I don't think the explosives were in the building, but there are a bunch of weird coincidences. Unfortunately, it's fanned the flames of conspiracy talk. I mean, we all know the answer to Bucky's question is they did it to keep people from looking for the explosives. It would be hard to explain how a bunch of muslims infiltrated building security long enough to plant explosives. But slam some planed into the buildings and nobody would even look for explosives.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:He can be right on 9/11 and wrong on Sandy Hook. The latter is a natural disaster of epic proportions; the former was an attack on our soil of which we were previously informed it was likely to happen.

HE KEPT US SAFE.

Most of us, I guess.

I think it's remarkable to try to place any culpability for 9/11 on Bush personally, and for Trump to do so is obnoxious. The distance between knowing bin Laden wanted to try to do something within the US and suggesting this specific plot should have been discovered and foiled is vast. After it happened we did things like pass the PATRIOT Act and made it much easier for our intelligence agencies to gather and share information to prevent similar attacks in the future. The same people who oppose these steps are the ones who blame the Bush Administration for not doing more to gather information and connect the dots prior to 9/11.

And Sandy Hook was a mass shooting, not a natural disaster of epic proportions.

1) I hate you and wish you the worst
2) Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
3) lol at your obeseness thinking our pre-patrioat act intelligence is in any way different in it's scope and capabilities
4) don't brag about keeping us safe if you didn't, you shill

How pathetic for @realdonaldtrump to criticize the president for 9/11. We were attacked & my brother kept us safe.

here's the Jeb quote. Bush's response to a horrible domestic terrorist event was to get us involved in a war in Iraq for reasons that are unclear. it led to a mass destabilization of the region and literally led to the creation of ISIS, but our dunderhead presidential candidates and fat message board pundits think GW kept us safe.

could you imagine the collective conservative outcry at any Democrat president if something like 9/11 happened during their tenure? ffs, after the Benghazi thing, the right spent how many years and subcommittees trying to find something, anything, to use against Democrats? and it's all culminated in...finding out that Hillary sent some e-mail inappropriately, which we've now had to hear about for a full year now.

but yeah, questioning GWB for 9/11 is pathetic and the response from the right to Benghazi was/is very patriotic #crazyconservativeworld

Youseff wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:He can be right on 9/11 and wrong on Sandy Hook. The latter is a natural disaster of epic proportions; the former was an attack on our soil of which we were previously informed it was likely to happen.

HE KEPT US SAFE.

Most of us, I guess.

I think it's remarkable to try to place any culpability for 9/11 on Bush personally, and for Trump to do so is obnoxious. The distance between knowing bin Laden wanted to try to do something within the US and suggesting this specific plot should have been discovered and foiled is vast. After it happened we did things like pass the PATRIOT Act and made it much easier for our intelligence agencies to gather and share information to prevent similar attacks in the future. The same people who oppose these steps are the ones who blame the Bush Administration for not doing more to gather information and connect the dots prior to 9/11.

And Sandy Hook was a mass shooting, not a natural disaster of epic proportions.

1) I hate you and wish you the worst
2) Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US
3) lol at your obeseness thinking our pre-patrioat act intelligence is in any way different in it's scope and capabilities
4) don't brag about keeping us safe if you didn't, you shill

1) Thanks. I appreciate your existence because I enjoy talking about the intolerance the left has of differing opinions, and you do a good job of living that.

2) As I said there's a long way between knowing bin Laden wanted to do something within the US, and disrupting the 9/11 attacks, the planning of which was well underway when he took office with the pilots already in the country taking flight lessons. By the time the "Bin Laden Determined To Strike US" thing happens, the hijackers were all in the United States prepared to act. There doesn't really seem to be any practical suggestion of what Bush should have done differently that would have prevented the attack, which is why I think it's obnoxious for Trump to insinuate he was at fault.

3) Of course intelligence is different in its scope and capabilities. Don't you have to pick one side of the argument or the other? Either we're harming civil liberties by invading people's privacy and trampling on the Constitution with what we've implemented in the post 9/11 era or there is no new scope/capabilities to our intelligence gathering. Both can't be true, and if the former bit is false there've certainly been a lot of angry words wasted in the past decade+ both here at BackSheGoes.com and elsewhere.

4) I think in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks if you were to ask people - both everyday folks and security experts - the likelihood of going the rest of Bush's terms in office without another major attack on the country (and most of the two terms following, in large part due to improvements in our law enforcement/homeland security/intelligence apparatus), they'd have said it was very small. The blanket claim that he kept us safe opens the door to justified criticism pointing out that's not true, but saying he kept us safe after 9/11 is something worth trumpeting.

jerseyhoya wrote:3) Of course intelligence is different in its scope and capabilities. Don't you have to pick one side of the argument or the other?

No you don't. More importantly, we haven't even had the national conversation about the issues involved. And public leaders in a position to urge on and/or participate in the conversation are either dodging it (reprehensible) or incapable of engaging it due to their astonishing lack of genuine curiosity and requisite brainpower (comic were it not so very sad).

....saying he kept us safe after 9/11 is something worth trumpeting.

what

You meant to say that it's an assertion you could determine may score you some political brownie points. With respect to the extent it reflects reality, it's as "worth trumpeting" as was "mission accomplished". It's "truthy", as Colbert might say.

Blanket statement/daily reminder: D. Trunp is an asshole. A hole, surrounded by ass

Obama kept us safe.

It's great that with all the dumb things said by Trump it took him saying something 100% true to get the base to hate him. Shoulda stuck to jingoism and vague platitudes.

jerseyhoya wrote:1) Thanks. I appreciate your existence because I enjoy talking about the intolerance the left has of differing opinions, and you do a good job of living that.
.

Of course, the difference is that he (and I) are just 1 (or 2) people on the internet. In the case of the GOP, the LEADERS of the party are actively supporting and breeding intolerance as if their political lives depend on it, which of course they do.

I mean, is there a single minority group (and by minority, I mean a group of people who were born into that condition of being in a minority, not people who choose. In other words, bankers aren't a minority) that has a majority of its members supporting the GOP party? I'm not aware of a single group. It's because your party doesn't seem to like anyone who isn't either rich or a white male.

I hate to see your feelings hurt, but I feel a tad worse about someone losing their ability to vote or get a job or feed their family. So crawl down off the cross.

Didn't you used to get upset at personal attacks in this thread when they were directed at you? They're OK directed at me because I'm a Republican, though.

SK790 wrote:It's great that with all the dumb things said by Trump it took him saying something 100% true to get the base to hate him. Shoulda stuck to jingoism and vague platitudes.

They have to strike back at him for that. If they give in to the idea that Bush was a disaster and is responsible for the death of literally hundreds of thousands of people, keeping us as unsafe as a person possibly could, then their whole belief system comes crashing down. Trump was fiddling with the very foundation of their beliefs.

jerseyhoya wrote:Didn't you used to get upset at personal attacks in this thread when they were directed at you? They're OK directed at me because I'm a Republican, though.

I didn't say they were ok. I actually typed one sentence differently the first time and I had that in there. The rest of the sentence didn't sound right so I changed it. I definitely don't think persona; attacks are ok. I just feel a bit worse for someone losing their right to vote or ability to care for their families. It's called empathy, the key ingredient of governance completely missing from your party..

I don't really see where Democrats get to do any chest thumping over national security. Obama has only made the NSA more powerful at home. abroad, are any situations in better shape since he took office? they just blew up a bunch of doctors, one more data point in a list of acceptable collateral damage. their likely candidate voted for the Iraq war. and so on

Neither party deserves a pass, but it's easy to forget that congress was fed a lot of false information which led to the knee jerk reaction that Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and that we were under serious and imminent threat of another attack. That all turned out to be Cheney/Kristol bullshit, of course, but then the damage was done. But democrats should have the courage to roll back some of these things instead of institutionalizing them and, in some cases, making them worse. So I agree there shouldn't be any chest-thumping on national security, but the dems haven't been nearly the complete disaster that Bush/Cheney/Kristol were. In fact, we are in much better shape now than were were 7 years ago, though not on the privacy front

That's a completely different question than what was being discussed. Bush 'kept us safe' except he didn't and he broke a region as a result. The only side that put up any fight is half the Democratic party. How that becomes both sides did it and do it is beyond me. This historical revisionism is getting absurd.