If the Bush family has a history of profiteering from other's misfortune?

How can anyone possibly believe that Dubbaya is any different? Do you know that there is a long history between the Bush family and Halliburton? Did you know that the Bush administration had plans of attacking Iraq before they even usurped the oval office? Are you aware of all the evidence against the possibility of a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon? Are you aware that Bush received numerous messages concerning the attack on the WTC and did nothing to stop it?

Because people are so easily brainwashed and don't take the time to research these thing for themselves. They think that because the government denies something, that it MUST be true.

George Bush is the "Hitler" of our generation. He will leave office a wealthy man, as planned, but has the blood of thousands of soldiers on his hands. Evil comes in many forms......

It's the American way. Get used to it.

Billions spent on Katrina and the south is still screwed. People filing false statements for free relieve all across the south and other places people are greedy. George is actually doing a good job keeping us a float.

1) Condemning people based on their ancestry and family history TWO generations back.

2) Business associations with MAJOR businesses considered bad simply because they exist. Anti-business? Shall we go to socialism? Is Halliburton still the "bad word" for the people wanting to undermine the war? Is it still guilty until proven innocent?

Dorie: "Did you know that the Bush administration had plans of attacking Iraq before they even usurped the oval office?"

Answer: "Are YOU aware that we have plans for defending and attacking virtually EVERY nation on earth, and virtually every combination of nations? Are you aware that most nations with any brains do the same thing?

Would you prefer we simply wait until it happens and then rush to make plans? This is one of the stupidest arguments I've heard from the people trying to undermine our country.

Dorie: Are you aware of all the evidence against the possibility of a large passenger jet hitting the pentagon?

Me: Are you aware of the odds of a blindly thrown rock hitting the Pentagon? So? Again, unfounded rumor and statistics being used poorly and without consideration for what really happened. That's just biased as you can get.

Dorie: Are you aware that Bush received numerous messages concerning the attack on the WTC and did nothing to stop it?

Goodness sake, Dorie, we were nearly attacked there before by the same people! During President Clinton's term in office! You have NO IDEA what they did or didn't do. All you care about is attacking President Bush. Do you want to encourage all the seditious people calling President Clinton names and bringing up this same charge? Give it a break, already! We've heard it a 100 times before and all we see is another person trying to seditiously undermine us.

We're tired of it. We want to be proud of our country. We are tired of the American-Hating, President-Attacking, My-Party-Is-100%-Right-And-Your-Party-Is... games of the seditious people who claim residency IN ANY PARTY!

We know the difference between Democrat and traitor, Republican and traitor. We side with the Democrats and Republicans. Period.

You act like a shark in a feeding tank. Fortunately the President and all the people who've actually DONE something for our country (all former elected officials included, all sides) are about thirty tanks ABOVE you, and really don't care or are affected by this nonsense.

But we get tired of hearing it.

We understand. You hate our President. You want to undermine our President any way you can. You want to undermine the war any way you can. You do not care how you do it or who you hurt. You just want to make your point.

Get some ethics.

Don't forget good old Prescott Bush, banker of the NAZI's!

Perhaps you should research your facts further before putting your faith in a liberal agenda and provide a bit more detail in your accusations.

You state that the "Bush administration had plans of attacking Iraq before they even usurped the oval office". The term "administration" refers directly to a presidency. They don't have a presidency prior to "usurping the oval office". Also, the term "usurp" means "to seize and hold (as office, place, or powers) in possession by force or without right <usurp a throne>" or "to take or make use of without right <usurped the rights to her life story>". Neither Bush "usurped" the oval office. Both were VOTED into office. Iraq has been an ongoing problem with the world for more than two decades and would have been a topic for review during an upcoming presidency. Bush would have been neglectful in his duties if he had simply ignored it.

Besides that, Bush could not have acted without the permission of Congress. That is how the checks and balances within our government work. A president can not simply go to war of his own accord and Bush sought the agreement of Congress before taking action.

As far as evidence of a plane possibly hitting the Pentagon, do you have any idea of the evidence we have of all sorts of possible terrorist actions? Homeland Security has been attempting to compile a list of possible targets based on the evidence they have and the list has gotten rediculously out of hand. Why? Because it is difficult to tell real evidence from false evidence. There is no way to know in advance which leads are false and which are true. If there was, we would be able to thwart all crime before it happens. Wouldn't that be nice?

As far as your latter statement, let's review the series of events regarding September 11, 2001. American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the north tower at 8:46am. At that point, nobody had any clue what was going on. United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower at 9:02am - only 16 minutes after the first crash. We, as a country, are still in a state of cofusion, but it is starting to dawn on us that terrorism is now a likely answer. Prior to the second crash, thoughts that it may be terrorism were merely speculation.

We immediately began tracking down and grounding all of our airliners. We had no idea if any others had been hijacked. Contacting every airplane in the air takes time. Any action also has to take into account that there are civilians on each plane. American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37 am - only 35 minutes after the second crash into the WTC. It was mere minutes prior to the crash that the flight was discovered missing from its intended path.

United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in the field in PA at 10:03 am - just 26 minutes after the Pentagon attack and we still don't know for certain where the hijackers were bound with that flight. The entire series of attacks happened over the course of 1 hour and 17 minutes. The attacks specifically on the WTC spanned only 16 minutes. What would you have liked Bush to have done in that 16 minutes before we knew for sure that terrorists were hijacking our planes? What would you have liked Bush to have done in the remaining hour and 1 minute while we were trying to track down and ground all of our airplanes?

The option to shoot down other hijacked planes came into play, but this is not an easy consideration. There are civilians onboard and civilians on the ground. The idea was to save lives. Tracking the plane's progress might give us an idea of what areas to evacuate, but we couldn't know where the hijackers were going because their flight patterns were erratic.

Even now, with hindsight being 20/20, there is controversy over what could have been done or if there was anything that even could have been done. Negotiations were attempted and failed. Shooting down a missing plane was considered but there wasn't time to discuss it and make that decision nor was there assurance that any plane in question was indeed part of the attack until it was too late. Should Bush have just shot down any civilian passenger airline in question? I don't think so.

chris_y, as far as Bush being compared to Hitler, don't dare trivialize the events of the Holocaust by calling anybody you don't like Hitler. Hitler rounded up masses of civilian jews and anybody else who didn't fit his notions of an arian nation, enslaving, humiliating, torturing, and even experimenting on them. Hitler had hundreds of thousands of civilians killed because he deemed them "racially inferior" or "undesirable".

Bush sent our soldiers to war because Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was not cooperating with the UN. We gave him the opportunity to cooperate and warned him that war would ensue if he didn't. He didn't. There was also evidence (there goes that evidence word again) that Hussein was funding terrorists for future attacks.

The original poster and many others want to know why we didn't do something to prevent the 9/11 attacks, but then gripe about trying to prevent other possible attacks. Many ask why the U.S. didn't stop Hitler from killing all of the people he slaughtered and then cry foul when we stop Hussein from doing the very same thing.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill thousands of civilians for ethnic reasons. He even gassed entire communities of men, women, and children going about their business because a handful of men with the same ethnic background threatened a coup. He threatened his neighbors Kuwait and Iran and attempted to take their land and resources.

Now, we have eradicated the genocidal government of Iraq and have made steps toward helping the people of Iraq establish their own government. We are doing all we can to rebuild Iraq in spite of the radicals who still terrorize their own country. How, exactly, does that make Bush anyting like Hitler?

On a side note, joining the military is voluntary. There is no draft.

Try these sources to learn more.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment:

Archive: Forum -Forum -Finance - Links - 1 - 2 - RSS - All RSS Feeds
The Causes and the Results. 0.014
Copyright (c) 2011 Financial Crisis Sunday, May 27, 2012 - Terms of use - Privacy Policy