What was different?

The difference is simple.

In the case of the OC bombing the perpetrators were caught before the media could turn it into a government conspiracy. The perpetrators were American and because the dumbass had expired tags on his car he was caught by OSHP before he got 50 miles. The bi-partizen government had no time to argue over how to handle tracking down the traitors in such a way as to grab the glory for their party. Thus the investigation was over before it got bogged down in political infighting.

The WTC bombing was perpetrated by foreign religeous fanatics that were well organized and well hidden. Those responsible were not in this country and needed to be tracked down. This left plenty of time for the Republicans and Democrats to debate how the situation would be handled for a couple months before anyone did anything. In the meantime the press had plenty of time to speculate on why our government hadn't protected us. This started rumors of conspiracy that started investigations into into our own people instead of directing those resources at the real problem of tracking down the real perpetrators and eliminating that threat.

So today, nearly four years later, both parties sit blaming each other for the insignificant details while the man responsible is still on the loose. This means that those 3000+ Fathers, Mothers, Husbands, Wives, Sons, Daughters, Brothers, Sisters and Friends lost their lives for nothing.

The simple fact of the matter is that the parties of our government refuse to work together for the betterment of our country and instead spend more time trying to destroy the opposing party to gain the power, glory and MONEY for themselves.

Any government by committee is doomed to eventually fail simply because it takes to long to agree on a course of action in a state of emergency.
 
Last edited:
gauchecritic said:
But we've never actually declared war on a noun.

"Independence." 1776. Although I'd hardly hold the current populace responsible for that one.
 
My I said:
Any government by committee is doomed to eventually fail simply because it takes to long to agree on a course of action in a state of emergency.

Excepting that a "state of emergency" precludes goverment by committee and puts a country "at war" but in this case there wasn't any other sovereign nation to be at war with ipso facto no "state of emergency".

"Tracking perpetrators and eliminating threat" are not in the jurisdiction of the armed forces only the 'civilian' authorities.

There was (as far as I'm concerned) a dire need to hold some kind of internal investigation into how the many and diverse intelligence agencies failed to (or failed to be responded to) obviate the attrocity in the first place.

But this is all rehashing old arguements and I'm still convinced that there were conspiracy, secrecy and above all ulterior motives behind everything up to and post september 11. As I said first off: Oil.
 
BlackShanglan said:
"Independence." 1776. Although I'd hardly hold the current populace responsible for that one.

No that was a war of independance and we didn't start it anyway.
 
gauchecritic said:
No that was a war of independance and we didn't start it anyway.
One side started it, though, right? :D Or was your question of "we" simply aimed at your fellow Brits? :confused:

Edit to add: Don't mind me, I'm feeling quite contrary today and easily amused. ;)
 
gauchecritic said:
No that was a war of independance and we didn't start it anyway.

Try substituting the word "terror" for "independence." Works remarkably similarly.
 
Back
Top