RE: [DMCForum] Time for a new political discussion...

["timnagin" <timnagin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

><snip>
>Well, if you believe the Iraq link.. then maybe??
>After all, Saddam had an axe to grind with Bush.  But
>no, I don't think the attack was planed based on who
>won the election.


But you stated, "I firmly believe that if Gore took the office he was
elected to that the events of 9/11 would NOT have taken place."  So, why
would they have not taken place if Gore was in office?  They way it seems,
and the fact that they were actually planning to use many more planes than
what happened, is that it was planned and going to happen no matter who was
in office.


><snip>
>The Regan/Bush Sr supreme court appointed
>Bush, and Gore was man enough to obey the law of the
>land.


"Gore was man enough..."  Huh?  When his own daughter had to tell her father
that enough was enough?


>I agree, the plans were well under way under Clinton..
> and the Clinton administration was keeping track of
>the situation, and has been quoted as saying they had
>made attempts to capture/kill Osama that had failed.
>They also passed this information along to the Bush
>people, but Bush did nothing. (again, on the record
>from the 9/11 hearings)


Ok, Bush was in office for only about eight months when the events of
September the eleventh took place.  Klinton was in office for eight years
and did nothing.  How does that logic work in your head that it is all
Bush's fault?  Couldn't it also be argued that, when a new administration
takes over and are learning from the hand-off of the previous
administration, if the previous didn't consider it a threat or take action,
then they would deduce this as well?


>If Clinton would have made a bigger public stink about
>this, he would have been accused of "wag the dog"..
>As you accused him before of launching missiles to
>distract the news from his *PERSONAL AND PRIVATE*
>activities.  Would the right wing have believed him?
>I don't think you would have.


It wasn't I who stated anything about launching missiles to distract anyone.


>Again Clinton did, and failed.  Obviously Osama is not
>an easy man to find, especially if you are not best
>friends and receiving money from the rest of his
>family.


So again, it is all the fault of the Bush administration.


>Are we talking about 9/11 still??   My argument has
>always been that Clinton knew something was going on
>too..  But at least the Clinton people were paying
>attention to it, and trying to do something about it.
>With any big plan, most of the action is right before
>the event. If the Bush people were paying attention in
>the days leading up to 9/11, maybe they would have
>realized what was about to happen?


Shoulda...woulda...coulda... again, hindsight is 20/20.  If you want to play
that game, the events of September the eleventh happened because Klinton
didn't act.  If Klinton had acted, then the Bush administration would have
either had to pick up where Klinton left off, or dealt with the effects of
whatever decision, and actions if any, he would have made.


>><SNIP>
>> would have looked like
>> a complete ass if they had been standing on the
>> rubble by the WTC like Bush
>> did, if they would have even tried to do so which I
>> doubt.
>
>If we had Gore, we would still have the WTC.


Again, how can you state that since the plans were under weigh anyway?  How
could Gore being president have effected those planes from not flying into
the WTC?

Your logic is failing more and more.  Do you have a Michael Moore Shrine?
;)

Greg

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DMCForum/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  DMCForum-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.