• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Desperate President Bush blathers on and on...

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
In an effort to bolster his "weakened and fractured" Republican Party's pitiful poll numbers before the 2006 elections, President Bush resorted to presenting vague and weak new details about an alleged thwarted Al Qaeda attack on West Coast city (Los Angeles), thwarted by a Southeast Asian nation who arrested a key al-Qaeda operative. This, was Bush's proof that his anti-terror efforts have hurt al-Qaeda.

And a pathetic case he did indeed present by failing or refusing to name the Southeast Asian nation nor the key al-Qaeda operative who was supposidly arrested .

That President Bush did not name the country nor the key al-Qaeda operative arrested is, in my humble opinion, highly suspicious in itself.

The Bush administration's penchant for naming names of arrested, captured and killed key al-Qaeda operatives is well known, they drool everytime, why not now?

Why not name the "key al-Qaeda operative who was supposidly arrested"?

Could it be President Bush himself is "living under constant pressure" to show that his anti-terror efforts have indeed hurt al-Qaeda lately?

Could it be President Bush is just blathering again in an effort to distract from his scandal-ridden administration?

Could it?

Well?







http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/09/bush.terror.ap/index.html


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said the U.S.-led global war on terror has "weakened and fractured" al Qaeda and allied groups, outlining as proof new details about the multinational cooperation that foiled purported terrorist plans to fly a commercial airplane into the tallest skyscraper on the West Coast.

"The terrorists are living under constant pressure and this adds to our security," Bush said. "When terrorists spend their days working to avoid death or capture, it's harder for them to plan and execute new attacks on our country. By striking the terrorists where they live, we're protecting the American homeland."

But the president said the anti-terror battle is far from over.

"The terrorists are weakened and fractured, yet they're still lethal," the president said in a speech at the National Guard Memorial Building. "We cannot let the fact that America hasn't been attacked in 4 1/2 years since September 11 lull us into the illusion that the threats to our nation have disappeared. They have not."

Bush has referred to the 2002 plot before. In an address last October, he said the United States and its allies had foiled at least 10 serious plots by the al Qaeda terror network in the last four years, including plans for September 11-like attacks on both U.S. coasts. The White House initially would not give details of the plots but later released a fact sheet with a brief, and vague, description of each.

The president filled in details on Thursday.

He said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the September 11, 2001, attacks. One of Mohammed's key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al Qaeda related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said.

Under the plot, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, since renamed the US Bank Tower, Bush said.

The president said the plot was derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative. Bush did not name the country or the operative...
 
Last edited:

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Oh yeah, now I remember the story, it was all over the main-stream media, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, the NY and LA Times, NEWSWEEK and Time covered it too.

Yes, President Bush was all agush and was all on the media for weeks proudly proclaiming victory over Osama and his foiled plot.

It was last Summer I believe, no, come to think of it it was 2 years ago last Winter, no, that's not right, come to think of it I cannot remember exactly when that plot was discovered.

Must of happened though, President Bush tells us so. :roll:
 

Gitdog

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
95
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Did you just respond to your own post?
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Gitdog said:
Did you just respond to your own post?



LOL...

Good eye.

Yes I did, had to, no one wants to admit that President Bush and his "Patriot-Act" is getting old.

Just you count the number of times the word "Terrorists" or terrorism is mentioned in his speeches!

Scare-mongering at it's finest!
 
R

reaganburch

KidRocks said:
LOL...

Good eye.

Yes I did, had to, no one wants to admit that President Bush and his "Patriot-Act" is getting old.

Just you count the number of times the word "Terrorists" or terrorism is mentioned in his speeches!

Scare-mongering at it's finest!
Oh yeah, because Republicans have a monopoly on scare-mongering...

And his speech was in front of a National Guard thing or another, you didn't really think the topic of his speech was going to be Social Security or health care did you?
 

Gitdog

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
95
Reaction score
3
Location
Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KidRocks said:
LOL...

Good eye.

Yes I did, had to, no one wants to admit that President Bush and his "Patriot-Act" is getting old.

Just you count the number of times the word "Terrorists" or terrorism is mentioned in his speeches!

Scare-mongering at it's finest!
LOL

I have to say I'm a moderate, I dont dislike Bush near as much as most. I met him in '02. But you're right about him saying the same words way too much in every freakin spech. Once I hear the same words 3 times I change the channel.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I will agree that someone sounds desperate, but it isn't President Bush. It's kidrocks. Bush hit a homerun with his speech today.
 

KidRocks

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
1,337
Reaction score
16
Location
right here
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
I will agree that someone sounds desperate, but it isn't President Bush. It's kidrocks. Bush hit a homerun with his speech today.


Bush hit another foul-ball today.

It is I who hit a homerun with my keen observation of President Bush's terror-filled speeches!
 

Lantzolot

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
Location
Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
And the democrats are so worried about the US becoming republican that they use funerals to bush-bash.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
26,310
Reaction score
19,494
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I just don't like how he uses "scare tactics" to try to get back into public favor. I just read that the mayor of Los Angeles didn't even know about these so called attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

Nice to know if a city may be under attack the locals would never know about it.:doh
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
americanwoman said:
I just don't like how he uses "scare tactics" to try to get back into public favor. I just read that the mayor of Los Angeles didn't even know about these so called attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

Nice to know if a city may be under attack the locals would never know about it.:doh
That's because it was twarted by the federal government. duh.
I don't understand what you thought was a scare tactic. All I felt was gratefulness that he had protected us and prevented it from happening.
 
R

reaganburch

americanwoman said:
I just don't like how he uses "scare tactics" to try to get back into public favor. I just read that the mayor of Los Angeles didn't even know about these so called attacks.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Bush_Administration

Nice to know if a city may be under attack the locals would never know about it.:doh
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wasn't even elected until 2005, he wasn't in office in 2001/2002... why would we brief a private citizen about our intelligence?


http://www.lacity.org/mayor/bio1.htm
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
26,310
Reaction score
19,494
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
reaganburch said:
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa wasn't even elected until 2005, he wasn't in office in 2001/2002... why would we brief a private citizen about our intelligence?


http://www.lacity.org/mayor/bio1.htm

uuum maybe when he became mayor he could have been briefed that his city was the target of a major threat just years before and could be again. But then again why would he want to know that right?:roll:
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm just waiting for the leak to come out saying that it wasn't so much a plan for a terrorist attack in L.A. as more of a someone mentioning something about L.A. and also mentioning something about Al-Q in the same phone conversation to their nephew in Ohio.

Though the "top Al-Q offical" that made this phone call was arrested thanks to the wire-tapping program.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
26,310
Reaction score
19,494
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
KCConservative said:
That's because it was twarted by the federal government. duh.
I don't understand what you thought was a scare tactic. All I felt was gratefulness that he had protected us and prevented it from happening.

He's trying to scare people into remembering we are still threatened as a nation. We heard about this years before. Why else would he be bringing it up now when he is at an all time low with the majority of Americans?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
americanwoman said:
He's trying to scare people into remembering we are still threatened as a nation.
And you think that is false? Funny, I remember bin-Laden saying quite the opposite last week.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
americanwoman said:
He's trying to scare people into remembering we are still threatened as a nation. We heard about this years before. Why else would he be bringing it up now when he is at an all time low with the majority of Americans?
Because a majority of American's eat this stuff up.

What is the point of the President even mentioning this if he can't give any information about it. It is purely for political reasons, it serves no security issues besides keeping people scared.
 

americanwoman

dangerously addictive
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
26,310
Reaction score
19,494
Location
Somewhere over the rainbow
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
KCConservative said:
And you think that is false? Funny, I remember bin-Laden saying quite the opposite last week.

I don't think it's false at all. I beleive that there was a threat to us then and even now. But instead of bringing up things years ago I would like to know whats been going on lately to protect us besides the wiretaping which has everyone's underwear bunched up. Beside if Bin Laden is such a direct threat why has it taken over 4 years to catch him?
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
Because a majority of American's eat this stuff up.

What is the point of the President even mentioning this if he can't give any information about it. It is purely for political reasons, serves no security issues besides keeping people scared.
Or showing us the benefits of wire-tapping the terrorists phonecalls.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
And you think that is false? Funny, I remember bin-Laden saying quite the opposite last week.
I remember someone saying Bin-Laden was not a threat and that that person didn't care where Bin-Laden was.
 

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
KCConservative said:
Or showing us the benefits of wire-tapping the terrorists phonecalls.
Oh it was wiretapping that prevented this attack. Here I thought the attack was "derailed when a Southeast Asian nation arrested a key al Qaeda operative".

Of course we can assume all we want that wiretapping led to that arrest. We can also assume Bush phoned up Madam Cleo on her 800 number and found out who to arrest.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Gibberish said:
I remember someone saying Bin-Laden was not a threat and that that person didn't care where Bin-Laden was.
Yes, this little chestnut keeps popping up. It was obvious to me and to those who re-elected him, that Bush meant bin laden isn't the power figure he once was. Once the Taliban was dismantled, he became rather insignificant - not those who work for him, obviously, but he himself. I didn't take the president's comment to mean that we have given up trying to locate him or his thugs and bring them to justice. Our military still has bin laden on it's mind, no matter what off the cuff remark Bush might make.

I rememer when I was stood up at the altar in 1987. I was moments away from getting married and she dumped me. I was crushed that the woman I loved and to whom I had proposed marriage had done this awful thing to me. It took a long time, but I eventually got over it. A year later I told my family and friends that I didn't care anymore. I had moved on and put the entire thing behind me. About 10 years later, I saw her at a social event and the emotions swept over me. I wanted to kill her. Even though I had put it all behind me, I knew deep down that I still wanted revenge. Bush hasn't forgotten what bin laden did and he will always want to even the score.
 

oldreliable67

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Messages
4,641
Reaction score
1,102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why else would he be bringing it up now
Hey, whoa! Are we trying to have our cake and eat it too? Or weren't you aware of all those calls of 'prove that the things that the administration has done' has made us safer? Now that the NYT has enhanced our security (not!), and the cat is out of the bag, we are learning more about events that have transpired that, if they were revealed earlier, might have comprised sources and methods.

Now we're learning more, as requested, and we're still complaining?:confused:
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
oldreliable67 said:
Hey, whoa! Are we trying to have our cake and eat it too? Or weren't you aware of all those calls of 'prove that the things that the administration has done' has made us safer? Now that the NYT has enhanced our security (not!), and the cat is out of the bag, we are learning more about events that have transpired that, if they were revealed earlier, might have comprised sources and methods.

Now we're learning more, as requested, and we're still complaining?:confused:
Yep. They've been calling for proof, then when it's given to them, they label it as a 'scare tactic'.
 
Top Bottom