorists are still trying and it obviously hasn't sank in that another prez might have let these plots get well beyond the planning stages.
-
Every one of the sources you posted above is left wing and would downplay/contort/ or otherwise manipulate the facts to, once again, bash bush and destroy any credit to be taken.
Not to mention how many plots have been thwarted and are as yet still classified.
Even despite all that it should be obvious that terrorists are still trying and it obviously hasn't sank in that another prez might have let these plots get well beyond the planning stages.
The actual quotes are from FBI, CIA and US and British intelligence officials, some of whom are anonymous.
How is it you're able to divine their political leanings?
-
The actual quotes are from FBI, CIA and US and British intelligence officials, some of whom are anonymous.
How is it you're able to divine their political leanings?
Is it not common knowledge by now? Some 80% of the columnists are known liberals as well as the editors.
-
Is it not common knowledge by now? Some 80% of the columnists are known liberals as well as the editors.
No but it is a popular myth.
You're missing the point - the quotes which are addressing the feasibilty, operation capacity, etc.. of the so called plots are from FBI, CIA and US and British intelligence.
If the same quotes were found on the Huffington Post or in the Weekly Standard it wouldn't change the fact that the are quotes from FBI, CIA etc.....
-
No but it is a popular myth.
You're missing the point - the quotes which are addressing the feasibilty, operation capacity, etc.. of the so called plots are from FBI, CIA and US and British intelligence.
If the same quotes were found on the Huffington Post or in the Weekly Standard it wouldn't change the fact that the are quotes from FBI, CIA etc.....
Myth my ass.. and read through what #2 and #4 have to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias#Claims_that_media_in_the_United_States_show_liberal_bias
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4997_0_4_0_C/
http://www.fairpress.org/identify.htm
And that's fine if the plots didn't make it very far. (That is the idea, right?) You should at least appreciate that these people were able to murder 3000 americans and are consistently trying to do it again. Bush is doing everything within his power to find and destroy these people and you'd be fooling yourself to think that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or any viable candidate from the left would have done anywhere near the amount of work to stop them.
But since you hate bush so much I'm sure none of that would matter to you.
-
Myth my ass.. and read through what #2 and #4 have to say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_bias#Claims_that_media_in_the_United_States_show_liberal_bias
http://newsbusters.org/
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/4997_0_4_0_C/
http://www.fairpress.org/identify.htm
And that's fine if the plots didn't make it very far. (That is the idea, right?) You should at least appreciate that these people were able to murder 3000 americans and are consistently trying to do it again. Bush is doing everything within his power to find and destroy these people and you'd be fooling yourself to think that Clinton, Gore, Kerry, or any viable candidate from the left would have done anywhere near the amount of work to stop them.
But since you hate bush so much I'm sure none of that would matter to you.
Again - you're missing the point - the quotes are not the liberal media they are from FBI, CIA, etc.. and they cast serious doubt that these plots were anything more than wishful thinking. The reason that Bush trot's them out is to keep people scared and submissive. If that works for you then so be it.
During Bush's presidency this country suffered 5 terrorist attacks on our soil. More than any other president. FACT
He had plenty warnings and did nothing to stop it
If you're OK with that then there's nothing more I can say
-
Again - you're missing the point - the quotes are not the liberal media they are from FBI, CIA, etc.. and they cast serious doubt that these plots were anything more than wishful thinking. The reason that Bush trot's them out is to keep people scared and submissive. If that works for you then so be it.
During Bush's presidency this country suffered 5 terrorist attacks on our soil. More than any other president. FACT
He had plenty warnings and did nothing to stop it
If you're OK with that then there's nothing more I can say
And who decided to include those quotes as opposed to other members of the intel community who have a different and supportive view of what the prez has done to thwart terror? THE JOURNALISTS!!!! Are you dense?
And, oh yeah, Bush "trots them out to keep people scared and submissive." You've got to be fucking kidding me. You Bush haters all say the same load of horse shit...
... Bush is a war monger, a tyrant, a terrorist himself, EEEVVVIIILLLL!!!!! ah ahahahahah.... jesus christ you guys are so lame.
And so every BAD thing that happens during a presidency is the presidents fault...wow. It's that kind of zero logic thinking that's not getting anything good coming out of the liberal shit heads in congress. While we're at it let's blame Clinton for blowing up the OK City Fed building. GREAT IDEA!!
-
brixton's awakening - when he comes home from iraq and learns the truth - is gonna be awesome.
seriously, he's angry enough that he might just dig into the info to get the facts to prove us wrong. Wait til he tries proving the official 911 story or the oil imperialism. Dude is gonna feel like a horse's ass.
-
brixton's awakening - when he comes home from iraq and learns the truth - is gonna be awesome.
seriously, he's angry enough that he might just dig into the info to get the facts to prove us wrong. Wait til he tries proving the official 911 story or the oil imperialism. Dude is gonna feel like a horse's ass.
Hey dumbass.... in in VA and have been for months.
The only horses ass is the guy who gets his news from Alex Jones.
-
And who decided to include those quotes as opposed to other members of the intel community who have a different and supportive view of what the prez has done to thwart terror? THE JOURNALISTS!!!! Are you dense?
And, oh yeah, Bush "trots them out to keep people scared and submissive." You've got to be fucking kidding me. You Bush haters all say the same load of horse shit...
... Bush is a war monger, a tyrant, a terrorist himself, EEEVVVIIILLLL!!!!! ah ahahahahah.... jesus christ you guys are so lame.
And so every BAD thing that happens during a presidency is the presidents fault...wow. It's that kind of zero logic thinking that's not getting anything good coming out of the liberal shit heads in congress. While we're at it let's blame Clinton for blowing up the OK City Fed building. GREAT IDEA!!
Jeez dude - you should really try to relax. Any chance you're a binge drinker?
If you want to live your life being scared and gullible be my guest.
Believe whatever you want.
One day you might wake up and realize you've been getting fucked every day of your life and you'll have the Bush's of the world and your own credulity to thank for it
-
Jeez dude - you should really try to relax. Any chance you're a binge drinker?
If you want to live your life being scared and gullible be my guest.
Believe whatever you want.
One day you might wake up and realize you've been getting fucked every day of your life and you'll have the Bush's of the world and your own credulity to thank for it
Epic inability to argue... monster bitterness towards a conservative president.
I don't know... I've been pretty comfortable with myself since he's been in office. I actually think we have a chance to solve some "problems" with someone like him up there.
-
Hey dumbass.... in in VA and have been for months.
The only horses ass is the guy who gets his news from Alex Jones.
On July 25, 2001, Alex Jones went on his cable show and begged the white house to STOP the upcoming terror attacks in NYC.
On Aug 6, 2001, the german ambassador warned Bush about the 9/11 attacks to the date, and gave him the targets, plane, and 5 of the hijackers.
Now, you might not like Alex Jones, but he did try to save 3000 lives. Bush didn't even have his men check to see if those 5 named hijackers *happened* to have plane tickets for the exact date the Ger amabassador warned.
Nevermind. You keep believing Alex is bad and Bush is good. But you know that Jones tried to stop 911 and Bush didn't.
-
Epic inability to argue... monster bitterness towards a conservative president.
I don't know... I've been pretty comfortable with myself since he's been in office. I actually think we have a chance to solve some "problems" with someone like him up there.
flying into a rage, spinning off on tangents, putting words in other peoples mouth, and flogging the same specious arguments is not exactly debating but I guess it is arguing (your term). I've found it usually pointless to argue with idiots.
-
On July 25, 2001, Alex Jones went on his cable show and begged the white house to STOP the upcoming terror attacks in NYC.
On Aug 6, 2001, the german ambassador warned Bush about the 9/11 attacks to the date, and gave him the targets, plane, and 5 of the hijackers.
Now, you might not like Alex Jones, but he did try to save 3000 lives. Bush didn't even have his men check to see if those 5 named hijackers *happened* to have plane tickets for the exact date the Ger amabassador warned.
Nevermind. You keep believing Alex is bad and Bush is good. But you know that Jones tried to stop 911 and Bush didn't.
Evidence?
Still sounds like horse shit.. please elaborate.
-
I've found it usually pointless to argue with idiots.
Seeing that you are one I can understand your frustration.
-
Evidence?
Still sounds like horse shit.. please elaborate.
Alex Jones Predicts 9/11-type attack on July 25, 2001
Enjoy. The man predicted 9/11.
-
Seeing that you are one I can understand your frustration.
Uh right
I'm not arguing with myself here Einstein. I can't believe I've wasted an hour of my life arguing with you.
There's a term in economics called opportunity cost which is defined as the cost of the forgone alternative.
I just realized that I could have spent the last hour picking the lint out from under my toenails and it would have been a better use of my time than trying to have a dialogue with a someone like you
-
Alex Jones Predicts 9/11-type attack on July 25, 2001
Enjoy. The man predicted 9/11.
4 million dead, martial law, "drills"... none of this predicted 9/11... it was all a broad generalization and obviously 99% of this guys predictions haven't ever happened.
Basically he said the gov't is evil and IF any terrorism happens it's the gov't doing it.
-
It doesn't. Just supports his contention that some Dems believe our service members are dumb (assuming that was his point).
I think the title reads, "Military not as dumb as Dems claim? " ::)
-
were you not once in the army?
Navy, but yeah, same difference.
-
Bush was alerted on August 5, 2001, that a terrorist attack using planes would take place on either sept 10 or 11 of that year. He was told NY and possibly DC would be hit. He was given 5 of the hijackers' names.
Do you think Bush might hold a *little* responsibility?
As much as I hate Bush, I can't lay the blame at his feet for this one. Even if we say that he 'should've known' after the first hit, I still don't know that there would've been time for him to consider all the factors necessary in deciding to shoot down that second plane.
-
I guess I'm still not seeing it.
Bush was in office for 260 days. He had his own people in every agency. He was able to view every piece of confidential intelligance. He was confortable enough to take a 6-week vacation in July/August.
I could see blaming Clinton for it, if it happened in jan of 2001. But it was 9 months. Hell, Reagan and Bush I were the ones who trained Bin laden to fight Russia in the 80s/90s. What % of responsibility do Reagan/Bush I hold?
ALSO - we're not talking about nabbing Osama - Bush could have bombed him on Day 1 of the presidency, and 9/11 still would have happened. KSM and Atta did 9/11. osama was just the poster child. The CIA and White House agree it was kalid sheikh mohammed, NOT Osama, who planned it.
So who do we blame here?
Wellllll...
The liberals are the ones who generally argue that 'Arab-looking' individuals should not be profiled.
-
but there HAS been terrorism and a constant threat from them for a long time. Bush has utterly ruined thier attempts in this country
No sir.
The reason there have been no further attacks here is that the terrorists have not yet chosen to do anything since then.
-
I think the title reads, "Military not as dumb as Dems claim? " ::)
Thanks for clearing that up. ::)
-
Alex Jones Predicts 9/11-type attack on July 25, 2001
Enjoy. The man predicted 9/11.
Good Lord. So I watched this clip. My first time ever seeing/hearing this guy. He is an absolute nut. He didn't predict squat. What a kook. If this is the guy you are getting your information from, then I completely understand why you believe in all of this conspiracy crap.
"What a maroon." B. Bunny.
-
As much as I hate Bush, I can't lay the blame at his feet for this one. Even if we say that he 'should've known' after the first hit, I still don't know that there would've been time for him to consider all the factors necessary in deciding to shoot down that second plane.
Tre,
The FAA records show that when Bush walked into that classroom, he ALREADY KNEW that 3 of the planes had been hijacked. His secret service detail was alerted at 8:21 that an American passenger jet had been hijacked. HE also admits he had "seen" the first one hit before leaving his limo.
Think about that. "I thought, that must be one bad pilot!" was his comment. Yet FAA told the 911 commission that they told his sec. srvc. detail.
Do you see why people think Bush knew? When he exited his limo at 9 o clock, he KNEW, undeniably, that 3 planes were hijacked and one had already drilled a tower. No leader in the world would play "read-along" for 30 minutes after that. But Bush did. This isn't incompetence. This is something worse.
-
Thanks for clearing that up. ::)
::)
-
Why are you so defensive bro? No one here said you were dumb or that us servicemen are dumb. Does your false anger drive your opinions? ::)
I didn't take offense to anything and didn't post it because of anything someone said here. Just found it intersting