Jump to content

Home

Why is Bush a bad president?


JediKnight707

Recommended Posts

The well-known footage of Bush being notified in the classroom actually shows him being told about the 2nd plane (he had been notified of the first before entering the classroom, although it is believed that he was under the impression that it was an accident). There is footage of Bush stating that he actually saw the first plane hit on television, however this is impossible since only the second plane was caught by any of the news broadcasts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply
he had been notified of the first before entering the classroom, although it is believed that he was under the impression that it was an accident

 

I remember being under that impression until about 5 that day. In fact, when I first heard it I knew it was an attack and I told the girl who told me that. I had a bad feeling about it, and when I learned two were there I knew it. Not all broadcasts were of the second plane, because the teachers in my school ( which was north of NYC.) saw the first plane crash. They then saw the second one also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys didn't see bush's recent speech about What's REALLY going on in the middle east did you? It explains everything, and proves that he is actually a much better president than you give him credit for. It was like two or three weeks ago. man, i wish i knew were i coudl find it so i could post it here. I only saw it at the halfway poitn, but it sure explained a lot for me. Sure, he's after the oil, but that's because the congress actually made the decision to go to iraq. ihe supported it, and wnated to also liberate the iraqis and such, but then the congress chanmged their decision, and wanted to pull out of iraq due to ecomomic failure comeing up because of costs for funding the war. They then blamed bush for ordering the war on iraq, and that's when BNush became the next most hated persident ever. A lot of peopel seem to have missed that speech though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all broadcasts were of the second plane, because the teachers in my school ( which was north of NYC.) saw the first plane crash.
Really? How? The only way that would be possible is if the media had been alerted to a crash and had a camera there to catch it before it happened.

 

This isn't to deny that there is footage of the first crash. A documentary team working on a movie about NY firefighters happened to catch it, but that footage wasn't known about until the next day.

 

You guys didn't see bush's recent speech about What's REALLY going on in the middle east did you? It explains everything,
Yes, I saw that one too and I agree.
is the clip for anyone else that wants to see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? How? The only way that would be possible is if the media had been alerted to a crash and had a camera there to catch it before it happened.

 

Huh? The media are the only ones in NYC w/cameras?!? Are they not known to buy footage (or at least gain access to) in order to get a scoop?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? How? The only way that would be possible is if the media had been alerted to a crash and had a camera there to catch it before it happened.

 

Two of my teachers had a son and a daughter working near the Twin Towers on the day; My 8th grade teacher's husband works at Yankee Stadium and was driving by to say hello to his son when it happened. Both survived, and he saw it and video tapped it. I forgot to mention that they only saw the second on on TV, but they saw both crashes. They are millions of people in the city, and that means millions of cell phones taking videos/pictures of what happened.

 

Are they not known to buy footage (or at least gain access to) in order to get a scoop?

 

Exactly. Like I said, millions of people were in the city that day and most if not all had cell phones on them to catch what happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whjat's the big deal about two plane crashes and one wasn't caught on tape? i don't nbelieve it to be a governemtn conperacy. I do feel for the people who last many people in thos eplane crashes, but i don't see the relevance of talking about the 9/11 attacks when we were suposed to be tlking about international issues and leadership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? The media are the only ones in NYC w/cameras?!? Are they not known to buy footage (or at least gain access to) in order to get a scoop?

 

Yes and they did.

 

See the rest of Achilles post.

This isn't to deny that there is footage of the first crash. A documentary team working on a movie about NY firefighters happened to catch it, but that footage wasn't known about until the next day.

 

I’m not saying there isn’t more footage or speaking to Achilles views. I just don’t remember seeing any other footage of the first tower being hit the morning of the attacks. I believe it would have taken time to get the footage, view the footage to ensure content and get it on the air during the attacks. Remember they would also have to satisfy the owner of said footage monetary concerns before getting their hands on their scoop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are millions of people in the city, and that means millions of cell phones taking videos/pictures of what happened.
No doubt, but that is not the same thing as seeing it broadcast on tv. :)

 

There were no broadcasts of the first plane hitting the first tower because the footage was not immediately available.

 

Whjat's the big deal about two plane crashes and one wasn't caught on tape? i don't nbelieve it to be a governemtn conperacy. I do feel for the people who last many people in thos eplane crashes, but i don't see the relevance of talking about the 9/11 attacks when we were suposed to be tlking about international issues and leadership.
The relevance is that Bush lied. He claimed to have seen footage that no one knew existed until the following day. So he either lied about seeing it, or he did see it via another source that no one else had which would mean that he had foreknowledge of the event and lied about not knowing.

 

EDIT:

Here is the white house transcript of Bush making the statement (emphasis mine):

Q One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country. And another thing is that, how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack? (Applause.)

 

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Jordan. Well, Jordan, you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my Chief of Staff, Andy Card -- actually, I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.

 

But I was whisked off there, I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my Chief of Staff, who is sitting over here, walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack."

Here is the audio (with commentary at the end) if you want to hear him speak the words.

End edit.

 

i've seen an ad on the discovery channel, with 2 American soldiers saying: ''were not here for peace. were her for the oil''
In all fairness, that is their opinion. I'm not saying that I disagree with it, but there are lots of others that hold contradictory viewpoints.

 

The point is that if our objective was to end tyranny and bring peace and democracy, then we should be just as involved in Darfur as we are in Iraq. But Iraq just happens to be oil-rich (moreso than Sudan, which isn't even in the top 20) and considered by many military policy think-tanks to be key to influencing the middle-east.

 

The fact is that N.Korea, Iraq, and Iran were all identified as threats by PNAC in September 2000. A year later we have 9/11 and then 18 months later we're at war with Iraq under the pretenses of terrorism. How convenient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidenote...

Exactly. Like I said, millions of people were in the city that day and most if not all had cell phones on them to catch what happened.

 

We're talking about 2001 right? Camera phones weren't even introduced into North America commercially until 2002.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All quotes here are from SilentScope001

 

5) The Patroit Act is 1984sque, but the problem is that the majority of Americans want it.
Prove it. I've been looking for 2007 polls and found none.

 

We can't violate Democracy.
The only problem with this statement is it's meaningless as you support the PATRIOT ACT.

 

Our civil liberties has been violated day after day...Google collecting private information, spyware placed on our computer, security cameras are everywhere...We are losing our ability to move around in private.
I don't believe any of those are violations of your rights. Except perhaps programs collecting private information when you use them. Cameras certainly are not a violation of any right, least of all the right of privacy, since they're... in public. Where people can see you. When a random passer-by looks at you, is that a violation of your right of privacy, too?

 

Before 9/11 even occured, there was the "secret testinomy". The government could deport people by presenting evidence, but because that evidence is very secret, the government doesn't need to actually show the evidence to the defendant. Immigration groups was trying to get rid of the law...and then 9/11 happened.
Appeal to (quite a frightening) tradition.

 

It is common. We're losing our rights. But it is all being done for our safety.
Prove it. The burden is on you.

 

And even if it was done for our safety, I'd still be against it, as [cue Abe quote]...;)

 

"Those who give up a bit of their freedom for security deserve neither," said Ben Franklin. Bad news Ben, just because you don't deserve it doesn't mean we won't get it anyway.
Actually, as if it matters, his full quote was that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".

 

And besides, if we are going to lose our freedoms eventually, we might as well get prepared to live in 1984 than resist futiely.
I'm deadly honest when I say you're scaring me big time.

 

Don't forget, in the end, Democrats voted for the Bill as well as Republicans.
And this matters why? I'm neither not a Democrat, not the slightest bit swayed by your statement that a second party supported the PATRIOT ACT. Violation of the Constitution and basic rights by popular demand is even worse than violations that are opposed heavily, as the former demonstrates a situation in which people have lost their will to 'breathe free'. Which is downright spooky.

 

The American people want 1984. Why not?
Because a society conforming to the dystopian views of 1984 is not a society I want to live in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt, but that is not the same thing as seeing it broadcast on tv.

 

 

Very true. I'm sure that they was other means of seeing the first plane; people were there, and someone had to have something on them to record them, at least one would think...

 

 

We're talking about 2001 right? Camera phones weren't even introduced into North America commercially until 2002.

 

That's probably true. I'm just going by what my teacher told me around 4 years after the fact. I'm still sure a tourist or someone had a camera or video recorder on them when it happening. Or, I'd tend to think so because of how many I see when I go into the city.

 

 

Prove it. I've been looking for 2007 polls and found none.

 

I haven't found a poll, but I'm going to say how I feel about the Patriot Act. Bottom line is I don't mind it. I doubt anyone of us here chatting on this forum has been touched by it. No, I can't prove it, but unless you're someone who has been in jail for terrorist related actions this thing isn't (shouldn't) be touching you. I find nothing wrong with wanting to check up on ex-criminals or convicted terrorist, but I really want to know that's who we're checking out. No doubt we are, but I just want to make sure, you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt anyone of us here chatting on this forum has been touched by it.

I have, I am on the watch list when flying, because I have a common first name and sir name. They will not remove me from the list either since my name is the same as someone else that they say should be on the list. When we suspend due process and our fundamental beliefs in fairness we are all touched by it. I am not saying that safety should not out weight those rights, I’m saying fear should not be the driving force behind our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and they did.

 

I was merely speaking to the contention that "the only way" was a poorly conceived and unreasonable statement, not questioning anyones grasp of how things actually happened.

 

I recall hearing that Ted Kennedy was also on that list (initially), so at least it's not just the "little guy". Kinda makes you wonder how exactly they draw up the list in the first place. There are a lot of people with common names in this country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter if you've been affected personally or not. Injustice is injustice. I won't support an initiative that goes against my morals just because it doesn't harm me.

 

I'm not an immoral man (I'm not accusing you of saying I am either.) But I do feel that I'd rather have myself, yourself, and every American looked after. We can't pretend that there is no threat, and we have to stop denying that even the littlest threat can't hurt us; it can. I'd much rather be safe then sorry. I don't feel my rights are being hurt, and I don't feel it's immoral to stop people who want to kill me, you, and our families. I understand that it's the principal of it, but I don't think this is an act or principal thing. ( If that makes any sense.) I'd feel safer knowing I was being watched; I know I didn't do anything wrong, and now I know those guys will protect me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very true. I'm sure that they was other means of seeing the first plane; people were there, and someone had to have something on them to record them, at least one would think...
No one had any reason to be filming the first tower when the plane struck. Lots of cameras were on the towers after the first plane struck, therefore lots of cameras caught live footage of the second plane hitting the second tower.

 

The plane traveled at several hundred miles an hour and even though some people were likely to have camcorders running for various reasons, it would take them some time to determine were the sound was coming from, spot the plane, and then track it as it hit the building. The footage that we do have only exists because of sheer luck. If we had other footage, I'm sure that it would have been brought forward by now.

 

The point is that no one saw live footage of the first plane strike. I'm sure that once the Nauday brothers made their tape available, every station ran it. But that wasn't until September 12th. :)

 

I'm not an immoral man (I'm not accusing you of saying I am either.) But I do feel that I'd rather have myself, yourself, and every American looked after. We can't pretend that there is no threat, and we have to stop denying that even the littlest threat can't hurt us; it can. I'd much rather be safe then sorry. I don't feel my rights are being hurt, and I don't feel it's immoral to stop people who want to kill me, you, and our families. I understand that it's the principal of it, but I don't think this is an act or principal thing. ( If that makes any sense.) I'd feel safer knowing I was being watched; I know I didn't do anything wrong, and now I know those guys will protect me.
With much respect, I wonder if you would feel the same if you were one of the ones whose rights have been infringed, or if you understood how these rules affect you in ways that you might not consider now, or if you had knowledge of how similar tactics have been used in other places and times to achieve results that were not benevolent.

 

I think it's admirable that you want to be trusting of our goverment, but our founding fathers believed that those in power should never be completely trusted. Our rights were intended to be inalieable and the Patriot Act and its ilk fly directly in the face of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one had any reason to be filming the first tower when the plane struck. Lots of cameras were on the towers after the first plane struck, therefore lots of cameras caught live footage of the second plane hitting the second tower.

 

Well, I'll take your word for it because you have provided proof. I guess mu old teacher meant that her son and husband saw it happen, not her and the other teachers. But, that doesn't matter. It's done, over. What matters now is how the people who did it are dealt with from here on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To defend myself:

 

The only problem with this statement is it's meaningless as you support the PATRIOT ACT.

 

Don't put words in my mouth. Please.

 

I hate lots of stuff that America is doing, including the Patroit Act, but it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what other people think, and so why should I go out and oppose those people?

 

Prove it. I've been looking for 2007 polls and found none.

 

It is due to the fact of "security, security, security" chant I hear all the time that I make the conclusion that people want it. Not to mention the repeated polls that really matter, the Senate and House of Rep. polls. If the people hate it, they would vote for politicans, and the politicans would vote against it. The fact is, that doesn't happen.

 

I don't believe any of those are violations of your rights. Except perhaps programs collecting private information when you use them. Cameras certainly are not a violation of any right, least of all the right of privacy, since they're... in public. Where people can see you. When a random passer-by looks at you, is that a violation of your right of privacy, too?

 

And that's the problem! People like you are going out, okay with some taking away of pirvacy. I could easily point to you as the reason we are heading towards a dystopia, but I won't, because you want limits. But pretty soon, we'll get used to the limits, and we'll see the PATROIT ACT as legit...and some brand new act as evil.

 

To explain. Our definitions of privacy has changed for a long time. Security cameras exist so that we feel a culture of fear. I shouldn't have to walk around and have this "viewscreen" indicating that at any given moment, in any public place, someone may be watching me...that's part of the 1984 criqitue, you know? The constant surviallance. Worse in Great Britian as well.

 

Prove it. The burden is on you.

 

If people are able to be watched, the government can capture them. Hence, being done for our safety.

 

And even if it was done for our safety, I'd still be against it, as [cue Abe quote]...;)

 

And Abe was willing to ban freedom of speech and Habeus Corpus to stop the Copperfielders. He may be the protecter of the Union, but certantilly not a protector of civil liberties.

 

I'm deadly honest when I say you're scaring me big time.

 

...

 

Because a society conforming to the dystopian views of 1984 is not a society I want to live in.

 

*sigh*

 

I'm trying to save myself, first and foremost. For years, the ACLU is complaining we are going down the wrong path. I agree. The ACLU wants to resist. But, well, we can't exactly do anything to stop the trend, if people want it. So I don't want to go and fight and fight until 1984 does come and then disapper forever.

 

I want to live. I want to survive. I want a high quality of life. Is that something to blame me for, to blame me for being honest? Fact is, I'm not going to die just because an ideology that I do like gets wiped out on the national stage. I'm not going to risk everything just so that I can be 'free' in the depths of the graves. I have to stay alive, maybe to resist, maybe to help out those who still alive, or maybe because I have only one life, and I might as well live that life until it gets taken from me eventually. But I have to stay alive, and that why I need to know how to live in 1984.

 

Plus, I have to protect myself, as this is how evolution designed me to, in order to pervail under all cirmustances. If I go and just jump off a building when 1984 comes around, I am violating the Laws of Nature, going against who I am.

 

And this matters why? I'm neither not a Democrat, not the slightest bit swayed by your statement that a second party supported the PATRIOT ACT. Violation of the Constitution and basic rights by popular demand is even worse than violations that are opposed heavily, as the former demonstrates a situation in which people have lost their will to 'breathe free'. Which is downright spooky.

 

The Democratic Party (~40%) and the Republican Party (~30%) compose about 70% of Americans' view, maybe more. Add in the Indepedents who are leaning towards Republican or Democrat, and you can see that the majority of Americans authorize this.

 

This is a democracy, this is not going to be a dictatorship where a small minority gets to impose what they feel about the world upon everyone else. If that happens, it could be even worse than the constant surviallnce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree on the basis of the point that I initially raised: Bush lied. I think that still needs to be addressed/acknowledged.

 

Yes, it should. But I don't think it will be, and if it is, I don't think it will change much at this point in time. Sadly, people lie and aren't picked up on it at all, and yet we're holding onto a lie that's 6 years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...