2006-09-12 01:20:33 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Putting the slight and temporary psychological impact of the attacks on a class of children before the national security of the Unite States is a serious error. As soon as he was informed that the USA was under attack, he should have excused himself and got on the phone with NORAD and issued orders to shoot any plane heading for washington out of the sky. The pentagon should never have been hit, and this is what gives it away as an inside job. Bush was kept in the dark and the idiot did not respond in time.
They knew for ages that a plane was inbound for the pentagon, and with Andrews AFB only 10 miles away, did NOTHING!
Obviously the pet goat is more important than the national security of the United States.
To all republicans, seriously, ask yourselves, if it was Clinton sat in that classroom, and he did exactly what Bush did, you would be screaming for him to be impeached for being 'asleep at the controlls'! Admit it!
Oh and it wasn't Clinton that changed the rules of engagement for shooting passenger airliners out of the sky, it was Don Rumsfeld in June 2001.
If the original rules had still been in place, and the US Airforce had been allowed to follow standard operating procedure that day, than there would NOT have been the disaster that was allowed to happen. The US military could have responded and at least saved the Pentagon and one of the towers. After the first crash a general could have given the order to shoot down any airliner threatening the US. After Rumsfeld changed the rules in the June, this was changed so that only Cheney, Rummy or Bush could give that order.
Strangely enough, the general in charge of NORAD on 911 (the day of their ultimate failure) was Promoted by Bush to Joint Chiefs of staff.
2006-09-12 01:38:07 · answer #1 · answered by kenhallonthenet 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I provide this 10 hugs! ma wrote one the different day that spoke to me on an intuitive point. Deep as though related I felt her poem. i understand this poem and want i ought to have arise with the kit you used to grant it- i admire the way you chosen the dictionary, calendar, nicely meaning and destiny desire. i in my view do not think of a few human beings will ever sense the top of deeper expertise. This leaves me with remembering the grief that i'm quite on my own via fact not something and no you will at circumstances make it greater valuable. My spirituality is the only porthole or maybe then via fact i'm not appropriate, I doubt. i understand i've got "long gone off" from the place this lead yet lol that's me. BTW- Love the final line so very plenty.
2016-10-14 22:11:54 · answer #2 · answered by janovich 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What a ridiculous and childish question, typical of you anti-Bushies. You act as if his immediate response was somehow important or could have changed anything. As if it was meaningful. It wasn't. It was his long term response, his policies that he put in place that is meaningful.
But, I suppose that's why you worship Clinton. He could give you the sound byte and the photo op, without ever really doing anything else. You prefer style over substance.
Oh, and your 'hero'-boy Kerry, he admitted that upon learning of the attack he sat there stunned for 45 minutes, unable to do anything.
You people need to grow up.
2006-09-12 01:28:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think its more important to protect children from the threat of war let alone not tell them what their parents should tell them about the terrorists & 911...If Bush had been addressing congress or the senate his reaction would of been different..He put the children first,acting like a parent should..(he is one as well ya know)
2006-09-12 01:26:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I must have missed something here. What the hell are you talking about? I am certain that it's just another weak attempt to slap at folks you disagree with, but it fell way short of dong any damage or even be minimally credible. Go back to your play station and leave the political discussion to the grown-ups.
2006-09-12 01:25:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, that would be the Democrats you are refering to. They seem to believe that EVERYTHING is more important than defending the country.
2006-09-12 01:26:08 · answer #6 · answered by wizard8100@sbcglobal.net 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
The Republicans are asleep at the wheel when it comes to homeland security, and so I say yes. It's up to the Democrats to regain control of Congress in November to deal with this issue! I don't feel safe with the GOP over this issue anymore.
2006-09-12 01:24:10 · answer #7 · answered by brian 2010 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
The president did it so it must be right. Now let me go back to blaming everything on Clinton (either one)
2006-09-12 01:27:52 · answer #8 · answered by Bemster 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Only if your holding the book upside down.
2006-09-12 03:16:53 · answer #9 · answered by courage 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do all critics believe that making irrelevant and over-broad attacks posed as questions help anything?
2006-09-12 01:23:11 · answer #10 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋