Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 42

Thread: Bush: Weak Terror Response Led To 9/11

  1. #1

    Bush: Weak Terror Response Led To 9/11

    [quote][url]http://news.monstersandcritics.com/northamerica/article_1049951.php/Bush_Weak_terror_response_led_to_9_11[/url]

    US News


    Bush: Weak terror response led to 9/11
    Sep 22, 2005, 19:00 GMT
    printer friendly email this article

    WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- President Bush said withdrawing from Iraq would be a mistake that would embolden terrorists just as U.S. responses to other attacks led to 9/11 hijackings.

    Speaking Thursday at the Pentagon after an update on the war on terror, Bush said a pullback would be seen as weakness and make the United States less safe.

    [b]'The terrorists saw our response to the hostage crisis in Iran, the bombings in the Marine barracks in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the killing of American soldiers in Somalia, the destruction of two U.S. embassies in Africa and the attack on the USS Cole,' Bush said. 'The terrorists concluded that we lacked the courage and character to defend ourselves and so they attacked us.'[/b]

    It was the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, carried out by al-Qaida operatives, that led Bush to launch the war on terror with an attack on Afghanistan, where al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden had been given sanctuary. Bush links the fighting in Iraq with the war on terror.

    The president said the plan is to follow a strategy of making political gains in the affected counties, while training local personnel to assume security operations.[/quote]

    It's mindboggling that the commie pinko crowd can't understand this.

  2. #2
    we are attacking the terrorists resposibly for 9/11? Really? When did we invade Saudi Arabia?

    regardless of whether you believe the war is justified or not - the sad truth is that we aren't doing the right thing over there. The strategies employed by the administration have been pitiful. Mistake after mistake. Either we should have brought 300,000 troops or not gone at all. What we are doing over there right now is the definition of half @ssing it.

    It's mindboggling that you think 6 out of 10 Americans are Communists.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=bitonti]

    It's mindboggling that you think 6 out of 10 Americans are Communists.[/QUOTE]


    Really??

    [img]http://www.trainweb.org/seaboard/BUSH_COUNTRY.jpg[/img]

  4. #4
    red areas = no chance of getting a decent slice of pizza or a nice bagel with lox.

  5. #5
    Man the article above is nothing but more facist rhetoric. This same guy once said that it would be easier to run the country if we had a dictatorship. hey let's take everything he said as the truth. Let's turn this into Nazi German, Facist Italy, how about Communist Russia. Your are an idiot. Those attacks in Bosnia, and other US responses during the Clinton administration were nothing more than centralized, concentrated, pin point responses against the people directly involved in the terrorists acts. The Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11, and to say so is to disrespect those people that lost their lives during 9/11. Them and their families that have suffered from 9/11 deserve justice, and we are not giving it to them. We can not find a 6' 7" Arab with a colonostomy bag, and a life support machine being dragged behind him. Justice is not being served, personal revenge is for the attempted assasination on Bushes daddy. Open your eyes.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Sack Exchange]Man the article above is nothing but more facist rhetoric. This same guy once said that it would be easier to run the country if we had a dictatorship. hey let's take everything he said as the truth. Let's turn this into Nazi German, Facist Italy, how about Communist Russia. Your are an idiot. Those attacks in Bosnia, and other US responses during the Clinton administration were nothing more than centralized, concentrated, pin point responses against the people directly involved in the terrorists acts. The Iraq war has nothing to do with 9/11, and to say so is to disrespect those people that lost their lives during 9/11. Them and their families that have suffered from 9/11 deserve justice, and we are not giving it to them. We can not find a 6' 7" Arab with a colonostomy bag, and a life support machine being dragged behind him. Justice is not being served, personal revenge is for the attempted assasination on Bushes daddy. Open your eyes.[/QUOTE]

    Completely comical response from a lib with his head in the sand....

    yes the Bosnia attacks were responses to people involved in terrorists attacks...yet pointing out the complete inaction and non-response to [B]AMERICANS[/B] being held hostage in Iran for 444 days, [B]AMERICANS[/B] being killed by terrorists around the world....well that's just facist rhetoric...

    It is worse then a comical response- it is completely pathetic.

    Then again considering the poster supports a politician, yet has no clue as to where that politician stands on issues makes it completely understandable...
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 09-23-2005 at 11:16 AM.

  7. #7
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Sack-

    The article demonstrates correctly that terrorism has been a problem for far longer than since 9-11-2001. It also demonstrates that terrorism is not confined to the people who were directly involved in 9-11-2001. Terrorism does not equal only AQ and only 9-11. The War on Terror is not [I]only [/I] against AQ and only as a response to 9-11. That is the type of narrowminded thinking that led us to deal with terrorism is a series of isolated, criminal acts, and not a global, co-ordinated campaign. There have been many, many other acts of terrorism against Americans throughout the past 30 years, by other groups, and not just AQ. 9-11 was the event that caused us to wake up and realize that they can hit us at home. It made us realize that our previous policies were not working. Look at the timelines of terrorist acts that have occurred prior to 9-11.

    The Marine barracks in Lebanon were done by Hizbollah. The first WTC attack was done by some people loosely affiliated with AQ, but also by an Iraqi national who fled to and was taken in by Iraq.

    To say the Iraq War has nothing to do with 9-11 is to miss the point completely and to engage is narrow minded, simplistic thinking. It has everything to do with our new strategy, which 9-11 helped bring about. Yes, Iraq and Saddam were not involved in 9-11, but again, the War in Terror is not only against AQ and not only in response to 9-11.

    Disagree with the wisdom of the decision to invade Iraq on a strategic basis if you want to - a case can certainly be made for that. But does "have to do" with 9-11. Right or wrong, Bush made the insight that we cannot approach terrorism the way we had been. Post 9-11, he decided that we couod not treat each attack as an isolated indicent, but rather attack it as a global problem, emcompassing many terrorist groups, ruleers and nations that harbor them, etc. Sometimes, force is used, like in Afghanistan and Iraq, sometimes bargaining and "soft power" like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and with Arafat, and sometimes, like in Libya, the other side came clean when they realized our threat of force was credible, etc.

    It's more complicated than your simply sloganeering. I am not saying everything Bush has done is correct, strategically. Just saying that it IS a strategy, regardless of its merits. It IS related to 9-11.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=bitonti]we are attacking the terrorists resposibly for 9/11? Really? When did we invade Saudi Arabia?

    regardless of whether you believe the war is justified or not - the sad truth is that we aren't doing the right thing over there. The strategies employed by the administration have been pitiful. Mistake after mistake. Either we should have brought 300,000 troops or not gone at all. What we are doing over there right now is the definition of half @ssing it.

    It's mindboggling that you think 6 out of 10 Americans are Communists.[/QUOTE]

    I completely agree with you.

    I admit I believed in going in once we had our army on the border and made the ultimatum. Once that decision was made we had to go in. What we also had to do was secure the country.

    I can understand supporting the war, I can't understand how we can support the way we are dealing with it. Everything is about doing it on the cheap without the American public sacrificing a thing, whether it's taxes or man power to put the amount of troops on the ground necessary to secure the country. By invading and not securing Iraq, we have effectively created a vacuum that is now turning into a civil war.

    We may have sent a message by retreating in Lebanon and Somalia that we will abandon an area of concern when attacked. The message we are sending in Iraq is that the US army can be defeated and is being defeated. I think the bungling of this war is going to have much more severe repercussions and has significantly weakened the US.

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Completely comical response from a lib with his head in the sand....

    yes the Bosnia attacks were responses to people involved in terrorists attacks...yet pointing out the complete inaction and non-response to [B]AMERICANS[/B] being held hostage in Iran for 444 days, [B]AMERICANS[/B] being killed by terrorists around the world....well that's just facist rhetoric...

    It is worse then a comical response- it is completely pathetic.

    Then again considering the poster supports a politician, yet has no clue as to where that politician stands on issues makes it completely understandable...[/QUOTE]
    People are killed by terrorists around the world, not just Americans, and by the way, to let other people deal with the mess they have created, would not be such a bad idea. Iraq's horrible government was caused by some of the citizens in Iraq, it did not magicaly happen, Saddam had to have support. Grant it, it wasn't the majority, but it was the elite more violent side that supportted the crazed leader. Let Iraq deal with it. And with terrorists, I would like to see Saudi Arabia or Iran step up. Those are the people we should be after. How can you justify going to war with a country that has a minute involvment in terrorism as compared to Iran, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. And Iraq was involved in terrorism, but not as much as these countries. Please don't bring up my stance on any politicians on a thread that does not ask for it. And by the way, the issue that was dealt with that this politician supports is a moot point for me, therefore there is no reason for me to research it. So kiss my ***. As far as the inaction goes to Americans being held hostage, America DOES NOT NEGOTIATE WITH HOSTAGE TAKERS OR TERRORISTS- Thank you very much.

  10. #10
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Sack Exchange]People are killed by terrorists around the world, not just Americans, and by the way, to let other people deal with the mess they have created, would not be such a bad idea. Iraq's horrible government was caused by some of the citizens in Iraq, it did not magicaly happen, Saddam had to have support. Grant it, it wasn't the majority, but it was the elite more violent side that supportted the crazed leader. Let Iraq deal with it. And with terrorists, I would like to see Saudi Arabia or Iran step up. Those are the people we should be after. How can you justify going to war with a country that has a minute involvment in terrorism as compared to Iran, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia. And Iraq was involved in terrorism, but not as much as these countries. Please don't bring up my stance on any politicians on a thread that does not ask for it. And by the way, the issue that was dealt with that this politician supports is a moot point for me, therefore there is no reason for me to research it. So kiss my ***. As far as the inaction goes to Americans being held hostage, America DOES NOT NEGOTIATE WITH HOSTAGE TAKERS OR TERRORISTS- Thank you very much.[/QUOTE]

    once again proving my point how pathetic your dribble is....America does not negoatiate with terrorists....of course in the case of Iran, Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, USS Cole rat President's didn't do a damn thing about it. [B]Appeasement? Capitulation?[/B] ...call it what you like.

    What is even more comical is first you justify American involvement in Bosnia and now you come back with "let other people deal with the mess they created"...hypocritical? contradictory? pick your poison....

    The point that Iraq (Hussien) had minimal involvement with terrorism is about as educated as your statement that Obama does not believe in partial-birth abortions.....anymore gems you'd like to throw out today?
    Last edited by Come Back to NY; 09-23-2005 at 12:04 PM.

  11. #11
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]once again proving my point how pathetic your dribble is....America does not negoatiate with terrorists....of course in the case of Iran, Khobar Towers, the African Embassy bombings, USS Cole rat President's didn't do a damn thing about it.

    What is even more comical is first you justify American involvement in Bosnia and now you come back with "let other people deal with the mess they created"...hypocritical? contradictory? pick your poison....

    The point that Iraq (Hussien) had minimal involvement with terrorism is about as educated as your statement that Obama does not believe in partial-birth abortions.....anymore gems you'd like to throw out today?[/QUOTE]
    Where is your evidence that Hussein had more involvement with terrorism as opposed to Iran, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia? Do you have any? The above attacks that you mentioned were attempted to be resolved when Clinton had intelligence that senior leaders of AQ including Bin Laden would be having a meeting at a local chemical plant in some country, (It slips my mind, but will get the name if you need it), the intellegence was followed, and Clinton ordered the dropping of bombs on this site. Several AQ were killed, however, obviously, Bin Laden was missed. This I am sured made Bin Laden very pissed off, and he vowed to attack America on it's own soil by hijacking planes, and running them into buildings, (Enter rat pres. BUSH). now it is not all Bush's fault, the communication between the two administrations was obviously not in full swing, and both are to blame for the lack of acknowledgment of what could happen. The action in Bosnia, was not done by their people, they were being slaughtered in an act of "ethnic cleansing" and we wanted get involved to stop this, which by the way we did, by disarming and defeating Milosevich. and i asked you not to bring up past threads, but since you insist, I said in that PAST THREAD that I "THINK" he doesn't support partial- birth abortions. NOW GET OVER IT. :steamin: :steamin:

  12. #12
    "Bush links the fighting in Iraq with the war on terror."

    Here is where his statement fell flat on its ***. Next!

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs]I completely agree with you.

    I admit I believed in going in once we had our army on the border and made the ultimatum. Once that decision was made we had to go in. What we also had to do was secure the country.

    I can understand supporting the war, I can't understand how we can support the way we are dealing with it. Everything is about doing it on the cheap without the American public sacrificing a thing, whether it's taxes or man power to put the amount of troops on the ground necessary to secure the country. By invading and not securing Iraq, we have effectively created a vacuum that is now turning into a civil war.

    We may have sent a message by retreating in Lebanon and Somalia that we will abandon an area of concern when attacked. The message we are sending in Iraq is that the US army can be defeated and is being defeated. I think the bungling of this war is going to have much more severe repercussions and has significantly weakened the US.[/QUOTE] i completely agree....when the original pretense for the war was because of our national security that was one thing, but the idea of my son or daughter or anyones son or daughter to die for the freedom of the Iraqi people rings hollow for me.....i keep hearing it is worth it and it is an honorable death because we are trying to bring democracy to the middle east...the prosecution of this war has been terrible, we needed to go in with overwhelming force and secure the country, it was not done and our kids are paying the price, and if is such an honorable act to have americans die for the freedom of Iraq maybe some of politicians with children should sign them up for service in the war, i am afraid then they would not think it is worth it.

  14. #14
    forget about overwhelming force - our troops didn't even have flak jackets and armor plating!

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=bitonti]forget about overwhelming force - our troops didn't even have flak jackets and armor plating![/QUOTE]

    Could that have had anything to do with the previous eight years under a liberal administration?

    Hmmm......

  16. #16
    [QUOTE=New England Hick]Could that have had anything to do with the previous eight years under a liberal administration?

    Hmmm......[/QUOTE]
    NO

  17. #17
    [QUOTE=New England Hick]Could that have had anything to do with the previous eight years under a liberal administration?

    Hmmm......[/QUOTE]

    no one put a gun to Rumsfeld's head and made him go to war with an army that was ill-equiped. Even if what you say is true about Clinton administration weakening the army (i will agree), who's decision was it to push forward with a flawed army? That whole "you don't go to war with the army you want" routine was a sick joke that cost the lives of thousands of Americans. WE don't have a properly equiped army or enough troops to do the job right, so let's rush to war? Oh yeah great decision.

    Rumsfeld has tried to resign 4 times, he knows he's a failure, unfortunately Bush and his supporters keep their blinders on. Rummy you're doing a heck of a job.

  18. #18
    [QUOTE=New England Hick]Could that have had anything to do with the previous eight years under a liberal administration?

    Hmmm......[/QUOTE]


    It could but since they still don't have it maybe it's just because this administration is incompetent having nothing at all to do with their particular philosophy.

  19. #19
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=Sack Exchange]Where is your evidence that Hussein had more involvement with terrorism as opposed to Iran, South Korea, or Saudi Arabia? Do you have any? [B]The above attacks that you mentioned were attempted to be resolved when Clinton had intelligence that senior leaders of AQ including Bin Laden would be having a meeting at a local chemical plant in some country, (It slips my mind, but will get the name if you need it), the intellegence was followed, and Clinton ordered the dropping of bombs on this site. Several AQ were killed, however, obviously, Bin Laden was missed. This I am sured made Bin Laden very pissed off, and he vowed to attack America on it's own soil by hijacking planes, and running them into buildings,[/B] (Enter rat pres. BUSH). now it is not all Bush's fault, the communication between the two administrations was obviously not in full swing, and both are to blame for the lack of acknowledgment of what could happen. The action in Bosnia, was not done by their people, they were being slaughtered in an act of "ethnic cleansing" and we wanted get involved to stop this, which by the way we did, by disarming and defeating Milosevich. and i asked you not to bring up past threads, but since you insist, I said in that PAST THREAD that I "THINK" he doesn't support partial- birth abortions. NOW GET OVER IT. :steamin: :steamin:[/QUOTE]

    Comical justification considering clinton himself admitted passing up the opportunity to take custody of OBL when the Sudaneese offered to hand him over....

    The rest has been posted over and over and over on this board...

  20. #20
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]Comical justification considering clinton himself admitted passing up the opportunity to take custody of OBL when the Sudaneese offered to hand him over...[/QUOTE]

    oft overlooked in this truism is that there is no guaruntee that capturing Bin Ladin would have prevented 9/11. The sleeper cells were in country for years.

    This is typical of neo-conservative thinking - that somehow we can defeat terrorism by going after individuals... As if there is a static number of terrorists and once we capture/kill them all the world will be safe. That is not the way it works.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us