What do I think?..........I think he wasn't warned. What do you think about what I think? I personally don't think, that you really think that you think, but you like too pretend you think, and hope that others think you are actually thinking, when in fact you've probably never had an original thought in your life is what I'm thinking. Ya think!!! :thumb: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
Interesting answer, I think he could have. I just recently heard that the Bush admin just released several documents (pre 911) that mentioned a terrorist attack and OBL name over 20 times. The papers also mentioned that terrorist were training for aviation and that an attack could come through the air. Sad isn’t it? The reasons for not taking measures were (and im paraphrasing) we didn't want to slow down air traffic and inconvenience anyone. As for Iraq, I think if the Democrats were in charge of the war it would have been over by now. The republicans are warmongers but they are not organized very well. The Dems. would have fought a smarter, cleaner, safer war. If you think about it, you know im right.
The US probably receives many threats every day from various sources of intel, and when something happens the Powers-that-wanna-be backtracks with their manifing glass and shouts "AH-HA!" when one in a million references it. Could Bush have prevented it? If he could have he would have. We can't shut down our lifes on every threat. We'd never get out the front door.
And guess what? Now that air traffic has been slowed down, and people are being inconvenienced in the name of security, all anyone ever does is bitch about it. And this is AFTER 9/11 has occurred and people are aware of what can happen. You really think people would have stood for it before they knew the consequences of laxer security? What's the answer?
Do people have the faintest clue how much information is thrown into Bush's face everyday? I mean....give me a break....one of several thousand documents with a possible terror threat and people act as if it was so easy to pick out.
It's very interesting... Those "new" documents say nothing we didn' know before. Terrorist attacks and OBL were mentioned in documents all throughout the '90's. They had boxcutters, something until 3 years ago were able to be brought on a plane. They were already in the country, already in training or done training in aviation by the time Bush was in office. Nothing that happened in January of 2001 would have changed that. Really? How exactly can they fight a quicker, safer war?
Don't expect him-nor any Democrat-to be able to postulate what their ideas about efficient war are all about... Kosovo was their one big claim to fame...and it was a joke...bombing runs and air support...Fighter carriers and the likes...Never truly in harm's way in large measure... Oh yeah...You can also look for their storied military history in situations such as the Iran Hostage Crisis and their "efficient" manner there, as well as President Clinton's take-charge kind of effort put forth in Mogadishu, Somalia, that totally responded to Somalians dragging the carcasses of dead US Army soldiers through the streets and mutilating them in front of cameras... Yeah, I want that kind of efficiency...Have at it... Get a life, venice dog...Democrats at their Pelosi/Dean/Kerry CORE would never, never EVER run a coherent war of any type...They fear conflict at all costs...
