The Seven Minutes by HKCavalier

Can't say much for the conspiracy theory. It seems pretty far-fetched. I think they were probably just a little confused on what to do, probably figuring G.W. himself would cut it short. After waiting awhile they forced the issue.

But your comment about Farenheit 9/11 rung true with me. I saw the movie and I'm a rabid Bush administration hater, but I had the same reaction to the protracted focus on him waiting. I felt sympathy for the man. I wonder if that's not backfired on Moore a little. Did anyone else have this reaction?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:36 AM

BARNSTORMER

HK

If you really believe that, I think your in need of a serious reality check.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:42 AM

EMBERS

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Did anyone else have this reaction?

SergeantX

my sympathy is reserved for the mayor of NYC,
who acted like a man, and a leader...
a greater leader than our President.

The Commander in Chief should know that the nation would look to him in a time of crisis,
and lonely & scared really doesn't cut it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
HK

If you really believe that, I think your in need of a serious reality check.

Oh, please. It is so easy to be rude. Give me the reality check then, BarnStormer, that's one the reasons I posted here. Sheesh.

Oh, I didn't post this before but apparently the seven minutes in reality was more like a half an hour after Bush posed for pictures and all. Isn't the lack of urgency among everyone involved a little disconcerting in the light of the single greatest attack on American soil ever?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:52 AM

...and anybody who really believes that Bush didn't give the order to shoot down the plane that "crashed" in Pennsylvania is also in need of a reality check. Oh, and are you a lion? Nope, I just think you haven't got a clue.

Planes that crash don't leave debris over that huge a distance, only planes that blow up in the air do that...and the cockamammie theory that the plane "broke up" in the air is bullcrap. Sorry, but there's way too many secrets around the 9/11 Disaster, and Bush used it too often to gain a personal advantage. Halliburton. The Patriot Act. The War in Iraq. Bush's buddies get rich off the Iraq war and Homeland Security, and regular people die for it.

Clinton got impeached because he lied about getting a blow job under a desk. Bush gets to be a hero because he lied about the reasons we sent our troops to war. Over 800 American soldiers and dozens of Allied troops have died, and thousands of Iraqi's have paid the price for their newfound "freedom." Bush gets to be a hero? He's a murderer, as sure as if he pulled the trigger himself. Who REALLY needs to be impeached?

THAT'S what a Browncoat would say.

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:52 AM

I vote no on the conspiracy. I am sure they checked the skies over Florida the instant they knew what was happening. They probably came to the conclusion that the president was temporarily safe and had time to hear and process the news.

edited: Maybe he did give the order, I don't know. I like to think of the folks as heroes tat fought back. However, if you were in charge of the safety of a nation and one plane, full of innocent folks, was headed for the Capital and the hundreds of people that work in that building, what would you do? I would consider shooting down that plane. Glad it's not my job to make life and death decisions in stressful moments.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 10:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
I saw the movie and I'm a rabid Bush administration hater, but I had the same reaction to the protracted focus on him waiting. I felt sympathy for the man. I wonder if that's not backfired on Moore a little. Did anyone else have this reaction?

SergeantX

Nope. I'd have to say he looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He had no clue what to do. The man's not a leader, he's a robot. A freakin' Republican android. He was probably waiting around to see if his daddy would call and tell him what to do. Considering that he made the decision to go to war in Iraq, I assume he got that call.

Weapons of Mass Destruction? We don't need no Weapons of Mass Destruction. We don't need no steenkeeng Weapons of Mass Destruction.

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:08 AM

No clue what to do. Darn right! What do you you do in that situation? huh? You're sitting in front of a classroom of hungry kids and some guy in black leans over and says, "People are dead. Thousands of them. There are planes flying around that may just take out the nation. I'll give you a minute to take that in and then I have orders to get you in the air and safe. okay. What would you like me to do first?"

I'm a reaction person, so I would have jumped up and screamed maybe tried to hurt myself or someone else. I would be mad. I'd want to take some kind of action. But would that be the right thing to do? Would I be cristised for attacking people? Should we shoot down all the planes currently in the air just in case? Should I ignore this and stay with the kids? Should we return to the white House and face the possibilty of an attack? i mean, what do you do? i am not a big Bush fan, but I feel for people that are in insane situations, and that was one insane situation.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:22 AM

JCKNIFE

Wow, this is one of the scarier threads I've ever seen on ANY discussion forum. Scary in the extent of what people are willing to believe in order to back up their paranoid delusions.

I've got some black helicopters I'd like to sell y'all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:23 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSunWorshipper:
Nope. I'd have to say he looked like a deer caught in the headlights. He had no clue what to do. The man's not a leader, he's a robot. A freakin' Republican android. He was probably waiting around to see if his daddy would call and tell him what to do. Considering that he made the decision to go to war in Iraq, I assume he got that call.

Weapons of Mass Destruction? We don't need no Weapons of Mass Destruction. We don't need no steenkeeng Weapons of Mass Destruction.

- T

Whatever. I wasn't saying anything about his leadership. Personally, I think he's a proven failure at that. I was just commenting that Moore's portrayal of the situation, and his documentary in general, did less to convince me of that than my own casual observations of the events has.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by thatweirdgirl:
No clue what to do. Darn right! What do you you do in that situation? huh? You're sitting in front of a classroom of hungry kids and some guy in black leans over and says, "People are dead. Thousands of them. There are planes flying around that may just take out the nation. I'll give you a minute to take that in and then I have orders to get you in the air and safe. okay. What would you like me to do first?"

I'm a reaction person, so I would have jumped up and screamed maybe tried to hurt myself or someone else. I would be mad. I'd want to take some kind of action. But would that be the right thing to do? Would I be cristised for attacking people? Should we shoot down all the planes currently in the air just in case? Should I ignore this and stay with the kids? Should we return to the white House and face the possibilty of an attack? i mean, what do you do? i am not a big Bush fan, but I feel for people that are in insane situations, and that was one insane situation.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

Sure. Except that he's supposed to be the leader of the greatest country on Earth, and is SUPPOSED to know what to do in a situation like this. Find out the facts. Take an assessment. Get advice from his staff. Let's take action.

No, the man sits on his ass and reads a book to a class full of "hungry children." He doesn't take action, he doesn't get more information. He sits around waiting for someone to tell him what to do. Oh, and by the way, they didn't look all that hungry to me. If they were, and considering that Florida is run by Bush's brother Jeb, I think they BOTH need to look for another job.

We went from being a trusted and respected ally to the world BEFORE 9/11. Looked at with sympathy and understanding DURING 9/11...and turned into the most hated nation on the planet AFTER 9/11, all because of our president and the decisions he made.

Tell me again that you feel sorry for the man. I'm not mad at him for not knowing what to do in that situation, I'm angry at him for everything he did after that.

Fortunately, a LOT of other people are, too. I don't care who wins in 2004, so long as it's anybody but Bush.

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:32 AM

Hey, you asked.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:36 AM

CALHOUN

Secret service would surely have started monitoring the skies as soon as they became aware of the situation. In any event terrorists flying into LARGE monuments is one thing but flying into a little grade school somewhere... surely that would be hard to find.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCAVALIER:
...it stands to reason at the very least that the members of the Secret Service guarding the President that morning knew ahead of time the extent of the attacks. They knew the terrorists posed no threat to the President down in Florida. So, somebody briefed them, somebody knew.

Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
If you really believe that, I think your in need of a serious reality check.

BarnStormer may not have chosen the best way to express it, but his sentiment is correct.

When posing the opinion that GWB planned and authorized the 9/11 attacks (or at least knew about them beforehand), you really need to ask "What does he have to gain?"

Some people might say it's fat government contracts for his buddies, or the needed excuse to take revenge on Saddam for his father. The problem is that it's not even remotely possible for a small group of people, no matter how powerful, to predict what the consequences will be of an event like 9/11. It's much more plausible that he just took advantage of 9/11 to do things things he couldn't have done otherwise (and if anyone out there thinks their favorite democrat wouldn't have done the same, you could use a 'serious reality check' to borrow a phrase).

The fact is, nobody but W himself knows what he was thinking during those 7 minutes. All else is useless speculation.

I'm no Bush lover, but it's nice to keep our accusations in the realm of possibility, so when we have legitimate concerns we aren't dismissed out of hand.
---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 11:44 AM

he didn't act alone. lots of elected officials are involved in this one. Maybe some major convincing and twisting went on, but it happened. Now we need to accept that we're in this new situation and we need to act responsibly. Will Bush do that? Will congress do that? will the senate do that? I don't know.

Seems to me we have a similar revulsion to this war.

Just so you know, I'm not planning on voting for Bush this year...I'm not planning on voting for Kerry either. I"m looking at all the choices.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:02 PM

Oh, absolutely he didn't act alone...and I also agree that he did not orchestrate or plan the 9/11 attacks...that would be foolhardy. My take on this is that he took advantage of a situation that should never be taken advantage of - the deaths of thousands of Americans and dozens of foreign nationals - for his own personal gain and the gain of his friends and relatives.

Like I said, Clinton got impeached because he lied under oath. Note that Bush refused to take an oath when interviewed by the Commission, he simply allowed them to "have a conversation" with him. This is the most corrupt administration on record, with the worst job performance in the history of American Democracy. The highest unemployment, alienation of our worldly allies, economic disasters, environmental stupidity, imprisoning American citizens without charging them of a crime (thank you, Patriot Act), criminal acts with regard to the declaration of war with a foreign power without just cause...and then manufacturing that cause.

If anybody out there watches the Fox News Channel, do you ever find yourself thinking of President Clark's ISN broadcasts on Babylon 5? I mean, I've heard of propaganda, I just never thought I'd actually see it in modern America.

- T

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:18 PM

SGTGUMP

I was on the IMDB board earlier and on the new Alien Vs. Predator movie someone posted: "Kerry Vs. Bush - whoever wins-we lose." I agree wholeheartedly. I am going to vote for the Libertarians again this election. I urge others to vote their conscience. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. But whatever you do, I love you guys.

www.cafeshops.com/miestelita

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BlueSunWorshipper:
This is the most corrupt administration on record, with the worst job performance in the history of American Democracy.

Bush is a big-government loving, Christianity pushing, nation building, republocrat, that's true; but the hyperbole in the quote above does no one any good, besides being incorrect.

Every administration in the 20th century has abused it's power to the point of absurdity. See the great depression, WWI, teapot dome, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, iran-contra, the pesian gulf, ron brown, vince foster, and so many more I can't possibly type them all here.

When will people discard the modern tribalism of Dem vs. Rep and realize that the problem isn't the politician's abuse of power, it's that they have the power to abuse in the first place?

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
..."Kerry Vs. Bush - whoever wins-we lose."... I am going to vote for the Libertarians again this election. I urge others to vote their conscience. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

That idea deserves to be recognized. Nicely said.

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:39 PM

i love you guys too. how many places can a girl go and say such things and still be loved? not many, you guys rock.

the libertarian idea is a good one. I know a lot of folks leaning that way. still a long time until November, so I'm taking the time to make sure i get it right--for me.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:56 PM

TRAGICSTORY

I agree with and am going to vote Libertarian. Nothing sickens me more than Democrats begging 3rd parties not to run.

-----------
"Societies are supported by human activity, therefore they are constantly threatened by the human facts of self-intrest and stupidity." --Peter Berger

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:57 PM

CREVANREAVER

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:..."Kerry Vs. Bush - whoever wins-we lose."... I am going to vote for the Libertarians again this election. I urge others to vote their conscience. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil.

Originally posted by Tiger: That idea deserves to be recognized. Nicely said.

I second that!

Both of the two major parties have been virtually hijacked by crazy extremist ideologues. The Democrats, the loony anti-American left and the Republicans, the fascist far-right.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 1:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by CrevanReaver:
I second that!

Both of the two major parties have been virtually hijacked by crazy extremist ideologues. The Democrats, the loony anti-American left and the Republicans, the fascist far-right.

LOL, hey, not to be smart ass, but Libertarians are virtually the definition of 'extremist ideologues'. Not that I mind. I'm a card carrying member. I just think ideology, real ideology, is actually something that's sorely lacking in politics these days.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger: When posing the opinion that GWB planned and authorized the 9/11 attacks (or at least knew about them beforehand), you really need to ask "What does he have to gain?"

This is really sad. The stakes are too high for us to be such sloppy thinkers, Tiger.

Hey Tiger: I never said or suggested that GWB planned or authorized a damn thing. No I didn't. His reactions of fear and confusion were obviously genuine. What I suggested was that the Secret Service was aware that GWB was in absolutely no danger on the morning of September 11, 2001. I confessed that the only explanation I could see was that they must have had certain knowledge that the attack was limited to the North Eastern United States. I suggested that somebody--not Bush, fer crying out loud--knew.

Please, if you're going to insult someone, do them the courtesy of reading their actual words, 'kay?

I'm still waiting on my reality check.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
This is really sad. The stakes are too high for us to be such sloppy thinkers, Tiger.

Please, if you're going to insult someone, do them the courtesy of reading their actual words, 'kay?

Until you mentioned it I didn't know we were insulting each other. Thanks for letting me know so I can judge your future posts accordingly.

I suggest that if you want people to understand your meaning you should give more thought to your posts. You titled the thread "The Seven Minutes" and talked about Bush's secret service throughout the first post. I doubt anyone who read it took it as something other than an accusation against Bush. Please feel free to clear it up so we can discuss what you really meant.

Quote:
I'm still waiting on my reality check.

That you'll have to take care of yourself.

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:28 PM

TERRIBLETINK

Quote:
Originally posted by sgtgump:
I am going to vote for the Libertarians again this election. I urge others to vote their conscience. If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for evil. But whatever you do, I love you guys.

www.cafeshops.com/miestelita

In my heart, I agree with you -- but my brain says otherwise. The sad truth is that in the current system, a Libertarian vote is a throw away vote. And there is just too much at stake in a national presidential election -- especially this one -- to throw away your vote. If you want to make the Libertarian party a truly viable third option, then work to invigorate it at the grass roots level and work upwards from there. Strengthen it through local and state-level support and work to make it a vote that counts by 2008. We should have a third option, and hopefully we will soon -- it's up to us to get off our behinds and make that happen. But truth be told, in this election, a Libertarian vote is not so much a vote as a statement of neutrality, a protest that won't be half as effective as real work to strengthen the actual party. Again, I don't like this situation, but I accept it as reality. And as Dante said, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

Make your votes count, folks!

I love all you guys too. (So I apologize in advance if this posts multiple times -- I'm on my wonky work computer that seems to want to post every message 5 times.

)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by terribletink:
In my heart, I agree with you -- but my brain says otherwise. The sad truth is that in the current system, a Libertarian vote is a throw away vote. And there is just too much at stake in a national presidential election -- especially this one -- to throw away your vote. If you want to make the Libertarian party a truly viable third option, then work to invigorate it at the grass roots level and work upwards from there. Strengthen it through local and state-level support and work to make it a vote that counts by 2008. We should have a third option, and hopefully we will soon -- it's up to us to get off our behinds and make that happen. But truth be told, in this election, a Libertarian vote is not so much a vote as a statement of neutrality, a protest that won't be half as effective as real work to strengthen the actual party. Again, I don't like this situation, but I accept it as reality. And as Dante said, "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

Make your votes count, folks!

I love all you guys too. (So I apologize in advance if this posts multiple times -- I'm on my wonky work computer that seems to want to post every message 5 times. )

C'mon now, with this attitude we're sure to never get a third choice. But I do agree with you that it's the system that needs to be changed.

(As a side note I could go on about how people's willingness to be led around like sheep is the real heart of the problem, but that hardly wins converts)

Anyway, I mentioned this before on a political thread and it was pretty much ignored. But it's just too damned important to ignore. The root of the problem is plurality voting. Until we change that - until we do away with the rational for the 'other of two evils' mentality - people will be compelled to vote for the candidate that they think can win, not the one they most agree with.

Please, please, please check out this link. It's not very much in the public eye, but it's our only hope IMHO...

http://www.constitution.org/voting/voting.htm

Especially look at Borda voting (voters rank their preferences) or Approval voting (voters can vote for all of the candidates they like). Neither of these strategies is perfect, but they are sooo much better than what we have, it's shameful we go on with the status quo.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by terribletink:
In my heart, I agree with you -- but my brain says otherwise. The sad truth is that in the current system, a Libertarian vote is a throw away vote.

Just because the chances of winning are 1 in a million doesn't mean it's a throw away vote. To paraphrase, it might not be the winning side, but i'm not convinced it's the WRONG side.

Quote:
If you want to make the Libertarian party a truly viable third option, then work to invigorate it at the grass roots level

How can you invigorate a party if you won't vote for them? The single best way for any third party to win converts is to bring attention to itself by getting a significant number of votes in a major election

Quote:
...a Libertarian vote is not so much a vote as a statement of neutrality

My vote for a libertarian will most assuredly NOT be a statement of nuetrality. I am deliberately voting for exactly what I want even though I know the chances of getting it this time around are extremely small.

Quote:
I love all you guys too.

Right back at ya

It's nice to have a friendly discussion with some fellow browncoats about important topics such as these.

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 3:41 PM

i agree. the only throw away vote is the one not used. I will not vote for someone i do not endorse just because the person is the likely winner. I beleive my vote will be heard. it will be heard by other voters. It can happen. I know it can. I am getting out there and making people think. I've been pushing poeple about their options for a long time. With any luck, some of them have listend to me and have learned about the other parties. Not saying they'll like the other parties, but at least they now know.

serge, I find that you make me stop and rethink. Not always for long, but I usually stop and rethink.

I have a friend that votes democrat for pres so he can get a gop controlled house. He figures there is usually a retaliation vote for reps. Everyone has a method.

www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:07 PM

SUCCATASH

Ok, Bush is going to win the election, because we Anti-Bush people can't get organized and unite to defeat him.

Yes, that means voting for John Kerry, it's the only way. Yes, it's the lesser of two evils.

But if I had a choice, I'd rather lose a finger than my Little 'Tash. Uh, I'm trying to make the point that sometimes the "lesser of two evils" is the logical choice when trying to accomplish a goal.

My goal is to remove Bush from office. Therefore, I will vote for John Kerry. That's reality. I don't see any other realistic way to remove Bush from office. Voting for Nader does not help me accomplish my goal.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:16 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I GOTTA respond to this. The WTC is/was a fixed target. Very big, very not moving at all. Whether a hijacker flies a plane into it @ 8:45, 9:13 or 10:37...really isn't that big an issue. The point is to make a big plane hit a stationary object. Period.
Now, take a situation like a President's VERY mobile, tight schedule. Drive to school, listen to kids read stories, glad hand teachers/adults , snap snap..take some photos..zoom, gone and off to the next stop. Imagine flying @ several hundred mph in a large airliner, thousands of ft in the air... trying to figure out distance and air speed velocity ( yes, much like in Monty Python ) and then trying to determine where a President is SCHEDULED to be, hoping he's ON schedule..all the while trying to find a non discript little 1 story school building from all those OTHER buildings around it. It takes MONTHS to plan, train and carry out such a coordinated attack..and you expect a terrorist is gonna know where the President is gonna be on a certain day? at a certain time ? ...3,4,6 months in advance?

Lets not give terrorist more credit than for what they already did . Shocking is one thing, but lets be real here. The Secret Service didn't have any reason to think that an airliner would be bearing down on them at an elementary school in Florida when NYC and Washington DC were under attack. As long as the President was inside, surrounded by them.... he was fine. It was far better to sit tight and plan their next move as more info came in, than to blindly bolt out of there like a chicken w/ its head cut off.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
My goal is to remove Bush from office.

Tash,

I know why I don't like Bush (and Kerry and Nader), but you're obviously a anybody-but-Bush guy.

What don't you like about him? Is it just him or republicans in general? Just curious where other browncoats fall politically...

---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 4:46 PM

Thank you AURaptor for actually answering my question and giving a plausable explaination for that half hour. It still feels wrong to me that the Secret Service would not assume the worst and have gotten the President to a secure area immediately. But your explaination is logical. I really was interested in what a lot of relatively sensible Fireflyfans thought about the actions of the Secret Service on 9/11. Thanks again for taking me seriously.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 5:15 PM

SGTGUMP

Quote:
The sad truth is that in the current system, a Libertarian vote is a throw away vote. And there is just too much at stake in a national presidential election -- especially this one -- to throw away your vote.
Make your votes count, folks!

I think that if you don't vote for the person you think should be president, you are throwing away your vote. I can't rationalize endorsing someone for president that I don't beleive will do the best job. My vote is the only voice I'll have in this election, and I can only vote once. I need to use it to show others where I stand.
I am also a Dallas cowboys fan, but I'm not ashamed of it.

"I love you dream woman." - Garth

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:15 PM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
My goal is to remove Bush from office.
Tash,

I know why I don't like Bush (and Kerry and Nader), but you're obviously a anybody-but-Bush guy.

What don't you like about him? Is it just him or republicans in general?

Wow, what a can of worms you are opening in HK's thread. Not sure this is the place. I've written several anti-Bush posts here on FFF, and some of them I regret because other Browncoats have made me wiser.

The Bush Admin. is trying to make me scared of the world, but instead I'm scared of Bush.

I'm going to use the F word:

Bush has fucked everything up. He is fucking EVERYBODY up - the whole world. His attitude is insane, "Bring it on!" "You're with us or against us!" and therefore anyone who disagrees is unAmerican and doesn't support the troops. Well that's bullshit. Americans have lost their rights. Bush wants to change the constitution and force Christianity into the bedroom of consenting adults.

Bush has made more terrorists by his actions, the entire world feels hatred and disgust for the USA, he needs to go, and then we can figure out how to fix things. We need to keep the tragedy that was the Bush Admin. from happening again.

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:29 PM

PURPLEBELLY

Anyone still think they'll have the chance to vote in November?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:29 PM

MELEAUX

I love firefly and I love calling myself a browncoat. I am sorry to say that threads like these make me sad to visit this websight. I just want to read about favorite quotes and favorite scenes, maybe pick up some news about the upcoming movie. "I love my president. You guys are so mad. Why is everybody yelling."

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 6:38 PM

SUCCATASH

Quote:
Originally posted by meleaux:
I am sorry to say that threads like these make me sad to visit this websight. I just want to read about favorite quotes and favorite scenes, maybe pick up some news about the upcoming movie.

Meleaux! We love you and need you to stick around but maybe you should stay away from this Category:

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:12 PM

PURPLEBELLY

Meleaux, Firefly depicts members of a defeated and disbanded army trying to make a living in resource rich but economically chaotic worlds. Avoiding rabid criminals and a ruthless military machine. Trying to live by the ideals with which they were brought up. Just everyday life in Iraq.

I think I just OT'd to Joss' Politics, but that's Election Year for you

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, July 12, 2004 7:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by meleaux:
I love firefly and I love calling myself a browncoat. I am sorry to say that threads like these make me sad to visit this websight.

The sad thing is I feel the same way and I started this thread! I really wanted to know what other intelligent, well-informed people thought about those 7 minutes. Why that can't be discussed calmly and respectfully I do not know.

If you guys want to argue about who you're gonna vote for in the next election and why, please start a thread about that. Maybe there should be a new category created: Political Troll Country for folks who want to turn every thread into a BUSH SUCKS/BUSH ROCKS shouting match.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 12:07 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX
But your comment about Farenheit 9/11 rung true with me. I saw the movie and I'm a rabid Bush administration hater, but I had the same reaction to the protracted focus on him waiting. I felt sympathy for the man. I wonder if that's not backfired on Moore a little. Did anyone else have this reaction?

I had pretty much the same reaction that you did in that I felt sorry for Bush. I also wondered if this scene would portray Bush in a sympathetic light.

But then I started comparing Bush's reaction on 9/11 with Giuliani's. As much as I may disagree with Rudy's politics, I will always have a soft spot in my heart for him because of his actions on that horrible day. He led. His city had taken a hit, his people had been attacked, and he rolled up his sleeves and he got to work. That's what I expect of my President. And that's what I didn't get.

I found this quote from General Sir Michael Rose, Former Commander of the UN Protection Force in Bosnia, particularly damning:

"I believe that this film will utterly destroy any residual confidence that the American people might have in the credentials of George W. Bush as a decisive war leader.

For a full five minutes, Moore cruelly dwells on Bush's vacuous, tortured face in close-up immediately after he had been told about the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon.

The message is clear. Here is no Roosevelt, Churchill or Thatcher, but a deeply inadequate man whose mind is frozen with indecision and fear. It is a look I know well - if he had been a subordinate commander in battle I would have immediately relieved him of his command."

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=47

I shaved off my beard for you, devil woman!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:24 AM

BARNSTORMER

Quote:
Originally posted by Tiger:
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCAVALIER:
...it stands to reason at the very least that the members of the Secret Service guarding the President that morning knew ahead of time the extent of the attacks. They knew the terrorists posed no threat to the President down in Florida. So, somebody briefed them, somebody knew.
Quote:
Originally posted by BarnStormer:
If you really believe that, I think your in need of a serious reality check.
BarnStormer may not have chosen the best way to express it, but his sentiment is correct.

When posing the opinion that GWB planned and authorized the 9/11 attacks (or at least knew about them beforehand), you really need to ask "What does he have to gain?"

Some people might say it's fat government contracts for his buddies, or the needed excuse to take revenge on Saddam for his father. The problem is that it's not even remotely possible for a small group of people, no matter how powerful, to predict what the consequences will be of an event like 9/11. It's much more plausible that he just took advantage of 9/11 to do things things he couldn't have done otherwise (and if anyone out there thinks their favorite democrat wouldn't have done the same, you could use a 'serious reality check' to borrow a phrase).

The fact is, nobody but W himself knows what he was thinking during those 7 minutes. All else is useless speculation.

I'm no Bush lover, but it's nice to keep our accusations in the realm of possibility, so when we have legitimate concerns we aren't dismissed out of hand.
---------------------------------------------
...The beauty of things was born before eyes and sufficient to itself; the heart-breaking beauty
Will remain when there is no heart to break for it.

This reply is for HKCAVALIER

My mistake. I read your post and thought you were expressing the opinion that Bush knew/planned/orchastrated the WTC attacks, and that was why he just sat there for the 7 minutes.

Thats where the "Reality Check" comment of mine came from. I'm of the opinion now, after reading other posts that that is not what you meant.

Again, my apologies for thinking you were expressing a belief in what I would think is a wild eyed conspiracy theory. Leave that stuff to Micheal Moore.

Am I a Lion?... No, I think I'ma tellin' the truth.

BarnStormer

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:14 AM

MELEAUX

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:
Quote:
Originally posted by meleaux:
I am sorry to say that threads like these make me sad to visit this websight. I just want to read about favorite quotes and favorite scenes, maybe pick up some news about the upcoming movie.
Meleaux! We love you and need you to stick around but maybe you should stay away from this Category:

Thank you Succatash. Thats probably good advice

"Gott kann dich nicht vor mir beschuetzen, weil ich nicht boese bin."

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, July 13, 2004 10:26 AM

JASONZZZ

Well... you can slice it a couple of ways.

How many extraordinary world leaders have had the opportunity of a camera shoved right into his face at exactly the same moment that the shit hit the fan? You are looking at the exact same reaction that any one - including tough seasoned leaders would do when they find out two huge freaking passenger carrying jets just crashed into the city of New York. You are looking at someone who does not have complete information to make a decision on - was it a definitive attack, was it guidance system malfunction, was it coffee spilled into the pilot's lap?

Take a look at it from another angle, had he sprung into action at that very moment and done exactly what he needed to do, how many of the conspiracy nutzos would then have branded him as knowing (and possibly planning) exactly what had happened?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 12:23 PM

GHOULMAN

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by meleaux:
I love firefly and I love calling myself a browncoat. I am sorry to say that threads like these make me sad to visit this websight.

The sad thing is I feel the same way and I started this thread! I really wanted to know what other intelligent, well-informed people thought about those 7 minutes. Why that can't be discussed calmly and respectfully I do not know.

Yea, I know what you mean!

I'm an old conspiracy guy. Call me Fox Mulder.

There is no way one can, at this time, tell you what might have happened in the control rooms or who might be responsible for hijacked planes in the US military... oddly enough. Oh and oddly enough, I've noticed American reporters can't seem to remember what was supposed to happen in these situations... more of the odd! It's not really possible to pull much together at this time. Though I have a possible motivation. What I have learned after years of reading Fortean minutia online is this... follow the money!

After 9/11 "President" GWB went to bed and wrote in his diary something to the affect that today was his "Pearl Harbour" day. How prophetic!

But seriously, there need not be any more motivation than money. That's why it's the first thing the police ask about in any murder investigation. I've lived in spots where people would cut out your left eye for $5. Do you think Dick Cheney and his band of ex-Nixon conspirators might take advantage of an attack on American soil for.. oh say... all the Oil in Iraq?

I wonder...

But you need to nail down a real connection, a real crime, or you're just pissing into the wind.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 2:12 PM

But Ghoulman, 3,000 civilians? For money? Aren't there easier and less flagrantly psychotic ways to get money? Isn't that kinda like saying alcoholics drink because they're thirsty? And besides, don't you think Cheney et al could have convinced us to go to war in Iraq with maybe just a couple hundred dead?

At that level, I don't think it could be the money. Was Bin Laudin in it for the money? Did Nixon send the plumbers to the Watergate Hotel for money? Did Hitler kill 1,000,000 jews for money? I can wrap my head around self-interested s.o.b.'s exploiting the suffering of millions for money, but to be the cause of that suffering would seem to require something more than greed, don'tya think?

And that's where I'm most baffled by the 9/11 conspiracy thing. I mean, it's obvious to me that the government is hiding all manner of strange details of that day from us. The plane getting shot down in Pittsburgh, the little hole in the side of the Pentagon, the fact that the "plane" just happened to hit a side of the Pentagon that was being renovated. And ignoring all the intelligence that came before. I mean, it's a nasty, swamp of intrigue and innuendo, but like you say: "you need to nail down a real connection, a real crime, or you're just pissing into the wind."

People learn from the mistakes of others. I'm sure Watergate really advanced the science of criminality in high places. But I just don't see a clear motive for the Cheney gang to organize the attacks on the WTC unless they are a gang of ravening psychopaths with an agenda beyond lining their pockets. And crazy people ALWAYS show their hands, Ghoulman. That kind can't hold it together for 30 years waiting for their moment to strike, can they?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 4:42 PM

I cannot fault President Bush for waiting 7 minutes or for issuing an order to shoot down rogue aircraft. It was an event that had never happened before. I doubt anyone else would have responded any faster. I know I would certainly have been caught off guard.

Next point, as much as personal human loss is a terrible tragedy, I'd rather have to shoot down a plane full of innocent people than have that plane full of people crash into a full building and take out 1000 more innocent people. During an event like what happened 9/11, difficult decisions have to be made. I'm not saying there weren't mistakes made, but I simply don't believe that anyone could have handled it better. In particular, I do not believe that Al Gore would have made fewer mistakes and acted in less than 7 minutes.

As per usual, this is just one mans opinion. Feel free to tear it apart.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, July 14, 2004 4:42 PM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 15, 2004 4:51 AM

The point about the plane in Pittsburgh, LostInTheVerse, is not that it was done, but that it has been covered up. Most people would understand if we shot down a plane that morning. So why hide it? To avoid some lawsuits? I think a lot of people would have a lot fewer problems with our government if they didn't keep lying and covering stuff up.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:11 AM

Granted, HKCavalier. I posted here in a rush, didn't realize I was off topic until now.

~ Lost In The 'Verse

"About a year before we met, I spent 6 months on a moon where the primary form of recreation was juggling geese. My hand to god. Baby geese. Goslings. They were juggled!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, July 15, 2004 5:11 AM