• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Has a Point About Bush and 9/11

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump, but in the matter of GWB and 9/11 he makes a strong point. The GWB administration came into office believing that terrorism was a distraction from bigger, more important issues.

Donald Trump, George W. Bush, and Responsibility for 9/11 - The Atlantic

Donald Trump utters plenty of ugly untruths: that undocumented Mexican immigrants are “rapists,” that Syrian refugees are committing “all sorts of attacks” in Germany and represent a “Trojan Horse” for ISIS. But he tells ugly truths too: that “when you give [politicians money], they do whatever the hell you want them to do.” And that “the Middle East would be safer” if Saddam Hussein and Muammer Qaddafi were still in power.

His latest ugly truth came during a Bloomberg TV interview last Friday, when he said George W. Bush deserves responsibility for the fact that “the World Trade Center came down during his time.” Politicians and journalists erupted in indignation. Jeb Bush called Trump’s comments “pathetic.” Ben Carson dubbed them “ridiculous.”
Former Bush flack Ari Fleischer called Trump a 9/11 “truther.” Even Stephanie Ruhle, the Bloomberg anchor who asked the question, cried, “Hold on, you can’t blame George Bush for that.”
Oh yes, you can. There’s no way of knowing for sure if Bush could have stopped the September 11 attacks. But that’s not the right question. The right question is: Did Bush do everything he could reasonably have to stop them, given what he knew at the time? And he didn’t. It’s not even close. . . .
​
 
Going to a celebrity's wedding, where they will get face time, is hardly "will do anything". I'd relate attending a Trump party to kissing an ugly baby.
 
ecofarm said:
Going to a celebrity's wedding, where they will get face time, is hardly "will do anything". I'd relate attending a Trump party to kissing an ugly baby.
Click to expand...


Did you intend that post for another thread?
 
Jack Hays said:
Did you intend that post for another thread?
Click to expand...

Your link, and Trump's "proof":

“With Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She didn’t have a choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good.”
Click to expand...


Did you not read your links? Was that someone else's file dump?
 
The Warning Bush got prior to 9/11 was vague and incoherent. "Osama Bin Laden may attack in the next few weeks... or few months.... it may involve airplanes... or it may not". The "connect the dots" bit put together was obvious only in retrospect, and available to no one individual in the US government.

No. Trump does not have a good argument. He has an idiotic argument that depends on low cognitive complexity. Like most of the ones he makes.
 
Jack Hays said:
Km

That's from a subsidiary link not related to the main point.
Click to expand...

Why did you include it and why do you consider it out of bounds? I suggest you don't post things in an OP that you do not consider up for debate. Or, more carefully read the file dump before the copy/paste.
 
cpwill said:
The Warning Bush got prior to 9/11 was vague and incoherent. "Osama Bin Laden may attack in the next few weeks... or few months.... it may involve airplanes... or it may not". The "connect the dots" bit put together was obvious only in retrospect, and available to no one individual in the US government.

No. Trump does not have a good argument. He has an idiotic argument that depends on low cognitive complexity. Like most of the ones he makes.
Click to expand...

It is amazing how clear things look in hindsight, isn't it? If only things where so clear when you don't know the outcome. There where lots of things wrong with Bush's presidency, but not stopping 9/11 isn't one of them. It is highly unlikely any one else as president would have done better in stopping it.
 
ecofarm said:
Why did you include it and why do you consider it out of bounds? I suggest you don't post things in an OP that you do not consider up for debate. Or, more carefully read the file dump before the copy/paste.
Click to expand...

It's embedded in the opening paragraphs of the article text. Per DP rules we may not post more than opening paragraphs to abide by "fair use" rules. You are free to debate anything you want but I suspect most people will be more interested in the article's main point. It's the one referred to in the thread's title.
 
cpwill said:
The Warning Bush got prior to 9/11 was vague and incoherent. "Osama Bin Laden may attack in the next few weeks... or few months.... it may involve airplanes... or it may not". The "connect the dots" bit put together was obvious only in retrospect, and available to no one individual in the US government.

No. Trump does not have a good argument. He has an idiotic argument that depends on low cognitive complexity. Like most of the ones he makes.
Click to expand...

If FDR had had in 1941 the level of warning provided in 2001 then the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been impossible. In 2001 the GWB crowd did not take the threat seriously until the attack happened.
 
Redress said:
It is amazing how clear things look in hindsight, isn't it? If only things where so clear when you don't know the outcome. There where lots of things wrong with Bush's presidency, but not stopping 9/11 isn't one of them. It is highly unlikely any one else as president would have done better in stopping it.
Click to expand...

That an attack was coming was clear in foresight.
 
Jack Hays said:
If FDR had had in 1941 the level of warning provided in 2001 then the attack on Pearl Harbor would have been impossible. In 2001 the GWB crowd did not take the threat seriously until the attack happened.
Click to expand...
FDR had significantly greater warning prior to Pearl Harbor than W did prior to 9/11.
 
Jack Hays said:
That an attack was coming was clear in foresight.
Click to expand...
Tomorrow, or the next day, or possibly sometime over the next month, there will be a fatal car crash in America, possibly involving a pickup. Or not. Now. Tell us what rational policy you would actually put in place to stop it.
 
Jack Hays said:
Not even close.
Click to expand...
Yes, he did. In fact, he even got into a fight with his own Navy on it - they thought concentrating the fleet at Pearl Harbor made it vulnerable to the attack that was widely expected. FDR overruled, because he thought it "sent a message" instead.
 
cpwill said:
Tomorrow, or the next day, or possibly sometime over the next month, there will be a fatal car crash in America, possibly involving a pickup. Or not. Now. Tell us what rational policy you would actually put in place to stop it.
Click to expand...

Your analogy is not especially apt in scale or likely targets. Regardless, the point is those things that could have been done weren't done.
 
cpwill said:
Yes, he did. In fact, he even got into a fight with his own Navy on it - they thought concentrating the fleet at Pearl Harbor made it vulnerable to the attack that was widely expected. FDR overruled, because he thought it "sent a message" instead.
Click to expand...

Because FDR had no thought that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. He had no warning that the US itself would be attacked. In 2001 that warning was given, repeatedly.
 
cpwill said:
The Warning Bush got prior to 9/11 was vague and incoherent. "Osama Bin Laden may attack in the next few weeks... or few months.... it may involve airplanes... or it may not". The "connect the dots" bit put together was obvious only in retrospect, and available to no one individual in the US government.

No. Trump does not have a good argument. He has an idiotic argument that depends on low cognitive complexity. Like most of the ones he makes.
Click to expand...

Just a pathetically incomplete synopsis of the repeated warnings that riddled the intelligence community during his administration.
 
betuadollar said:
In 1988 Jeb Bush defaulted on an 4.5 million dollar S & L loan, which put the thrift into bankruptcy. The Bush family has a long history of very poor decisions. Not at all surprising they were asleep at the wheel on this one, either.

Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror: Richard A. Clarke: 9780743260459: Amazon.com: Books

There was actually public discussion on this at the time, btw, of whether Bush could have prevented 9/11 had he been more vigilant.
Click to expand...

The S&L claim would merit its own thread and require a substantiating link.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because FDR had no thought that Pearl Harbor would be attacked. He had no warning that the US itself would be attacked. In 2001 that warning was given, repeatedly.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, FDR was given warning and an attack was expected across the USGOV. FDR was even warned about Pearl Harbor. He just thought it would come in South East Asia instead.
 
Redress said:
It is amazing how clear things look in hindsight, isn't it? If only things where so clear when you don't know the outcome. There where lots of things wrong with Bush's presidency, but not stopping 9/11 isn't one of them. It is highly unlikely any one else as president would have done better in stopping it.
Click to expand...

I feel like you don't realize that the FBI was raising alarms about terrorists in flight schools.
 
Jack Hays said:
Your analogy is not especially apt in scale or likely targets. Regardless, the point is those things that could have been done weren't done.
Click to expand...
Because there are more potential targets globally than pickups in the US? Eh. Maybe.

But the warning that went to Bush was and remains non-actionable.
 
cpwill said:
On the contrary, FDR was given warning and an attack was expected across the USGOV. FDR was even warned about Pearl Harbor. He just thought it would come in South East Asia instead.
Click to expand...


In 1941 there was nothing close to the tempo and and analytic depth of the 2001 warnings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom