I've read and reread your articles... Nowhere did I find anything stating the Bin Laden family were guests of the Bush's during the 9/11 attacks. Please help me find that in your research.

The article you posted concerning a Phanton flight is the only one I can find saying a flight took place on Sept 13th... The article states "By 4:30 p.m., the twin-engine, eight-passenger jet lifted off." According to the 9/11 Commision report air travel was allowed to resume at 11 am on Sept 13th. So even if this were true and didn't really happen on Sept 20th air travel had resumed by that time anyway.

http://web.archive.org/web/200111081...A3F78EFSC.html

The bin Laden flight was actually on Sept. 20th, not sept 13th.
(See footnote 28 in the 9/11 Commission's report in "supporting documents" at right). That was one week after the FAA allowed commercial air traffic to resume at 11am on Sept. 13.
(taken from:http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...more_than.html)

I'm not splitting hairs here, I just want you to man up and admit where you're wrong. Post all the links you want... When were the Bin Ladens guests of the Bush family?

 

Oh and I must say I did watch Farenheit 9/11 before I knew who Michael Moore was. The movie stunk of lies so I went and researched about Moore and what happened before during and after 9/11. He's great at skewing facts and leaving out pertinent details to lead people to believe he is telling the truth. Since then I; like many other Americans, have seen Michael Moore for what he really is. And no I did not read the book.

 

So details aren't important to you? You don't mind if the country goes into a panic, because all we know is that we're being attacked? You don't mind the consequences of short sightedness? You are for hair trigger response?

I think I can guess what party you'll be voting for this year. Short sightedness and hair trigger responses abound. On Iraq, and the entire war against terrorists. On the economy, the supposed "redistribution". On the environment, spending tax dollars for what? Well, we're not exactly sure yet but we will save the planet.

So, if you would have choosen to leave that elementry school, even with the possiblilty of an ensuing mass panic, what would you do with a pile of evidence collected over many years, through several administrations, that lead countless elected officials to believe that a brutal dictator had weapons of mass destruction and had exibited that he would, without a doubt, use them? You'de send the UN inspectors back, again. Right?

 

This is what baffles me about your debating with s2krn. You nail him for making statements based on nothing but opinion, yet often do the same yourself. Everyone can be wrong at times, and for the record I don't think you made any statements any less correct than he did. But the fact remains if you debate using two standards it has little use.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, it's fact that other than protecting himself the President had no urgent need to leave the school. For that matter he could have went on vacation. There are standing orders delegating responsibility in such situations, and they require no authority or supervision at all from the President.


I would imagine that just like the rest of us, Bush needed a few minutes to absorb what was happening, and in his case he had a great deal more pressure involved in what would happen to counter the attacks. I'm not sure if he had the presence of mind to think about how his actions might affect the children, but if he did then he did the right thing by staying at the school and showing no alarm in front of them.


As for the Bush family having ties with the Bin Ladens, I've seen enough information to know that they were at least familiar with each other. However, most of the Bin Laden family is also very far removed from Osama, and they were cleared by the FBI for departure.

 

I want OldDogg to back up his comment about the Bin Ladens being "guest" of the Bush's during the 9/11 attacks. Still don't have an answer on that. Maybe he just wanted the thread to die and he wouldn't have to back up that rediculous statement. Don't skirt the question or bring up another "hot" topic. Just say you were wrong or have some credible evidence!

 

LOCK the door to the ****pit!! They ignored the warnings and this was a result..

 

I asked earlier about the Justice Department case against Osama and you ignored that as well. IMHO both of you had made several comments based on speculation, assumption, or opinion, with no substantial facts backing them.

Dealing with opinions can go in circles forever, dealing in facts usually doesn't.



Just to be fair, did you think Bush should have left the school quickly, or not? And in either case, why?

 

I do not think Pres Bush should have immed jumped up and left. The reason why is this... Noone knew the extent of the attacks, terrorism, etc at that time. It could have been an assasination plot against the President; noone knew. I feel he made the best decision based on the information he was given. The worst situation would have been to creat a sense of panic. Would anything have changed if he had immediately left the school? Could he have made any different decision if he weren't at the school?

 

Presidents always have things come up....and have to quickly leave and country never goes into panic..
Two Jumbo Jets with passengers aboard have just hit 2 of the tallest skyscrapers in New York City and another with passengers aboard has/is going to crash into the Pentagon and you think getting up quickly from talking to children is hair trigger response? going to send the country into mass panic?
Maybe since the extent of attack was not known (4th plane was for the White House?) he should remove himself and children from danger and get into a controlled environment as quickly as possible?

Next you cast other unrelated wild assumptions, bring in many topics never discussed?
Maybe you needed to vent...do you feel better now?

Since I already got your incorrect mass panic assumption out of the way....
If my country had been seriously attacked,
Then I would have spent Billions making my country safer not just faking it with token gestures and I would properly equip my military with the best current equipment and Armour... Then I would have stopped at nothing to find and kill all even remotely associated with it....
I would finish one thing before I started another.
Weapons of mass destruction are a dead issue...There were none.
Some say because of UN inspections/pressure?

 

I already told you not to assume when I dont have time to answer but...
Just to keep the record straight, It was you that FIRST made the erroneous assertion/assumption on post # 20 you never backed up nearly 37 post later because you cant.
Why do you keep asking me to do something you cant do yourself? Admit you were wrong.

Niether do you.
It's strange you want someone to admit they misspoke or were wrong about facts when you cant do it yourself.
You didnt mind steppin up first, why cant you admit your own error?

 

There are no erroneous assertions or statements in Post 20. It is a fact that Clinton passed on Osama Bin Laden. Now wether it was because he said there was not enough evidence to extradict or that he was soft on terrorism or if it was because he was too busy chasing tail; he was still given the opportunity. Nothing false in that statement as the link shows.

And I guess your post is really saying that the Bin Ladens were NOT guests of the Bushs on 9/11.... right?

 

Maybe?


Wild assumption? Wild is a subjective term, but yes, I did make an assumption.

Unrelated? The way I see it, it couldn't be more related. The tune you're singing is familliar to me, and to everyone. Could'a, should'a, would'a. You don't think that elected officials motives have any relevance in this conversation?


My belief that mass paninc could have been a consequence of the president getting up and leaving in the middle of his visit to school children isn't an assumption. It's an opinion.

You seem like a pretty smart fella when it comes to national defense and foreign relations. Why aren't you running for the presidency with your experiance and wisdom? Oh, I see that you already have an athletic career playing the star monday morning quarterback.

 

And from that link:


"During a February 2002 speech, Clinton explained that he turned down an offer from Sudan for bin Laden's extradition to the U.S., saying, "At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."

But that wasn't exactly true. By 1996, the 9/11 mastermind had already been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing by prosecutors in New York. "


How far do you think the US credibility would have gone without an indictment? I was no big fan of Clinton, but he did what he thought was right. Much like anyone else he probably wanted to wait until they had a case so solid the scum would never see the light of day.





As for the question on Bush leaving the school, both of you proved my point with flying colors. Both answers were based on nothing but opinion, which you seem intent to convince others is true.

The reality is that in all probability, the Secret Service details were calling the shots on his moves during that time period. They don't just jump in cars and go, they check everything before an appearance. At that moment with the school being of little public interest that terrorists would have found, it was probably a very secure location as compared to jumping into cars without an evacuation plan in place and cleared.

As for why he had no need to leave, that is policy concerning the responsibilities of various government agencies in response to such an attack. It was a standing order, with no need to be executed by the President.

The policy was set in place near the end of the Clinton administration. Rather than base such a thing on my opinion, I'll offer that if anyone wants to view it I'll dig up the link. It's located on the FBI website.





And as for bolting out of an environment cleared and escorted by the Secret Service, short of a nearby nuclear blast bunker with a battalion of jarheads outside, at that moment staying put was the thing to do. Basic security operations dictate that a location not secured is not a secure location.

 

Your own words;
" Looks like he was more interested in a blow job than national security!!" are your own words.
"Looks like" then an assumption from your view is not a fact.
You have no facts to prove or disprove your assumption of why Pres Clinton didn't get O bin Laden.
You cant read his mind so you must conclude and assume....right?

Just like your facts I cant read minds so I conclude and assume just like you did.

__________________________________________________ _______________

I guess I could say the same about the tune you're singing being very familiar to me and to everyone?
(define everyone)?
Just like you I Don agree with everything going on around me. Just like you I have opinions, conclusions and assumptions.

Reading unspoken motives is akin to concluding, assuming or having an opinion. not fact, yes?

I accept your opinion.

Well at least you call your ideas opinions.
When it's a view you like it's not an assumption it's an opinion and must be right because you speak for everyone?...but!
You hear something you don't agree with and their opinion is called "monday morning quarterbacking" and it's relevant to make personal attacks?
Your debate/discussion style is weak.

 

In my opinion the nontraditional nature of the attack meant that maybe other non traditional methods may have been in use. Traditional plans did not work and much has changed since that day. Nobody knew what to expect. We were caught flat on our feet...Example: Because of traditional policies, Air Force was unprepared for that type of attack and had no hope of shooting down any attacking commercial aircraft for some time....they developed a plan as things unfolded.
Your points were well presented and understood.

I will apologize if I forwarded any of my conclusions, assumptions or opinions as facts. It is always my intent to express my point and at times how I got there. It's rare to convince anyone of anything on the Internet. Especially about beliefs they already have.
If we all agreed on everything....Lets just say just say, "Me too" every post.