Bush/FBI let Bin Laden Family go Debunked

[Conservative Front]

This is interesting Richard Clark admitted he was the one who authorized the Bin Ladens family to leave the country after 9/11 He openly admitted that he and he alone authorized Bin Ladens family to leave the country (the Report C-Span,Foxnews, and CNN) This is interesting giving the fact everyone has blamed Bush for this yet the criticial Richard Clark was the man with smoking gun the whole time and on another interesting note Michael Moore who praised Clark so much had been Denouced as Propaganda and mostly untrue by no one other then Clark.

[humanhybrid]

Your right CF as Richard Clark knew alot about what was to come. But did Bush adhere to the warning signs leading up to 911? No! He felt that while airplanes were crashing into buldings he would sit calmly with children while it was finished. :ohmy: good day!

[Conservative Front]

There wasn't hard evidence that bin laden was going to fly airliners into our buildings and it would have been great for the president or his advisor to go into a room a children and tell them there is an emergency going on but hey if you like scary the crap out of children i'm not gonna stop ya.

[stewey]

The 9/11 commision says Bush did the right thing by continuing with the children.

People would criticize him if he had still not gone to read to the children, and they criticize him since he did. He could've jumped in air force one, and stopped the attacks alongside Walker, Texas Ranger and Superman and hed still get criticized for it.

[humanhybrid]

The 9/11 commision says Bush did the right thing by continuing with the children.

People would criticize him if he had still not gone to read to the children, and they criticize him since he did. He could've jumped in air force one, and stopped the attacks alongside Walker, Texas Ranger and Superman and hed still get criticized for it. Bull ####! He should have done his job! What should he have been doing? COME ON GUYS! What do presidents do in calamities and disasters? Read to children in emergency situations. :bs: Our President was waiting for it to all unfold in the faces of the world. He needed the full effect to take place in order to outrage the halls of congress and the American people. HE and the chicken hawks had an agenda http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1221.htm good day!

[Emerald_Dragon]

>There wasn't hard evidence that bin laden was going to fly airliners into our buildings

well, OBL did get blamed for orchestrating a plane crash into a U.S. Embassy in Africa? What about that memo on 8/6/01 that said that he might just do that on U.S. soil? no hard evidence, but certainly plenty of clues and forewarnings. and what of the training manual for NSA that depicts a plane heading towards the twin towers? Tom Kenney showing up on Monday? Keep reading, you'll get it.

lookup 'Project Bojinka'. Then 'Operation Northwoods'.


>it would have been great for the president or his advisor to go into a room a children ...

by his own admission, he was informed of the 1st crash before he entered the school room. he could have just as easily bowed out and everyone in retrospect would have understood his actions. instead, we have footage of a befuddled and confused President dawdling over a goat story. what about that false video released to show his active response in the adjoining room on that day, it was released in the UK? then thoroughly debunked there and never shown in the U.S.? because he wasn't wearing the same clothes and some of the people present weren't supposed to be there at the time because they were at the White House?

[stewey]

Put away your tin foil hats, those conspiracy sites are so full of shit in their "facts". GWB did NOT orchestrate 9/11. The 9/11 commission said he acted in the appropriate manner, and you guys would flame him for not reading to the children if he hadn't.

[Emerald_Dragon]

I don't think i've said that GWB orchestrated 911. I've said he's allowed it to happen. Its much harder to prove that GWB made it happen, he's not that smart. :grin

However, I have said that FDR orchestrated Pearl Harbor. Maybe you're mixing the two. :thumbs:

BTW, do you know what it means to 'cover-up'? whitewash? what does that do, exactly?

[Defiant Noquisi]

I cant stand Bush, I have never liked him since before he became president. However, I cant escape the fact that NOT ONE OF US would know how we would act if we were in his position and were told about 2 planes crashing into the WTC until we were in that position ourselves. I can imagine that I might be shocked and dazed but the reality is that if I had my cookies about me, I would have continued reading as well. Its not like the book was a long read and I wouldnt want to scare the children. Forget dissappointing them if I had to leave, Id be more worried about them not sleeping that night.

[stewey]

I know little about FDR and Pearl Harbor. You could very well be correct!

Exactly what I am trying to say, Defiant. He was probably in shock. Plus, not much he could do at that point.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>I cant stand Bush, I have never liked him since before he became president

i don't think i hate him. i think i hate his handlers.

I think MM referenced this link...
>http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/bush-911.htm
"
Apologists claim that Bush didn't leave simply because he didn't want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons:

1) America is being attacked, thousands are dying, and Bush doesn't know if we're facing nuclear, biological, or chemical attacks, as well. Couldn't he just say, "Excuse me, kids, I need to take care of something. It's part of being President, y'understand. I'll be back as soon as I can."

2) At the moment Card told Bush about the second plane, the children weren't reading to Bush. They had finished reading words from an easel and were reaching under their chairs for a book when Card whispered to Bush. Another 30 seconds would elapse before they started reading again. This pause was a perfect time for Bush to politely excuse himself.

3) By staying, he not only endangered his own life, but the lives of all of those children. Wouldn't it be better to risk upsetting them than to risk letting them die in a terror attack?

4) Even if Bush was afraid of hurting the kiddies' feelings, what about the Secret Service? Have they been trained not to attempt to save the President's life if it might bother some schoolchildren?

5) What about Chief of Staff Andrew Card, White House Spokesperson Ari Fleischer, and other officials who were in that classroom? Didn't they feel that a 21st-century Pearl Harbor and a potential attack on the President himself were worth some sort of action?

6) Finally, and most damningly, this excuse doesn't explain why Bush continued to mill around the classroom for several minutes after the children had finished reading.
"


But I think its a bit more involved than that. Here's a longer one...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
"
When Did Bush First Learn of the Attacks?

Why does it matter when Bush left the resort and arrived at the school? Because this is the crucial time when Bush was first told, or should have been told, of the attacks. Official accounts, including the words of Bush himself, say Bush was first told of what was happening in New York City after he arrived at the school. [Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02] However, this statement does not stand up to scrutiny. There are at least four reports that Bush was told of the first crash before he arrived at the school.
"


Some funny things were going on that day. I don't think he orchestrated 911. I think he may have known about it, or briefed on it [8/6/01 intel brief], then realized it was happening. Potentially an 'Operation Northwoods'-like event, approved by Cheney/PNAC ala 'Pearl Harbor'-like event. He didn't do it, he's a good Christian. And hindsight is 20/20 [agreeing with DN, alittle]. But I say we use it to see what really happened.

[Conservative Front]

You know humanhybrid, maybe you're right perhaps the president should have got up right in from of the children told him that the had a master plan to over take the world and he needed bin laden to finish crashing planes in to our twin towers so ill continue reading too you. The truth is The President made a great decision to not invovle the young minds in the events there where unfolding to tell them that there was a National Security threat and up and leave would have been terrible on the children think about it.

---end response to humanhybrid---

So are you suggesting we should have struck Osama Bin Laden Pre-emptively? Do you think in the world we live into day people would have accepted a pre-emptive attack on nation? you think he's critisized now imagine what people would say if we struck first they would absolutely HATE america and you know it would have been impossible and the attack would have been botched.

I've never heard of this video but it was only released in the U.K. I'm going to assume the authonticity of that video is about as authentic as the British Soliders Torture pictures

---end response to emerald dragon---

I completely agree with you stewey but in emeralds defense he never said Bush Orchestrated 9/11.

---end response to stewey---

wow, I never in a life time thought this would happen but Defiant even though you don't like Bush I'm glad you understand the circumstance.

---end response to defiant---

1) Put yourself in his shoes for a second imagine an advisor tells you where under attack You have no idea whats going on and you're sitting in a room with impressionable children, so yeah, maybe you would have left but the Presidents decisions where Calm and Right.

2) Read response 1

3) And this is accurate how? You saying he endangered the lifes of children and his own, but Just how in the hell would the terrorist know he was reading to children at one of the millions of Elementary schools?

4) I don't think it was a matter of hurting the Childerns feelings I think it was a matter of whats right to do Scare the crap out of impressionable kids or Calming handle the situation and continue as planned until you have a moment.

5) again how could the attack been on the President, over the years terrorist target High volume of casualties before High Mark Targets I don't believe in anyway the Kids nor President Bush where under any imminet threat.

6) There is a perfect reason, again put yourself in his shoes the Country which is under you're command is under attack your in a class room of children and trying to think of what's next to come now do you run out of the class room in a panick or do you calmy reassure the children then depart?

Show me the memo's show me the evidents that Bush had these before he got to the school it's coming from the Communist Broadcasting System and quite frankly what the say is partisan left for the most part and they would do anything it seems to denouce Bush.

once again a Pre-emptive strike would have been Several discredited even if all the facts where true the Partisan Media would have had a Field day with America Preemptively going to war. He would have been critisized for it and denouced even if everything was in order and true It would be another Vietnam if there was a preemtive strike and god only knows but possibly another rise of hippie culture :yikes:

---end response emerald dragon---

[Defiant Noquisi]

wow, I never in a life time thought this would happen but Defiant even though you don't like Bush I'm glad you understand the circumstance.---end response to defiant--- I am very involved in the psychology/counseling field as well as an advocate for child/adult victims of domestic violence. I wont claim being an expert nor have I had college level education, but I do know enough to impress much more learned people in the feild. Experience and capacity to learn with flexibility is the most effective way of proving ones point, not book smarts. This is why I can be a moderate, not neccessarily left or right, liberal or conservative. There is value in all. I can also say you scare me for someone so young and opinionated without experience and back it up.

With such shocking news like that, who would know how one would act until it happened? Its not like he was purposefully allowing people to die for kripes sake! Anyone that would claim that is a fool. Only because of Kerry's Vietnam experience and duty under fire might I believe that he may have handled the situation differently. It still would not prove he can be any better of a president than Bush. In fact, under the circumstances we could speculate all we want of how effective anyone could have been, it still doesnt prove they would have acted any differently or not.

The point here is that upon hearing news like that most normal people would experience a breif "shock period" and would need time to relax and collect themselves before taking responsible and rationally thought out action. If Bush used that time with the kids to balance himself out during that period then kudos to him. Can you imagine the media slaughter he would have had if he just bolted up and told the kids he would have to go and unintentionally scaring them? He was in a no win situation and even in my dislike of him I can recognize that.

My complete dislike of Bush came while he was governor of Texas. He had the gall to stop virtually every program that the Indigenous people in Texas created to become self sufficient and get off the government dole like their cousins in NY the Onieda have done with their casino. In fact, he has publically proclaimed that Indians never lived in Texas (in reference to state recognition) more than once which is pure b.s. Like him all you want, as long as he stops programs such as I mentioned which would help the economy, help Indian people become self sufficient and responsible (on their own no less, without government and/or state help) and proclaim they never existed there, I will blast his ignorant arrogance every chance I get.

[Defiant Noquisi]

He didn't do it, he's a good Christian. And hindsight is 20/20 [agreeing with DN, alittle]. But I say we use it to see what really happened. Thanks for neatly breaking up your post. I could actually read it without straining. As far as him being a "good Christian", I think my above response to CF is a decent enough explanation as to why I think otherwise. This would be in reference to the saying "God helps those who help themselves" I have been told of alot.

[Emerald_Dragon]

>So are you suggesting we should have struck Osama Bin Laden Pre-emptively?
considering what we have already done. Yes.

OBL is not a country, he's a terrorist. we've picked off terrorists before using a remotely piloted drone and a tomahawk missile, fired from international waters, into Yemen. And it was not considered pre-emptive, it was retaliatory. And we received less flack for that action than we have for going into Iraq. Besides, he's alleged to have plotted many strikes against U.S. military assets, in Saudi Arabia and out. Even though we can't prove he masterminded 911, he's guilty in the eyes of many, by association.



>Do you think in the world we live into day
>people would have accepted a pre-emptive attack on nation? considering whats happened in Iraq, No. Why do you think Americans are so hated outside the U.S.? But the answer must be 'Yes' because we haven't been sanctioned for breaking our own rules of international conduct by going 'Vigilante'.



>now imagine what people would say if we struck first they would absolutely HATE america
>and you know it would have been impossible and the attack would have been botched.

OBL? i thought we did. didn't Clinton pre-empt some Iraqi conspirators by bombing some buildings to respond to an alleged plot to assassinate Bush 41? Didn't he also bomb some Afghan bases under a similar premise of fighting terrorists? pre-911? In those cases, we did strike first and Clinton fully [mostly] disclosed why he did it, minutes before it was done. We were still respected/respectable then. Are we now?



>I've never heard of this video but it was only released in the U.K.
> I'm going to assume the authonticity of that video is about as
>authentic as the British Soliders Torture picturesYou won't hear about it because it was clearly a false re-enactment of that day, meant to be released as live and unedited, but well, they messed up. If I were part of the coverup team, I'd have that site take down too.

IMO, it was "test marketed" and debunked before it made it across the pond. I wish the site was still up. The still frames looked like Bush to me, even the dialogue, classroom situation, and the 911 news on the TV. It showed a fast responding President on top of the situation. Which caused quite a stir as some politicians were claiming Bush revisionism, re-writing history, etc.

I'm certain its banned and classified now though. You'll have to wait 50 years before you see it. I wonder when they'll release LBJs notes on what happened in 1963?



>Put yourself in his shoes for a second ...if you did any reading, you would have noticed that he was in danger that day too. How did that Northern Alliance guy in Afghanistan die? Who were knocking on his resort door? You don't know because you didn't bother reading the available data. Your choice not to know.



> As far as him being a "good Christian",

*ulp*. well, okay, not all Christians are good...some lions are known not to eat Christians because of thorns in their paws. Others are only welcome as attractions in Roman Colosseums. Still more practice their dark arts in Catacombs... :grin :alcoholic

[dcookcan]

Like most good christians, he will have a few verses memorized that he likes and that support his beliefs. As for the rest of the book - clueless.

BTW - the common saying: "God helps those who help themselves" is one of those memory verses that are quoted but are not even in the book.
:mad:

[Conservative Front]

You have to understand though no matter what Bush did he would have taken flak for it If he wen't after OBL there would have been a national cry out no matter which persepctive you look at in the eyes of the left there could have been no preemptive strike I don't care how good the evidence was I mean come on people think 9/11 was masterminded by our government you know a preemptive strike would have been falsely debunked.

I could careless if people hate us It goes with the last remaning super power thing even if we never went to war with Iraq or carryed out any attacks people would still hate us because of are strength. and are you suggesting that America be charged with something for going into Iraq?

Clinton never bombed much. and if memory serves me correctly most of his bombing runs hit no one of value. infact one of his runs destoryed a pill factor... and are we respected? depends who you ask Japan,China,GB,Israel,preelection spain,Poland they all respect us sure theres some people who don't but theres some people in america who don't respect there country. Japan sent troops, China is taking care of N.V., G.B. Troops Support etc... Israel Troops Support Etc.. Preelection Spain, Troops support etc... Poland Commanders of the multinational Troops. so yeah I'd say we have some respect.

So a website had a video of it? I can slap together a video that looks pretty good in 2 days using video clips off the internet.

I've read alot of things however I don't think he was in imenit danger at the time.

---end response to emerald dragon---

Im a little confused on what you're trying to say dcook??

[Defiant Noquisi]

WOOHOO!!!! ED found the quote button!!! <DN does the happy dance>

[dcookcan]

[QUOTE=Im a little confused on what you're trying to say dcook??[/QUOTE]

Today when someone says I am a christian (i.e. Bush), it is much like saying I am an American. It doesn't say as much about your beliefs as it does about where you live or in christianity's case; where you spend an occasional Sunday morning.

IMHO christians, as a rule, claim to believe in the bible yet they are essentially ignorant of what the bible actually says or teaches. I was raised in church as a christian, I should know. Yet when I actually started reading the book, I found out that christianity was not keeping or teaching what the bible says; they are just trying to maintain their institution.

Hence, if you tell me you are a christian, what I understand you are telling me is "I am a hypocrite". Hope that answers your confusion CF.

[Emerald_Dragon]

sorry DN, i had time that day...

>If he wen't after OBL there would have been a national cry out no matter
>which persepctive you look at in the eyes of the left

i bet you think the "left" are never 'right'.

we had alot on OBL pre-911. taking him out/capturing him should have been one of our highest priorities. if we can now execute known terrorists from int'l waters, passing judgement with a tomahawk, how is that different from pre-empting terrorists? Is it any different from what that lefty Democrat Clinton did?

you should get over the Rightwing being 'right'.


>come on people think 9/11 was masterminded by our government

only a few actually think that. many believe, IMO, that it was allowed to happen. that they knew it was coming, but in order to get more control in matters, it had to be allowed to happen, in order to help maintain the U.S. as a superpower for the next decade.

if you work in a corporation, as I do, that is SNAFU, SOP. If you want to do something, you have to have a business case for it. you can't have a case until it affects the business. and when it does, have your plan ready. corporate politics. no one will pay any attention until it breaks, no matter how much you tell them that it will beforehand. so let it happen, then get the requ and resources you were asking for, to begin with.

It was allowed to happen. not masterminded. those who seem to think that, i would wager they are 'Agent Provocateurs', to help ridicule, discredit, dismiss other possibilities. JMO.


>if we never ...
>people would still hate us because of are strength.

i thought they sympathized with us because of 911? that the UN even helped us with Afghanistan? do you mean to tell me that Americans were hated by the Europeans during and after 911? I must be misinformed, I thought that came after Iraq.


>I can slap together a video that looks pretty good in 2 days
>using video clips off the internet.

let's see it. I'll give you till end of this week to put it up. By Friday July 9th, 11:59pm GMT. A website depicting the POTUS and his 9/11/01 staff, discussing 911 with the TV News on, in an elementary school. Try to match the colors of what is shown/available in the classroom and maintain continuity with what happened that day.

If professional gov't sub-contractors [team revisionists] can't get it right, i don't think you will either. Prove me wrong, make it so.


>I've read alot of things however
>I don't think he was in imenit danger at the time.

you don't read much then, do you? from the link i've provided, which provides the source.
"
At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony's guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled "poolside" interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn't heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president's public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]

The Secret Service may have foiled an assassination attempt. Two days earlier, Ahmed Shah Massoud, leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, had been murdered by a similar ruse. Two North African men, posing as journalists from "Arabic News International," had been requesting an interview with Massoud since late August. Ahmad Jamsheed, Massoud's secretary, said that by the night of September 8, "they were so worried and excitable, they were begging us." An interview was arranged for the following day. As it began, a bomb hidden in the video camera exploded, killing the two journalists. Massoud was rushed by helicopter to a hospital in Tajikistan, but was pronounced dead on arrival (although his death was not acknowledged until September 15).
"

Define Imminent Threat. Does someone have to have operational nukes or merely thinking about getting nukes, to be an Imminent Threat? Assuming your answer is 'both', then those ME reporters would fit the definition, would they not?



>Hence, if you tell me you are a christian,
>what I understand you are telling me is "I am a hypocrite".

i think i'm offended. not enough to respond in kind, mainly cuz i know what you're saying.
I'm Christian [Catholic], but not extremely. So i guess i'm only mildly hypocritical. :D

[Defiant Noquisi]

sorry DN, i had time that day...

BS, its quick enough to hilite and click the ballon. You dont wanna. :Blbl:

[substand]

This is interesting Richard Clark admitted he was the one who authorized the Bin Ladens family to leave the country after 9/11



Yeah, I've mentioned this several times in another thread.



Your right CF as Richard Clark knew alot about what was to come. But did Bush adhere to the warning signs leading up to 911? No! He felt that while airplanes were crashing into buldings he would sit calmly with children while it was finished. good day!


Yes, but Dick Clark admitted this WAY after the falling out with Bush (even after Moore's film was released at Caan's as I've mentioned in the other thread).

Did Bush take an interest in the warning signs? Surely at least equal to or more than Clinton, Bush 41, and/or Reagan did.

His reading to children on 9/11 is a poor defense of your view that Bush didn't adhere to warning signs... its really just like I could act like I was stabbing myself without a knife... yes, that means retarded. I simply cannot understand how you can justify Bush's reading stories to children as an excuse that he did not adhere to the warning signs...



Bull ####! He should have done his job! What should he have been doing? COME ON GUYS! What do presidents do in calamities and disasters? Read to children in emergency situations. Our President was waiting for it to all unfold in the faces of the world. He needed the full effect to take place in order to outrage the halls of congress and the American people. HE and the chicken hawks had an agenda


Yes, of course. Bush knew it was gonna happen- to the day, hour, second. Thats why he stayed with the kids. If he had been brash about it, many mad libs (as mad lib Christopher Hitchens pointed out) "would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup."

So Bush is a cowboy who works on orders from God and random impulses when it comes to Iraq. When it comes to a response to 9/11 he works to slow because he knew it was coming and wanted to cement his power base. When it comes to almost anything besides Haiti or Liberia, he's that brash cowboy who's "doing things without UN approval". But when it comes to Liberia and Haiti, he works too slow, and he should do it without UN approval.

Again- you are right. rightly retarded. and who are the "chicken hawks" by the way? From what I've read, fags don't like being called that because it insinuates they want to do little boys. What do you mean by it, though? Certainly you arent talking about homos, since Bush hates them and wants to send them to the gas chamber.



well, OBL did get blamed for orchestrating a plane crash into a U.S. Embassy in Africa? What about that memo on 8/6/01 that said that he might just do that on U.S. soil? no hard evidence, but certainly plenty of clues and forewarnings. and what of the training manual for NSA that depicts a plane heading towards the twin towers? Tom Kenney showing up on Monday? Keep reading, you'll get it.


And hindsight is 20/20. No one who had such intelligence, or who had discovered it, or who was familiar with it on a daily basis thought it was enough to put thier word of thier life or thier career or anything on the line for. Just because I've seen the idea that we could talk to aliens on Planet Almakaomobolashireburg doesn't mean I'm going to press the issue to the president himself. Thats ridiculous.



by his own admission, he was informed of the 1st crash before he entered the school room. he could have just as easily bowed out and everyone in retrospect would have understood his actions. instead, we have footage of a befuddled and confused President dawdling over a goat story. what about that false video released to show his active response in the adjoining room on that day, it was released in the UK? then thoroughly debunked there and never shown in the U.S.? because he wasn't wearing the same clothes and some of the people present weren't supposed to be there at the time because they were at the White House?


and who among us thought the first crash was anything more than an accident? I sure didn't. Maybe some of us did, maybe some of us didn't. But I know I didn't, I didn't expect Bush to, and I didn't expect anyone else to. Maybe its his backwards texas roots that caused him to not look befuddled over the goat, but turned on. About this video you mention- I know nothing of it. Could be "real" (in that its fake) but considering that someone in the "know" knows nothing about it, I wouldn't expect normal "peon americans" to know about it, thus it didn't cloud my judgement about the situation, nor those stupid normal americans. Since it was never shown here because it was debunked in the UK, what the hell difference does it make?

[substand]

I would have continued reading as well. Its not like the book was a long read and I wouldnt want to scare the children. Forget dissappointing them if I had to leave, Id be more worried about them not sleeping that night.


Well, thats assuming Bush is smart enough to have been reading the story. Obviously, he wasn't. He was just looking at the book while the children read it to him! He's smart enough to be able to read his lying script that Dick Cheney (et al) gave to him about WMD and other "Bush Lies," but he couldn't possibly have been smart enough to be reading to the kids. He was pretending to read because he knew the attacks were coming (why else would he not have been in the white house? except I will then bitch about his "being on vaction too much" (away from the whitehouse).

God, I love this.



Apologists claim that Bush didn't leave simply because he didn't want to interrupt and upset the children, but this falls apart for several reasons


and your entire argument assumes that every individual will be completely rational during a traumatic event (including the presumably retarded and thus irrational cowboy Bush). Well I was in a car accident today and I wasn't rational for about 5 minutes (looking back on the situation)... so how would a human react to a 9/11 that happened under his watch as president? I know I didn't take it too well then, but I guess you southpaws were expecting it and cheered? Come on, I dont beleive that (or at least I dont want to).



5) again how could the attack been on the President, over the years terrorist target High volume of casualties before High Mark Targets I don't believe in anyway the Kids nor President Bush where under any imminet threat.


actually, terrorists try to cause terror. the will do this regardless of target, but in most cases in the past they have gone after "higher value targets" to cause more terror. If I kill Joe Shmoe in the street, who cares? If I kill the president, everyone knows. If I leave a note, which is more effective (especially pre 911)? obviously the higher value target of the president



once again a Pre-emptive strike would have been Several discredited even if all the facts where true the Partisan Media would have had a Field day with America Preemptively going to war. He would have been critisized for it and denouced even if everything was in order and true It would be another Vietnam if there was a preemtive strike and god only knows but possibly another rise of hippie culture


and to point it out for all those people like Bush who are retards: that has happened. and it wasn't even a preemptive war- it just took bush calling it that. Not many leftists complained when Clinton bombed iraq or afghanistan without un approval, but they sure as hell bitch now.

Of course Afghanistan was "already in the stone age" now, so what are we doing there under Bush? But now we bitch about going to Iraq and say "we shouldv'e put more soldiers in Afghanistan." which is it? Maybe we shouldve sent soldiers to Korea since they announced they've been working on WMD's? Who knows...



OBL? i thought we did. didn't Clinton pre-empt some Iraqi conspirators by bombing some buildings to respond to an alleged plot to assassinate Bush 41? Didn't he also bomb some Afghan bases under a similar premise of fighting terrorists? pre-911? In those cases, we did strike first and Clinton fully [mostly] disclosed why he did it, minutes before it was done. We were still respected/respectable then. Are we now?


you forgot to mention all that was without the UN. Bush did go to the UN. So were we loved with a leftist president who didn't go to the UN for his actions, or are we hated for having a rightist president who did go to the UN and used the same reasons as clinton used, even to the point of if one took what clinton said about the situation and read it without his voice you would think it was Bush?



IMHO christians, as a rule, claim to believe in the bible yet they are essentially ignorant of what the bible actually says or teaches. I was raised in church as a christian, I should know. Yet when I actually started reading the book, I found out that christianity was not keeping or teaching what the bible says; they are just trying to maintain their institution.

Hence, if you tell me you are a christian, what I understand you are telling me is "I am a hypocrite".


wow. never heard that one before. since christians don't live up to thier own standards (and can't because men are sinners) they are automatically hypocrites. Sure, but everyone says that. I suppose no one else is. Well, actually, I know many people aren't because they hold themselves to no standard, therefore they cannot be a hypocrite. And I assume you think that Christianity and other religions are bound by the literal interpretation of thier respective holy books and incapable of discovering new ideas. They all assume man's inspiration from God cannot be faulty because after all, it was man who wrote it down, and man is infallible. So thus, because Christians in the west discovered nationalism and freedom (among other things) either they were not Christians or these things were never discovered.

[stewey]

Just because I've seen the idea that we could talk to aliens on Planet Almakaomobolashireburg doesn't mean I'm going to press the issue to the president himself. Thats ridiculous.

Link please! They talk to me too!

seriously, excellent points substand.

[substand]

(edit- by "discovered" I mean currently implemented, not like no one had thought of freedom before)

(edit again- sorry, i hit the quote button so the whole post was posted again- sorry! (so i deleted the repost))

[Defiant Noquisi]

Yes, of course. Bush knew it was gonna happen- to the day, hour, second. Thats why he stayed with the kids. If he had been brash about it, many mad libs (as mad lib Christopher Hitchens pointed out) "would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn't wait to get on with his coup." Hey subs, could you please explain the above quote? The way Im reading it, it looks to me like you are saying Bush knew the exact moment that the first plane was going to crash into the first tower. The implication is that he knew all about it and did nothing. If thats the case I will most certainly change my opinion.

[Defiant Noquisi]

Well, thats assuming Bush is smart enough to have been reading the story. Obviously, he wasn't. He was just looking at the book while the children read it to him! He's smart enough to be able to read his lying script that Dick Cheney (et al) gave to him about WMD and other "Bush Lies," but he couldn't possibly have been smart enough to be reading to the kids. He was pretending to read because he knew the attacks were coming (why else would he not have been in the white house? except I will then bitch about his "being on vaction too much" (away from the whitehouse). Geez subs, are you serious about this or are you messing around? Gimme facts man, facts! (Im want info on him knowing about 9/11 beforehand, the rest is obvious)

[dcookcan]

wow. never heard that one before. since christians don't live up to thier own standards (and can't because men are sinners) they are automatically hypocrites. Sure, but everyone says that. I suppose no one else is. Well, actually, I know many people aren't because they hold themselves to no standard, therefore they cannot be a hypocrite. And I assume you think that Christianity and other religions are bound by the literal interpretation of thier respective holy books and incapable of discovering new ideas. They all assume man's inspiration from God cannot be faulty because after all, it was man who wrote it down, and man is infallible. So thus, because Christians in the west discovered nationalism and freedom (among other things) either they were not Christians or these things were never discovered.

I should clarify my position somewhat. I am refering to fundamentalist types that claim they believe everything from Genesis to Revelation. :bs:

Actually, "all men have sinned..." not "all men are sinners"
Very different perspectives.

[dcookcan]

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Al Qaeda plans a large-scale attack on the United States "in an effort to disrupt the democratic process" before November's elections, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Thursday (July 8,2004).

It certainly won't hurt Bush's chances for a second term if Al Qaeda succeeds in another large scale attack on America. Hmmm :wink:

[Emerald_Dragon]

>No one who had such intelligence, or who had discovered it,
>or who was familiar with it on
> a daily basis thought it was enough to put thier word of thier life or thier
>career or anything on the line for.

Yes. There were.
Colleen Rowley
http://www.blythe.org/nytransfer-subs/Covert_Actions/Agent_Collen_Rowley_Accuses_FBI_of_'sabotage'

Robert Wright, Kenneth Williams
[http://www.williambowles.info/911/911_fbi.html]

and Sibel Edmonds even lost her job over it.



>and who among us thought the first crash was anything more than an accident?
>I sure didn't.

i agree. even Bush thought the first crash was just bad piloting. He saw it, but never said he saw the first crash again. and the links that i had, with what he has said about them, are no longer up. i see the cleanup crew is at work...ah well. such is life. you can't prove it, if there's no evidence...


>Since it was never shown here because it was debunked in the UK,
>what the hell difference does it make?

that it was even dared to be released as 'actual footage' from the day. the audacity. attempting to portray a fast-reacting POTUS on top of the issues, etc.


>and your entire argument assumes that every individual will be completely
>rational during a traumatic event

i would agree if GW was witness to the crash or was involved in it. but he wasn't. seeing a bad video of it wouldn't phase me either [ie, the 1st crash]. i heard about it and wasn't traumatized. I was shocked/disbelieving/curious, but traumatized into non-chalant befuddled aloofness, i would not be.


>or are we hated for having a rightist president who did go to the UN
>and used the same reasons as clinton used,

Bush sent troops. Clinton sent missiles. I'm upset because we are making more terrorists with our occupation than Clinton did when he killed off some alleged terrorist cells.

[substand]

dn- yes i was being sarcastic.


i would agree if GW was witness to the crash or was involved in it. but he wasn't. seeing a bad video of it wouldn't phase me either [ie, the 1st crash]. i heard about it and wasn't traumatized. I was shocked/disbelieving/curious, but traumatized into non-chalant befuddled aloofness, i would not be.

Well I dont know what we mean by traumatized.... but i would say i was more along the lines of the 2nd part of what you said.. and I only heard it on the radio when it first happened. I guess its diff people in diff circumstances that depends on the reaction. Bush acted better than I did, so I give him credit. He acted worse than you did, so you dont give him much.

and about the first part... i really tried... i didn't quite beleive the site (linked, if you take out the "]") so I did some research... Googling for "Catherine Austin Fitts" comes up with astology and conspiracy stuff... I went a few pages deep and still didn't find a "credible" news source on her.... in any case, it matters not... there were few people who were willing to do what she did (assuming what she did is as you say). Considering the who US intel community beleived it (even with group think), plus the rest of the world's intel agencies, perhaps i should have not said "no one" put anything on the line to make a point, but "no one" did in comparison to the rest of the world.

[Defiant Noquisi]

dn- yes i was being sarcastic. Whew, damn you was spooking me!