Home | Community | Message Board


Kratom Eye
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: Ranch Dressing, Scales

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 18 hours
The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
    #662554 - 06/04/02 12:52 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I borrowed this from another website RAISE THE FIST that PGF mentioned.

I don't agree with everything below, but it does raise many valid points...


Don't know about you, but all this who-knew-what-when pre-9/11 stuff is mighty confusing. So once again, I head to that all-purpose reference series for some comprehensible answers.

Q. I've heard all these reports about the government knowing weeks and months in advance of 9/11 that airliners were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings, and yet the Bush Administration apparently did nothing and denied they did anything wrong. They claimed the fault lay in the intelligence agencies "not connecting the dots," or that it was the "FBI culture" that failed. Can you explain?

A. Most of the "it's-the-fault-of-the-system" spin is designed to deflect attention from the real situation. Bush and his spokesmen may well be correct in saying they had no idea as to the specifics -- they may not have known the exact details of the attacks -- but it is more and more apparent that they knew a great deal more than they're letting on, including the possible targets.

Q. You're not just going leave that hanging out there, are you? Just bash Bush with no evidence to back it up?

A. There's no need to bash anybody. There is more than enough documentation to establish that the Bush Administration was fully aware that a major attack was coming from Al-Qaeda, by air, aimed at symbolic structures on the U.S. mainland, and that among mentioned targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Congress, Statue of Liberty. (According to Richard Clarke, the White House's National Coordinator for Anti-Terrorism, the intelligence community was convinced ten weeks before 9/11 that an Al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil was imminent.)

Q. If they knew in advance that the, or at least an, attack was coming, why did the Bush Administration do nothing to prepare the country in advance: get photos of suspected terrorists out to airlines, have fighter jets put on emergency-standby status or even in the air as deterrents, get word out to the border police to stop these "watch-list" terrorists, put surface-to-air missiles around the White House and Pentagon, etc.?

A. The explanation preferred by the government is to admit, eight months late, to absolute and horrendous incompetence, up and down the line (although Bush&Co., surprise!, prefer to focus the blame lower down, letting the FBI be the fall guy). But let's try an alternate explanation. Think about it for a moment. If their key goal was to mobilize the country behind the Bush Administration, get their political/business agenda through, have a reason to move unilaterally around the globe, and defang the Democrats and other critics at home -- what better way to do all that than to have Bush be the take-charge leader after a diabolic "sneak attack"?

Q. You're suggesting the ultimate cynical stratagem, purely for political ends. I can't believe that Bush and his cronies are that venal. Isn't it possible that the whole intelligence apparatus just blew it?

A. Possible, but not bloody likely. There certainly is enough blame to spread around, but the evidence indicates that Bush and his closest aides knew that bin Laden was planning a direct attack on the U.S. Mainland -- using airplanes headed for those icon targets -- and, in order to get the country to move in the direction he wanted, he kept silent.

Q. But if that's true, what you've described is utterly indefensible, putting policy ahead of American citizens' lives.

A. Now are you beginning to understand why Bush&Co. are fighting so tenaciously against a blue-ribbon commission of inquiry, and why Bush and Cheney went to Congressional leaders and asked them not to investigate the pre-9/11 period? Now do you understand why they are trying so desperately to keep everything secret, tightly locked up in the White House, only letting drips and drabs get out when there is no other way to avoid Congressional subpoenas or court-ordered disclosures? They know that if one thread of the cover-up unravels, more of their darkest secrets will follow.

Q. You're sounding like a conspiracy nut.

A. For years, we've avoided thinking in those terms, because so many so-called "conspiracies" exist only in someone's fevered imagination. Plus, to think along these lines in this case is depressing, suggesting that American democracy can be so easily manipulated and distorted by a cabal of the greedy and power-hungry. But I'm afraid that's where the evidence leads.

Q. You mean there's proof of Bush complicity in 9/11 locked up in the White House?

A. We wouldn't use the term complicity. So far as we now know, Bush did not order or otherwise arrange for Al-Qaeda's attacks on September 11. But once the attacks happened, the plans Bush&Co. already had drawn up for taking advantage of the tragedy were implemented. A frightened, terrorist-obsessed nation did not realize they'd been the object of another assault, this time by those occupying the White House.

Q. This is startling, and revolting. But I refuse to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon until I see some proof. Bush says he first heard about a "lone" pre-9/11 warning on August 6, and that it was vague and dealt with possible attacks outside the U.S. Why can't we believe him? After all, the FBI and CIA are notorious for their incompetence and bungling. You got a better version that makes sense, I'd love to hear it.

A. Bush and his spinners want us to concentrate on who knew what detail when; it's the old magician's trick of getting you to look elsewhere while he's doing his prestidigitation. We're not talking about a little clue here and another little clue there, or an FBI memo that wasn't shared. We're talking about long-range planning and analysis of what strategic-intelligence agencies and high-level commissions and geopolitical thinkers around the globe -- including those inside the U.S. -- saw for years before 9/11 as likely scenarios in an age of terrorist attacks.

The conclusion about Al-Qaeda, stated again and again for years by government analysts, was basically: "They're coming, by air. Get prepared. They're well-organized, determined, and technically adept. And they want to hit big targets, well-known symbols of America." (There was a 1999 U.S. government study, for example, that pointed out that Al-Qaeda suicide-bombers wanted to crash aircraft into a number of significant Washington targets; during the 199 5 trial of Ramsi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, he revealed plans to dive-bomb a plane into CIA headquarters, and earlier he had told FBI agents that the list was expanded to include the Pentagon and other D.C. targets.)

Elements in the FBI, all over the country, who suspected what was coming, were clamoring, begging, for more agents to be used for counter-terrorism investigations, but were turned down by Attorney General Ashcroft; Ashcroft also gave counter-terrorism short shrift in his budget plans, not even placing anti-terrorism on his priority list; John O'Neill, the FBI's NYC antiterrorism director, resigned, asserting that his attempts at full-scale investigating were being thwarted by higher-ups; someone in the FBI, perhaps on orders of someone higher-up, made sure that the local FBI investigation in Minneapolis of Zacaria Moussauoi was compromised. All this while Ashcroft was shredding the Constitution in his martial law-like desire to amass information, and continues even now to further expand his police-state powers.

(Note: An FBI agent has filed official complaints over the bureau's interfering with antiterrorism investigations; his lawyers include David Schippers, who worked for the GOP side in the Clinton impeachment effort; Schippers says the agent knew in May 2001 that "an attack on lower Manhattan was imminent." A former FBI official said: "I don't buy the idea that we didn't know what was coming...Within 24 hours [of the attack], the Bureau had about 20 people identified, and photos were sent out to the news media. Obviously this information was available in the files and someone was sitting on it.")

One can accept the usual incompetency in intelligence collection and analysis from, say, an anti-terrorist desk officer at the FBI, but not from the highest levels of national defense and intelligence in and around the President, where his spokesman, in a bald-faced lie, told the world that the 9/11 attacks came with "no warning." More recently, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, in a quavering voice, tried to characterize the many warnings as mere "chatter," and concerned attacks "outside the U.S." But the many warning-reports focused on terrorist attacks both inside and outside the United States; the August 6th briefing dealt with planned attacks IN the United States.

Not only were there clear warnings from allies abroad, but the U.S., through its ECHELON and other electronic-intercept programs, may well have broken bin Laden's encryption code; for example, the U.S. knew that he told his mother on September 9: "In two days you're going to hear big news, and you're not going to hear from me for a while".

And, the word of an impending attack was getting out: put options (hedges that a stock's price is going to fall) in enormous quantities were being bought on United Airlines and American Airlines stock, the two carriers of the hijackers, as early as September 7; San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown was warned by "an airport security man" on September 10 to rethink his flight to New York for the next day; Newsweek reported that on September 10, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns"; many members of a Bronx mosque were also warned to stay out of lower Manhattan on September 11, etc. etc.

Q. You're giving me intriguing bits and pieces. Can't you tie it all together and make it make sense?

A. OK, you asked for it, so we're going to provide you with a kind of shorthand scenario of what may well have gone down, a kind of narrative that attempts to tie a lot of disparate-seeming events together. There is voluminous, multi-sourced evidence that establishes this scenario. It's scary, so prepare yourself.

We believe that the HardRight began serious planning for a 2000 electoral victory -- and then implementation of a HardRight agenda, and the destruction of a liberal opposition -- a year or two after Clinton's 1996 victory. (The impeachment of Clinton was a key ingredient to sully Democrat opposition.) The GOP HardRight leaders decided early to select George W. Bush, a none-too-bright and easily malleable young man with the right name and pedigree. They ran into a speed-bump when John McCain began to take off in the public imagination, and so with dirty tricks they wrecked his campaign in the South and elsewhere, and continued on their merry course.

For a while, they fully expected an easy victory over dull Al Gore, tainted goods for a lot of conservative Republicans and others because of his association with Clinton, but, given the obvious limitations of their candidate, they weren't going to take a lot of chances. In Florida, for example, where it looked as if the race might be tight, they early on arranged things -- through Bush's governor-brother Jeb, and the Bush campaign's Katherine Harris, Florida's Secretary of State -- so that George W. couldn't lose. An example: removing tens of thousands of eligible African-American voters from the rolls.

As it turned out, Gore won the popular vote by more than a half-million votes nationwide, and, we now know, would have won Florida's popular vote had all the ballots been counted, but the U.S. Supreme Court HardRight majority, despite its longtime support for states' rights, in a bit of ethical contortionism did a philosophical reverse in midair and ordered the Florida vote-counting to stop and declared Bush the winner, installing a President rather than letting the people decide for themselves.

Q. That's ancient history. I'm interested in 9/11, not tearing at an old scab.

A. OK. We're merely trying to indicate that the HardRight's campaign to take power was not an overnight, post-9/11 whim but worked out long in advance. After so many near-chances to take total control, they would do anything to guarantee a presidential victory this time around -- which would give them full control over the reins of power: Legislature (where HardRightists dominated the House and Senate), the Courts (where the HardRight dominated the U.S. Supreme Court and many appellate courts), and the Executive branch, not to mention the HardRight media control they exerted in so many areas.

They had followed the news, they knew that the Al-Qaeda terrorist network was engaged in a maniacal jihad against America, and was quite capable -- as they had demonstrated on many occasions, from Saudia Arabia to East Africa to the first attempt on the World Trade Center -- of carrying out their threats. They also knew, from innumerable intelligence reports from telecommunications intercepts, and from various commissions, CIA and foreign agents that Al-Qaeda liked to blow up symbolic icon structures of countries targeted, and that Al-Qaeda, and its affiliates, had an affinity for trying to use airplanes as psychological or actual weapons. (The French had foiled one such attack in 1994, where a hijacked commercial airliner would be flown into the Eiffel Tower.)

By early 2001 and into the Summer, warnings were pouring in to U.S. intelligence and military agencies from Jordan, Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Israel, and other Middle East and South Asian intelligence sources, along with Russia and Britain and the Philippines, saying that a major attack on the U.S. Mainland was in the works, involving the use of airplanes as weapons of mass destruction.

Indeed, in June and July of 2001, the alerts started to be explicit that air attacks were about to go down in the U.S.; even local FBI offices in Phoenix and Minneapolis began passing warnings up the line about Middle Eastern men acting suspiciously at flight schools. In July, Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airliners and traveled only by private plane, and Bush, after but a few months in office, announced he was going to ground, spending the month of August on his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Cheney disappeared from view, and our guess is that he was coordinating the overall, post-attack strategy.

Under this scenario, in mid-Summer 2001, Bush&Co. decided this was it. Bin Laden unknowingly was going to deliver them the gift of terrorism, and they were going to run with it as far and as fast and as hard as they could. The various post-attack scenarios had been worked out, the so-called USA Patriot Act -- which contained various police-state eviscerations of the Constitution -- was polished and prepared for a rush-job (with no hearings) through a post-attack Congress, the war plans against the Taliban in Afghanistan were readied and rolled out, the air-base countries around Afghanistan were brought onboard, and so on. All during the Summer of 2001.

Q. I don't understand how war against Afghanistan could have been anticipated so early.

A. Follow the money. Various oil/gas/energy companies had wanted a Central Asian pipeline to run through Afghanistan (costing much less to build, but also so it wouldn't have to go through Russia or Iran); that project was put on hold during the chaos in Afghanistan, but when the Taliban took over and brought stability to that country, the U.S. began negotiating with the Taliban about the pipeline deal. Even after sending them, via the United Nations, $43 million dollars for "poppy-seed eradication," and inviting them to talks in Texas, the Taliban began to balk. At a later meeting, the U.S. negotiator threatened them with an attack unless they handed over bin Laden and reportedly told them, in reference to the pipeline, that they could accept "a carpet of gold" or be buried in "a carpet of bombs." (The later U.S. Government spin was that the bin Laden issue and the pipeline issues were separate, and that the U.S. threats didn't mix the two and there were misunderstandings of what was said.) Shortly thereafter, bin Laden, hiding out in Afghanistan, initiated the September 11th attacks, and the U.S. bombing of that country began. Oh, by the way, in case you haven't noticed, under the new U.S.-friendly government in Kabul, the pipeline project is back on track. Oh, by the way, the pipeline will terminate reasonably close to the power plant in India built by Enron that has been lying dormant for years, waiting for cheap energy supplies.

Q. You're saying that U.S. war and foreign policy have been dictated by greed?

A. Among other pleasant motivations, such as hunger for domination and control, domestically and around the globe -- which always ties in with greed. That's why Bush&Co. play such political and military hardball. That's why the arrogant, take-no-prisoners, in-your-face attitude, to bully and frighten potential opponents into silence and acquiescence, even questioning their patriotism if they demur or raise embarrassing issues.

Q. But this is a democracy, people are still speaking their minds, right?

A. Certainly, there are areas of America's democratic republic that have not yet been shut down. But where there should be a vibrant opposition party, raising all sorts of questions about Bush Administration policy and plans, America receives mostly silence and timidity. However, as more and more of the ugly truth begins to emerge -- and Enron, Anthrax, and pre-9/11 knowledge are just the tips of the iceberg -- the Democrats (and moderate Republicans) are beginning to feel a bit more emboldened. But just a bit, preferring to run for cover whenever Bush&Co. accuse them of being unpatriotic when they raise pointed questions.

Q. You're so critical and negative about the Bush Administration. Can't you say anything good about what they're doing?

A. Yes. They have moved terrorism -- the new face of warfare in our time -- front and center into the world's consciousness, and have mobilized a global coalition against it. They may be making mistakes, which could lead to horrifying consequences, or acting at times out of impure motives, but at least the issue is out there and being debated and acted upon.

Now, having said that, we must point out that the institutions in this country -- the Constitution, the courts, the legislative bodies, civil liberties, the Bill of Rights, the press, etc. -- are in as much danger as they've ever been in. And the U.S.'s bullying attitude abroad may well lead to disastrous consequences for America down the line.

Q. So, what's to be done?

A. The most important thing at the moment -- even, or especially when, the inevitable next terrorist attack occurs -- is to break the illusion of Bush&Co. invulnerability. The best way to do that, aside from ratcheting up the Enron and Anthrax and 9/11 investigations (and it may turn out that those scandals are deeply intertwined), is to defeat GOP candidates in the upcoming November elections. If the Democrats hang on to the Senate and can take over the House, the dream of unchallengable HardRight power will be broken. Bush&Co. will become even more desperate, overt, nasty, and in their arrogance and bullying ways, will make more mistakes and alienate more citizens. The edifice will begin to crumble even more; there will be more and deeper Congressional and media investigations; resignations and/or impeachments (of both Bush & Cheney, and Ashcroft) may well follow.

Q. You're asking me to support ALL Democrats, even though in a particular race a moderate GOP conservative would be better?

A. Yes. In some cases, you may have to hold your nose and send money to, canvass for, and vote for a Democrat; we can get rid of the bad ones later. The objective right now -- for the future of the Constitution, and for the lives of our soldiers in uniform and civilians around the globe -- has to be to break the momentum of the HardRight by taking the House and keeping the Senate from returning to GOP control. Doing so would be even more important than what happened when that courageous senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords, appalled by the HardRight nastiness and greed-agenda of the Bush folks, resigned from the GOP and turned the Senate agenda over to the Democrats.

Q. And you think if the GOP gets its nose bloodied in the November election, that will convince Bush to resign or lead to his impeachment? I don't get that.

A. Churchill once told the Brits during World War II that "this is not the beginning of the end, but it is the beginning of the beginning of the end." There is a lot of hard work and organizing and educating to be done, but the recent exposure of Bush coverup-lies about pre-9/11 knowledge is "the beginning of the beginning of the end." With a GOP defeat in November, Democrats will be emboldened to speak up more, investigate deeper, and those inquiries will unlock even more awful secrets of this greed-and-powerhungry administration. And that will be the beginning of the end -- and the beginning of the beginning of a new era of more humane values for America and the rest of the world.


QUESTION AUTHORITY!




--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,712
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #662615 - 06/04/02 01:27 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Wanna buy a bridge.

Sorry if I asked you that before but it seems you'll buy just about anything.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 18 hours
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #662631 - 06/04/02 01:33 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

You tell me who is more gullible...Someone who believes everything his/her government tells him as fact, when that same government has lied repeatedly. Or someone that is sceptical of said government and forces it to justify it's actions?...I'm not going to bother responding to any more of your posts unless you actually have something intelligent to say to debate what I've said...how about stepping up to the plate and proving me wrong?...Yeah, that's what I thought....NEXT!


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #662636 - 06/04/02 01:35 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Luvdemshrooms, I'm sorry, but the posts I've seen from you lately on this forum have been worthless. You're just heckling from the peanut gallery.

Come on, don't kill the dialogue. Offer something.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,712
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #662716 - 06/04/02 02:34 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

I never said our government doesn't lie. I'm well aware they do when it suits the needs of the government and sometimes the needs of our country.

As for having something intelligent to say, I've seen little from you that I would call intelligent. Now, I don't know you, so I'm willing to concede you might be a smart person. I find your political views deplorable however and not really worthy of serious discussion.

I feel that we have the finest system of government on the planet and as such find little wrong with many, if not most of the actions taken.

From all I've heard and read there was no specific warning of the events to come. I don't know how much time you spending reading and listening to the news so I won't claim to spend more time than you doing so, but I spend hours with the news everyday, and from many different sources. So lets say there was a threat. For the sake of arguement, lets say it was that terrorists were going to do just as they did and crash into a building. There was no specific date mentioned. What would you have had Bush do? Should we close down our airports everytime someone makes a threat? We've been warned that the terrorist scumbags may have nukes. Should we evacuate NYC everytime some nutcase claims the time to detonate a nuke is near?

Did the FBI drop the ball? It appears so. Did the CIA? Doesn't seem to be much doubt there. However, they were both operating under Clinton era rules which include but were not limited to not being able to use criminals as informants or infiltrators. What rocket scientist came up with that? Perhaps with a bit more time to undo the damage Clinton had done, more might have been done. To argue that Bush could have done something to stop the attack is beyond foolish.

Now, I may have missed them, but were there post like this about Clinton from you? Because the impression I get of you is of a left wing America basher.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 21,330
Loc: Wexico
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #662747 - 06/04/02 02:51 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Rono,

The timeline was good. This is leftwing propaganda.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinejonnyshaggs420
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/09/00
Posts: 1,965
Loc: Mid-West
Last seen: 11 years, 2 months
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #662758 - 06/04/02 02:58 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

At least I know I'm not the only one.

As a wise man once said its all calateral damage. A means to an end.


--------------------
Vote Jonnyshaggs in the next election for GOD...Its the responsible choice


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleSenor_Doobie
Snake Pit Champion
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/12/99
Posts: 21,330
Loc: Wexico
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: jonnyshaggs420]
    #663001 - 06/04/02 05:53 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

The pipeline is happening. The US was probably a co-conspirator. But that doesn't change the fact that the above post is Democrat propaganda.

Totally uncited, and the only hope for the future is to vote Democrat....

Horse

shit.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 18 hours
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Senor_Doobie]
    #663069 - 06/04/02 06:48 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

If you read my post you would see that I didn't agree with everything in that link...the fact that they were saying that voting Bush out was the only answer left a bad taste in my mouth. But it did make good points...

luvdemshrooms ...You are missing my point altogether. I'm saying that the reason there was such a fuck up with the FBI and CIA "intelligence" was because it was in the best interests of certain factions of the U.S. government to let it happen.
I can appreciate the fact that you are proud of Democracy and you're right, it is in my opinion the best political system around in it's purity. But when you have Big Business calling the shots then that is another matter alltogether. Please explain to me how Dubya managed to get in the White House in a "Democracy" yet his opponent had more votes? Explain why there were already plans made for running a U.S.pipeline through Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11. Explain Mike Vreeland's sealed envelope that detailed the attacks before they happened?...it's all a matter of public record. Or how about the fact that Egypt, Russia AND Isreal all gave warnings and still nothing was done...

If I'm wrong then so be it...This is one thing I would LOVE to be wrong about.

And no...I didn't make any statements about Clinton, but it's obvious he's not exactly a saint either, but I don't remember the last time I was actually concerned about U.S. politics until now.

The American Media is holding so much information back from you it's scary...but if you choose to walk through life with closed eyes and don't even question what your own government does then that's your call...as long as it doesn't affect you personally then everything is fine right?

Is blind-faith so ingrained in your sub-concious that you have lost the ability to question anything your president does?


And before anyone says it...no this is not an Anti-American thread. The U.S. is indeed the most powerful nation in the world...hands down. But like the quote says.."with great power comes great resonsibility"...and that means YOUR (as an American citizen) resposiblity to make sure the power isn't abused.

I really didn't want to turn this into a rant..(too late) and Luvdemshrooms you made an excellent post, even though I believe your opnions to be somewhat closed minded.

I really have no problem with a good debate, but I have no patience for replies that resort to name calling..so before anyone starts flaming me for finding the whole 9/11 thing a little suspicious, just make sure you got something to say.



--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #663106 - 06/04/02 07:18 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Rono, I know your post was directed to Luvdemshrooms, but I would like to address a couple of points:

Democracy... is in my opinion the best political system around in it's purity
An unfettered democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority, hence the need for a constitution to delimit and limit the powers granted to a government.

Please explain to me how Dubya managed to get in the White House in a "Democracy" yet his opponent had more votes?
The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic. The constitution was originally written as a pact between the different states in order to serve their common interests. Several devices are used in order to prevent the larger states from dominating the smaller states, one of these being the electoral college, another being the bicameral legislature with one part (the senate) having equal representation for all the states. George Bush received more electoral votes, this is what counts and has always counted in the presidential elections. In essence, each state decides who it wants to support for president, then the electoral votes from that state are commited to the state's chosen candidate. This cannot be changed without a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #663134 - 06/04/02 07:52 PM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Rono, we seem to have a few things in common. I've been of voting age since the late 80s, but only recently did I start to really think about politics. It had something to do with airplanes and tall buildings. To be honest I hate politics. I'm cynical enough already.

I never even knew the difference between left-wing and right-wing. It was only when I wrote "conservative" on my right hand and "liberal" on my left did I start to get it figured out. But even then, I still didn't know what I was, I only had opinions on stuff. It didn't take long posting on forums like this. People are really quick to tell you if you're left or right or whatever other label you're worthy of.

Keep up your posts.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,712
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #663419 - 06/05/02 12:51 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In reply to:

luvdemshrooms ...You are missing my point altogether. I'm saying that the reason there was such a fuck up with the FBI and CIA "intelligence" was because it was in the best interests of certain factions of the U.S. government to let it happen.



No, your missing my point. If you believe that "we" deliberatley allowed the attack to happen, you're a bigger fool than I care to spend my time talking to.

In reply to:

Please explain to me how Dubya managed to get in the White House in a "Democracy" yet his opponent had more
votes?



I think evolving did that quite nicely so I'll leave his answer alone.

In reply to:

Explain why there were already plans made for running a U.S.pipeline through Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11.



I'm sure we have plans to run pipelines just about everywhere there is a chance of finding oil, doesn't mean we'll ever use them though.

In reply to:

Explain Mike Vreeland's sealed envelope that detailed the attacks before they happened?...it's all a matter of public record. Or how about the fact that Egypt, Russia AND Isreal all gave warnings and still nothing was done...



Nobody said to us, look here, on 9/11 19 highjackers are going to hijack planes. Even if they had, you cannot ground every flight in the US just because of a warning. There are thousands of flights every day.

In reply to:

And no...I didn't make any statements about Clinton, but it's obvious he's not exactly a saint either, but I don't remember the last time I was actually concerned about U.S. politics until now.



So it didn't bother you when our nuclear secrets wound up in China? It didn't bother you when the FBI files made it into the White House? It didn't bother you when Clinton had an asprin factory bombed with cruise missles to hide that fact that he was a liar? It didn't bother you that this man was arguably the most corrupt president in our history?

In reply to:

Is blind-faith so ingrained in your sub-concious that you have lost the ability to question anything your president does?



I question many things, but your post was so ludicrous that in order to give it any creedence at all one has to have either an angenda, or be bereft of sensibilities.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinenugsarenice
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/05/00
Posts: 3,442
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #663421 - 06/05/02 12:57 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

just to reply to your thread about us surveying pipelines without interest is a bunch of crap, I say it definitely is prior interest, Because surveying is hard work, one contract can cost thousands or even hundreds of thousands, who has money to burn on un related surveying.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 33,712
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: nugsarenice]
    #663423 - 06/05/02 01:06 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Hey dickless, where did you see me say we had surveyed anything? There is a large difference between doing a survey and making plans.

But lets go with your feeble arguement for a moment and assume we had done a survey in Afganistan. That means nothing. And it most certainly doesn't mean or prove that our government allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen.

You, nugs, are graphic proof that our school systems have failed us. You see a bit of info and run with it as if it were proven fact. Sad.... very sad.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinenugsarenice
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 06/05/00
Posts: 3,442
Loc: nowhere
Last seen: 11 years, 3 months
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #663427 - 06/05/02 01:20 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Plans for an oil pipline require archaelogy, and surveying othersie you will have no knowledge of possible strata, oil deposits, and terrain, however in this day we probraly do our surveying much more cheapyly by sattelite imagary.

Also,your right, I am very stuipid, with many hopeless ideas on improving our education system for our youth, although if an appropriate helpful political candidate was in office, that I was with friendly terms with, then I could propose them. I suggest intensive second language development from early school in most frequent langugaes, and a intensive farming program for youth that resembles the "Schools in the Countryside" of Cuba, a self supporting school system. I am living proof of the useless of school. but I think these two programs are all our school needs to develop mindfullness of intelligence.

Things I learned in School:

Never commit to a girl.
Never let a girl tell people that she and you are commited.
Never place a girl on a pedastel.
Never talk with crazy koreans.
Never fight with asian people.
Never associate yourself as a german, or racist.
Math is useful, but calculators are more useful.
The game "drug war" is stupid
Never breath lysol.
Never drink before school.
Never forget to smoke before school.
Never eat mushrooms in school.
Do not call bomb threats.


That's about it, finally though, keep important telephone numbers in a organizer, organizers are much help.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinepolitikill
journeyman

Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 72
Loc: THC, Canada
Last seen: 14 years, 2 months
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: nugsarenice]
    #663582 - 06/05/02 05:58 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Just a few things that may help to clarify this issue:
1."The information the president got dealt with hijackings in the traditional sense, not suicide bombers, not using planes as missiles," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer
Even the White House has admitted that some information was passed along by other Intelligence Agencies around the globe. The White house also said that as a matter of policy they will not reveal the exact nature and details of the warnings received. This statement has has contradicted by Russian intelligence who has confirmed that they "warned of the possiblity that the hijackers would use the planes as weapons". This is a direct quote from Putin.
2. The Israeli Mossad (Intelligence) has also confirmed that they had passed on information to the states regarding the "possibility of attacks on major landmarks in the United States during the week of Sept. 10th".

I am not trying to suggest that the US knew the exact details regarding the attack but there is significant information to suggest that the government had been warned of the possibility of such attacks.
At first the White House claimed it had received no information regarding the attacks, now it seems to be changing it's tune. At the very least I think that an investigation is in order!! That is just common sense and not "leftwing propaganda".


--------------------
Censorship: ahh, McCarthyism with a smiley face



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 18 hours
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: politikill]
    #663608 - 06/05/02 06:16 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

In reply to "Nobody said to us, look here, on 9/11 19 highjackers are going to hijack planes. Even if they had, you cannot ground every flight in the US just because of a warning. There are thousands of flights every day."

That statement alone has showed me how mis-informed you are...and obviously you have not read any of the links I have posted for reference. Mike Vreeland was/is a U.S. Intelligence Officer in the Navy that has an office in the Pentagon..how is it possible that he had detailed info about the attacks? Perhaps because they knew the attacks were coming...quite the concept isn't it?


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 18 hours
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: Rono]
    #663616 - 06/05/02 06:24 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

and in reply to "So it didn't bother you when our nuclear secrets wound up in China? It didn't bother you when the FBI files made it into the White House? It didn't bother you when Clinton had an asprin factory bombed with cruise missles to hide that fact that he was a liar? It didn't bother you that this man was arguably the most corrupt president in our history?"

That may well be the case, but that is another argument altogether. You call me a leftist because I argue againt Bush...I am not affiliated with either party, yet you paint me with broad strokes. Why is so easy for you to see and accept the corruption in the Clinton era yet so blind to the corruption in the Bush administration...you call me a leftist, yet you seem to be the one that is blinded by right wing politics.



--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: hongomon]
    #663627 - 06/05/02 06:42 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

Hongomon wrote:
I never even knew the difference between left-wing and right-wing. It was only when I wrote "conservative" on my right hand and "liberal" on my left did I start to get it figured out. But even then, I still didn't know what I was, I only had opinions on stuff. It didn't take long posting on forums like this. People are really quick to tell you if you're left or right or whatever other label you're worthy of.

Hongomon, it is my studied opinion that limiting the descriptions of political philosophy to just the left-right labels is rather simplistic and helps serve the purpose of the groups that control power in this country. I suggest that you check out The World's Smallest Political Quiz for a better mapping of political idealogies and where your opinions may fit.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,233
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 7 days, 18 hours
Re: The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies [Re: ]
    #663656 - 06/05/02 07:02 AM (14 years, 5 months ago)

According to that I am Left Liberal...so be it.



--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | Next >  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: Ranch Dressing, Scales

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Condoleeza Rice Warned Willie Brown Not To Fly On 9-11
( 1 2 3 all )
Learyfan 2,713 55 08/16/03 02:40 AM
by DoctorJ
* Turkey Bush held was a fake
( 1 2 3 all )
Learyfan 2,402 53 12/07/03 06:32 PM
by Bhairabas
* Pop goes the Bush mythology bubble - Part 1: The 9-11 Commission usefulidiot 821 4 12/18/04 01:43 PM
by usefulidiot
* Passenger List from 9/11...notice anything weird?
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
RonoS 6,097 101 08/26/02 06:39 AM
by Rono
* BEYOND BUSH - Part I RonoS 831 12 07/02/03 05:07 PM
by Rono
* Was Bush aware of the attacks prior to 9/11?
( 1 2 3 all )
RonoS 3,223 42 06/04/02 12:41 PM
by Rono
* Bush and Hitler - Parallel Lives
( 1 2 3 all )
Prajna 2,539 52 01/01/06 08:39 PM
by RandalFlagg
* 10 Reasons Bush wants to ban Moore film
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Learyfan 4,283 60 06/02/04 01:15 PM
by Vvellum

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
3,437 topic views. 2 members, 3 guests and 1 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Gaiana.nl
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.161 seconds spending 0.003 seconds on 18 queries.