Will Bush Be Blamed?

Subject: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:00 PM

This AM, on CSPAN, I heard a tearful, nearly hysterical woman whose niece was in the WTC, say that GW Bush has managed to systematically alienate the rest of the world and that, if he wasn't president, we wouldn't have been attacked. Later, while eating a my lunch at a North Carolina Style BBQ, I heard others discuss the same idea, adding that Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks, and that he was getting back at Bush because of what his father had done, and that this never would have happened if the Senior Bush had gone in and taken Hussein out in the first place--

I know that we have enemies, I know we have ignored them to a great degree, and that we should have been better prepared than we were. I also know that I don't really know why what happened happened, or what led up to it, and that I may not ever really know. However, after the initial shock, as sure as the sun rises in the morning, people begin pointing fingers, and the President of the United States, even in times of crisis, is no longer immune to criticism--Any and all thoughts are welcome--

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:09 PM

Some people would witness a nun being mugged and blame it on the Catholic Church because of the Inquisition. I didn't vote for the President, but he is the President, and he seems to be doing a pretty good job in an extraordinary situation. If Sadam is involved, he'll reap at the very least what he has sown.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:10 PM

It is well known what I think of the Bushes. It would be so convenient to blame them for this horror show, but, alas, it just aint true. It's not just the cutback in funding, the other problem is, those gangs are extremely difficult to infiltrate. Plus, we have had an aversion to associating with low lifes. Maybe now we will get real.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,X-Ed
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:11 PM

GW ain't even been in office a year. WHY HAVE WE EVER BEEN ATTACKED?! There are those who hate freedom and prosperity I guess. BUT WHO KNOWS, WHO CARES. It happened. If anyone is to blame it is Billy Boy Clinton. He sat back getting oral pleasures as terrorist attacks went on against the U.S.A for 8 years of HIS watch. Debate that! How about the U.S.S. Stark? How about 2 U.S.Embassies in Africa, just to name a few. There were many more. Good ol' Ronny avenged the deaths of 20(?) U.S. servicemen that were killed in a bar in Berlin back in '86. We ain't heard from Col. Kaddaffi since. Clinton is to blame. He has single handedly killed national pride and readiness.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:17 PM

No.
The terrorists are to blame.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: mousethief
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:20 PM

This is in the same bucket as those people who are attacking random Arabic-speaking or Islamic people. People need something to lash out at, and they find the wrong target and lash out with all their might. For this woman, it was Bush. For some people (alas!) it is their fellow citizens who happen to be Arabic and/or Islamic. It's an unfortunate and misguided way to deal with the grief we all feel.

Alex

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: jmdornan
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:31 PM

We as a nation can not start pointing fingers at home, it has happened let's deal with it in the most swift and educated way. I did not vote for bush, and do not like most of what he stands for, but he has earned a bit a respect from me for not jumping on the first accusation, and trying to bring the right people to justice. IF we keep our wits about us we wiill cme out on top of this even stronger. If we start to point and accuse the terrorists have won in the most detrimental way by dividing us.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: annamill
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:32 PM

I don't know... I just read an article on CNN about this man's grudges against the US and he has held them for some time and has orchestrated several attacks on our guys and gotten away with it.

Go here (I can't do blue-clicky things) and read for yourself. Then answer me this question..

If he has done all these things to us and others, why is he still around to cause Tuesday??

http://navigation.helper.realnames.com/framer/1/262/default.asp?realname=CNN&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ecnn%2Ecom%2F&frameid=1&providerid=262&uid=44175

Please respond and let me know how you feel about all this happening prior to Tuesday. You tell me. Who's at fault??

Love, annamill

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:34 PM

America was not targeted because it represents freedom; that is absurd. It is perceived as the strong ally of Israel. Palestine wishes fervently to push Israel back into the sea. They have wished for this since 1945.

It is probably not remembered that the vast majority of the land that is Israel, excluding the Gaza strip and West Bank, was uninhabitable desert when it was bought up in 1914-1928 under the efforts of Balfour and Rothschild as a solution to the eternal problem of a home nation for Jewish people everywhere. It was arid desert, and it was willingly sold.

When the nation of Israel was formed, if memory serves, Arabs resident on the land were invited to stay and help build the nation. Many preferred to leave.

The Isralis have built a nation from a desert on land that was bought and paid for originally; the repeated efforts over the last fifty years by Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, etc to rid themselves of their neighbors have only yielded military and territorial losses under conditions of war for the initiators -- not once but three times or more.

There is no explanation for the desire to "get rid of Israel" and to do so would only cause a serious recidivism in the ability and economy of the region. But the obsession continues.

A

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:50 PM

No, Bush is not to blame.

I guess we really should not be too surprised that it did happen in view of other terriorist attacks we have suffered over the past seven or eight years. The only difference is the devistation took place on American soil, and the loss of life is so much greater. We live in such a free society, and move so freely from one place to another, it is not surprising either that the Terriorists were successful in high-jacking the airliners.

We have just lost a way of life I suspect.

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why bin Laden, who has been indicted for terriorist crimes against the U. S. has not been captured long before this. If the U. S. can put a man on the moon, we should be able to capture that outlaw.

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 02:57 PM

Unfortunately, in the midst of crisis, people do point fingers, though, and generally at their favorite non-crisis targets--In times of crisis, others tend to join in demonstrations of anger which they would otherwise ignore---

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:26 PM

No obviously Bush isn't to blame for wehat's happened. He'll have to carry the responsibility for whatever happens next, and I don't think any same person would envy him that. It's frightening looking at him though. He just does not look up to it. And I'm not saying that because I disagree with his politics, but because he looks like a like a terrified learner driver at the wheel of a runaway vehicle.

When the nation of Israel was formed, if memory serves, Arabs resident on the land were invited to stay and help build the nation. Many preferred to leave. This is not really the time to get into debates about Palestine and Israel, Amos. But perhaps that sentence needs to be balanced. "Preferred to leave" needs to be put in the context of, for example, what happened at Deir Yassim - and that link is to an account written by an Israeli who grew up in a Zionist family. "Preferred to leave" is the kind of language Milosevic used in relation to Kosovo.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Bob P
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 03:44 PM

But doesn't it really work that the current bad guy is really just that?

Like hollywood's box office heroes, who the top guy actually is inconsequential. Whether it's Cruise or Ford means nothing. It's the state of the movie industry that's important.

Whether it's Komeanie, Who's sane, or Beenladen is similarly nothing. It's the state of the Terrorism industry that's important.

If you think that Cruize or Ford are critical to the health of the movie industry, that's nuts.

If you think one of dem arabicidiots is critical to the health of the terrorism industry, that's nuts too.

Remove "Bin" and a lookalike will pop up-fast a webwindow.

The only certain thing is that we'll all trust each other a bit less, and flying will (hard to believe, I know) be less enjoyable; perhaps this time a whole lot less enjoyable.

But we'll put up with it and cast blame on some fallguy.

Until memory fades; which it always does (curbside checkin bans and federal airmarshalls are both hold overs from the last go-round).

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Bill D
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:35 PM

I have read these threads for 3 days now, and all I am really sure of is that I have a better list of who I would and would not care to live next door to.......

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Sorcha
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:45 PM

Of course he will. Whoever is President at the time of cisis recives blame as well as whatever kudos there are to be had. Goes with the territory. Meanwhile....

I'm not exactly "fed up" but I am emotionally exhausted and tired of the war-mongering, hate mongering, trolling and flaming. Not only here on Mudcat, but also in the media.

I have heard all the news reports and recieved all the e mails I want on the subject for a few days-- I need space to think and I can't do that when the subject is worn out until we have hard news. I am tired of hash and re-hash just for something to say.

I am tired of being emotionally and visually assaulted by something I have done everything I can do about. If you don't hear much from me for a few days, go look in the Lyr Req threads. That is where I will be. Not in any of these others.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Justa Picker
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:48 PM

Doug R,
(I cannot, for the life of me, understand why bin Laden, who has been indicted for terriorist crimes against the U. S. has not been captured long before this. If the U. S. can put a man on the moon, we should be able to capture that outlaw.)

If and when, there is irrefutable and absolute proof that Bin Laden was the mastermind, I am in complete agreement that he and his henchmen should be hunted down like dogs and either extradited to the U.S. to stand trial, or terminated on the spot, as to save taxpayers the expense of a trial, and deprive the media of sensationalizing the story.

BUT, just how to you propose we get our hands on him? I am sure like Sadam, Arafat and others who are constantly looking over their shoulders, he changes locations every couple of hours. We have no reliable ground intelligence in Afghanistan to enhance our technological tracking capabilities. Further, I cannot see the Taliban extraditing him, nor any of the neighbouring countries which border on Afghanistan allowing U.S. and Nato troops on their soil as a staging platform. Keep in mind there are several Russian republics, as well as Pakistan, China and Iran bordering it. Cruise missles aren't gonna do it...and I'm extremely skeptical that any sort of ground invasion will have anything but disatrous consequences for the U.S. and Nato. Do they honestly think they can "surgically" do, what the Russians failed to do over an 8/9 year protracted period?

I want to see whoever is responsible for Tuesday dealt with, but frankly I cannot even fathom at this point how it will successfully be undertaken, nor what incentive could possibily be offered to the Taliban to extradite him willingly. Can't reason with fanatics.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 05:50 PM

Flying. We're due to go on holiday in a couple of weeks time. At least we can be sure that the security checks will be a lot more thorough than they are sometimes - and it won't be an internal American flight of course, which is something else to try to reassure myself.

Personally I'd like to find an airline that made all its passengers strip before boarding, and lent them pyjamas to wear for the flight. That even might make flying more enjoyable. But I'd far sooner go by train.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: GUEST,Hille
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:03 PM

Bush isn't to blame - this had probably been planned for years (altho' Saddam Hussein is probably enjoying the discomfiture of the son of the man who bombed him).

However, on a slightly different note I just read this in the Daily Telegraph:

"...America is seeking to assemble political support from Nato, The UN Security Council and Mislim countries for the "war" against terrorism.

President Bush's father used the UN successfully to give moral authority to the war against Iraq but it is unclear how the UN will be involved in this crisis.

Last night the General Assembly opened its annual meeting in NY, but it may be harder for the President, widely depicted as a "unilateralist" who tore up international commitments on climate change and arms control, to get its support"

So, not to blame obviously - but might Bush have shot himself in the foot?

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:07 PM

might Bush have shot himself in the foot? Not if he was aiming at it...

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: MAV
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:13 PM

Well, well, well,

WOW! What a discussion, I just can't believe it, and believe it or not I have nothing to add.

Thanks folks, I'll be slipping quietly away I guess.

**************************************************

Sorcha, go soothe and comfort your mind body and soul, one can only tolerate so much stress.

McGrath;

Personally I'd like to find an airline that made all its passengers strip before boarding, and lent them pyjamas to wear for the flight. That even might make flying more enjoyable

Especially if they were all tall buxom models eh?

(Sorry)

mav out

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:24 PM

My aplogies for drawing simplistic conclusions without enough homework. I have tried fro days to understand the real roots of the battle between Palestine and Israel and I confess I am baffled. I don't usually buy superficial explanations, but I'm in the market for a good one, as long as it will hold water!

A.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:27 PM

BillD, ya' never know, we might ALL be good neighbors!

McGrath: clean your Telly tube. Most folks over here that are commenting on American TV seem to feel George W. is doing a pretty good job, and don't appear to see the weakness in his appearance you have noted.

He can't be blamed for this thing, but I'm sure he is aware that he will be held accountable for how he handles things from here on out.

Mav: you got nothing to say? I'm apalled! I do like your idea about the pajamas though (assuming the passengers on the plane are all as you described them).

Hille: from reports on Television I've seen "W" seems to be doing pretty well in gaining cooperation from other world leaders. I dont' know what you are seeing from your vantage point, of course.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:29 PM

The Wall Street Journal poll just came out. Bush has 80% approval rating, McGrath, for the way he is handling this crisis. Clean your TV tube, friend!

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Armen Tanzerian
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:31 PM

I'm sure come three years from now, certain goose-stepping Bushites will be claiming that anything wrong is still Clinton's fault. But to get a slightly more sane view, here is what an actual journalist, headquartered in Jerusalem has to say:

...a few cell-phone threats from Osama bin Laden had prompted President Bush to withdraw the F.B.I. from Yemen, a U.S. Marine contingent from Jordan and the U.S. Fifth Fleet from its home base in the Persian Gulf. This U.S. retreat was noticed all over the region, but it did not merit a headline in any major U.S. paper. That must have encouraged the terrorists. Forget about our civilians, we didn't even want to risk our soldiers to face their threats.

Reagan got 240 Marines killed by leaving them in a ridiculously vulnerable spot in the Middle East, Clinton got chased out of Somalia. But neither one of those men would have allowed his "handlers" to fly him anyplace but straight back to Washington after an attack like this. Regardless of the hastily-concocted cover stories, what the world saw was a confused puppet reading from cue-cards, instead of the leader we need.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:44 PM

Ex ed, how far back do you want to go? Here is a fact for you. None of this caper could have been pulled off if the Sky Marshals had not been dis banded by the Nixon administration. Mark my words, they will be back. We are so good at locking the barn door after the horse is stolen.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Nemesis
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 06:53 PM

DougR - as you say he's doing a good job with World leaders - even Ghaddafi has condemned this - apparently acts of retribution are acceptable but random acts of mass destruction aimed at innocent people are not. Equally a lot of them could be thinking "Oh, shit!"

However, the UN is a different kettle of fish (altho' it shouldn't be)

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:01 PM

Hey Doug and MAV, I'm a little surprised that neither of you have commented on the fact that I passed up a chance to piss on GWB. Especially when certain of us are still living in the past and blaming Clinton.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: MAV
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:04 PM

Damn it,

I'm trying to slip quietly away.

But neither one of those men would have allowed his "handlers" to fly him anyplace but straight back to Washington after an attack like this

NEITHER DID HE!!!

How would you know? The US has never been attacked in modern times.

The White House and Air Force One were targets and this type of action is well known to be the S.O.P. in case of an act of war on US soil.

The President WAS back in DC that very day. The Secret Service have their standing orders and that entails keeping the President alive.

The President has unanimous support from the Congress, 85 or so percent approval poll numbers and even the backing and support of President Clinton.

mav out

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:10 PM

Will Bush be blamed ? - probably.

Should Bush be blamed ? - No !

From this side of the Pond (East) the fact that Af'stan is not flat and black and glowing in the dark (at the time of posting) gives us some hope that cool and level heads are still in charge.

I am no great lover of Bush, but to critisize him or his advisors, for putting the man under protection against a perceived threat is not cowardley, its common sense.

A politically decapitated nation at this time endangers us all.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Gareth
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:11 PM

Will Bush be blamed ? - probably.

Should Bush be blamed ? - No !

From this side of the Pond (East) the fact that Af'stan is not flat and black and glowing in the dark (at the time of posting) gives us some hope that cool and level heads are still in charge.

I am no great lover of Bush, but to critisize him or his advisors, for putting the man under protection against a perceived threat is not cowardley, its common sense.

A politically decapitated nation at this time endangers us all.

Gareth

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: M.Ted
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:38 PM

The CIA agent who ran the American operation in Afghanistan, and who was Bin Laden's handler, was interviewed by Dan Rather last nite--he said that, while he is evil, and there is every justification for getting rid of him, Bin Laden isn't the mastermind that he is portrayed as being--He said that, as the Taliban have denied BL's involvement, it will be easy to act against them, as long as BL is the guilty party, but he is skeptical that BL is the final answer--He also said, a bit obliquely, that we should remember that "if you strike at the King, you have to kill him."--

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: toadfrog
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 07:56 PM

Gee, of course, Bush should not be blamed, any more than it was right to blame Jimmie Carter for the economic problems of his time. People did, though. One thing, though. We need a leader now who can unite the American people, and forge close ties with foreigh countries, especially the one our sensible friend McGrath lives in. And we have an ultra-partisan leader who specializes in dividing people, and who steadfastly stiffs and ignores our allies. Maybe he will now change his ways and do a fine job from here on in. But his past record isn't good.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: BH
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:11 PM

This was planned a great time prior to Bush achieving (by the courts) the Oval office.

I do, however, believe he did want to get back to DC and show leadership---which is difficult when you call the terrorists--"folks".

The real problem is with our complacency and trying to do security on the cheap as opposed to El Al. Never--Never a hijacking. I have been at Ben Gurion airport---you get out on time---but you are damned well searched. And, on the plane---a contingent of armed(well hidden behind a curtain of 20 or so seats)---what we would call (and were supposed to implement years ago) Sky Marshals with weapons.

The time=---sadly---has come. It came years ago.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:12 PM

Past actions aside, I was heartened today when I saw Bush speaking at a press conference or something. It looks like the man is having to grow up pretty fast. And I saw some of the man's humanity showing for the first time (in my experience), when it looked like it was all he could do to keep himself from breaking down and openly weeping. Maybe there is hope for this country.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:49 PM

Honest it's not politics. I was looking at the box and seeing Bush and then seeing Colin Powell. I'd feel a whole lot safer if the latter were in charge.

In historical terms it seems to me that you've got Coolidge at a time you need a Roosevelt. Either Roosevelt.

The best hope I can see is that Bush seems to give the impression of a man who is aware of his limitations and is willing to delegate. I remember what Churchill said of Attlee. "A modest man - with much to be modest about." (Which wasn't fair on Attlee - maybe it'll turn out not to be fair on Bush.)

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: kendall
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 08:55 PM

It wasn't that long ago that if you traveled by stage coach, you had a man up on the high seat with a loaded shotgun. History does repeat itself.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: InOBU
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 10:02 PM

Well, seems to me that the boy has not spent much time in DC since he was elected. When this happened, he was reading to kids, something usually done by first laddies. If we had a president in the oval office, perhapes when he was told the large number of hijackngs, he would have scrambled jets. Obviously one would not shoot one down just because it was hijacked. But as they were all converging on places like NY and DC, one would be at the ready, then, after the first hit, one had 15min. to decide to do the terrible thing - to shoot it down to save others... Well, the dim witted boy, kept reading to the kiddies. Do I blame him, no. I do wish we had a full time president with more sence though. Larry

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 10:28 PM

Hmmmm.... InOBU, I cant say I've been greatly impressed by Bush, nor was I by his Father when he was in Office... I'm with McGrath when he says that he would feel better were Colin Powell in charge.

My point is, however, that I think you are maybe judging GWB a little harshly when you suggest that he is a 'part-time President. For all he doesnt LOOK good to me, if you see what I mean, I think he has shown good judgement in the last day or so, under what might seem to be heavy pressure from public opinion to strike back swiftly.

He does well to wait & let more & more backing & International support come flooding in.

(Just the opinion of one Brit who probably doesnt know enough about Bush to be entitled to comment)

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:06 PM

Toad: catch up. GW is uniting world leaders. You got television?

BH: Ditto.

Kendall: Hey! How about the two of us becoming "Flying Marshalls?" I've ALWAYS wanted to ride on a stage coach! We could have a ball, and we are in the latter stages of life anyway (also the ladies would probably love us in our dashing uniforms). Geeze, you don't suppose they would make us wear civvies do you?

Larry: you are a sweet man. God Bless.

McGrath, Paul: time to make out your wish list for "next time" but face it, Bush is boss. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:14 PM

I think we are all fortunate to have Colin Powell where he is. This man, regardless of any politics, is a leader.

I gotta' say that Dubya' is making some right moves coalition-wise and if he can pull it off and get past the "kill 'em all and sort it out later" crap, then he will do himself well as a statesman. Time will tell.

I think the comment that "he's growing up fast" was appropriate. I throw this out for the opinion it is.........I saw a major change in his attitude and in his face after he toured the Pentagon. He saw the burn victims in the hospital today and again I think I saw womething different. Tomorrow he may be in New York and perhaps the sight there will continue the process. I only hope that he still relies on Powell who obviously knows that it will be a marathon and not a sprint to end terrorism.

I also saw Bill Clinton on the streets of New York today, talking with the people with the pictures of their loved ones. Bill looks good.....but the pain in his face and the compassion were quite real. I was glad to see him out there since he has no poltical ax and the folks on the street were encouraged by him too. If Bush had real sense, he'd enlist Clinton's aid as his representative in New York........Good for New York and good for GW, but i doubt that he can get passed the past....He may not be politically or personally mature enough to ask Clinton for something like that. Perhaps I'm wrong......

We are all to blame for this because we have never put the emphasis on stopping the terrorism that has been escalating for forty years. The problems with the FAA have been well documented too, but we allowed the FAA to lean towards promoting aviation rather than safety. More to the point, we have elected to promote our own agendas rather than build a true world peace which would have started the process we are starting now thirty years ago.

Hindsight is perfect and perhaps we can now plan for the future and then forecast the result.....and look at that result with that perfect vision of hindsight. We need to act wisely, not quickly, and we need to be sure the result is worth the effort we will have to give.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Paul from Hull
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:22 PM

*G*

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:26 PM

'Spaw.Clinton does indeed have several political axes to grind. One is his legacy. It is in great need of repair.
The other is Hillary's run for the Presidency in 2004 (you heard it here first, folks). This is GREAT advance PR.
His face may well have showed pain, but I keep remembering Ron Browns funeral service, the video of him coming out of the church laughing, and the tears as soon as he say the cameras.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:33 PM

This from Neal Boortz. No citation.

A DIFFICULT DECISION

"We hear this morning that the Clinton Administration knew the exact location of Osama bin Laden in December of 2000. Now you will remember that Clinton made one military attempt to wipe out bin Laden earlier in his administration. Sadly, the attack failed. So --- here was another opportunity right at the end of his administration. But it was an opportunity not acted upon."

Maybe the pain was guilt.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Bert
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:35 PM

Hi Kendall,

I noticed that you passed up the chance to piss on GWB, 'cos I feel exactly the same. I hate the smarmy so and so, but this wasn't his fault. In fact I think he's handling the situation quite well.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: catspaw49
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:43 PM

That bullshit troll.......I buried my best friend a few years ago and at any given time you'd find me laughing or crying. Clinton is making strong statements backing Bush and Bush would do well to do the same.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Peg
Date: 13 Sep 01 - 11:44 PM

I don't blame the guy for what happened.

I do think it is a shame that he flew from bunker to bunker during the first twelve hours of the crisis. I do not believe for a second that Air Force One was targeted; I think that tidbit was fabricated to explain why the president was flying around like a chickenshit. Clearly the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania was headed for Washington, but the White House is a much more likely target than the presidential jet...

I also wish he would offer more leadership along humanitarian lines. He needs to speak definitively and swiftly to the American people about the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim violence that is occurring. He needs to declare that this is unacceptable. I have not heard him do so, though his dad did make some comments about it this morning.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 12:06 AM

You have your opinion,'Spaw and I have mine.
Nowhere in my posts did I mention that Bush had said anything about EITHER of the Clintons so I'm not sure why you saw fit to include that tidbit in your rebutal.

Peg. Have you considered that the terrorists thought that Airforce One would fly straight to Washington when the news of the WTC was given to the President. Why else did the last plane fly nearly to Cleveland before turning back if not to arrive at Washington just as the Presidents plane got there. Why risk getting shot down by waiting if the White House was the real target. It would make much more sense to hit it at the same time as the Pentagon.
My opinion, of course.
You are entitled to yours.

troll

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Peg
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 12:11 AM

Troll; I suppose anything is possible. But I believe the Pentagon was targeted to be hit an hour after the first jet crash because it was thought the President would be in the situation room at that time...and the thwarted attack on the White House itself would perhaps be in hopes the President would make an address from the Oval Office.

I have a feeling if these terrorists knew the president was going to be in Sarasota Florida they would have hit that, too...not because they hate George Bush but because assassinating the President would be just their style... like destroying the White House.

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: Troll
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:03 AM

They should have known he was there. It was common knowledge.
I don't think the situation room is on the side they hit. Anyone?
Hitting the White House would have had great symbolic value. I can't believe that they would have squandered a plane on the off chance that he would be in the oval office. The level of their coordination and intelligence (info) would indicate otherwise.

troll

Subject: RE: Will Bush Be Blamed?
From: DougR
Date: 14 Sep 01 - 01:20 AM

Peg: had the President been in the Situation Room he would have been in the White House, not the Pentagon (or perhaps I'm confused about your post).

Troll: don't pick on Peg. She has a beautiful voice.

As to GWB not flying directly to D.C. from Florida, the job of the Secret Service is to protect the president. Evidently they felt it was too dangerous for him to return directly to Washington. According to reports I have heard, the SS wanted him to go to a bunker somewhere here in the West. He over-ruled them and insisted that he return to Washington. Sometimes one's personal animosity for a public figure (my weakness was Clinton) gets in the way of common sense, I think.

DougR