General Discussion

RepublicansRZombies

(982 posts)

102. I wrote another post just to get the general feel of Duers....

Reply to RepublicansRZombies (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:40 PM

Sep 2012

Was the Bush Administration 'incompetent' in their lies about Iraq, or did they do it on purpose?
Just wondering what people think about Iraq, the lies and forgeries all presented as fact by the administration and the corporate media.

Was that incompetence on the part of Bush and the corporate media?

Or were they purposely lying to get what they want?

Is it far fetched to suggest that what happened on 9/11 was not incompetence?

It is far fetched to suggest that the corporate media lied about the events on 9/11?

The Bush Administration has been using the excuse of incompetence for everything.

Passing on a bad forgery that could have been debunked in 5 minutes with a google search (as the UN laughingly did when Colin Powell presented it to them)

is not incompetence. They lied on purpose.

If they lied about the war, what else have they lied about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021319488

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

150 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So Bush ignored the message "Bin Laden determined to attack", Does it really matter?? [View all] RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 OP

It matters to me. The Link Sep 2012 #1

okay I know he's a moron and it 'matters' RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #9

. Ganja Ninja Sep 2012 #2

what would Bush have done? RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #7

He might have acted before the hijacking to increase security for starters. Ganja Ninja Sep 2012 #29

But, but, but he was on vacation clearing brush from the pig farm. Everybody knows when you're on Booster Sep 2012 #37

ALL GOOD POINTS! RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #45

In other words - he should have instituted the TSA measures everyone hates? jberryhill Sep 2012 #47

One of the terrorists in Boston was actually detained for a while, because a screener pnwmom Sep 2012 #62

What would the words "high alert" done? jberryhill Sep 2012 #66

If the words led to more cautious behavior on the part of the screeners pnwmom Sep 2012 #137

Detain him for what? jberryhill Sep 2012 #139

I don't remember the details, but there was something that caused him to be pnwmom Sep 2012 #145

The general sentiment on DU jberryhill Sep 2012 #147

That doesn't mean that heightened measures during a period of time pnwmom Sep 2012 #150

Exactly. Ganja Ninja Sep 2012 #69

The President of the US is the top of the military chain of command. Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #3

there was already a plan in place RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #5

That's just a stupid statement. Sorry, I can't pull punches. Commander of the military. Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #20

Can someone in the military please respond to this? RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #28

What does the term "Com-Man-Der In Chief" MEAN, then? HughBeaumont Sep 2012 #55

Which part of STANDARD PROCEDURE for hijackings do people not understand RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #58

like hell they do Corgigal Sep 2012 #95

it was a hijacking before it hit the towers, why wasn't NORAD sent to intercept? RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #99

read the damn link Corgigal Sep 2012 #123

On the day itself, they couldn't have known it was not more than a hijacking treestar Sep 2012 #108

and its called a intercept Corgigal Sep 2012 #124

'free pass'? What I am accusing him of is far worse. RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #68

The entire upper echelon of the Bush administration should be in the Hague. HughBeaumont Sep 2012 #88

yes, instead they are writing books and doing the corporate media talk shows RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #94

What is the president is somehow unable to be contacted RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #30

He's suppose to act before the hijacking. Ganja Ninja Sep 2012 #51

Did the military wait for the President's order to intercept Payne Stewart's plane? RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #56

What the fuck are you talking about? Ganja Ninja Sep 2012 #65

Did you read my post? I explained it.... RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #70

thank you cindyperry2010 Sep 2012 #32

And some charitably attribute all this to incompetence indepat Sep 2012 #60

yes, the incompetence excuse is protecting the Bush Administration RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #79

Your logic is flawed ProSense Sep 2012 #81

If you think I am defending Bush, your reading comprehension is flawed. RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #87

You know what ProSense Sep 2012 #98

suggesting NORAD would have responded to this emergency if the Bushco had not interfered RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #101

Well, ProSense Sep 2012 #109

Assuming you are correct, would it be fair to conclude that those who voted for junior's indepat Sep 2012 #132

If we can confirm how those procedures were countermanded, we have the key to LIHOP TrogL Sep 2012 #4

yes RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #11

You got it - TBF Sep 2012 #71

from the same bullshit corporate media that lied to our faces to start a war in Iraq RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #77

I do think most people are generally good TBF Sep 2012 #80

What we know now about the corporate media- they lie about anything and everything! RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #86

Well they believe everything else so I don't TBF Sep 2012 #92

yes, they are so arrogant they put their PNAC plans on the web for all to see RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #96

Ask the ones who died. That should give you an answer. n/t Autumn Sep 2012 #6

It was not required that Bush know or do anything on 9/11 RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #10

Funny, I had always been told that the President IS the Commander in Chief of the military. Autumn Sep 2012 #44

It was more than his fault, THEY DID IT ON PURPOSE RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #52

He shouldn't have been President NJRick1006 Sep 2012 #8

Al Gore could have even ignored the warnings and did nothing RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #13

By your logic.... CherokeeDem Sep 2012 #12

he could have told them to be on 'high alert' or whatever RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #16

A question you should ask the Bush Administration. nt CherokeeDem Sep 2012 #72

While I don't think that Bush is insignificant, I have for some time thought that your main point is patrice Sep 2012 #14

Oh my God THANK YOU! RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #18

Sorry I can't remember the titles of the books I read about this several years ago, but patrice Sep 2012 #26

I did read it -- but it was kind of confusing, so I understand why others were confused. Voice for Peace Sep 2012 #115

They were going to, but Cheney, who was in command RoccoR5955 Sep 2012 #73

I read once that the changes in the chain-of-command turned out to be circular, resulting only patrice Sep 2012 #116

a.k.a. Plausible Deniability, a highly MARKETABLE commodity, especialy when DISTRIBUTED amongst patrice Sep 2012 #118

Bush didn't have to do anything??? Submariner Sep 2012 #15

Well, that's the point - did someone deliberately tell djean111 Sep 2012 #22

"This whole 'Bush didn't do anything' is a distraction. Bush didn't have to do anything." ProSense Sep 2012 #17

Just like Katrina, someone was actively interfering with the natural response to the crisis RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #21

Ah, a Bush apologist! ProSense Sep 2012 #24

How am I apologizing for Bush RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #31

Oh, I don't know ProSense Sep 2012 #40

The president's Oath of Office is to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION, not command the military RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #64

Actually.... CherokeeDem Sep 2012 #75

please read up on FAA NORAD standard procedures when plane veers off course, shuts of transponder RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #103

Did the Congressional "investigation" ask questions directed toward patrice Sep 2012 #19

yes RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #23

Hey Congress, would it be interesting to know when procedures established that RADAR orientation? nt patrice Sep 2012 #39

Rummy ordered the rules of engagement changed on June 1, 2001: CJCSI 3610.01A leveymg Sep 2012 #25

+1google patrice Sep 2012 #43

With whom did Rummy "collaborate" on this change in procedures? nt patrice Sep 2012 #46

It was issued through the JCS. Good question. The story I recall was the change leveymg Sep 2012 #59

Thank you! RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #67

Here's the problem ProSense Sep 2012 #93

By the time that Cheney is alleged to have said that, it was perfectly clear that an attack was in leveymg Sep 2012 #106

Failure: "By the time that Cheney is alleged to have said that..." ProSense Sep 2012 #111

What kind of a failure is it when, as Dubya phrased it, they "hit a trifecta"? leveymg Sep 2012 #119

That's the kind of failure that speaks to evil, but ProSense Sep 2012 #131

The legal term is, "with reckless and wanton disregard and depraved indifference to human life" leveymg Sep 2012 #134

Uhm.... "the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act" jberryhill Sep 2012 #141

Another such response is, "You covered your ass, now." leveymg Sep 2012 #144

Do you apply the same reasoning to Pearl Harbor? jberryhill Sep 2012 #146

I've read the major works that argue for foreknowledge, but find them unconvincing. Not so for 9/11 leveymg Sep 2012 #148

How about Bush paying attention?? KauaiK Sep 2012 #27

Rumsfeld was the one man on the planet that had no idea about the WTC until a plane hit the pentagon RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #35

If they paid more attention, maybe they could have put Norad & the FAA on high alert. jillan Sep 2012 #33

It matters when the lying fucknuts claim that the idiot in chief "kept us safe on his watch". Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #34

clearly! But what does it say when they actively prevented the emergency response? RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #38

That is speculation. What is fact is that this happened on their watch. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #41

It matters if he didn't make the necessary people aware there might be an attack. Frustratedlady Sep 2012 #36

I'm not defending Bush, but he didn't need to do anything for them to act on Payne Stewart's plane RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #42

This makes no sense. ProSense Sep 2012 #50

I'm not defending Bush. I am suggesting this is more than incompetence. RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #74

No ProSense Sep 2012 #76

Yes It matters. aquart Sep 2012 #48

Dereliction of Duty ... Vox Moi Sep 2012 #49

if he 'ignored' it, you bet it matters. how many people died in his ginned up wars? spanone Sep 2012 #53

To me it shows how ideology ruled the party - and it still does... polichick Sep 2012 #54

Yes, he could have taken measures that changed the course of history. pnwmom Sep 2012 #57

I think the general idea is that taking the warning seriously might improve response cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #61

Clearly, he should have increased the intrusiveness of airport passenger inspections jberryhill Sep 2012 #63

+1, and overcommunication wouldv'e been better than non at all uponit7771 Sep 2012 #78

So, you would have accepted the TSA procedures, if instituted at that time? jberryhill Sep 2012 #114

That wasn't all that he could do. ProSense Sep 2012 #82

So then you favor the TSA procedures? jberryhill Sep 2012 #110

You're conflating action prior to the tragedy with those after. ProSense Sep 2012 #125

I understand that jberryhill Sep 2012 #127

Why? ProSense Sep 2012 #130

I am asking how he should have responded jberryhill Sep 2012 #133

Problem is... RobertEarl Sep 2012 #83

It says "determined to attack" jberryhill Sep 2012 #113

Check the DU archives of the time for your answer. n/t porphyrian Sep 2012 #84

This sounds like apologetics for a damn murdering torturing traitor regarding his Lint Head Sep 2012 #85

Did he lie about Iraq leading to the deaths of millions of innocent Iraqis? RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #90

There was a plan to invade Iraq long before he was installed by the United States Supreme Cowards. Lint Head Sep 2012 #107

Lied, outright IDemo Sep 2012 #112

Given the number of warnings, not warning, WARNINGS nadinbrzezinski Sep 2012 #89

Yes it does, because he needs to be sitting in a cell. n/t ismnotwasm Sep 2012 #91

It happened on Bush's watch! Let the GOPers weasel out of that true statement! MatthewStLouis Sep 2012 #97

Bush DID do something. Several bad things, actually. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #100

I wrote another post just to get the general feel of Duers.... RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #102

I'm getting the hell out of here. Son of Gob Sep 2012 #104

Good thought, after the 8/6 briefing, had he paid attention, treestar Sep 2012 #105

There were a total of 4 planes defending the entire northeastern US JPZenger Sep 2012 #117

What happened to that communication link? Would it have been updated if PDBs were taken patrice Sep 2012 #122

No, they were SENT out over the Atlantic to keep them away from the real action. RC Sep 2012 #138

Did Congress ever ask questions about the INSURANCE environment in which all of this went down? patrice Sep 2012 #120

Are you implying complicity or just the fact that they played dumb? nt Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2012 #121

both RepublicansRZombies Sep 2012 #128

That's what I thought. I've always been more LIHOP than MIHOP. nt Guy Whitey Corngood Sep 2012 #136

Look up Coleen Rowley, The FBI was fully aware of the terrorist intentions just1voice Sep 2012 #126

It matters a great deal to me. nt ladjf Sep 2012 #129

Bull. SHIT. Zoeisright Sep 2012 #135

And don't forge the 2½ inch thick report that the out going Clinton Administration gave the RC Sep 2012 #142

It wasn't just one warning. It was a slew of them that were ignored. This is just coming out. Cleita Sep 2012 #140

I'm more concerned with the 5 people who recc'ed this than the bushsucking troll who posted it DisgustipatedinCA Sep 2012 #143

I'm surprised they haven't blamed Obama for it DonRedwood Sep 2012 #149