9-11-2001 and Bush's negligence

Postby Jack Roper » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:28 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/11/opini ... nings.html

This, if true, is a very disturbing story about the events leading up to the attack on 9-11, which it would appear, President Bush neglected to prevent. I am sure he and Mr. Cheney will likely respond forcefully, as they should. Perhaps some of those 9-11 conspiracy theories were right after all.

Re: 9-11-2001 and Bush's negligence

Postby drawscore » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:44 pm

And Clinton had three chances to get bin Laden, and turned down all three of them.

Besides, the NYT is a liberal fish wrap with an agenda. If they published that ice is cold, I'd want it confirmed by an outside source. One with a lot more credibility than the NYT. And don't give me that crap about the NYT being the "newspaper of record" in the US. It might have been true once, back in the days when reporters and editors could set aside their politics, and report honestly. Those times went by the wayside in the mid 60's.

Drawscore

Re: 9-11-2001 and Bush's negligence

Postby Jack Roper » Tue Sep 11, 2012 12:51 pm

Actually, this story came from a Vanity Fair reporter who used to work for the New York Times. So did Judith Miller, by the way, and you can blame a lot of the WMD fiasco in Iraq on her. Fishwrap?

Maybe after a day or so. But just name-calling does not refute this story. Bringing contrary facts to light may, so my question is:
which papers, do you, Drawscore, find completely reputable, reliable and truthful exactly?

I would like to see what your sources for information are.

Re: 9-11-2001 and Bush's negligence

Postby burner59 » Tue Sep 11, 2012 6:57 pm

I read that story to (except on Yahoo,) and one key fact that NY Times is missing is that on June 1, 2001, President Bush was informed that there was a terrorist group which contained the leader of the 9/11 terrorist attack near the eastern coast of America, and America could easily ambush them at the president's command.

Too bad Bush was too lazy to say the words "attack."

Bottom line: Bush could have saved lives, but, I think that if this hype is true, then President Bush should receive a six month sentence for this, because it is obvious that he can't be a repeat offender about this.

Re: 9-11-2001 and Bush's negligence

Postby drawscore » Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:30 pm

>>>I would like to see what your sources for information are.<<<

Like most conservatives, I seek sources of information that are either neutral, or lean conservative: Fox News, World Net Daily, Drudge Report, Wall Street Journal, Newsmax, Military.com, Pajamas Media, Weasel Zippers, etc.

Most liberals I know, look to the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Current TV, the Huffington Post, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, etc., for their news. In short, we tend to seek those sources of information that are in alignment with our own ways of thinking.

Now, I read liberal sites, too, just as some liberals read conservative sites. Usually after reading one, I come away, shaking my head, and wondering just how in the world some people could be so misinformed. I would guess that liberals that read conservative sites do the same.

Drawscore

Re: 9-11-2001 and Bush's negligence

Postby Jason Toddman » Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:33 pm

drawscore wrote:Now, I read liberal sites, too, just as some liberals read conservative sites. Usually after reading one, I come away, shaking my head, and wondering just how in the world some people could be so misinformed. I would guess that liberals that read conservative sites do the same.
Drawscore

I believe that both groups are correct; I think we're ALL being misinformed to one extent or another. For example, I do this head-shaking from reading BOTH kinds of sites!!!
But where the actual truth lies (pun unintended), no one can say - and no one else would believe them if they could say anyway.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...