[quote="WEATHER53"]Bush is a one term president. The only thing that will prevent a resouunding defeat is the Kerry will not bring to the table what Clinton did. I see about a 60-40 win for Kerry, maybe 55-45.[/quote]
If an 8 year incumbent VP cannot beat a weak candidate when that VP is coming off of one of the stronger economies in our history...what makes you think that a northeastern liberal (read little to no appeal in most of the suburban to exurban country side) is going to be able to pull such a victory...this will be close again with 51-49 or closer...a few successes or drawbacks over the next few months in Iraq will swing it one way or the other but I cannot see a blow out either way....had Iraq gone smoothly we would not even have to discuss this.
Bush press conference=Your reaction
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
He did seem nervous and stressed last night to me, which with everything that is happening, I can understand. He does believe in what he is doing, that he does feel that the war in Iraq is the right thing to do, etc. Yes, he does have a difficult time with public speaking, though I think that he has gotten alittle better at it.
The thing that struck me last night which I don't know if he realized it is that he said that he requested the memo of August 6, 2001 so that he can be informed of any types of potential terror attacks or activity. Yet, whoever prepared the memo only provided historical information with the exception of the last paragraph that glosses over recent chatter about potential attacks. It seems to me that someone didn't really provide him what he was asking for (aka do their job).
The thing that struck me last night which I don't know if he realized it is that he said that he requested the memo of August 6, 2001 so that he can be informed of any types of potential terror attacks or activity. Yet, whoever prepared the memo only provided historical information with the exception of the last paragraph that glosses over recent chatter about potential attacks. It seems to me that someone didn't really provide him what he was asking for (aka do their job).
0 likes
As I eluded to in my response....Bush got hammered all night to apologize. I just recieved this e-mail which From Ralph Bristow. He apparently saw the same thing I did.
------------------------------------------
Press to Bush: 'confess, apologize, admit'
There was quite a contest among the White House press corps last night to be the reporter who could get President Bush to admit in his prime-time news conference that he's an incompetent boob who owes the American people an apology.
After an opening statement in which he laid out the timetable and plan to turn the reigns of Iraq over to a new Iraqi government, the President took questions from 15 reporters, six of whom attempted to extract some version of a confession or apology.
"How could you have been so wrong?"
"Do you feel any sense of personal responsibility?"
"Why can't you ever admit a mistake?"
"Do you owe the American people an apology?"
"What was your biggest mistake?"
"Do you feel like you've failed to communicate?"
I can understand why one or two of the inquisitors might use their turn to try to elicit a presidential mea culpa, but any good journalism professor would have flunked the last four for (a) grandstanding and (b) squandering a rare opportunity to constructively participate in a prime-time Presidential news conference.
Here are the six questions, in their entirety. Judge for yourself whether they all needed asking, or whether just a couple would have sufficed.
Terry Moran, ABC: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq, that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction, and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "we know where they are." How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong, and how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what has turned out to be a series of false premises?
Elizabeth Bumiler, New York Times: To move to the 9/11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Usama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told journalist Bob Woodward. "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
David Gregory, NBC: One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, post-war planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? Do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics?
John Roberts, CBS: Mr. President, two weeks ago, a former counter-terrorism expert at the NSC, Richard Clark, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?
John Dickerson, Time Magazine: Mr. President, in the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you had made in your life and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 at what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be would you say and what lessons have you learned from it?
Don Gonyea, National Public Radio: Following up on Judy and John's questions.with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I would like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic.
After the first two attempts, the reporters had to know they would not succeed, so their only hope was to phrase their question in such a way to make the Presidential defiance appear insensitive to the victims of 9/11.
In a column posted on Townhall.com today, Thomas Sowell reminds us that during the Vietnam War, the Tet offensive was actually a military disaster for communist North Vietnam, but it was a political victory for them because "President Lyndon Johnson's administration had for years painted such an optimistic picture of the war that many Americans were shocked that the Communists still had enough strength left to launch such widespread and coordinated attacks."
Success in Iraq may ultimately hinge on the avoidance of a series of "Tet" offensives - military victories overshadowed by political embarrassments. The challenge is heightened by the fact that this is an election year in which the American press seems determined to inflict the political embarrassment.
------------------------------------------
Press to Bush: 'confess, apologize, admit'
There was quite a contest among the White House press corps last night to be the reporter who could get President Bush to admit in his prime-time news conference that he's an incompetent boob who owes the American people an apology.
After an opening statement in which he laid out the timetable and plan to turn the reigns of Iraq over to a new Iraqi government, the President took questions from 15 reporters, six of whom attempted to extract some version of a confession or apology.
"How could you have been so wrong?"
"Do you feel any sense of personal responsibility?"
"Why can't you ever admit a mistake?"
"Do you owe the American people an apology?"
"What was your biggest mistake?"
"Do you feel like you've failed to communicate?"
I can understand why one or two of the inquisitors might use their turn to try to elicit a presidential mea culpa, but any good journalism professor would have flunked the last four for (a) grandstanding and (b) squandering a rare opportunity to constructively participate in a prime-time Presidential news conference.
Here are the six questions, in their entirety. Judge for yourself whether they all needed asking, or whether just a couple would have sufficed.
Terry Moran, ABC: Mr. President, before the war, you and members of your administration made several claims about Iraq, that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers, that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction, and that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "we know where they are." How do you explain to Americans how you got that so wrong, and how do you answer your opponents who say that you took this nation to war on the basis of what has turned out to be a series of false premises?
Elizabeth Bumiler, New York Times: To move to the 9/11 commission, you yourself have acknowledged that Usama bin Laden was not a central focus of the administration in the months before September 11th. "I was not on point," you told journalist Bob Woodward. "I didn't feel that sense of urgency." Two and a half years later, do you feel any sense of personal responsibility for September 11th?
David Gregory, NBC: One of the biggest criticisms of you is that whether it's WMD in Iraq, post-war planning in Iraq, or even the question of whether this administration did enough to ward off 9/11, you never admit a mistake. Is that a fair criticism? Do you believe there were any errors in judgment that you made related to any of those topics?
John Roberts, CBS: Mr. President, two weeks ago, a former counter-terrorism expert at the NSC, Richard Clark, offered an unequivocal apology to the American people for failing them prior to 9/11. Do you believe the American people deserve a similar apology from you, and would you be prepared to give them one?
John Dickerson, Time Magazine: Mr. President, in the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you had made in your life and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 at what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be would you say and what lessons have you learned from it?
Don Gonyea, National Public Radio: Following up on Judy and John's questions.with public support for your policies in Iraq falling off the way they have, quite significantly over the past couple of months, I guess I would like to know if you feel in any way that you've failed as a communicator on this topic.
After the first two attempts, the reporters had to know they would not succeed, so their only hope was to phrase their question in such a way to make the Presidential defiance appear insensitive to the victims of 9/11.
In a column posted on Townhall.com today, Thomas Sowell reminds us that during the Vietnam War, the Tet offensive was actually a military disaster for communist North Vietnam, but it was a political victory for them because "President Lyndon Johnson's administration had for years painted such an optimistic picture of the war that many Americans were shocked that the Communists still had enough strength left to launch such widespread and coordinated attacks."
Success in Iraq may ultimately hinge on the avoidance of a series of "Tet" offensives - military victories overshadowed by political embarrassments. The challenge is heightened by the fact that this is an election year in which the American press seems determined to inflict the political embarrassment.
0 likes
If we had the internet, the media, etc covering every minute of WW2....we could not have survived the intense scrutiny of every single move made. I just do not see how our country can ever follow through on what may some day be the next Hitler even if this one is clearly not. I am not saying we should cover our eyes if we see something wrong, but how can anyone, Dem or Rep, perform under such a microscope? Perhaps this will be the true deterrent to war when the rest of the world can catch up to the tech level of the industrialized world....
0 likes
-
Rainband
Very good points. I would rather have a president that stands by the decisions he makes rather than trying to explain them to the critics. I guess we all can't be good speakers. I just thought he was dodging questions, but I guess with all thats going on he has the right to be nervous. I liked your point Bob about being under the microscope. This is an unprecedented situation our country, and the world for that matter is facing, and I guess it's easy to forget the intense stress our commander and chief is under. That being said. If any of the information our President is given is in any way incorrect, I guess it's easier for some to point the finger at GWB ,than it is to point the finger at the source. The time has come for all of our agencies to work together and issure the information collected is not only accurate, but also presented in a timely manner.
0 likes
-
Guest
Mr Bob, I think you're right. Furthermore, I think that the press coverage seems to be hurting our military. Not so much the coverage, but the press's abuse of the 1st amendment. Our forefathers could never imagine the rate and amount of press coverage that would one day be upon us. They granted the freedom of the press to keep the people informed. Take for instance the ending of the War of 1812. Andrew Jackson led a battle that took the lives of the British General in command and over 2000 British soldiers. Jackson sent word to the capitol of his victory, only later to find out that a treaty had been signed with Britain two weeks earlier! Clearly, freedom of the press was meant to avoid instances such as these when it took weeks or months to spread the word. It was never meant to be like this......
...Jennifer...
...Jennifer...
0 likes
-
Stephanie
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 23843
- Age: 63
- Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2003 9:53 am
- Location: Glassboro, NJ
I agree with your point as well Mr. Bob. I believe that the public has the right to know what is going on and there are so many ways to get information today. Everyone's step, actions, flaws, etc. are under a microscope.
I don't agree with the press suggesting that President Bush needs to apologize for not seeing 9/11 coming. It is clear to me that there were many issues that helped to deter the flow of good, relevant information to get to the top, no matter what Administration it was.
President Bush used the information provided to him to decide to include in the War on Terror, Iraq. I still believe that we should've focused on Afghanistan first and Osama bin Laden, then focus on Iraq. Maybe by then we would've had better information on the WMD's and where they may be. As we've seen from the testimony at the commission, the information that he had to make his decisions left an awful lot to be desired.
I don't agree with the press suggesting that President Bush needs to apologize for not seeing 9/11 coming. It is clear to me that there were many issues that helped to deter the flow of good, relevant information to get to the top, no matter what Administration it was.
President Bush used the information provided to him to decide to include in the War on Terror, Iraq. I still believe that we should've focused on Afghanistan first and Osama bin Laden, then focus on Iraq. Maybe by then we would've had better information on the WMD's and where they may be. As we've seen from the testimony at the commission, the information that he had to make his decisions left an awful lot to be desired.
0 likes
I liked your post Stephanie....except I disgree with the arguement about where we should have focused first.
We actually DID focus on Afghanistan first and OBL. Unfortunately, OBL slipped away and today we still hunt him. SH was not as lucky. Perhaps you meant we should have only fought in Afghanistan until OBL was killled or captured. But....what happens if, 2-3 years go by and we are still hunting OBL? Where do you think defiant Iraq and their weapons program would have been by that time?
We actually DID focus on Afghanistan first and OBL. Unfortunately, OBL slipped away and today we still hunt him. SH was not as lucky. Perhaps you meant we should have only fought in Afghanistan until OBL was killled or captured. But....what happens if, 2-3 years go by and we are still hunting OBL? Where do you think defiant Iraq and their weapons program would have been by that time?
0 likes
-
rainstorm
the press is liberal and working for kerry
they want us to lose. they are basically kerrys campaign agents now. have you even heard of kerry?
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:58 a.m. EDT
9/11 Families Slam Hearings
Forty relatives of 9/11 victims are slamming the so-called independent investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that too many on the panel are using the probe to "grandstand for political gain" in a bid to damage President Bush in an election year.
In an open letter released to the New York Post on Tuesday, the 9/11 relatives blamed the commission for fostering "the incredible notion" that President Bush knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing.
"I see the commission going partisan and that's not the way it's supposed to be. If it does that, it will be nothing but a political disgrace," former United Firefighters Association chief Jimmy Boyle, whose firefighter son Michael died on 9/11, told the paper.
Instead, said Boyle, Bush deserved praise for the way he's conducted the war on terror since 9/11, saying, "It's a whole new world as of Sept. 12 and I believe President Bush is the right man."
The letter also praised National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, saying: "We believe Dr. Rice when she says that the president 'would have moved heaven and earth' to prevent a terrorist attack had he known such an attack on our homeland was imminent. Any suggestion otherwise is incredible and inflammatory."
the 9/11 commission is a partisan attack on our ability to wage war. they are helping terrorists, giving them aid and comfort. hard to believe that the terrorists scored such a huge victory on 9/11 2001. 7 months till their friends, the liberal media and the dems are in office.
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:58 a.m. EDT
9/11 Families Slam Hearings
Forty relatives of 9/11 victims are slamming the so-called independent investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that too many on the panel are using the probe to "grandstand for political gain" in a bid to damage President Bush in an election year.
In an open letter released to the New York Post on Tuesday, the 9/11 relatives blamed the commission for fostering "the incredible notion" that President Bush knew 9/11 was coming and did nothing.
"I see the commission going partisan and that's not the way it's supposed to be. If it does that, it will be nothing but a political disgrace," former United Firefighters Association chief Jimmy Boyle, whose firefighter son Michael died on 9/11, told the paper.
Instead, said Boyle, Bush deserved praise for the way he's conducted the war on terror since 9/11, saying, "It's a whole new world as of Sept. 12 and I believe President Bush is the right man."
The letter also praised National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, saying: "We believe Dr. Rice when she says that the president 'would have moved heaven and earth' to prevent a terrorist attack had he known such an attack on our homeland was imminent. Any suggestion otherwise is incredible and inflammatory."
the 9/11 commission is a partisan attack on our ability to wage war. they are helping terrorists, giving them aid and comfort. hard to believe that the terrorists scored such a huge victory on 9/11 2001. 7 months till their friends, the liberal media and the dems are in office.
0 likes
-
rainstorm
the commission is a partisan joke, and is only helping us lose the war,
WASHINGTON, April 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement:
"Yesterday, a 1995 memo written by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick, in her former role as the second in command at the Justice Department, revealed her actions in establishing the heightened 'wall' prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information. Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the Commission's work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in questions. Thus, I believe the Commission's work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a Commissioner. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Gorelick should resign from this Commission.
"The Commission's Guidelines on Recusals state, 'Commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service.' Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that 'go(es) beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the Commission. Indeed Attorney General Ashcroft called this DOJ policy, 'the single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... (and) embraced flawed legal reasoning.' Commissioner Gorelick is in the unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the Commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue. The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives.
"While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner, this Commission's work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and may be devalued by Ms. Gorelick's continued participation as a Commissioner. Given Ms. Gorelick's work as the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick can be quite valuable to the Commission's work preparing 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.' However, that contribution should come as a witness before the Commission - not as a member.
"Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice have all testified before the Commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the Commission. Testifying before the Commission is Ms. Gorelick's proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
WASHINGTON, April 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-Wis.) released the following statement:
"Yesterday, a 1995 memo written by 9/11 Commission Member Jamie Gorelick, in her former role as the second in command at the Justice Department, revealed her actions in establishing the heightened 'wall' prohibiting the sharing of intelligence information and criminal information. Scrutiny of this policy lies at the heart of the Commission's work. Ms. Gorelick has an inherent conflict of interest as the author of this memo and as a government official at the center of the events in questions. Thus, I believe the Commission's work and independence will be fatally damaged by the continued participation of Ms. Gorelick as a Commissioner. Reluctantly, I have come to the conclusion that Ms. Gorelick should resign from this Commission.
"The Commission's Guidelines on Recusals state, 'Commissioners and staff will recuse themselves from investigating work they performed in prior government service.' Commissioner Gorelick's memo directing a policy that 'go(es) beyond what is legally required' indicates that her judgment and actions as the Deputy Attorney General in the Reno Justice Department are very much in question before the Commission. Indeed Attorney General Ashcroft called this DOJ policy, 'the single greatest structural cause for September 11 ... (and) embraced flawed legal reasoning.' Commissioner Gorelick is in the unfair position of trying to address the key issue before the Commission when her own actions are central to the events at issue. The public cannot help but ask legitimate questions about her motives.
"While it is regrettable that this conflict had not come to light sooner, this Commission's work and forthcoming recommendations are too important to be questioned in this way, and may be devalued by Ms. Gorelick's continued participation as a Commissioner. Given Ms. Gorelick's work as the Deputy Attorney General under Janet Reno, Ms. Gorelick can be quite valuable to the Commission's work preparing 'a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.' However, that contribution should come as a witness before the Commission - not as a member.
"Key figures like former FBI Director Freeh, Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, former presidential adviser Richard Clarke, and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice have all testified before the Commission and would have rightly sparked indignation about a conflict of interest had these individuals also been members of the Commission. Testifying before the Commission is Ms. Gorelick's proper role, not sitting as a member of this independent commission."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
0 likes
[quote="Stephanie"] I still believe that we should've focused on Afghanistan first and Osama bin Laden, then focus on Iraq. Maybe by then we would've had better information on the WMD's and where they may be. As we've seen from the testimony at the commission, the information that he had to make his decisions left an awful lot to be desired.[/quote] OBL got away when it was thought we had him cornered at Tora Bora. There is not much left to fight in Afghanistan and now, we cannot officially as a military go into Pakistan (though I am sure special ops are roaming), but we have to trust Musharaf to hunt down OBL. Which means there is a good chance he is going to be around for a while unless special ops gets lucky. It also seems useless to say, we should be working on Afghanistan when really we are in a cave to gully search in Pakistan...we have to make sure he does not get back into Afghan but that does not require that many people.
0 likes
-
GalvestonDuck
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
Re: the press is liberal and working for kerry
rainstorm wrote:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Now stop that! I'm confused enough today as it is and you're not helping!
0 likes
-
rainstorm
i happen to agree with zell miller:
Miller: 'A House Divided Cannot Stand'
Senator: ‘We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy’
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor questioned the usefulness of the 9/11 Commission and expressed his dismay over the divisive and partisan nature of its recent hearings. Last week the commission held two days of hearings on the formulation and conduct of U.S. counterterrorism policy. Excerpts of Miller’s speech follow:
“Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable time, looking backwards when we should be looking forward.
“We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this battle between good and evil. Yet, these hearings, in my opinion, are doing just that.
“We are playing with fire. We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great divider they have become.
“It’s obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps: the wimps and the warriors.
“The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill him them before they kill us. And, in case you haven’t figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter.
“I say Unite America! Before it is too late! Put aside these petty partisan differences when it comes to the protection of our people.
“Argue and argue and argue and debate and debate and debate over all the other things - jobs and education and the deficit and the environment - but please, please do not use the lives of Americans and the security of this country as a cheap-shot political talking point.”
i feel liberals want us to lose. thats my opinion. the 9/11 commission is a joke. they might as well be funded by the terrorists themselves
Miller: 'A House Divided Cannot Stand'
Senator: ‘We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy’
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) yesterday in a speech on the Senate floor questioned the usefulness of the 9/11 Commission and expressed his dismay over the divisive and partisan nature of its recent hearings. Last week the commission held two days of hearings on the formulation and conduct of U.S. counterterrorism policy. Excerpts of Miller’s speech follow:
“Tragically, these hearings have proved to be a very divisive diversion for this country. Tragically, they have devoured valuable time, looking backwards when we should be looking forward.
“We should not be doing anything to encourage our enemies in this battle between good and evil. Yet, these hearings, in my opinion, are doing just that.
“We are playing with fire. We’re playing directly into the hands of our enemy by allowing these hearings to become the great divider they have become.
“It’s obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps: the wimps and the warriors.
“The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill him them before they kill us. And, in case you haven’t figured it out, I proudly belong to the latter.
“I say Unite America! Before it is too late! Put aside these petty partisan differences when it comes to the protection of our people.
“Argue and argue and argue and debate and debate and debate over all the other things - jobs and education and the deficit and the environment - but please, please do not use the lives of Americans and the security of this country as a cheap-shot political talking point.”
i feel liberals want us to lose. thats my opinion. the 9/11 commission is a joke. they might as well be funded by the terrorists themselves
0 likes
-
rainstorm
Re: the press is liberal and working for kerry
GalvestonDuck wrote:rainstorm wrote:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here
Now stop that! I'm confused enough today as it is and you're not helping!
lol!!
0 likes
-
Rainband
I agree to a point. I don't think the 911 commision is a joke but I feel instead of them pointing the finger at our leader, and trying to figure out what HE did wrong; not much IMHO, they should be trying to find ways for all the agencies to work together in the future(ie US department of Homeland security) to make sure they never blindside us again. I took a step back today and thought about the pros and cons of President Bush. While I disagree with somethings he supports or doesn't, I have to put the United States as whole before my gripes. I thought about what would happen if Kerry was in office at the time and I got chills. I honestly believe GWB is a terrible speaker...rainstorm wrote:i feel liberals want us to lose. thats my opinion. the 9/11 commission is a joke. they might as well be funded by the terrorists themselves
But in the End, actions speak Louder than words. Bush has continued to prove, He does what he says he's going to do and stands by his decisions. That is an admirable quality to me. 
0 likes
I think both the CIA and FBI are terrified of the interworkings of their own agencies. Hoover got the ball rolling and the atmospehre continues to this day.An individual does not even want to tell his partner what is going on, much less a higher up what is going on, much much less another agency.
0 likes
-
Rainband
They must learn to modify their way of thinking just like the free world's way of thinking was modified after 911. Many changes have occured since 911. These agencies provide intel to our commander and chief. Their internal cooperation will only insure this intel is both accurate and delivered in a timely matterWEATHER53 wrote:I think both the CIA and FBI are terrified of the interworkings of their own agencies. Hoover got the ball rolling and the atmospehre continues to this day.An individual does not even want to tell his partner what is going on, much less a higher up what is going on, much much less another agency.
0 likes
-
stormchazer
- Category 5
- Posts: 2462
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:00 pm
- Location: Lakeland, Florida
- Contact:
WEATHER53 wrote:stormchazer wrote:WEATHER53 wrote:Bush is a one term president. The only thing that will prevent a resouunding defeat is the Kerry will not bring to the table what Clinton did. I see about a 60-40 win for Kerry, maybe 55-45. Father and son bonds can transcend evern presidencies and there is no doubt in my mind that a from day one agenda was to finish dad's unfinished business. Not inherently a bad plan but the game strategy failed to include the second half. Now, we have an enemy of such unconventional means that we cannot find nor kill. Whether it is 3,500 die hards or 35,000, what are we going to do?-kill 10 per day for the next 1-10 years. The June 30 exit is the lesser of two evils, cut and run early but at least get the heck out versus stay and wiggle some more in the quicksand.
In other words, do the same thing we have done for the past 20 years. Send a message...
1. The US has no stomach for war - Kill Americans.
2. The US does not keep its promises - Kill Americans.
3. Americas way of life makes them weak - Kill Americans.
Can you tell me how this strategy has been successful in last 20 years? When did terrorist not attack because we ran like chicken-sh@t weaklings? Did this strategy prevent further attacks after Beruit? The Cole was the last attack because we did not act? The first WTC bombing was handled like a police problem. Did we get the desired result? I noticed that the WTC site is awful barren today. Should we now run again?
It was my observation of what I think will be happening, not what I recommend nor wish had to happen. I do not think the stragegy is a successful one but he will be able to avoid direct comparisons to past retreats in that this June 30 date is some sort of set date, set for months now, to turn over to Iraqi govt and he can just stick with the already set date, thus avoiding a direct duck and run.
Except our forces are staying. Hardly a "cut and run"!
0 likes
The posts or stuff said are NOT an official forecast and my opinion alone. Please look to the NHC and NWS for official forecasts and products.
Model Runs Cheat Sheet:
GFS (5:30 AM/PM, 11:30 AM/PM)
HWRF, GFDL, UKMET, NAVGEM (6:30-8:00 AM/PM, 12:30-2:00 AM/PM)
ECMWF (1:45 AM/PM)
TCVN is a weighted averaged
Opinions my own.
Model Runs Cheat Sheet:
GFS (5:30 AM/PM, 11:30 AM/PM)
HWRF, GFDL, UKMET, NAVGEM (6:30-8:00 AM/PM, 12:30-2:00 AM/PM)
ECMWF (1:45 AM/PM)
TCVN is a weighted averaged
Opinions my own.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests