I beg your pardon. I didn't realize I was staring such a great comic in the face. At least your words of "humor" were free, so I didn't get stuck with an expensive ticket.





You seem rather confident that the 2006 elections will produced a continuation of Republican dominance. Bush's incompetence, cronyism and secret government, coupled with corruption of some Republican members of Congress has brought about his and other Republican's slide in the polls. Look at the polls since late July. That's the real joke. It strange you point such an accusatory finger at Democrats while Republicans from the White House to city hall are presiding over such a train wreck. Your prediction is but an illusion on your part. It's not Democratic criticism that's showing Bush's incompetent. He and other Republicans are doing a pretty good job at shooting themselves in the foot. From what I've seen of your posts the past year and a half, I don't think the wave of the future in the Democratic Party will reflect most of your thinking, though I'm sure Democrats will show some movement toward reducing Bush's deficit.

Take heart though, I don't write the platform.

I did not bring up this absurd little subplot my friend, I did not claim that because I used the term Bush Jr, you could not then respond to any of my other points. I did not create an issue out of sheer nothingness, STILL for no reason I can possibly fathom. In a single day on AD, do you know how many times Bush Jr. is insulted? I did a quick poll for yesterday, and found 7. I don't know if that’s an average day or not, but none the less. Yet you made time out of your busy schedule to go on and on and on and on about none of those insults, preferring to waste bandwidth and take this topic way off course because I call him by his name.

You are right, I am happy to let the reader decide.

[

FIRSTLY: I find it very amusing that the whole topic of your silly little tantrum here is that because I am being 'insulting', nobody will answer my points. I am not, and they do, so you are wrong on two counts, but the added irony is when you go off and be pointlesly insulting to me in the very same posts like this. And, by the way, inaccurate.

SECONDLY: (and boy are you about to look silly)(I'm sorry, I mean sillier)
Not one? Zip? Zilch? Zero? None? Nobody? Ever? There is No source?

I repeat all your little rhetorical jibes above because of just how absurd they are about to look…


http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...age_to_bush_jr/

http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/newslette...spring/air.html

http://www4.nau.edu/srl/PressReleases/99f%20-%20Election.pdf

http://www.mediamonitors.net/francis21.html

http://allard.senate.gov/press/releases/041499.pdf

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../pinkerton.html

(“So my view of George, Jr., as we always called him then,”)

http://www.famoustexans.com/georgewbush.htm

(Note reference to his 'Childhood nickname of 'Junior')

http://www.southerner.net/blog/awolbush.html

(Referred to as George Bush, Jr. by newspapers in those days...)

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Trade_Agreement...file86_3223.pdf

http://www.milkeninstitute.org/events/even...D=35&cat=Forums

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_arti...0c4775d4880b42e

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stor...editorial2.html

http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazin...0712/bush1.html

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/press1997/060297.asp

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/CCRIr...001/default.htm

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_po...dex.asp?PID=168

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment050400d.html

http://vvl.lib.msu.edu/record.cfm?recordid=493

http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/fall95/bush.htm

http://www.afge.org/Documents/GS16-1.pdf

http://tspweb02.tsp.utexas.edu/webarchive/...04_s05_THE.html

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Bush,%20Geo...0W(alker),%20Jr

http://ndcf.org/Highlights/1998/H1998.html

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1998_hr/ondcp/strat-c5.html

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7454/1458

http://www.aip.org/fyi/1999/fyi99.165.htm

http://www.bartleby.com/67/app5.html

http://www.miafacts.org/mccain_2.htm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._17/ai_72274278

http://ita.wisc.edu/currentstudents/2008/k...r2004/index.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/on_air/481821.stm

http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/find/...998-0044-F.html

http://www.ecocenter.org/200004/politics.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush%2C_Jr.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclo...n/m0011739.html


And my personal favourite, a Press release from Bush Jr's OWN group exploring his running for president in 1999:

http://www.rtmark.com/legacy/bush/bushpramnesty.html


And another classic, the supreme court case in 2000. Look under ‘Other Authorities@ and see who filed a brief for this motion just 6 days earlier… That’s Right, none other than George W. Bush Jr.

http://latimes.findlaw.com/supreme_court/b...ami.voters.html

Or, if you prefer, the Florida Supreme court, in which he signed his own name as a petitioner… Oh, that’s right again! George W Bush Jr.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/docs/florid...Court_Order.pdf


Will that do? I can continue if you like. Its easy, after all if you Type George Bush Jr. into Google, you get more than 28 million hits, and thats just one permutation...


In fact if you spend just a few minutes searching, you find that when he was Governor of Texas, not only the Media but his administration and he himself often used Jr as a suffix on his name.



So, I take it you will get off this silly, factually incorrect, and off-topic little aside of yours now?

Carlitoswhey, the questions for debate were as follows:

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?

Presidential job approval numbers measure, in part, perceived competence by the public at large. That happens to be evidence directly related to this debate.

The American public feels that Bush is an incompetent leader with an approval rating average below 40. There isn't specific data pointing at Katrina being the exclusive cause of that, but it is certainly a factor. This video simply backs up people's opinions.

Why don't we keep the discussions about the 2006 election out of this debate.

Demean the office of the president? I think Bush is doing a good job of that himself.

Why is it when Clinton was president, the right could "demean the office" with impunity, calling him "Bubba", etc. impeaching him for a BJ.

But when Bush Jr comes into office having committed failed policy after failed policy, the left is "demeaning the office of the presidency" by calling him Bush Jr?

I remember the same rhetoric when people criticized Bush Sr, oops there I go again.

He's the president, he's a public servant, he works for us. He's not a revered king or a holy man.

Preparing America
In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort. The new Department will also prioritize the important issue of citizen preparedness. Educating America's families on how best to prepare their homes for a disaster and tips for citizens on how to respond in a crisis will be given special attention at DHS.

The above is from the Department of Homeland Security Website.

Ultimately the blame lies with the feds and the President for failing to provide leadership during a time of crisis.

When he was briefed about the levees, he failed to ask even one question, his subsequent "lie" is just too stupid. I challenge that during the briefing, he was thinking about lunch or something else entirely because he really just doesn't care about anything but war profiteering, everything he does seems to point to this.

Do you think this president is completely incompetent and way over his head to be president?

No, of course not. He's a great President. He just has values that are quite different from many people.

If not, how do you feel about this news? And how do you justify his competence based on this?

It's obvious that he wasn't that interested in New Orleans or Louisiana. Callous? Probably. Indifferent? Likely. Incompetent? Well, that would presuppose that he tried to do something but failed. I think it's more clear that he wasn't all that interested in doing anything to begin with. Well, you might say that it's the President's job to bail everyone out, but that's the typical American response. Nobody takes responsibility for anything. Frankly, the people of New Orleans are the real idiots here.

First, they are stupid for living in a city that is below sea level and borders the ocean. Uh...HELLO!!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that something bad is going to happen sooner or later. I think we should have about as much sympathy for Katrina victims as we do for Californians who suffer earthquakes because they build their houses on a notoriously dangerous fault line. Second, they are stupid for not leaving sooner. I recognize that it would be hard to leave your house in the hands of looters and criminals, but if you have to choose between that and drowning, did we somehow move back into the realm of rocket science?? Surely anyone who has lived in New Orleans for more than a year would have a pretty good idea about the danger of hurricanes and living in a partially submerged city.

So if I were President, the first thing I'd be thinking in my head is..."Uh, these people are morons for building a coastal city below sea level...and they're even stupider for not leaving when it's threatened by a Cat 5 hurricane. Maybe we should let nature do some culling of stupidity." Hurricanes are not like lightning strikes. They don't appear out of nowhere and hit you before you have a chance to get out of the way. To be honest, as a federal taxpayer, I feel very angry that I have to pay for the moronic design of New Orleans, and that this design cost so many human lives. Why should I have to subsidize stupidity? Let New Orleans set up a hurricane fund, and let everyone in the highest-risk areas pay extra high taxes for the privilege to live in harm's way. Why should I have to pay for their high-risk geography?

Anyway, Bush is no rocket scientist. He would probably be the first to admit that. But he's certainly not incompetent, except at appearing to be competent, which was the one thing that Clinton was good at. Clinton was a Rhode's scholar, which made him the darling of the leftist elite. Except that he never finished his studies as a Rhode's scholar, which makes him mostly a pretender. The problem is exactly that Bush is a leader, when the President needs to be an actor. Reagan was a brilliant President because had the best training for it. Clinton was a good President except he forgot that the camera is always rolling...a mistake Reagan did not make. Bush is a terrible actor, but a decisive leader. He focuses on the things that he has to manage personally, which means strategic issues, and delegates responsibility for things he has managers for, which means tactical issues. There is nothing strategic about hurricanes or hurricane responses, which is why you don't want the CEO running the plays. Tactical plays are for middle level managers like Chertoff. If anyone should be a fall guy here, it is Chertoff.

But is Chertoff incompetent? Not really. His problem is that he lives in a world where people expect solutions instantly, and expect it from their government. Americans have been coddled into incompetency, and thus expect to do nothing for themselves. Everyone in LA was pointing their finger higher up the ladder of responsibility, instead of saying: "Hey, we're stupid idiots for living in a coastal city below sea level! Let's get out while the gettin's good!" Chertoff should only have had to provide long-term strategic support for Katrina. The first responders should have been the LA-NG and LA gov't. But since victims didn't see FEMA patches the second the sky cleared, they cry "foul" and say their federal gov't has let them down. That's a load of bull. The gov't handed out $4,000 cash cards to the victims, and some were found staying in hotels that were $300/night. As a federal taxpayer, I find that completely irresponsible of these "victims". It makes it really hard to have sympathy when people are gaming the system. I think if we are going to point fingers and assign blame, let's start at the bottom, and assign lesser blame as we move up the ladder of responsibility, instead of greater blame.

That's probably true because as we all know, Bush's history as a leader reflects his "competence":

Arbusto Energy
Financial disaster from the start and never turned a profit. Merged with Spectrum 7 (engineered by Bush family friends). Spectrum 7 floundered underneath $3 million in debt, but was bailed out by Harken - run by another family friend. Bush made $120,000 a year, but had no actual work to do other than lure investment cash (use daddy's name and role as veep). Harken pulled an Enron and cooked the books until just after Bush sold his stock options and then went belly up. The SEC started to investigate, and Bush offered up this lame excuse:


Texas Rangers
Bush invests $500,000 of borrowed money into the Texas Rangers. Received an annual salary of approximately $200,000 and the title of Managing General Partner. Although he only represented the investors, everybody pretty much treated him as though he were the sole owner.

Unlike most owners, Bush avoided day-to-day operations, stayed out of personnel and staffing issues, didn't make strategy, and didn't handle player trades. All of that stuff was left to other people. He attended the games, arranged for promotional events, even had baseball cards printed up with his own face on them.

United States Of America
Record deficits. Amnesty for illegals. Open ports and borders. Out of control spending without a single veto. Record vacation time for any president. Has never held anyone accountable for any mistake. Just like any good Lenin or Stalin policy, decided nation building was in our best interests. Divided the country and the world. Alienated most of our important allies. 37% approval rating that should be real helpful in actually getting anything done.

Looks pretty consistent to me. And we don't call this incompetence? How bad do you have to be?

A great president, in your words.

Greatness means to be not that interested in times of a national crisis. In your words.

Greatness means to be callous while your fellow countrymen drown.

Greatness means to be indifferent to human suffering.

This is what you call great.


Ah, but you say he just has values that are quite different from many people. After all, he did give himself the title of Compassionate Conservative. So tell us, just what values are you illustrating in your statement below?


So if I were President, the first thing I'd be thinking in my head is..."Uh, these people are morons for building a coastal city below sea level...and they're even stupider for not leaving when it's threatened by a Cat 5 hurricane. Maybe we should let nature do some culling of stupidity."

Tell me, is that how you interpret the term Compassionate Conservative? Does this show Bushs quite different values?

You rail with anger that," Nobody takes responsibility for anything." But you also say, "Well, you might say that it's the President's job to bail everyone out, but that's the typical American response." It's the typical American response simply because, in this case, it is true. FEMA and Homeland Security, remember? Part of his Administration. It was his job to bail everyone out. But you are lost on that detail.

You defend Bush against the charges of incompetence by saying that the charge "would presuppose that he tried to do something but failed. I think it's more clear that he wasn't all that interested in doing anything to begin with."

I see.

You defend the lesser charge of incompetence by pleading guilty to the greater charge of negligence.

As you wish.

That’s a good question Dayton.

Bush’s current tailspin reminds me of the lyrics from the Chubby Checker song “Limbo Rock:”



http://lyricsboom.com/c/Chubby_Checker/Limbo_Rock.html

Seriously, how much lower can Bush's poll number go? Can he recover at this point or are we stuck for neary three more years with someone who can't get the gears out of neutral?



Great? Other than the possible exception of lordhelmet, I can't remember any of his other supporters making this claim.

Is he really in the same category as Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson or Franklin D. Roosevelt? If historians don't rate Bush a failure, he will end up as below average.

Well, you're missing something important. Namely, the actor part. What Bush did with his record is prove that he's a "team player". Namely, that when it comes to the Power Elite, he will not try to upstage people or get out of line. He does what he's told, right down to the point of failure and bailout. And, as you can see, the country clearly benefits the Power Elite more than it did when Bush took office, which proves that he's doing his job to a tee. Decision-making is not a President's job. The appearance of decision-making is. Bush has the ability to make bold decisions with a straight face that anger lots of people. Not just anyone can do that.

Clinton couldn't do it. Clinton only made decisions that would make him more popular, so he was only allowed to run a popular but not historically outstanding administration. He lamented the fact that Bush got to be President during 9/11 and other major events. Those were exactly the kinds of events that Clinton wanted to be remembered for. But really, 9/11 could well have been planned during Clinton's term, if only he had the backbone for it. Instead, he just got to lay the groundwork for it while GW took the credit.

Besides, most of the problems you attribute to him while he was President aren't really problems for everyone. Take deficits. Everyone knows that we need to have a certain amount of gov't debt. Even private individuals benefit from certain types of debt like mortgages. Record deficit? Well, who really suffers? We pretty much make money out of thin air anyway. Remember the last time the gov't was supposed to shut down? Yeah, neither does anyone else. It was back in the mid 90's when we were supposed to have a balanced budget. Bush doesn't operate in a vaccuum, and it should be pretty clear he doesn't do any of the heavy lifting. If the real economists who steer the ship say record deficits are good for us (or at least the most important of us), I guarantee that's what will happen, under any President.

Amnesty for illegals? Where do you think Wal*Mart gets its cleaning employees from? You shop at Wal*Mart, don't you? Well, you should. The Waltons are all billionaires. Open ports? Open borders? You're worried about what? Terrorists? Hah! You're one of those naive people that think terrorists are controlled by Islamism. Record vacation time? He's just proving what we should have known all along...the President is the figurehead of an oligo-plutocracy. Sure, Reagan, Bush, Clinton...they were all better actors. But GW is the thug of the Power Elite that gets all the dirty work done, and quite well.

Nation building? Well, you liberals just can't be grateful when you get what you want, can you? Divided the country? Hah! Liberals and conservatives have been divided since the dawn of politics, and along extremely predictable socioeconomic lines. Someday we'll be able to predict your political affiliations biologically, with embarrassingly high accuracy. Or maybe you mean he polarized them even more than they were before? Hmm...don't really think so. He's made enemies of conservatives too, which puts a lot of conservatives and liberals in an uncomfortable bed together. Look at the Patriot Act. The liberals and conservatives in Washington line up together against it in mock protest, then line up behind it in "resigned" agreement, whilst the real liberals and conservatives...us...all line up against it. Can you name anyone who is glad the Patriot Act got renewed??

Alienated allies? What kind of vacuous charge is that? Have people stopped trading with us? Oh, you're talking about things like public pronouncements and media coverage, right? That's just daytime drama for the masses. Like reality t.v. for politics. The real action is where the money flows, and last time I checked, it's been flowing pretty much uninterrupted along the same channels it has been for decades. Politicians are all actors, remember? They have to play to a crowd, and when the crowd is Europe or Asia or Africa, you have to send a different message. It's what happens behind closed doors that really matter. And that happens to be the status quo.

37% approval rating? Wait, what is the party split? Isn't that closer to 50%? Doesn't that mean there's lots of conservatives who oppose Bush now? I thought you said they were divided? If they were divided, that would imply to me that he's playing exclusively to one party, and should get a pretty solid 45-55% approval, no? Bush is not a great leader because he's a genius. I already said the man is not a rocket scientist. He has the vocabulary of an inbred hick. He's a great leader because he does the will of the Power Elite without question and without reservation. He makes bold moves that matter, no matter how unpopular they are.

Face it, there's nobody in the Power Elite that gives a rat's tail end about Katrina and New Orleans. New Orleans is not strategically significant, economically or politically. Culturally, maybe. But you also have to consider that tragedies unite the country and distract from other important matters. We needed Katrina to take heat off other unpopular issues and give humanitarian organizations a reason to be popular. If the gov't took care of everything, what would the rest of us do? We'd twiddle our thumbs complaining about Iraq and Iran and Darfur and UAE. We needed some trouble back home to keep us busy, and we got it. We're just lucky the CIA didn't see the need to blow up the levees directly and cause even more casualties. I guess you can thank nature for being a sufficiently harsh mistress.

Absolutely. Name the great leaders of history, and then tell me why we call them great. For starters, name a leader from ancient times who is remembered for his response to a natural disaster. For each such leader you can name, I can name ten that are remembered for their military conquests. Greatness in leadership almost never has to do with domestic policy. That is the domain of bureaucrats. Leadership involves actions and decisions that take the entire nation in a new direction. Katrina affect LA and MS. There was some worry that the refineries there would have an impact on gas prices, but the fallout has been relatively muted. The nation as a whole is barely affected. It wasn't even a speed bump for the economy.

In the future, Clinton, if he is remembered at all, will be remembered as a popular President, but not a great one. None of his decisions radically transformed the course of America. Even his military actions pale in significance and effect to the Presidents before and after him. Remember, it is not flood victims that write the history books. It is the victors. And in no significant way was Clinton a victor. The scandals surrounding Bush will be forgotten, but 9/11 and Iraq will not. Katrina will become a footnote, if its lucky. After all, which President is fondly remembered for his response to Andrew? Ten years from now, will students even be able to name the President during Andrew? Probably not.


Note the first two words in "FEMA": FEDERAL EMERGENCY. Guess what? Nuclear war on American soil is a "federal emergency". Foreign invasion is a federal emergency. An ebola-like virus spreading across the country is a federal emergency. Space debris raining down all over the country is a federal emergency. Major flooding in a single city is not a FEDERAL EMERGENCY. And really, if LA had been as prepared as they should have been (namely, investing in the emergency resources to deal with a hurricane hitting its coast), there should have been little to no need for a federal response at all. I can't remember the last time people whined because the feds didn't come in after a Californian earthquake. California takes care of its own. Snowstorms and blizzards hit the lake states and northeast every winter, even killing people, but none of those are ever classed a federal emergency. Rivers in the Midwest have flooded, evicting thousands of people from their homes, and while there was a federal response, nobody expected the feds, let alone FEMA, to be the first line of defense.


Let's elevate it to "gross negligence". But then, that presupposes that FEMA is a babysitter for states that don't have their act together. If LA had asked for help well in preparation of landfall, and didn't get any assistance, there would be a case to be made. But the fact of the matter is, the LA leaders are bitterly arguing over who gave what evacuation order hours before Katrina hit. HOURS. A day or two at most. That doesn't sound the least bit like preparation to me.

Would you say a decisive leader would lie about what he stood for? Is that a decisive leader? IMHO, it sounds like a sneaky, weasely rat .

It may be the case that he didn't care about New Orleans or the "morons" who couldn't afford to leave. But wouldn't a decisive leader admit to that? Or would he be a weaselly-little snake and PRETEND to care then do nothing?

That is the whole point of his incompetence, he claimed something was being done and when nothing was done he claimed they didn't foresee it.

So according to you, he was not incompetent, he's just a liar and a snake?

He's definately not a decisive leader in any positive context anyway.

Of course he's in that category! Lincoln was also deeply unpopular at times during his Presidency, and not just with the South. What Lincoln did was not inevitable. It was radical. It had to be done, and he did it at the right time. But I'm certain that if we were discussing the Civil War while it was going on, you would find it to be just as unpopular among a large number of people.

What about Franklin? He got us into WW II. That's right. You don't stick your entire Pacific fleet in an enclosed harbor where it's difficult to escape. That's called "making a turkey shoot of your battleships". But you do that if you want a 9/11 style "sacrifice", and you know that battleships are already obsolete. That's why you put your aircraft carriers to sea, where they're safe. Again, a bold move. A decisive move. An unpopular move, if people really knew what was going on, because Franklin had to execute a 9/11 style operation just to get the US into the war. Prior to December 7, nobody in the US wanted to fight in "just another European war". They were sick of WW I and didn't want to go back. They had to be cajoled into war. Goaded into it. For Ford and GM, which built tanks and other military vehicles for the gov't. GW isn't the only President in history to be beholden to the Power Elite.

Washington? Why, remember that we were a British colony once! Yes, a British colony! And also consider that not everyone minded that setup, because quite a few people themselves were...British! Declaring independence was a risky stunt, and not one universally hailed by all the colonists at the time. That made the early gov't unpopular with certain people who wanted to maintain the status quo. It wasn't until the smoke had cleared and victory...military victory...was assured that Washington's legacy was cemented. Then you have the Whiskey Rebellion and Jay's Treaty...Washington, like many Presidents, was plenty unpopular in his time, and had plenty of critics. I have no doubt that if approval polls were taking during their terms, you would see similar dips in all of their offices.

Bush will be remembered for his decisive actions, and their unpopularity will be forgotten once their effects expose a net benefit to a majority of people. Even now, the anti-war movement doesn't have much steam because it's really hard to protest an invasion that deposed a dictator like Saddam, whether the pretext for war was legitimate or not. I don't think any intelligent person can argue that we had an airtight case for invading Iraq. At least not in terms of international legitimacy. But history will bear out that it was The Right Thing To Do, even if it was completely illegitimate. His domestic policies, whether considered failures or not, will largely be forgotten along with all the other insignificant detritus that Presidents leave behind.

If you click the latest AP/Ipsos poll for March 6-8 in "Real Clear Politics"you find an anomaly.

When asked if Bush were honest 44% of all adults said “yes,” while 54% said “no.”

Yet when you the same people were asked if Bush were likeable 59% said “yes,” while 40% said “no.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/President...04/bush_ja.html

I would suggest there is a major disconnect involve here. Why do people like someone who they don’t deem honest?

Lawnmower Man

You still haven't answered whether or not you think that Bush is in the same historical greatness category as Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson and F. D. Roosevelt. Is there any comparison here?

Edited to add:

I started a thread/poll in in September that asked members to rank Bush according to performance indicators usd by historians to rate preidents. Notice that Bush got more "failures" than anything else and no "greats" in thew poll portion.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...topic=11116&hl=

I would like to see you justify your contention that Bush is a great president using the 10 indicators historians used.

Well, yes. You have to be sneaky and weasely to be the Iron Fist of the Power Elite. Franklin was just as sneaky and weasely, and did it from a wheelchair! What about Kennedy and Johnson, who got us into Vietnam with that completely contrived "Gulf of Tonkin" incident? Tell me that was a legitimate pretext for Vietnam. Go ahead.


Really, there's no "decisive" response to a hurricane. At least not one that will be worth writing about in the history books. "He responded to a hurricane in record time." Ho-hum. Yawn. Pass me another double tall cappucino, I'm falling asleep here. Name five major natural disasters in US history more than 20 years old, and tell me which President is famous for having dealt with them "decisively". See if you can. Let me spell it out one more time...domestic "emergencies" like hurricanes are issues for BUREAUCRATS. That's why the average American can't tell you who was President when the Great 1906 San Francisco Earthquake occurred. Who cares? I guarantee you it was national news when it happened. And I guarantee a great many people cared at the time, even across the nation. But "leadership" at that time was not really defined by the response to that event. And future history will say more or less the same thing about Katrina.


Huh? I did exactly that in the post right above yours.


I guess I don't consider the opinions of anyone writing today to be significant. History books are rewritten every year. When Bush is immortalized alongside Lincoln, Roosevelt, and others, it will be long after his critics are dead and gone. What people will write about in the future is that Bush "liberated" Afghanistan and Iraq and spread democracy in the Middle East. Clinton historians will be green with envy. It just isn't any more complicated than that.

Societies need heros. Desperately. So we make them, sometimes out of thin air. Is that so wrong? Remember, truth isn't the highest virtue, or half of us would be looking in the mirror every day and reminding ourselves: "I'm below average."

Since you don't back up your opinions with corrobrating soures, I would guess that is true.

History books are rewritten because new information becomes avalable. Robert Dallek's 2003 volume An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963 was based on some papers recently released by the late president's family. The new documents showed, for example, that Kennedy's medical problems were more severe than we had previously known.

New history is written as new documents become available.

I see, so in your mind "decisive" is not necessarily a positive attribute? I guess I was thinking of a person who had strong positions (blantantly so) and stood by them. You mean decisive as in "I have a cause and I will do absolutely anything to see them through....anything.




Yeah, but that's like asking "tell me a doctor who was famous for giving the right prescription to his patients". Bush is INFAMOUS for being responsible for people dying and leading a very poorly effort to prepare for a disaster.

You can't name other presidents because they DID THEIR JOBS.

Well, there's "technical history" and "popular history". The former is what the academics read and believe, and the latter is what the general population reads and believes, and I think we all agree that the two are not always in alignment (and often times are embarrassingly out of line, as lamented by so many academics). Besides, rewriting Kennedy's biography to say he was more ill than believed is hardly the kind of rewriting I'm talking about. I'm talking about the kind that makes heros of everyone old enough that there are few to no details supporting an alternative viewpoint. Kennedy is hardly old enough for that kind of rewriting to occur. The idea that George Washington is immortalized as a flawless American hero in the eyes of the general populace is what I'm talking about. Who ever talks about the Whiskey Rebellion or Jay's Treaty? Few outside the ivory towers of academia, that's for sure.


Well, "decisiveness" isn't positive for those who are harmed by it (like soldiers and civilians in war zones). But it's usually positive for some population (which, predictably, is the Power Elite). Anyway, GW has strong positions. They just aren't necessarily any more static than any other politicians. And the convenience of history is that the most significant positions are the ones that will be remembered by posterity.


I don't buy it. Let's turn the question on its head. What other Presidents are infamous for handling natural disasters poorly? Or are you going to argue that all the rest did a fine and admirable job? I'm sure that's what history wants us to "remember".

Boy, there isn't an insane conspiracy theory in the world that you don't buy into is there? Foreknowldge of Pearl Harbour (which is false, and logically inconsistent), Orders for the Airforce to stand down during 9/11 (which is false, impossible, and your facts are in error), war on drugs to keep the price up because the CIA traffics narcotics (which is just plain silly) ...

Is Kennedy in your mind a 'decisive' President because he faked the moon landing too? Maybe Truman was a 'decisive' president because he smuggled Hitler out of Berlin.


Firstly, you need to back away from the inane conspiracy theories, or if you are going to present them, at least get your facts about the events in order.


Secondly, your definition of a 'good' president seems to be based solely on his being a 'good actor', and him being 'decisive'. You do not haveever seem to differentiate between good decisions and bad decision, just so long as decisions are taken. Thats bad politics, and bad leadership. I would rather a leader who made no dramaitc decision than a leader who made bad ones.

Your argument about deficit politics is also out of date. In fact once the deficit reaches a certain point it can and does have a deleterious effect on the economy, not the sliding dollar and increasingly shaky nature of its international standing. Aslo, you forget that when the US borrows mney, somebody has to lend it. And in this case, that somebody is China, who owns a larger percentage of the US debt: powerful leverage.


You are probably right that Katrina will fade into a footnote, unless it is part of a larger problem which is an inability to handle the functions of government. Then it will be used as just one example in a bunch of how bad this President is. What will not slide away into history is the legacy of Bush Jr's war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq was a terrible decision, Afghanistan was probably a necessary decision, but both have been terribly handles, above and beyond the quality of the initial decision.



It irks me to no end when people speak with precognitive certaintly about what 'history will write'.

In fact, given the situation at the moment, it is more likely that Bush Jr will be remembered as a man who took 20,000 US casualties (or more) in an ill-fated gamble to meddle in Middle Eastern Politics, with the result of the removal of one dictator, followed by a likely civil war that (if it occurs) will inevitably result in the establishment of another, this time a religious one. If history looks at Afghanistan, it will likely remember how a Presient with the best of reasons invaded and deposed a brutal tyrannical regime, then abandoned the place entirely leaving in power and assortment of brutal tyrannical warlords, who opressed women just as much, brutalised the population just as much as their predecessors. But unlike their predecessors, they promote the sale of opium as opposed to curtailing it. We cannot know of course, we can only guess, but guesses should be made based on a neutral observation of the facts rather than an ideological desire.




IF! IF! Unless you are omnicient, please stop telling us the future with such singleminded certaintly. Frankly, the war in Iraq has a LONG way to go before it can be said to have provided a net benefit.

So far, the only people who can calim to have benefitted rom the war are Islamic terrorists, and fundamentalists closer to gaining power in Iraq. Now of course this may change, but RIGHT NOW there has been little to no benefit and enormous loss.




History cares more about results than it does about intents. If the situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate into Civil war, then the false motives for invasion will be just more wood on Bush Jr's pyre. That has yet to be determined of course, but it is certainly not looking good on the ground... Removing Hussein may in a vaccum have ben the right thing to do. But here we return to the issue of incompetence. Poor planning, ignoring the advice of the experts, insufficient troops or funds, a fundamental misunderstanding of the effect of the secular power vaccum... All these stupidites have led to the current situation, where the US is trying to disingage, and the 'government' has shown a staggering unwillingness and inability to govern or keep the peace... This is the current situation. And though it is NOT a civil war, should one develop it can be laid squarely on Bush Jr's incompetence.

I'm not sure why "history" has become the issue of the thread. Frankly most people are clueless about history anyway, notably our president, so in many ways it's irrelevant.

What president do you think of for IranContra? I think Bush will be remembered at least for the foreseeable future as a screwing up Katrina. In 100 years, if Americans are the same as they are today, they won't be able to name Bush or what he did.

You're right for implying that there are many conflicting theories ranging from British foreknowledge withheld from the Americans to knowledge on FDR's part. But I think it is clear that FDR wanted to be in the war, and the US, even Congress, didn't. That gives motive. There is certainly a lot of controversy over codes such as JN-25A and B, and so-called "Winds Code". But the fact that there is controversy should make us at least suspicious. Why isn't it an open-and-shut case? Why is so much of the information relating to it still classified? Is 60 year old war info still strategically valuable? That hardly seems believable. What does the gov't have to hide? And especially, why didn't the radar intercept information from the SCR-270 make it up the chain of command? Or did it? A small number of blunders would be conceivably attributable to incompetence. Numerous blunders which are all necessary for a final result to be accomplished establishes a pattern of organization which beggars belief to be "coincidental".


LOL!!! It's "impossible", "false", and "[my] facts are in error". That's some amazing analysis, considering I haven't even given the evidence for my "facts". Here's a good link to get you started.

Here's some juicy excerpts:


There's also an informative link here.
You can see that F-16s stationed out of Andrews were practicing bombing runs just 200 miles from Andrews. They were notified to return to base at top speed for refitting around 8:45. Had they returned on full afterburners at 1500 mph, it would have taken them just 8 minutes to return to base. They would have had plenty of time to be in the skies by 9 AM to intercept the 9:30 crash into the Pentagon. But then there's the problem of whether Flight 77 actually crashed into the Pentagon or if something else did. The initial hole in the Pentagon seemed much too small for the fuselage of a 757 to fit through, and there was absolutely no markings indicating wing damage to the building, nor should the wings have made it into the hole. They should have sheared off and exploded outside the Pentagon, incinerating whatever fuel was left in them (which should have been a fair amount, since it was diverted shortly after takeoff). You also have the extremely problematic issue of the "high temperature" which "vaporized" most of the 757, explaining the embarrassing lack of debris within the crash site itself. And yet, our glorious military forensic scientists were able to recover an astounding 97% of the DNA with which to identify crash victims and Pentagon victims. Were these people's DNA made out of prions or something? They could withstand temperatures that vaporize aircraft aluminum? They must have been T-2000's!

Of course, the gov't knows they can't keep the lid on 9/11. They satisfy the majority of the public with dog-n-pony shows like the 9/11 Commission, and they tease the black helicopter paranoiacs by sowing multiple conflicting theories. Nonetheless, what we do have from 9/11 is a lot of irreconcilable observations, including the inexplicable excuse from Dick Cheney that we had never considered airliners to be used as weapons, despite the fact that years earlier, the CIA had foiled a plot to blow up 7 airliners over the Pacific simultaneously. Are you really going to let Dick Cheney get away with claiming such ignorant incompetence? If you underestimate the Vice President that much, then you deserve whatever happens to you post-Patriot Act renewal.


Umm..can you say Iran-Contra Affair"? Here's some more reading material for you. Let me ask you this. Do you really think that an organization with a $30 billion budget and no public oversight is going to keep its hands clean for the 60-odd years of its existence? Especially considering that it was derived from the OSS, which was responsible for whisking German scientists as well as German intelligence officers out of Germany for American use? Now, what are you going to do with Nazi SS officers? Pump them for information? Of course. And then what? Well, it's simple. You hire them. They already have the brutual experience to do CIA-style dirty work. They have a lot to teach us, and teach us they did (especially about the Russians!). The name of this plan? Operation Paperclip, of course.


Of course Kennedy didn't fake the moon landings. Apollo was much too big of a program to be fake. The gov't couldn't stop private citizens from witnessing Saturn V's launching from Cape Canaveral, nor did they want to. What the heck else would you do with a rocket that large? The entire program was widely covered by the media, and NASA had nothing to hide. Also, my grandfather helped construct the maneuvering thrusters for the Apollo lander. You also have to explain the composition of the moon rocks, which is different from the naturally occurring rocks on earth. I'm not sure how hard it is to fabricate moon rocks, but it seems pretty likely that there would be telltale signs from a man-made process. As far as Hitler, there's really no incentive to believe that Hitler survived, and even if he did, it seems to be of no political or economic significance, so I have no opinion either way (although I'm most inclined to believe the official account that he committed suicide).


And you need to stop living in a bubble where everyone's hands are clean or dirty and everyone wears either a black or a white hat. The simple fact is, once you get above a certain socioeconomic level, you hands must necessarily be dirty, because that is the only way you can operate and survive at that level. And that means world leaders never make decisions that come out a simplistic black and white, like: "WW II: good guys". Hah! There's always a story behind the story. Do I think it was wrong for the US to be in WW II? Not necessarily. At least, not any worse than it is for us to be in Iraq. I see the bigger picture in both cases, and the dirt that had to be shovelled to get there.


Then your heros must be the likes of Buchannan and Carter, huh? Only history will determine whether the majority consider GW to have made "bad" decisions in an historical sense. Anyway, I say "good politics" is "doing what it takes to get re-elected", and "good leadership" to be "doing what is in the best interest of the country". In other posts I have outlined why Iraq was the most brilliant geopolitical maneuver in modern history (though, of course, I wouldn't attribute its genius to GW, just the fact that he executed it), and why it benefits the American people.


Yes, that makes China bedfellows with us, and ensures that they will not do anything to seriously harm the dollar, as it would jeapordize their holdings in it. You seem to fail to recognize the fact that wide ownership of the dollar is exactly what creates the dollar hegemony and guarantees that the USD remains the world's reserve currency. It's good for us and good for everyone else because it brings a wide level of stability. People aren't going to go to war if it breaks their bank. The purpose of war is exactly the opposite...to get rich. Of course, dollar hegemony is better for the US than for other countries, which is why the author of the link I provided is complaining about it and calling for its elimination. Wah. People were complaining about widespread Japanese ownership of US corporations in the 80's, and I don't see Japan manipulating our financial markets now, do you? Mutual foreign ownership is the surest path to global peace, so we should be embracing it, and so should all you peaceniks out there.


Go ahead and name all those other governmental functions he's failed to handle. It should have been easy to do in your original statement, from the sounds of it. With 6 years in office under his belt, there should be a laundry list of "disasters" you could point to.


The strategic value of Afghanistan and Iraq is quite commonly underrated, and for good reason. Nobody wants to believe that we manufacture, arm, and deploy terrorists for our own purposes. But at the end of the day, that's one of the many cogs that helps keep us rich. Of course, the history books won't say that, but the perceptive thinker can understand that benefit now.


That would be the ideal situation, which I predicted at the start of the Iraq war. I'm actually a little embarrassed it hasn't happened by now, but all this sectarian violence gives me hope that my original prediction will bear out. One of Saddam's problems was that he just wasn't religious enough. He was one of the few Middle Eastern leaders that was openly secular, and encouraged a secular state. That just doesn't do when you're breeding radical extremism.


Hmm..."promote the sale of opium" you say? Interesting you should mention that. And who really has control over Afghanistan right now? Well, I guarantee it isn't Hamid Karzai. At least not directly. He's been a known pawn since long before he became "President" of Afghanistan. A pawn of whom? The CIA, of course. And what does the CIA do? Why, it makes lots of money for the Power Elite by running drugs across the world. Someone want to mess with opium production? Well, they have to deal with our special forces, who are busy "hunting down terrorists". Maybe that's what happened to Pat Tillman. Maybe he learned too much and was gonna be a whistleblower. What a tragedy.


Absurd. Clearly, you own no stock in Halliburton or KBR, not to mention a host of other defense contractors. Anyway, oil security is a huge benefit, but I suppose you ride a bicycle to work? Oh, sure, there's high oil prices. That's mostly due to uncertainty from the situation in Iraq, but only a fool wouldn't believe that the Power Elite isn't profiting from those high prices. Anyway, the Shiites and Kurds are pretty happy to be free now. Our military now has valuable combat experience, and we have field-tested many next-generation weapons for our next engagement. Since it is the US military that props up our economic dominance, that should make you happy.


Heh. You talk about what "might" happen because you don't see the big picture. What is currently happening is exactly what you would expect to happen with the understanding that Iraq is simultaneously a "democratic regime", a "fundamentalist Islamic" regime, a major oil supplier, and a major terrorism supplier. There will be terrorism in the future, granted. And we will pretend like it caught us by surprise, and we did everything we could to prepare for it. But some of us won't be surprised, or wonder why it still exists.

GREAT LEADERSHIP

The fire began at the Circus Maximus, in that section which touches the Palatine and Caelian hill; it rushed on with inconceivable rapidity and fastened upon the whole centre of Rome. A freedman of Caesar's, Phaon by name, ran panting into Nero's presence, shrieking: "Rome is in flames!"

All Caesar's guests arose from their recumbent attitude. "Ye gods! I shall see a burning city; now may I continue playing?" exclaimed Nero, placing his lute aside. "My lord, the whole city is as a sea of flame; the smoke is suffocatingly heavy and is destroying the people. The inhabitants faint away or rashly cast themselves into the fire, maddened with terror. All Rome perishes."

And Nero raised his hands and cried, "And now, for my next selection..."

This brought Lawnicus, one of the guests, to his knees. "Caesar. Oh, Great Caesar! Your indifference inspires!"

"Absolutely."


source: Henryk Sienkiewicz, with apologies

Hahahahaha!!! <claps/> I can appreciate good parody. That was very clever. Yes, it is true that we remember some leaders by their insanity, and others by their victory. But DC isn't burning, and Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were far more brutal than GW, but we mostly remember them as great leaders. Humans have a bloodlust, because they know it is great and ruthless leaders that will make them rich, as America is rich. It's just that some of us are terribly embarrassed by our riches and feel a need to perform penance in the form of criticizing those leaders who have guaranteed our security. I don't begrudge anyone their penance. I just call things out the way I see them, which happens to be through the depressing lenses of brutal reality.

Lawnmower Man,

I think Vermillion is correct. Have you ever, to paraphrase Will Rogers, met a conspiracy theory you didn’t like?

As much as I dislike Bush Jr., I would prefer to think of 9/11 as another manifestation of his incompetence. In the unlikely event he knew in advance, he would be guilty of treason and subject to treason’s penalties. It’s odd that you would buy this and still proclaim him a “great” president.

I seem to detect an element of Nietzsche's "might makes right" in your thinking.

BTW: What’s next? Did Lyndon Baines Johnson order the hit on John F. Kennedy?

Well, how can I possibly offer a rebuttal when you've given such an overwhelming refutation of the conspiracy? Look, I think there's just as many black helicopter kooks out there as you do. But there are a lot of hard questions surrounding 9/11 and no good answers for those questions. The reason we should have suspicion is that the official version of events and the excuses given for the lack of response varied so much in time and by person. There was a full hour between the time the first flight hit the Twin Towers and the time the Pentagon was hit. That's more than enough time to protect the White House, the Pentagon and any other major US building. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to justify the attack on the Pentagon. We had every resource available and every procedure in place to prevent exactly that type of event. You would have to attribute gross stupidity to the entire population to believe we have such incompetent leaders that everything that happened on 9/11 was due to innocent failures. If you can explain why neither of the two ANG squadrons responsible for the airspace over the Pentagon was able to scramble fighters to protect it, despite that being one of their primary missions, then I will concede that 9/11 was just a terrible tragedy.


He's great in the way FDR was great. They both sacrificed a similar number of Americans for a greater cause. It's just that FDR went on a sacrificed millions more. Would Germany have been able to take over the world? No. They didn't have enough oil to hold what they had acquired. How about Japan? If we told Japan that they could have East Asia, there would have been no hostility between us. We could have escaped WW II without a scratch, and just negotiated with the victors. But was that the "right" thing to do? Similarly, we could have practiced appeasement with Saddam indefinitely. There was no real threat from WMD, and we knew it. But Bush felt that the "right" thing to do involved some sacrifices.

The idea that a network of ragtag terrorists could operate with impunity despite the $30 billion budget of the CIA is just unbelievable. We knew where Osama was during the Clinton era, which is why we launched cruise missiles at Sudan. We had his satellite phone tapped from day 1. If you don't think we know where pretty much every major terrorist is located and doing, then you must think that $30 billion is all going to waste. Well it isn't. All the conflicting excuses from the CIA and FBI and NSA about "failed intel" just don't add up. There's a lot of scapegoating because the truth is that they should have known and did know. George Tenet turned out to be the fall guy, but that was probably arranged in advance. The FBI knew almost all of the terrorists were in the country. The NSA had intercepts that all but spelled out their plans, thanks to Echelon. The CIA had al Qaeda on its radar because it funded much of it when it was the Afghan Mujahideen. Even the Pentagon got warnings from lots of allied intel, and Rumsfeld himself admitted that he got briefings almost spelling it out. There's just too much information-gathering equipment in the world and too much expertise to keep something that big under wraps. One mistake will give you away, and I'm sure the 9/11 crew was not a flawless group. Heck, they almost all set off security alarms going through their checkpoints, and even a cursory scan of their passports would have given cause for detention. The CIA keeps its operations secret at least partly so that the public does not know what it's capable of. But I assure you that it's capable of far more than it lets on.


Well, of course it does. Laws are written by those with the power to enforce them. Our ideal of "rightness" is based on a naive form of pacifism which is completely untenable. History is not only written by the victors, it is composed of it. Nobody lauds what a righteous society Carthage was. Whether we admit it or not, we all live by the "might makes right" rule, even personally. That is why humans have a universal tendency to blame the victim. We pounce on weakness like rabid wolves. Consider GW himself. There's lots of conservatives that are even more evil than GW (like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, et. al). But you pounce on GW because you perceive weakness. That is a perfectly predictable course of action. It's "honest". We fool ourselves into thinking that we are "progressive", but when was the last time you helped out a homeless man on the street? Worked in a soup kitchen? Donated your time to a children's charity? Yeah, very few of us can raise our hands, right? We are just as greedy and selfish and bloodthirsty as GW and anyone else in office. We just don't have the power and the means to follow through. At our level, cooperation is the optimal strategy. When you're at the top, domination is the optimal strategy.


Frankly, I think Kennedy was historically insignificant, except for the space program. He will be remembered like Clinton, as a skirt-chaser with no real war record, and thus no real reason to remember him. Who killed him and how is really not relevant to the broad scope of events, in my opinion. The question is, who profits? Obviously, someone did. But killing a single person rarely changes the course of history.

This thread is going to go off topic in a hurry. I will ignore you 9/11 ranting, firstly because there is a thread on that already (or there was) in the History section, and secondly because your facts need substantial research before you present them. For example the whole 8 minutes at afterburner comment. With a full tank, and F-16 will use all its fuel on afterburner in 15 minutes, assuming they had been out practicing bombing runs, they were likely not far from Bingo fuel, and afterburner would have been impossible. Litle things like that. Anyways, as I said there is a topic for this one. Also, fighters are kept on 'ready 10' status, that is they can be in the air in 10 minutes, only during DefCon 2 or above. At Defcon 5, peacetime, you would be lucky to scramble jets inside 25 minutes, and only after an alert had been called, then you have to get them to altitude and direct them, and so on. Oh, and for inland bases, all jets are unarmed, especially ones returning from 'practice bombing runs'. There's lots more, but we will leave it at that.



Do the maths yourself. They don't have the fuel for 8 minutes of afterburners, but even if they did: landing (2 minutes), rearming (45 minutes) which probably happens at the same time as refueling (30 minutes) taxi and takeoff (2 minutes) and attaining altitude (3-4 minutes), so around 60 minutes later at ABSOLUTE BEST they are above their airbase ready to be directed? Except your maths gave them less than 7 minutes... oh well...


However, as for Pearl harbour, not there is no debate, there is no question, there is no issue. If you want to talk about that, start a thread in history and I will go into your facts, but this one does not even pass the 'common sense' test.
-FDR wanted war with Germany. The US was never as FAR from war in Europe as it was on December 8th 1941. Any chance he had of getting the American people into a war in Europe just went down to zero. They were calling for the lifeblood of Japan, and fixated on it. Pearl Harbour accomplished the exact OPPOSITE of what he most wanted
-A Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbour ould have sparked a war and national outrage. That is, An attack that had been beaten back with loss would have. There was no need to get the Pacific fleet annihilated; let PH defend itself, let it keep most of its ships and sink a few Japanese carriers. The US is still just as at-war, having suffered a surprise attack, but now they do not have to sit back and do nothing for 6 months while their colonies in the Pacific fall...





OOOOh-K... I'm just going to back out of the room quietly then. Yes, you and your wild conspiracy theories are the only ones who see 'the big picture', the rest of us are all just too 'obfuscated by The Man' to see whats going on. Good thing we have people like keeping online conspiracy weblogs and the like going to educate the Sheep of the world, Dude! The truth is out there! Watch the skies!


Or, alternatively it could just be a bad president making bad decisions, backed by intelligence organisations that make stupid mistakes...

Maximum velocity at "military thrust" (i.e., no afterburner) is between 900 and 1,300 mph, depending on altitude. Even at 1,000 mph, it would have only taken 12 minutes to cover 200 miles.


Actually, loading missiles takes 1-3 hours, depending on whether the the missiles are in storage or not (apparently, the ones at Andrews were, despite the DCANG web site proudly declaring that the air wing's mission was: "to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness." I guess 3 hours is considered "the highest possible state of readiness. The site changed after 9/11, predictably. So the fighters that actually took off from Andrews did so without any missiles on board, and with just training rounds in their guns. Nonetheless, the pilots themselves said they would have rammed Flight 93 if they had to. Unfortunately, they launched about 45 minutes too late. They waited for missiles that they never got, then launched without them after it was too late. And inexplicably, they didn't even know the Pentagon had been hit when they finally launched. The flight in NC wasn't even recalled until much later. It's understandable that the three F-16s weren't prepared to launch for an hour, despite the ANG's publicly stated mission (though it's pretty gross negligence that our "highest state of readiness" is more than an hour). However, it isn't at all understandable that the F-16's in the air didn't even return to base until 10:45, more than an hour after the Pentagon was hit. How long does it take to load M61 rounds? Surely not an hour. And even if all they did was refuel and relaunch, they could always use their fighters as anti-missile missiles, ejecting at the last moment or possibly sacrificing their lives. As for refuelling taking 30 minutes, here's an ad for a JP-5 truck that pumps 300 gallons/minute. I figure at a 7,000 pound max fuel load, an F-16 has about 1,000 gallon main fuel tank, which should take about 3-4 minutes to load.

So you figure the first plane hit the North Tower at 8:45. The FAA knew that there were multiple hijacked planes about 45 minutes earlier. The Secret Service, NORAD, and the NMCC also knew there were multiple hijacked planes even before the first one hit the North Tower. At that point, the in-air flight out of Andrews should have been recalled, refuelled, and relaunched. Maybe 15 minutes to return and land, 10 minutes to refuel, take off, and assume position over downtown DC. That's only 25 minutes, with a good 20 minutes left before Flight 93 hits the Pentagon. They could have even spared 15 minutes trying to load Vulcan rounds onto the jets, although those were probably conveniently "in storage" as well. However, they could have been bringing those out to the tarmac while the flight was returning. Obviously, two hits to the Twin Towers within minutes of each other and knowledge that there are at least two other hijacked aircraft in the air tells you that time is of the essence.


Umm...what? As part of the Axis, FDR knew full well that war with Japan implied war with Germany, and he got both.


Well, we tried that with the Gulf of Tonkin, and look how much support that got us. If you really want to whip people up into a nationalistic frenzy, there must be significant bloodshed. Righteous indignation. War with Japan had to be all-out, because Japan knew that it could not sustain a long campaign against the US. Yamamoto himself said that if Pearl Harbor succeeded, it would only buy about a year for the Japanese to operate freely in the Pacific, and he was right. If the Japanese attack had failed because of a concerted defense, Japan would never have been a serious threat, and it could well have been possible to wipe out the Japanese fleet without engaging heavily in the war. It certainly wouldn't have engendered the type of full-scale mobilization that followed.


Did you take a look at the link I posted on US funded Iranian terror? It should be fairly clear from the depth and convolution of the story that this isn't just an isolated incident of a few rogue CIA agents. These types of stories are rare, because usually it's easier to keep everyone quiet. But I think it just exposes what's been going on for decades under various guises (including Iran-Contra). Connect the dots. How many "coincidences" do you need before you admit that a whole picture is emerging?

Have you got a source for that? My sources find that the F-16/A, B, and C only do 577 cruise speed. In fact, the only aircraft capable of supercruising (no reheat) is the Concord. Heck, the top speed for an F-16 is around 1300.

If you are going to pursue conspiracy theories, it is up to you to prove them, not for us to disprove them.

I think this is just another way Bush's ineptness and incompetence has expressed itself.

If, however, you could "prove" your little conspiracy bit, it would mean two things.

1. Bush would be guilty of violating his oath of office and deserving of impeachment.

2. In the process he would have, in my opinion, committed treason and be subject to whatever criminal charges prosecutors wished to pursue and if convicted face whatever punishment a federal judge chose to impose.

I don't have any doubt that Bush didn't know, but for those who think he did, if indeed there's anyone else her who shares your views, I would suggest Bush is better off being shown incompetent than a traitor.



This may be part of the problem. Bush doesn't "think," he "feels."

I will have no more responses to you on this thread, so you get a shot from the free throw line.

As has been referrenced in this thread previously, and thoroughly, yes it is.

Cube Jockey provided excellent source information on this exact subject. Upon reading the references, you will be persuaded to abandon your position. The links can be found in post #17, this topic. A small sample:

In the event of a terrorist attack, natural disaster or other large-scale emergency, the Department of Homeland Security will assume primary responsibility on March 1st for ensuring that emergency response professionals are prepared for any situation. This will entail providing a coordinated, comprehensive federal response to any large-scale crisis and mounting a swift and effective recovery effort.