Bush Administration Prevents Another Terror Attack on U.S. Soil

Never heard about the emanicpation part.

I still love to see those guys taken down on the front lawn of surburbia, that just cracks me up.
 
Sounds like you simply do not like people with strong convictions about what's right and what's wrong, with the brass to stand up for it, and the brainpower to defend it? So many "Bush" bashers want to live in non-absolutism - in "the gray area" because the gray area is "safe" and they can say whatever they feel and it would be politically incorrect to disagree with their 1st amendment right to free speech. People can continue to call our President names and/or demonize Him and the good people that support him here and elsewhere. It is pretty obvious that most of the "information" posted is merely an emotional response to the situation - and it is being posted on purpose and with a very specific reason: so that they can dismiss our President and whatever he has done or has to say, regardless of its validity or soundness.
A wise man once said "Only a sith deals in absolutes." ;)
Last input on this thread... I don't consider RESPECT (especially for our Commander in Chief) as being on a pedestal. I was taught to always "respect the rank" even if you don't respect the person. Had a couple 1st Sergeants I did not like as a person but I did respect them. We have had a few Presidents, Congressman, etc. I do not respect as a person -- but I hold my tongue when appropriate. No -- it is not a pedestal there is a right and wrong way to do things.
And when the man shows disrespect for the very office he holds then he deserves to be criticized.
 
Back to the thread, I kinda think what dyoun06 was saying, is that there is a lot less civility in this country.
Do we really need to call the President names or attack his intelligence. (the man did go to Havard after all, and although he was a legacy, he did pass the courses, and when he went his Father was not the VP, or the head of the CIA yet)

Disagree all you want, I encourage it and will join in sometimes, I might even disagree with you, but why does that call for rudeness and bile spewing forth.

When you call names you show your intellect to be questioned, and thus you point is weakened.

:p
That is for all you fat heads out there who disagree with me. (hope everyone gets the sarcasm here)
 
but why does that call for rudeness and bile spewing forth.
Bile spewing has been out of the bottle at least since the last president was vilified for much less wicked things than what we've seen the last six years. So now that the bar has been lowered to new depths, put me down as all for it.
 
Actually I think it has been going on a lot longer than that, I personally believe it started during the sixties, with the Vietnam war

I am not talking about political cartoons and satires, but just an undercurrent of meaness. Personally I think it has something to do with the lack of true manners in this country.
 
I still love to see those guys taken down on the front lawn of surburbia, that just cracks me up.
Yes, it does get some sleeve off the streets and there is no denyingit makes for very good television.

My biggest concern is when the govt starts worrying more about "making good television" than they do making actual progress.
 
Well I lost my cool, and at my age that is hard on the arteries. Sometimes I am guilty of using sarcasm when talking about Bush, but that is because I am hurt by the fact that I supported him fully when he came to office. I feel betrayed. In a non-sarcastic way I feel Bush is simply not smart. Most common well read people would have seen the pitfalls of going into a religious war. He certainly should have know the war was not over just because our formal military beat Saddam's military. (Aircraft carrier thing).

I am 99% sure that no matter which party comes to power here in the next election that our troops will leave Iraq in short order. What then will be the legacy of the thousands of American dead and injured? I hope there is a silver lining to the Iraq war. I want an American Soldier that lost his legs in that war to be able to look back and have reason to feel justified he had to suffer his injury. Bottom line. I am not timid to criticize any person that puts our military in harms way without good verifiable reasons.

For what it's worth. I was at a passing presidential motorcade (Louisville,Ky) . When President Bush's car came by I saluted....the office & flag on his car.
 
I don't understand why the President does not receive credit for a job well done when the DHS arrests terrorists before the terrorists can attack the U.S. This was a success. The statement that this case is fake or just a publicity stunt is utter speculation, unsupported by any information and/or evidence. Under that standard, everything will be just a stunt unless the President waits to arrest terrorists until after they have successfully attacked the United States. Is that what you would prefer?

The President is the head of the Executive Department, and that includes the DHS and the other federal law enforcement agencies; he should receive credit for preventing this attack.
 
It's hard to give him credit for anything good since he blames all the bad stuff on everyone else. And in some cases he even flaunts his screw ups.
 
I pin the whole "bile" issue on Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Anybody who disagrees with me is obviously not only stupid but the cause of stupidity in others;)
 
Besides...he's not *evil*...just inept :D
Same deal here. I've served my country during Gulf 1.0 and work in the defense industry.
 
So, again, their plan to bomb the pipeline in New Jersey wouldn't have resulted in an explosion at the tanks at JFK, showing the USA's speculation that the damage would have been unthinkable to be fear mongering.

Richard Kuprewicz, a pipeline expert and president of Accufacts Inc., an energy consulting firm that focuses on pipelines and tank farms, said the force of explosion would depend on the amount of fuel under pressure, but it would not travel up and down the line.

But that isn't the point, it just shows the incompetence of the bad guys. I'll drop this point as it isn't even worth winning ;)

The President is the head of the Executive Department, and that includes the DHS and the other federal law enforcement agencies; he should receive credit for preventing this attack.

He should receive credit for helping facilitate communication between the agencies involved (FBI, US Customs, etc). There's a difference.
 
I don't understand why the President does not receive credit for a job well done when the DHS arrests terrorists before the terrorists can attack the U.S.

Because he's not a libertarian.
 
So does Bush receive the blame for not stopping the 9/11 crew as we now know that was botched?

You can't have it two ways.

As far as being a legacy - Bush came from a priviledged family - his grandpa was a senator and establishment. KIds like that don't fail at Harvard.

It's clear that he is not up to the job and botched Iraq. Almost every independent expert (including conservatives) has reached that conclusion. I heard a presentation on how they have found Islamic terrorists on the Mexican border. And Bush is still whining about guest workers for his business buddies.

This is such a yawn. Of course, the dems don't like him - however, the most damaging criticism comes from conservatives with principles and not some kind of authoritarian, hail the leader personality.
 
Please don't discuss principles when also discussing politicians, or political hacks. It's disgusting.:barf:
 
There is one simple issue: whether a terrorist attack was prevented. It was. The Administration did a good job.

The other events (such as Iraq, 9/11, etc.) are very important, but they don't change the fact that the President has instituted significant changes in homeland security which have successfully protected our country. These changes allowed the DHS to aggressively investigate and prevent an attack before it occurred.
 
Bleve

Mike Irwin said:
Ever see a BLEV explosion?

It stands for Boiling Liquid Expanding Vapor explosion.

Essentially it happens when a fire heats the contents of a storage tank to the point where it starts to boil, and the tank pressurizes, and then ruptures. The escaping vapor and atomized fuel then ignites in what can be a tremendously violent explosion.

There have been numerous BLEV explosions at tank farms, refineries, etc., over the years.

It doesn't matter if the material isn't really that flammable on its own.

Mike, that's very impressive but is not relative to this. Jet fuel is basically diesel or kerosene. It does not need to be contained in a pressurized state or container so there would be NO POSSIBILITY of a BLEVE. The pipeline experts have all but refuted this plan. There would be no "unthinkable devastation". No explosions except maybe the initial "explosion", IF thet could even get the explosives in the first place or even gain access to the area where the storage tanks are kept in a guarded, fenced area. Even if they somehow attached some of their "Walmart brand" explosives to one of the storage tanks it would probably only blow a hole in the side of it and any fuel would just escape into a pit area that is required to contain any leaks or ruptures without even igniting.

This "plan" is total hogwash and sounds like coached "beertalk" but if you want to believe it that is your right to be afraid.
 
The actual damage caused by the attact, even if insignificant, would not lessen the severe economic and other damage that would also be caused by an attempt and/or a successful attack.
 
The actual damage caused by the attact, even if insignificant, would not lessen the severe economic and other damage that would also be caused by an attempt and/or a successful attack.

If that were the case, then driving a large truck (empty even) through the gate and into the tanks would have sufficed.
 
Jet fuel is basically diesel or kerosene.

No big disagreement, just a technical point. Commercial Jet Fuel is Kerosene...not diesel. Kerosene has a lower flash point than diesel. However; once started they both have the capability of a fire hot enough to cause steel supports to fail.
 
Back
Top