Skip to comments.
Bush Warned Privately of Coming Nuke Terror Attack (posted 9/24/01)
NewsMax.com ^
| 9/24/01
| Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff
Posted on 09/24/2001 7:18:06 AM PDT by kattracks
Hours before his rousing Thursday night address to a joint session of Congress, President Bush warned a congressional prayer meeting that there was credible evidence a second wave of terrorist attacks would strike the U.S., this time featuring chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons.
"It was quite a remarkable scene," Newsweek's Howard Fineman told radioman Don Imus Monday morning.
"The president confessed to (the prayer meeting) his anxieties. He said, 'You know, I have to walk a fine line here. You know my problem.'"
Bush then explained:
"I don't want to alarm people. But there is evidence, there's enough evidence that we face further attacks."
The president's warning included the phrase, "chemical, biological and plutonium -- meaning the possibility of even nuclear terrorism," the Newsweek reporter said.
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
War on Terrorism
TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221 next last
1
posted on
09/24/2001 7:18:06 AM PDT
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
That would explain why Laura Bush's normal calm demeanour looked a little less calm during the address.
2
posted on
09/24/2001 7:21:05 AM PDT
by
ikka
Comment #3 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
Howard Fineman and NewsMax, now there is a font of credibility. But they may be right this time.
4
posted on
09/24/2001 7:22:03 AM PDT
by
Movemout
To: kattracks
Oh come on, this is taking things and blowing them out of proportion, there's nothing staggering here. We all know the the next threat will be from WMD.
Comment #6 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
A radio talk show host this weekend put it most succinctly to a traitorous, 19 year old peacenik who called in wanting to "teach the world to sing,": The talk show host (like he was talking to a 4-year old) said, "You don't understand war. War is basically, that we have to kill them before they can kill more of us." Pretty clear, I think. No questions here.
To: kattracks
The president's warning included the phrase, "chemical, biological and plutoniumSo why use the word "plutonium" rather than the word "nuclear"?
Comment #9 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
In the event of a C-B-R attack on the US, we should do the following:
Immediately nuke Afganistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Libya.
If anyone gets pi**ed, the official answer is "We wanted to be sure to get the perpetrators. Now, if you object, what are you going to do about it?"
There would be world peace for at least 20 years.
Comment #11 Removed by Moderator
To: kattracks
If they nuke us, we might have a certain kind of response in mind. You think? I do. I think we would have a little something in mind. And thank God we have that capability.
To: Kevin Curry
So why use the word "plutonium" rather than the word "nuclear"? Probably been coached that way. Our wonderful President commonly commits one of my pet peeves: pronouncing the word "nuclear" as nuc-ia-lar. I can overlook that. Unfortunately, his detractors pounce on it, since he has such few faults otherwise.
To: The Documentary Lady
As far as the preparedness aspect goes, I don't need President Bush or the nanny state to tell me what I should be doing to get ready when (not if) the second attack comes. If the WTC and Pentagon attacks didn't give people in this country a wake-up call, I'm not sure what will.
14
posted on
09/24/2001 7:27:45 AM PDT
by
gieriscm
To: ikka
"That would explain why Laura Bush's normal calm demeanour looked a little less calm during the address."You know, ikka, I also noticed that on Thursday night. I even mentioned it to my husband, but he said he didn't see anything unusual. She's usually always smiling, but any smiles I saw that night were forced. I kept thinking about that all night, and mentioned it the next day to the ladies at my kids school. They also agreed that she looked "nervous and upset".
I am glad that I am not the only one who saw that. :-)
15
posted on
09/24/2001 7:28:00 AM PDT
by
DJ88
To: kattracks
How nutty are they? What do they expect to gain? They could nuke every city in the US and we have enough nuclear weapons on our subs to flatten the Mid East several times over.
To: The Documentary Lady
do what job?
Comment #18 Removed by Moderator
To: MindBender26
If we launched a nuclear attack against these countries our nuclear capability would be signifigantly reduced, leaving us vulnerable to other countries like China and Russia who have a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons.
19
posted on
09/24/2001 7:30:34 AM PDT
by
slimer
To: Kevin Curry
"So why use the word "plutonium" rather than the word 'nuclear'?" Perhaps in reference to a radiological attack; viz--plutonium dust spread over a metro area.
--Boris
20
posted on
09/24/2001 7:30:59 AM PDT
by
boris
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson