So did Michael Moore let Bin Laden see F/911 for free... [Archive]

saygoodbye12

10-30-2004, 12:13 AM

or did he make the bastard pay?

We agreed with Mohamed Atta, god bless him, to execute the whole operation in 20 minutes. Before Bush and his administration would pay attention and we never thought that the high commander of the US armies would leave 50 thousand of his citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers which gave us three times the time to execute the operation thank god.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm

DMBSignGuy

10-30-2004, 12:50 AM

saygoodbye12

10-30-2004, 01:15 AM

I heard he was invited to an advanced screening and they ate Krabkalash.

Krabkalash Guy: Moutain Dew or Crab Juice?

Homer: Ewwwww! I'll have the crab juice!

:p

Gary

10-30-2004, 01:28 AM

...because f 9/11 was the first and only to break the goat story

DMBSignGuy

10-30-2004, 02:30 AM

Krabkalash Guy: Moutain Dew or Crab Juice?

Homer: Ewwwww! I'll have the crab juice!

:p

You have a bathroom in there?

NO ONLY KRABKALASH!

:lol

Dancing Ants

10-30-2004, 02:32 AM

AdamCU81

10-30-2004, 04:30 AM

The moral to this story is that sometimes it's okay to twist when the sign specifically indicates "twirl."

saygoodbye12

10-30-2004, 08:26 AM

i'm sure if bush had gotten out of his seat right then, they would've been able to stop the second plane. wow...this board goes further down hill.
Well if Bin Laden says it's true, it must be!!!

saygoodbye12

10-30-2004, 08:27 AM

You have a bathroom in there?

NO ONLY KRABKALASH!

:lol
:lol:lol

I'm not a huge fan, but when you said that word, I thought of that episode immediately. :thumbsup

Warehouse21

10-30-2004, 11:59 PM

i'm sure if bush had gotten out of his seat right then, they would've been able to stop the second plane. wow...this board goes further down hill.

that's not the point. The point is, that since we are in the nuclear age where the term "ATTACK" can mean anything, you'd think he'd be curious enough to get up.

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 12:57 AM

that's not the point. The point is, that since we are in the nuclear age where the term "ATTACK" can mean anything, you'd think he'd be curious enough to get up.

That's a sarcastic approach as to why he didn't get up immediately...or, just maybe, he acted like a father would, and tried not to scare the shit out of a roomful of children.

AnyonebutBush

10-31-2004, 01:19 AM

...because f 9/11 was the first and only to break the goat storyNot for me, the thing about F 9/11 is that it talks about Bush not reacting like a President for 7 min. But that was 10 min after he was told the first Plane hit so thats really a total of 17 min. when I awoke to the first plane hitting that morning I was just some guy sitting up in bed and the first person that came to mind was Bin Laden. If it was obvious to me that the first plane crashing into the WTC was not an accident I expect the president to be smart enough to realize the same. So for all of you Liberals that go on and on about this 7 minutes please add 10 more.

marco j

10-31-2004, 12:05 PM

That's a sarcastic approach as to why he didn't get up immediately...or, just maybe, he acted like a father would, and tried not to scare the shit out of a roomful of children.

:rolleyes: yeah over six minutes of NOTHING sure helped.

i am So sick of this ann coulter type of thinking.

listen everyone around the country when they saw the second plane hit the tower started calling family members , checking on friends in city's ect...

all of these happened to everyone i know!

now for the president he did nothing for over six minutes ! it's bullshit and you know it.

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 12:49 PM

:rolleyes: yeah over six minutes of NOTHING sure helped.

i am So sick of this ann coulter type of thinking.

listen everyone around the country when they saw the second plane hit the tower started calling family members , checking on friends in city's ect...

all of these happened to everyone i know!

now for the president he did nothing for over six minutes ! it's bullshit and you know it.

Please don't compare me to ann coulter! ;)

It's interesting that so many people harp on the 6-minute deal, but think the fact that nothing like this happened again in the subsequent 3 years is irrevelant.

marco j

10-31-2004, 12:59 PM

Please don't compare me to ann coulter! ;)

It's interesting that so many people harp on the 6-minute deal, but think the fact that nothing like this happened again in the subsequent 3 years is irrevelant.

that's not true. i don't give credit nor take away credit for NOT another attack. it's their job to protect the country. ignoring richard clarke for months and an august 6th briefing titled "bin laden determined to attack" is
irresponsible at the very least. also it then took george a month to get the deprtment heads together to talk about the issue.

so again why are you assuming i think no attacks for 3 years is irrelevant?!

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 01:02 PM

that's not true. i don't give credit nor take away credit for NOT another attack. it's their job to protect the country. ignoring richard clarke for months and an august 6th briefing titled "bin laden determined to attack" is
irresponsible at the very least. also it then took george a month to get the deprtment heads together to talk about the issue.

so again why are you assuming i think no attacks for 3 years is irrelevant?!

you'll notice in my response to you I said "many people" not you specifically

marco j

10-31-2004, 01:05 PM

you'll notice in my response to you I said "many people" not you specifically

:thumbsup

but speaking of no attacks. does the time lapse of three years and no attacks show evidence of bush's actions??? if so then why doesn't his actions for 9 months count? or 7 years of clinton?!

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 01:15 PM

but speaking of no attacks. does the time lapse of three years and no attacks show evidence of bush's actions??? if so then why doesn't his actions for 9 months count? or 7 years of clinton?!

I personally think it does have to do with Bush's actions (namely, fairly successful military action in Afghanistan and increased domestic airport security), but that's also not to say that he's the only President of all time that would have had similar success. He is, however, the only President who has had to deal with a large scale, terrorist attack on US soil [I'm not saying we're not still vulnerable either, because certainly we could be]. Since that time, nothing like that has happened again. Hard to argue with results.

I'm not sure what you mean with 9 months comment and the 7 years comment?

marco j

10-31-2004, 01:54 PM

I personally think it does have to do with Bush's actions (namely, fairly successful military action in Afghanistan and increased domestic airport security), but that's also not to say that he's the only President of all time that would have had similar success. He is, however, the only President who has had to deal with a large scale, terrorist attack on US soil [I'm not saying we're not still vulnerable either, because certainly we could be]. Since that time, nothing like that has happened again. Hard to argue with results.

I'm not sure what you mean with 9 months comment and the 7 years comment?

meaning we were attacked in 92' and then not until 01'. this means clinton failed once and bush failed once. what you seem to think is because we haven't been attacked for three years this makes bush successful.
it in no way shows that we aren't vulnerable to another attack. also what about bush's first 9 months in office where he IGNORED his intelligence community about terrorism?

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 01:57 PM

it in no way shows that we aren't vulnerable to another attack.

Do you read my entire posts?

from my response to you:
[I'm not saying we're not still vulnerable either, because certainly we could be]

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 02:04 PM

meaning we were attacked in 92' and then not until 01'. this means clinton failed once and bush failed once.

Just because a terrorist attack happened does not indicate 'failure' to me on Clinton's or Bush's part. Using 747's to take buildings down was a new concept in terrorism. Surely, the terrorists were planning this attack during Clinton's presidency and he never got wind of it...does that mean he failed? not in my opinion. When a new form of terrorism comes into play, I think it's difficult to point fingers on whose 'fault' it is...however, when it comes to how a President prevents this new form of terrorism from happening again, I think it's easier to place blame or give credit.

marco j

10-31-2004, 02:05 PM

Do you read my entire posts?

from my response to you:
[I'm not saying we're not still vulnerable either, because certainly we could be]

am i wrong but aren't you reffering to results?!?!

I personally think it does have to do with Bush's actions (namely, fairly successful military action in Afghanistan and increased domestic airport security), but that's also not to say that he's the only President of all time that would have had similar success. He is, however, the only President who has had to deal with a large scale, terrorist attack on US soil [I'm not saying we're not still vulnerable either, because certainly we could be]. Since that time, nothing like that has happened again. Hard to argue with results.

so now think back. clinton had one terrorist attack as well on american soil.
then not another until 01'.

1. was he successful or a failure?

remember one attack and then not another till he was out of office.

2. bush had an attack and then again not another. is he more successful?

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 02:08 PM

am i wrong but aren't you reffering to results?!?!

I personally think it does have to do with Bush's actions (namely, fairly successful military action in Afghanistan and increased domestic airport security), but that's also not to say that he's the only President of all time that would have had similar success. He is, however, the only President who has had to deal with a large scale, terrorist attack on US soil [I'm not saying we're not still vulnerable either, because certainly we could be]. Since that time, nothing like that has happened again. Hard to argue with results.

so now think back. clinton had one terrorist attack as well on american soil.
then not another until 01'.

1. was he successful or a failure?

remember one attack and then not another till he was out of office.

2. bush had an attack and then again not another. is he more successful?

see my previous post

marco j

10-31-2004, 02:09 PM

Just because a terrorist attack happened does not indicate 'failure' to me on Clinton's or Bush's part. Using 747's to take buildings down was a new concept in terrorism. Surely, the terrorists were planning this attack during Clinton's presidency and he never got wind of it...does that mean he failed? not in my opinion. When a new form of terrorism comes into play, I think it's difficult to point fingers on whose 'fault' it is...however, when it comes to how a President prevents this new form of terrorism from happening again, I think it's easier to place blame or give credit.

i'm not sure how to reply . what about the pdb "bin laden determined to attack" ???

in this report it states terrorist cells taking classes at flight schools with no intention of learning how to land . also after reading this report bush also did not have a meeting with his head of cia,fbi,nsa until days before 9/11 and he received this report on august 6th. this appears to have been low on the presidents priorities.

WJM-WJM

10-31-2004, 02:16 PM

i'm not sure how to reply . what about the pdb "bin laden determined to attack" ???

in this report it states terrorist cells taking classes at flight schools with no intention of learning how to land . also after reading this report bush also did not have a meeting with his head of cia,fbi,nsa until days before 9/11 and he received this report on august 6th. this appears to have been low on the presidents priorities.

Wasn't Bin Laden 'determined to attack' long before August 6, 2001?

Did the memo say that a huge 3,000 person massacre would probably occur with the next 35 days? (I don't have the document in front of me).

What would you have done? Shut down all air travel for a month?

i'm heading out for a while, will pick back up on this tonight.

marco j

10-31-2004, 02:32 PM

[QUOTE=WJM-WJM]Wasn't Bin Laden 'determined to attack' long before August 6, 2001?

Did the memo say that a huge 3,000 person massacre would probably occur with the next 35 days? (I don't have the document in front of me).

What would you have done? Shut down all air travel for a month?

i would have atleast had a meeting with all of my department heads.

ignoring a problem does nothing to help the matter. also does the document have to say the slaughter of 3,000?!? i would think just 10 would be enough to cause action. people can say all they want about richard clarke but that man has been in the intelligence community since the 70's. i think what he has to say should be heard more loudly than it has. i will be reading his book in a few weeks when it is returned . but doesn't anybodyelse find it a little funny that all of a sudden this man is ignored and then chooses to leave because of this president's action/in-action?!?!

saygoodbye12

10-31-2004, 03:44 PM

[QUOTE=WJM-WJM]
ignoring a problem does nothing to help the matter. also does the document have to say the slaughter of 3,000?!? i would think just 10 would be enough to cause action. people can say all they want about richard clarke but that man has been in the intelligence community since the 70's. i think what he has to say should be heard more loudly than it has. i will be reading his book in a few weeks when it is returned . but doesn't anybodyelse find it a little funny that all of a sudden this man is ignored and then chooses to leave because of this president's action/in-action?!?!
Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

Don't worry, I didn't give away anything his book, since he conveniently changed his entire story and left all this stuff out.

We've been through this already though. You just refuse to see it.

marco j

10-31-2004, 04:00 PM

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years. And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided. So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

Don't worry, I didn't give away anything his book, since he conveniently changed his entire story and left all this stuff out.

We've been through this already though. You just refuse to see it.

i am well aware of this. also you are quoting stuff that pre-dates the august 6th briefing.

do you realize this?

after this briefing why did it take a whole month for bush to get is department heads together?

saygoodbye12

10-31-2004, 04:14 PM

i am well aware of this. also you are quoting stuff that pre-dates the august 6th briefing.

do you realize this?

after this briefing why did it take a whole month for bush to get is department heads together? Been through all of this already. Just wanted to remind you of that quote. I thought maybe you had forgotten about it.

marco j

10-31-2004, 04:18 PM

Been through all of this already. Just wanted to remind you of that quote. I thought maybe you had forgotten about it.

thanks :thumbsup

Davenumber40

10-31-2004, 05:14 PM

The story with Bush and the children is just reason #7,892 that liberals have found to bash him. It doesn't matter what he does anymore, they'll find fault with it.

clemson357

10-31-2004, 05:32 PM

i am So sick of this ann coulter type of thinking...

.... it's bullshit and you know it.

I'm sick of your LACK of thinking

why don't you run for president? MARCO J FOR PRESIDENT!!!! Then you will have a platform to tell everyone about you Nazi theory.

clemson357

10-31-2004, 05:38 PM

...tried not to scare the shit out of a roomful of children.

:lol maybe he should have ran around screaming, then gotten a full brief on the situation in the middle of an elementary school class. I can see the little kids now, while the secret service guy is saying "The burning jet fuel is currently flowing down the stairwell occupied by the people trying to escape..." they are all bawling their eyes out.

marco j

10-31-2004, 11:19 PM

I'm sick of your LACK of thinking

why don't you run for president? MARCO J FOR PRESIDENT!!!! Then you will have a platform to tell everyone about you Nazi theory.

funny you still call it a theory. sorry to burst your bubble.the fact that the united states government and the bush family are being sued is not a theory it is a fact. call it frivolous or whatever you want but it's real .

...and again ann coulter really is a she-devil.

oh and this.....
maybe he should have ran around screaming, then gotten a full brief on the situation in the middle of an elementary school class. I can see the little kids now, while the secret service guy is saying "The burning jet fuel is currently flowing down the stairwell occupied by the people trying to escape..." they are all bawling their eyes out.
Yesterday 09:32 PM

maybe he could have said excuse me and just left?!? someone calls and says "dud your mom was in an accident!" . what do you do? sit there for seven minutes or go and find out some facts?!? keep in mind all the president was told was the nation is under attack, he had no idea about the scope of the attack.never mind you don't seem to get it. i still don't understand but hey i'm just a liberal.

federalist

11-01-2004, 02:02 PM

what about the pdb "bin laden determined to attack" ???

in this report it states terrorist cells taking classes at flight schools with no intention of learning how to land . also after reading this report bush also did not have a meeting with his head of cia,fbi,nsa until days before 9/11 and he received this report on august 6th. this appears to have been low on the presidents priorities. What about the pdb? It certainly did not say terrorist cells were "taking classes at flight schools with no intention of learning how to land". It doesn't seem to me there is anything "actionable" in it. You can read it for yourself here:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/