Why did Bush oppose the 9/11 commission?
465371
The reason Bush would be against the 9/11 commission is because he feared America’s and the terrorists’ knowledge of what the report revealed.  There were huge gaps in our intelligence agencies, he ignored warnings which might have prevented the attack, and our country is virtually as vulnerable as we were the days before the attack.\n\nA few of good question would be, why haven’t our schools, hospitals and infrastructure been secured from terrorist attacks and if the response to Katrina was the best America has to offer, what would happen in the event of another well thought out bigger attack on America using dirty bombs? Why hasn’t the Bush administration enacted many if any of the report's recommendations?
44393
Every person has to look at the evidence and judge for themselves.\nThe 9/11 commission had a lot more to say than just Bush's people didn't do it. There was some things that seemed suspicous to them as well. Not just the "conspiracy theorists". That's what you call labeling intimidation. Like Non-patriots, those folks who question Bush's handling of just about everything since he's been in office. Apparently some trigger-happy-labelers forgot that we have the right as US citizens to question or government right up to the top. But wait these are the same folks who believe our rights should only be upheld when it suits the guy riding in Air Force One.\n\nLook at the footage, closely. Check out the so called "conspiracy theorist"'s movies like Fahrenheit 9/11.\nFor my tastes there are too many friends and relatives in the immediate vicinity of what happened for it just to be a co-ink-e-dink.\nPlus he wanted a war from the time he got in office, nothing stimulates the economy better, and it certainly made him a people's president when he "stood up" for America; he certainly wasn't going to earn that title with all the infrastructure work he was doing or building a better domestic policy (guess that would've been too much like work and we all know he likes month long vaca's at the Ranch).\n\nI don't suggest you believe everything you read or hear from start to finish, but look with your own eyes, and be prepared to be very disappointed with what's happened to your homeland.
687723
Because liberals know that it ISN'T easy to find Osama.  Nor do they want him found, because they share so many of his views.  Not only that, but according to liberals, 9/11 was President Bush's fault, not Osama's.  They never have a bad word to say about Osama.  Both liberals and Osama hate America and doubly hate President Bush.  Osama's continued freedom, combined with his thumbing his nose at the President, delights liberals.  If Osama wrote a book and announced that he was making an appearance at Barnes & Noble for a signing session, liberals would be lined up for miles to meet him. Remember: the liberal's fundamental desire is never to solve a problem, but rather to create a costly government program to institutionalize and perpetuate the problem.
156103
Bush has sold control of most of our major ports to a country that has ties to 9/11, the man is off his rocker , but his sheep will still follow him because God forbid they admit they were wrong about him lol
138279
President Bush made certain commitments at the site of the World Trade Center in NYC (right after the cowardly attacks on America by terrorists) that he would fight terrorists wherever they are.  Almost everyone agreed with him then, especially Congress including most prominent Democrats.  He has stuck to his guns and has not broken under tremendous pressure from the liberal far left.  There have been no further attacks on US soil, knock on wood, thanks to President Bush and many terrorist leaders have been killed or captured.  The liberal far left has not offered a single alternative to resist terrorism.  Oh, they proposed that we go get Osama bin Laden; but don't invade any foreign soil!  Thanks for nothing.\n\nHe could change his policies to placate the fiery Liberals (but believes that would be very wrong for US safety).  The Democrats taught his father how viscious they can be when he said "Read my lips, no new taxes" but caved in to Democrat pressure when he allowed modest new taxes to help pay for the first Gulf War that liberated Kuwait from Saddam.  You just know the Democrats would be the first to jump all over George W. if he breaks his word to the American people and eases up on terrorists, encouraging them to grow even stronger and violent here and around the world.\n\nThe Liberals want to put our soldiers in jail and throw away the key for any mistakes they make, but send a former Liberal-Democrat US Attorney General (Ramsey Clark) to defend Saddam at his nut case trial.  They should install cheering bleaches just for the US Liberals in the courthouse.
657727
Did you know that George Bush has been planning to invade Iraq since he was in college. He killed several Americans cuz he wanted revenage.\n\nOf course 9/11 was planned, what better way to start a presidency and try to make himself look good.\n\nThe World Trade Center was built to handle a plane crashing into it. The only damage a plane would do is maybe take out the top two levels of the building, not the whole thing. They had planted explosives in the basement of the World Trade Center and detonated them when the planes collided with the building. If the explosives werent in the basement then the towers would not of fell to pieces with just a plane hitting it.\n\nThey removed the scrapes from the rubble, which to us would be known as evidence cuz they didnt want us knowing the real truth of what really happend. If they kept the scrapes and ran tests on the metals, you would know that something else made the towers coming crashing down.\n\nBush's father was having a meeting with the Bin Ladens down the street the same day the World Trade Center went down. Bush's family is friends with the Bin Ladens. So his excuse for blaming Osma Bin Laden was a lame excuse.\n\nIt definately was a set up. One big conspiracy.
1049378
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:\nWhy the Official Account Cannot Be True\nDavid Ray Griffin\nAuthorized Version (with references & notes)\n\n \n\n \n\nIn The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), I summarized dozens of facts and reports that cast doubt on the official story about 9/11. Then in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005a), I discussed the way these various facts and reports were treated by the 9/11 Commission, namely, by distorting or simply omitting them. I have also taken this big-picture approach, with its cumulative argument, in my previous essays and lectures on 9/11 (Griffin, 2005b and 2005d).[1] This approach, which shows every aspect of the official story to be problematic, provides the most effective challenge to the official story.\n\n     But this way of presenting the evidence has one great limitation, especially when used in lectures and essays: It means that the treatment of every particular issue must be quite brief, hence superficial. People can thereby be led to suspect that a more thorough treatment of any particular issue might show the official story to be plausible after all.\n\n     In the present essay, I focus on one question: why the Twin Towers and building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. One advantage of this focus, besides the fact that it allows us to go into considerable detail, is that the destruction of the World Trade Center provides one of the best windows into the truth about 9/11. Another advantage of this focus is that it will allow us to look at revelations contained in the 9/11 oral histories, which were recorded by the New York Fire Department shortly after 9/11 but released to the public only in August of 2005.\n\nI will begin with the question of why the Twin Towers collapsed, then raise the same question about building 7.\n\n \n\n \n\n1. The Collapse of the Twin Towers\n\n \n\nShortly after 9/11, President Bush advised people not to tolerate “outrageous conspiracy theories about the attacks of 11 September” (Bush, 2001).[2] Philip Zelikow, who directed the work of the 9/11 Commission, has likewise warned against “outrageous conspiracy theories” (Hansen, 2005). What do these men mean by this expression? They cannot mean that we should reject all conspiracy theories about 9/11, because the government’s own account is a conspiracy theory, with the conspirators all being members of al-Qaeda. They mean only that we should reject outrageous theories.\n\nBut what distinguishes an outrageous theory from a non-outrageous one? This is one of the central questions in the philosophy of science. When confronted by rival theories---let’s say Neo-Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design---scientists and philosophers of science ask which theory is better and why. The mark of a good theory is that it can explain, in a coherent way, all or at least most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted by any of them. A bad theory is one that is contradicted by some of the relevant facts. An outrageous theory would be one that is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts.\n\n     With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building” (FEMA, 2002).[3] This theory clearly belongs in the category of outrageous theories, because is it is contradicted by virtually all the relevant facts. Although this statement may seem extreme, I will explain why it is not.\n\n \n\nNo Prior Collapse Induced by Fire\n\nThe official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high
80745
People are just looking for another reason to attack President Bush.  The Democrats and ACLU didn't have a problem with it under President Clinton.\n\n"The Department of Justice believes- and the case law supports- that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes and that the president may, as he has done, delegate this authority to the attorney general."\n-Jamie S. Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General, 1994 (The same Gorelick who sat on the 9/11 Commission).
197982
For the same reason that FDR did not react to numerous warnings that the Japanese were planning an attack on Pearl Harbor. Bush knew that an attack would spawn massive public out cry that would make it easy for him to sell his ideas of invading Iraq. It's well documented that a plan for invading Iraq was well underway long before 9-11. What they didn't anticipate was the magnitude of the 9-11 attacks. Or possibly they did but I'm not that cynical. I think it's the reason why Bush sat so long after he got news of the attacks. He was stunned that "it actually happened..." Everyone has had that moment were we knew something bad was coming but you're still shocked when it arrives. It becomes real. That was Bush's moment of realization.\n\nAnd if you think about it - 9-11 gave Bush everything. The plan - or lack of planning in spite of being warned - actually worked.
1116463
Jade, this question is about fighting terror, not about how much you and that idiot Michael Moore hate the president. No one gives a damn if you don't like Bush, and just because you let Moore's nonsense delude you doesn't give you any particular insight.\n\nAmrinder, just be vigilant. What this means is, find out what's going on around you. Terrorists thrive on ignorance, so don't fall victim to lethargy or to the opinions of the half-witted. Make sure that others around you are vigilant also; point things out, raise questions when things you see around you don't make sense.\n\nRemember when you first learned that the 9/11 terrorists had taken flying lessons, but that they told their instructor they wouldn't need to learn to take off or land? If someone had asked questions, raised the issue with others, maybe even confronted them, maybe 9/11 would be just like any other day.
1093000
Because America rejected the Truth.
1029742
If you were cognizant of reality, you would realize just how uneducated your question is.\n\nAfter 9/11, the US and a coalition of nations went into Afghanistan because the Taliban government there was hosting and supporting al-Qaeda and Osama.\n\nBush had also said that he was generalizing the war on terror, and supported going after countries (like Iraq) that supported, hosted and supplied terrorists, including al-Qaeda, Hamas, etc.\n\nAdditionally, Saddam had refused to comply with the UN resolutions in destruction of his WMD (see link).\n\nWe were not OK with Iraq under Clinton; Clinton created the US policy of regime change in Iraq. On 12/16/1998, Clinton attacked Iraq with almost 400 stand-off weapons (cruise missiles) and 600 aircraft bombing sorties in response to his failure to comply with UN weapons inspectors.\n\nYour 'knowledge' of recent history is wrong.
950774
Bush was and remains scared silly. That's why he floated around on air force one while the rubble of the world trade center was still falling. He's a prop for a band of geopoliticians who figured if we did not finally knock Iraq in the chops with a perfect excuse like 911, we would never have a better opportunity. He turned red in panic too scared even to politely excuse himself and put the business of being commander and chief above reading to a bunch of kids. He is a fake, and lots of people love his lies.
90649
He believes that as president he is exempt from laws and ethics.  He doesn't like Iraq and he likes war, so he decided to invade.\n\n\n\n>>>It probably costs far less in the long run to stop terrorist \n>>>extremists in their tracks now\n\nIf there were any evidence that Iraq had any ties to the 9/11 terrorists, I'd agree with you.  As the terrorists were primarily Saudi, I fail to see the logic.  All our invasion of Iraq is doing by way of terrorism is fueling the very resentment that lead to the attacks in the first place.
912228
Bush needed to appear to be proactive and doing something to avenge the 3000 who died on 9/11. He could have declared war on walmart, called it a righeous holy war, and the ignorant nabobs would have gotten behind THAT too.\n\nIt was face-saving P.R., nothing more. There's no dumber person than the one who says we are in Iraq to contain terrorism, for freedom or over 9/11. Those who say these things don't have a dreaming clue of what the reality of the situation is.\n\nThe Iraqi people rightly want an end to the rampant random slaughter of hundreds of thousands of their fellow countrymen that has ensued in the chaos after the American invasion destroyed social order and infrastructure, without replacing it with anything.
108354
I often ask myself the same question. \n\nThe sheep stand behind him because this administration has done a successful job in terrorizing his (Bush's) supporters with fear. They use the crayola chart to let people know the 'terror threat' yet they want people to live their lives and not let what happened on 9/11 to affect how we live. The crayola chart really is only needed by state and local governments as it advises if they need more resources for that particular time frame. (public servants)\n\nIn the name of ' I don't like that party ', people will side with him as well. So Bush could have told people that he is the spawn of Satan and people would have still voted for him becuase they so much dislike the opposing political party.
1183599
Of course there's a conspiracy!\nProblem is it's never straight forward.  \nWho stood to gain form 9/11?\nThe Bush Admin given a reason to invade Iraq & take all that un-tapped oil.  Since then we've discovered that Bush's own brother held the Insurance policy for the Twin Towers.\nThe Israelis seen celebrating as the Buildings fell.  & The fight against Terrorism began in earnest.\n\nWho stood to lose?  \nThe rest of the World that's not allowed to criticise America & that Mr Bush Jr is a loose cannon, with a whole nation of Patriotic numb-skulls!\nWe wonder what he'll do next to feather his nest & damn the rest of us to an ensuing Jihad from Mr Bushs Duff foreign policy!