To RandFan:
If my above quote was correct then Bush's actions were not out of line. There was nothing for him to do for a few minutes. He had a staff preparing everything for him and he knew that he had some time so he did what he had gone to the school to do. His mistake was not realizing that there are hateful people in this world that will interpret everything in a negative and cynical light. People like your self.
*Cynical light...? Providing evidence to and discussing the President's Derelection of Duty through hesistancy and or ignorance that caused the lives of hundreds in the Pentagon to be lost, is NOT cynical. There were those who said to investigate President Clinton was to be cynical, but I said to know what truly happened was neccessary. The difference is that one of them was actually a criminal (in)action, and one was an extra maritial affair.
Further evidence of your inability to think critically and objective.
1. I never dismissed what is KNOWN?
*Saying that what Ari and others have actually said is NOT 'true', is in fact 'dismissing what is known'.
2. My example was to prove that you are making a false dichotomy. The example is only a hypothetical and does not have to be real to prove that you are WRONG!
*Realizing and coming to a solid conclusion about what was told to you is NOT making a false anything. We know what happened, because it took place on T.V. right in front of us, and we were told what happened over and over again, how could ANYONE possibly forget? What we are arguing here is the 'characterization' of his actions, and not the actions themselves. What I am saying is what he did was wrong, and some are trying to validate them as 'good and those of a strong leader'. And thus the rub...
3. I never said I "belived" it.
*You are promoting IT over my findings and those of the press who have published these things. What DO you believe if not mine own premise?
4. You are the one speculating the extent of what the president did or did not know and what contingencies were in place. And what was the limit of what the president could do based on the information that was at hand.
*Speculation...? Hark doth mine ears deceive me. There ARE 'knowns' in which there is LITTLE to speculate on, that we CAN draw conclusions from. Langley Air Force Base is placed to provide hard air cover to D.C. and indeed the Pentagon, within minutes. Hal BidLack HAS confirmed that the President doesn't have to order jets to scramble, but that ONLY he could have ordered a civilian plane be brought down. Speculation is not needed to claim that there was a conspiracy of inaction and or ignorance.
5. The president could only speculate that there were other planes that were going to be used for terrorists purposes. It makes little sense to start blowing planes out of the sky on the basis of the information at hand.
*Actually, the President has lines of communication open and available to those who can see and communicate with every plane in the air. At the moment the second plane hit, and he was advised that we were under attack, it was known that at least 2 other planes were severely off course, had their homing beacons off, and refusing communication attempts. No one is saying that he SHOULD have ordered any other planes shot down. But to NOT find out and be able to shoot down those threatening attacks on our nation's military headquarters and our capitol...? 30 mintues to read and discuss a children's book about a goat, while the nation is under direct attack...and NOT order the 'close investigation' of each and every plane off course and in route to an expected target...? The President didn't need to speculate, but that his thoughts were on a goat in a book, rather than the safety and security of our nation is troubling to me. Moreso, that no one is talking about tese facts, and touting this man as a string and noble leader who is without flaw or failure...seems ever so disingenuous.
Hell, can you imagine the outcry if it turned out that a plane had lost communication and was having difficulty and it appeared hostile and Bush ordered it shot out of the air? (There is a LOT of precedent for this. See KOA flight 007)
*There are 3 Criterion for realizing whether or not a plane has been hijacked ~3~ Did you get that "=3=". Refusing communication, being severely off course, AND have their homing beacon turned off, then it CAN BE considered hijacked and be 'monitered' by fighter jets. If it is found to BE hijacked only the President can order its downing.
Then why do you make conclusions when you don't have ALL of the evidence. It makes not sense what you are saying. Why not ask objective question rather than make leading remarks?
*What do you mean ALL of the evidence? I have ENOUGH evidence to see that there was a line of behavior of hesistancy and or ignorance that was one of the leading causes in the loss of life at the Pentagon, period. Not enough evidence...? What MORE evidence do I need? What is missing? How LONG it takes to get fighters in the air? How long it takes them to get where they are going? Who can order their downing?
You don't give a damn about the truth or history you just decided what happened and refuse to accept that there could be other possibilities.
*You are clearly wrong.
YOU are the one that is closed minded. I have stated that you could be right on a number of occasions. My objectivity demands that I admit that you might be right.
Your ignorance on the other hand prevents you from accepting any other possibilities.
*No, the knowledge and facts I have collected lead me to this conclusion, of which I believe to have supreme validity in comparison to the other 'possible' conclusions you and others have raised.
The title of this thread speaks volumes. When you couple that with the fact that you are drawing conclusions in hindsight using incomplete information and casting aspersions on the president then it is quite easy to conclude that you ARE a HATEFUL LITTLE MIND.
*Please point out the 'incomplete information' that I am using in hindsight to draw inaccurate conclusions upon. Casting aspersions...? If you are a thief, is it wrong to say so in a public court or venue? As far as 'I' know slander is saying something false or malicious. What the President did, and what is caused is NOT up for debate and or specualtion. We KNOW what he did, and I am saying that what he did was wrong, and should be considered a Dereliction of his Duties as Commander in Chief. There are no falsehoods, mischaracterizations, or inaccuracies in these findings. If you are going to say that by addressing these events and making them known to others is being a hateful little minded person, then I say YOU are a conspirator against the truth!
Oh, I don't doubt for one second that you would go off half cocked and shoot down an airliner full of innocent people before you had ALL of the information.
Again, I can be thankful on a daily basis that this country does not have some pathetic half wit running the world.
*AGAIN, 'I' wouldn't have ordered the downing of any civilian plane that wasn't off course, refusing communication attempts, and had it homing beacon turned off. However, I WOULD be sending fighter jets to investigate each and every plane that filled each of these criterion and was headed to a known target. And on that day, knowing we were under attack, I very well could and would have ordered the shooting down of a civilian plane on an obvious suicide mission toward another civilian or military target.
Maybe you should find out everything that the president knew or didn't know before you attack him.
*All that you or I can go on, is what has been released by the White House, and what is known by the public scribes. Anything MORE than that would truly be 'speculation'.
Oh, well please take this time to illuminate all of us.
According to the Loser Hall Of Fame
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.J. [KOA] is a self-proclaimed profit of humanity with megalomania and delusions of grandeur. Soon after high school he was disabled by a drunk driver and has since used his time on the library computer to inflict his pompous self-righteous attitude on the world via the Internet. While A.J. doesn't believe in college, claiming that is the route of the mediocre and unimaginative, he consistently spouts nuggets of wisdom that he claims to be "...never having been dreamt of let alone attempted.." One example of this was his attempt to "Turn the world upside down", by moving some dirt from the top of Mt. Everest to the floor of Death Valley. He hasn't actually accomplished this but when it does it will somehow be a major event in the history of mankind on this planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it was moving some dirt from the mountain to Death Valley. BFD, what the hell is the difference. BTW, every year through the process of glaciers, wind and rain thousands if not millions of cubic yards of dirt are moved from the tops of mountains to the bottom of the oceans which is much lower than death valley. So your little stunt would not be without precedent and it certainly would have no practical value.
*I have read on some White Supremists' Websites that claim and hold the stance that "Martin Luther King was a worthless niger who needed to be shot." Does that make it true? So some half wit-coattail riding loser wants to mischaracterize and demean my actions and or comments, like I give half an oat what my detractors say or are saying!? The truth behind that and any of my other 'doings' can be found through ME. Anything else is second-hand.
My 'stunt' with the Peak of Everest, and dirt from Death Valley was in RESPONES to a friend's challenge to 'turn the world upside down'. It was a bet, persay. In our youth we read a story about how a man challenged a giant to a 'feats competition'. For example, the giant said "I'll bet you can not put one foot on your lands and one foot on mine, as I am doing right now." In response the young man removed some dirt from his pocket out of his garden. He put it on the ground and then he placed one foot upon it and one on the giant's, thereby accomplishing the feat. There were two other feats that the young man accomplished with a little creative thinking, and such was the case in my response to an 'Impossible Feats Challenge'. Others were to "Frame Eternity like a picture", "Put a rainbow anywhere I wish", "turn time into a 3 diminsional object that will slowly consume the Universe", and a couple of others that I forget.
If you want the truth, go straight to the horse's mouth, and NOT someone who just works in the stables tossing ◊◊◊◊.
