or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence - Page 3

post #81 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by AquaMac View Post

We need to be far more careful whom we elect for office.

Hmm... maybe it's the office (position) itself that leads to deluded decision-making.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #82 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Clinton tackled welfare reform and did a number of other good things while in office. It's too bad he derailed his big chance to help the world with a stunning moral failure than rendered his second term essentially meaningless. And in the U.S., you only get two chances at the big job.

I understand that in your deluded world, all who disagree with you have been brainwashed by the vast right wing conspiracy.

But I should point out that here in the real world, I have never listened to a complete Limbaugh radio program, and have never seen and would not be able to recognize the other two if I saw them on the street.



" It's too bad he derailed his big chance to help the world with a stunning moral failure than rendered his second term essentially meaningless."


Uh no.

His second term was a great success and the good things he did still stand. Compared to Bush he was an outstanding success. He balanced the budget, created a surplus. He promoted good will while Bush only promotes hatred of the U.S.

Hell I don't even think that the fact he was unfaithful to his wife is any of our business. He just should have fessed up. But as I've stated before I think Bush would have lied under oath ( and probably has ) also. Unfortunately he's the one I blame for sticking us with Bush. If it wasn't for his fooling around and then lying about it Bush probably wouldn't have gotten elected and Gore would have been president.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #83 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Clinton tackled welfare reform and did a number of other good things while in office. It's too bad he derailed his big chance to help the world with a stunning moral failure than rendered his second term essentially meaningless. And in the U.S., you only get two chances at the big job.

I understand that in your deluded world, all who disagree with you have been brainwashed by the vast right wing conspiracy.

But I should point out that here in the real world, I have never listened to a complete Limbaugh radio program, and have never seen and would not be able to recognize the other two if I saw them on the street.

I find it ironic that the Republican congress and the concerted effort to bring Clinton down hamstrung him from, well, doing anything internationally. I mean look what happened when he bombed Bin Laden's training camp. He got mercilously criticised. Look what happened when he actually effectively inacted regime change in Yugoslavia and did it without the useless loss of life of American soldiers...it was "wag the dog".

So how do you expect an embattled president to be effective on the war on terror? Seriously?

You may not listen to the right-wing hate radio mongers, but you certainly sound just like one.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #84 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yeah you may be right. If Gore had won there wouldn't have been the Iraq war and maybe even 911. Hence the right wouldn't have been able to gather so much power.

Maybe Gore would have paid closer attention to those reports of Al-Qaeda training men to use airplanes as wepons.

That is outrageous. Absolutely outrageous.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #85 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Yeah, because Bin Laden never attacked US interests when the Dems were in power.

What would he have done, asked them to use non-polluting electric trains instead?




Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

The fact that there was info out there prior to 911 asks a big question about why Bush didn't take precautions ( instead of constantly being on vacation ). The whole affair was handled poorly. Gore is a more intelligent man than Bush ( and that's an established fact ) so it makes you wonder what he would have done.

http://www.rasmusen.org/x/archives/000268.html

Also he wouldn't have attacked Iraq. Saddam didn't insult his daddy.

It's not an established fact. Jesus. And what was handled poorly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Agreed. But the info was out there for years. The Republicans could similarly ask why Clinton and Gore didn't take precautions (instead of having pizza parties and sleepovers in the White House.)

Throwing around blame for the WTC attacks is a useless sport. You are simply derailing a thread on a controversial presidential pardon with empty 9-11 sloganeering.

Excellent points.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Frank the important part since this was just info being collected before : " delivered to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001 " The 1997 date was part of the 2001 report.

Also

" The same month as that briefing of Bush, U.S. intelligence officials received two uncorroborated reports suggesting terrorists might use airplanes, including one that suggested al-Qaeda operatives were considering flying a plane into a U.S. embassy, current and former government officials said. "

Also

"The sources said the briefing memo did not provide the exact date of that intelligence but made clear it was in the 2001 time frame, and that FBI and other agencies were investigating it. The information had been provided to intelligence and law enforcement agencies well before Bush's briefing, the sources said. "


And

" The sources said the presidential memo included a series of bullet items that brought Bush through a history of mostly uncorroborated intelligence that cited al-Qaeda's interest in hijacking planes to win the release of Islamic extremists who had been arrested in 1998 and 1999 as well as the travelings of suspected al-Qaeda operatives, include some U.S. citizens, in and out of the United States. It suggested al-Qaeda might have a support system in place on U.S. soil, the sources said. "


And there is this part

"Rice also testified that she did not recall seeing any warnings before Sept. 11 that a plane might be used a terrorist weapon, though it was possible others in the White House did. "

OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one.

Yes, the PDB suggested Al-Queda was going to attack in the US. Yes, hijackings were mentioned...separately in the traditional sense. And yes, there was a reference to using planes in attack buildings. But the point is that "hijacking" was never thought of in this way before. The term never meant "take over a jumbo jet and fly it into a skyscraper."

jimmac, you've said a lot of crazy shit over the years, but this whole argument about Gore preventing 9/11 is just shameless and sad.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #86 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, the PDB suggested Al-Queda was going to attack in the US.

Yes, hijackings were mentioned...

And yes, there was a reference to using planes in attack buildings..........

But NO-ONE predicted that the planes used would be white in colour and that they would hit at exactly the time they did on THAT SPECIFIC DAY.......
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #87 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

:OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one.

Quote:
In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways,possibly as flying bombs. [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bushs briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

And....

Quote:
Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, We had clearly warned them on several occasions, but they did not pay the necessary attention. [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened. [Izvestia, 9/12/02]

And....

Quote:
Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasnt told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered one of the Wests most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world. [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: Im studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other. The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for the brothers going to the United States, and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that very, very secret plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

And.....

Quote:
In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack American and Israeli symbols which stand out. Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified but there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented. This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]

Linky
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #88 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That is outrageous. Absolutely outrageous.

You're lack of understanding ( or willingness to understand ) of world events is outrageous! Absolutely outrageous!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #89 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post






It's not an established fact. Jesus. And what was handled poorly?



Excellent points.



OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one.

Yes, the PDB suggested Al-Queda was going to attack in the US. Yes, hijackings were mentioned...separately in the traditional sense. And yes, there was a reference to using planes in attack buildings. But the point is that "hijacking" was never thought of in this way before. The term never meant "take over a jumbo jet and fly it into a skyscraper."

jimmac, you've said a lot of crazy shit over the years, but this whole argument about Gore preventing 9/11 is just shameless and sad.


This entire post is desperate and partial nonfact.

Bush and Gore's scores are on record. No one has been able to debunk a matter of record.

It's also a matter of record that there were indications that Al-Qaeda was planning to use airplanes as weapons before 911 ( yes flying them into buildings such as a U.S. embassy ). Connect the god damn dots! Jesus!

I don't care if you don't like it.

As for the matter of why Clinton didn't take the action necessary to prevent this. The report wasn't presented to him. It was presented to Bush. The facts contained therein were gathered over the years and the dates like 1997 were not in any gerneral known report submitted to Clinton but were in the ( known ) report to Bush submitted in 2001. Dummy. Also why do you keep harping on Clinton in this regard! He wasn't president during 911!

These whole 2 terms have turned out so bad how could it help but to have been better under Gore. Also do we really have to go over again how badly the whole 911 affair was handled? That would make for one hell of a long post!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #90 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Originally Posted by SDW2001
:OK, I'll bite. Prior to 9/11 no one predicted that terrorists would hijack a civilian airliner and fly it into buildings. No one

And....In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use commercial aircraft in unconventional ways,possibly as flying bombs. [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in the final stages of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bushs briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]



And....Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, We had clearly warned them on several occasions, but they did not pay the necessary attention. [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened. [Izvestia, 9/12/02]



And.....Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasnt told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered one of the Wests most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world. [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: Im studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other. The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for the brothers going to the United States, and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that very, very secret plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

And....In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack American and Israeli symbols which stand out. Within the American intelligence community, the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified but there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented. This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01]



Linky

Great post, Segovius!. I think there were even more warnings, possibly Imdian intel. Come to think of it, the picture painted is that just about every important Intel agency in the world had heard these rumors.

You have to wonder what they talked about in the Augsut 01 briefing to the President warning of an impending Bin Laden attack. Assuming Bush asked a few questions, you'd think some of the specifics of the foreign intel reports coming in were discussed (ok,maybe not the plane colors). Also, we know the FBI higher-ups killed investigations into suspicious foreign students at flying schools, around the same time. Wasn't Louis Freeh at that meeting? What about John O'neill-one of the FBI's highest ranking counter-terror officials? (who later retired and had told friends just before he died in the WTC bombing that he was expecting a major attack )

At the top we know that Bush, Cheney, Rice, et al denied foreknowledge of the attacks. Maybe all of these people were day dreaming through these briefings--after all it was summer, and, as has been remarked earlier, the vacation season was upon them.

Overall, the picture painted is one of an intel.counter terror community at odds with itself. I wonder if the factions were divided along partisan lines? It might explain the bureaucratic inertia.

PS It's ironic--we mirror the dysfunction of our gov't officals. We' re a citizenry at odds with itself, arguing about all the fiine points when we likely all agree that they're all (the Dems and Repubs) a bunch of liars and thieves. And then we argue which group of liars and thieves is most corrupt! Meanwhile things get worse and worse (for most of us): http://www.thespywhobilledme.com/the_spy_who_billed_me/. There was also an article in the Guradian on the day the London bombing story happened about a gov't cover-up of a new NASA report that the melting of the Antarcticv anf Greenland Ice sheets is happening much faster than expected, with potential catostrphic results (see here: http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/200282.php) .
post #91 of 126
Bush wanted a war to do something with his ego without regard for any lives other than his own. If he knew that somebody planned to attack, he would use it as a Pearl Harbor rallying cry.

There are memos to this affect, too.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #92 of 126
Another Bush thread degenerating into a 9/11 discussion?

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #93 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Another Bush thread degenerating into a 9/11 discussion?



Well it is a bit of a sore spot.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #94 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Well it is a bit of a sore spot.

How sore are you at Bin Laden?
post #95 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPoster View Post

Another Bush thread degenerating into a 9/11 discussion?


Nice picture, but it's not degenerating: they are all linked.

Bush wanted his war.
The memo was sent.
A judge known for being hard on crime was appointed.
9/11 occurred; Bush had his Pearl Harbor.
Bush wanted to attack Iraq.
Somebody spoke against that.
The war started under false pretenses.
Mission accomplished.
A name was leaked to punish the dissenter.
A fall guy took the heat. (Just happened to be the advisor to the VP; go figure)
A sentence was given for obstructing justice at the highest levels of government.
The Great Leader starts working on a program to get tough on crime.
An appeal attempt fails; jail beckons.
The Great Leader commutes part of the sentence for being "too harsh".
US soldiers and Iraqi civilians continue to die for unknown reasons.
Bush couldn't be happier; "I'm a War President".

All of this resulted from GW's severe lack of self-confidence.

How much does the world have to pay for this guy's internal conflict?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #96 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

How sore are you at Bin Laden?

Very. However I'm more sore at GWB for the incredibly ineffective response he chose for 911.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #97 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by mydo View Post

How sore are you at Bin Laden?

I'd like to see Bin Laden captured and then on broadcast television, on every network, I'd like to see him stripped naked, whipped, beaten and executed.

As for Bush, I just want him the hell out of office!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #98 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

I'd like to see Bin Laden captured and then on broadcast television, on every network, I'd like to see him stripped naked, whipped, beaten and executed.

Is that before, during or after a trial which would produce evidence of guilt (or innocence) ?

But I guess you mean 'instead of'.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #99 of 126
What are the odds that Bush would commute HIS sentence?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #100 of 126
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

What are the odds that Bush would commute HIS sentence?

Prevention is better than cure - Bush is one step ahread of you (for once); he just will never try to catch him.....
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #101 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Prevention is better than cure - Bush is one step ahread of you (for once); he just will never try to catch him.....


AHHHHH!

There you go. Now you've got it.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #102 of 126
Why was BushCorp concerned to keep Libby out of jail, to the extent that the president intervened and commuted his jail term? Had been started his sentence, he would have become the first NeoCon/Bush Administration insider (and a senior one at that) who would suddenly have been rendered accessible to questioning by ordinary people (inmates!), rather than the default of being insulated from any public scrutiny behind concentric walls of security. He would have had to answer some damned awkward questions, questions which no member of this administration has publicly faced (yet), and have not had to publicly answer.

This story about Sen. Dianne Feinstein raises an eyebrow or 4.

To quote:

Quote:
Scooter Libby's pardon begs the question of what he would have talked about had he been truly faced with prison. Whatever it was, it was important enough for Bush to grant Libby a last-second reprieve so he wouldn't have to go to jail.

I thought back to something I had tripped upon a while ago, something that involved Libby, which happened on September 10, 2001, the day before the twin towers were struck.

On the CNN site, in a timeline available from this page, I found this stunning entry:

SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 A CIA plan to strike at al Qaeda in Afghanistan, including support for the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance, is given to the White House. Sen. Dianne Feinstein asks for a meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney. The California Democrat is told that Cheney's staff would need six months to prepare for a meeting.

When I read this, I was stunned on two levels.

First, read that again. The CIA was going to do BEFORE 9/11 exactly what it did AFTER 9/11 - strike at al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Since we hadn't been attacked yet, 9/11 provided a nifty justification for this plan.

But second, Feinstein is a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, a group that works closely with intelligence agencies and--ostensibly--provides oversight of intelligence activities. (I say ostensibly because the committee does not know of, and therefore has no option to approve or disapprove all intelligence activities). How could it be that, as the 9/11 Commission report states, when the "system was blinking red" on a possible terrorist attack on the country, and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee comes to say hey, something serious is afoot and we need to talk, the VP's office could blow off Feinstein by saying they couldn't review her plans for six months?

Curious, I called Senator Feinstein's office and asked, is it normal for the VP to blow off a meeting with Senator Feinstein for six months? The four people I spoke to in her office all said and did the same thing. They said no, that's not usual, what is this about? I said this is about the Senator's 9/10 visit to Cheney, the day before 9/11. At this, each staffer got nervous and transferred me to the next person. None of them would even confirm that this conversation had transpired, but in the end, I found it on a press release on Feinstein's senate site:

Read the whole article here.

Quote:
Another Bush thread degenerating into a 9/11 discussion?

Its a subject that's impossible to avoid when talking about the Bush Administration. 9/11 is their raison d'etre, their Pearl Harbor/Reichstag Fire/Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc. etc. Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was a rudderless ship, going nowhere fast. Then, as if by magic, after both Bush and Cheney took unprecendented month-long vacations at their respective ranches, they ramp up all 5 gears in 24 hours, from somnamulence on 9/10, to blazing down the straight on 9/12. 9/11 "justifies" (in their minds) everything they have done in the last 5.75 years. 9/11 punctuates Bush and Cheney speeches like commas. Without it, there would have been no Afghanistan war, no Iraq war, no big new 200,000 employee government department (Homeland "Security" (sic), no "Patriot" Act (sic), no threatened Iran war, the trashing of the Constitution, and all the rest of the last few years' garbage.

It is not even necessary to get into impossible skyscraper collapses, conflicting NTSB flight data recorder material, living "suicide" hijackers, foreknowledge of the attacks by law enforcement/intelligence agencies of numerous nations, security/military drills and exercises at the time of both attacks that simulated the exact nature, times, and places of the attacks, Cheney lying to the country about his whereabouts that morning, the 9/11 Commission lying about the Twin Towers' architecture, Bush watching the first plane go in on a TV monitor (!), and a pork-chop eating, gold-wearing, hard-liquor-drinking, coke-snorting, partying "Muslim fundamentalist" who was so into his religion that he violated all of its most important earthly rules as he planned to die for Allah.... and hundreds of other damning aspects of the attacks.

The shifty, shady and suspicious behavior of the Bush Administration in avoiding any form of investigation, for so long (441 days).. should be enough for even the most ardent supporter of the official conspiracy yarn to get uncomfortable.... and Scooter Libby was in the thick of it.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #103 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Its a subject that's impossible to avoid when talking about the Bush Administration. 9/11 is their raison d'etre, their Pearl Harbor/Reichstag Fire/Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc. etc. Before 9/11, the Bush Administration was a rudderless ship, going nowhere fast.

Oh, I don't doubt that at all; it's just that the 'Worst President' thread has more or less become the repository for general anti-Bush posts. It took what, less than a page of replies for this one to turn to 9/11? Not to say that 9/11 is unworthy of discussion, but does it have to crop up in *every* Bush thread?
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #104 of 126
Quote:
It is not even necessary to get into impossible skyscraper collapses, conflicting NTSB flight data recorder material, living "suicide" hijackers, foreknowledge of the attacks by law enforcement/intelligence agencies of numerous nations, security/military drills and exercises at the time of both attacks that simulated the exact nature, times, and places of the attacks, Cheney lying to the country about his whereabouts that morning, the 9/11 Commission lying about the Twin Towers' architecture, Bush watching the first plane go in on a TV monitor (!), and a pork-chop eating, gold-wearing, hard-liquor-drinking, coke-snorting, partying "Muslim fundamentalist" who was so into his religion that he violated all of its most important earthly rules as he planned to die for Allah.... and hundreds of other damning aspects of the attacks.

Sammi Jo, you were doing exceptionally well until this paragraph. You have to admit that controlled demolitions have been de-bunked, period. As far as the other statements, you should keep evaluating and researching them. Others just need to be tossed aside for now, you tend to stack the deck too high to support another statement. In discarding some of the flotsam, you will hold up a lot better to credibility.
post #105 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Sammi Jo, you were doing exceptionally well until this paragraph. You have to admit that controlled demolitions have been de-bunked, period. As far as the other statements, you should keep evaluating and researching them. Others just need to be tossed aside for now, you tend to stack the deck too high to support another statement. In discarding some of the flotsam, you will hold up a lot better to credibility.

sammi_lo must have watched Zeitgeist the Movie a few THOUSAND TIMES!

Then it was off to google "9-11" or "9/11" or "911" and "wikipedia" to learn all about how censorship REALLY works at wikipedia.

Now I'm off to pen my new book titled "Zitfest the Abomination" wherein I tie together the GUT of KKKonspiracy. Therein you will discover the nature of the KKKosmos KKKreated ~13.7 billion years ago by KKKod.

[CENTER]
KKKod is KKKood[/CENTER]

The truth will set you free!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #106 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Is that before, during or after a trial which would produce evidence of guilt (or innocence) ?

But I guess you mean 'instead of'.....


Well, believing we are a nation of laws, I'd prefer he be brought to justice the traditional way. But the emotional side of my brain would like the "instead of" option. But I'm rational. Which is why I'm not a Republican. LOL!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #107 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

sammi_lo must have watched Zeitgeist the Movie a few THOUSAND TIMES!

Ironically, I watched that yesterday. A great beginning/end but the middle made me almost turn it off. But I watched it all and was impressed with a lot of what it offered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

The truth will set you free!

It will if we keep digging and eventually accepting some dis-credibility to certain claims.

Sammi Jo is right on the mark with the Libby/Feinstein/9-10 claims. It's all there and available for review.
post #108 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Ironically, I watched that yesterday. A great beginning/end but the middle made me almost turn it off. But I watched it all and was impressed with a lot of what it offered.



It will if we keep digging and eventually accepting some dis-credibility to certain claims.

Sammi Jo is right on the mark with the Libby/Feinstein/9-10 claims. It's all there and available for review.

Let's say I accept ALL of the (RE: Libby/Feinstein/9-10) claims, what of it?

It tells me that this executive branch neocon mindset is secretive, wanted to "restore" the relative strength of the executive branch (RE: Clinton), doesn't like paper trails (RE: their emails, voicemails, recordings, et. al), and wants to "Big Brother" all our sorry asses through FUD and Peeping Dicks™.

That the government wants to control us, D'oh, NO SHER SHITLOCK!

So what's new under the sun? Next up active mind control!

So (RE: 9-10 et. al.) the DOD doesn't plan things? As I recall Clinton tried to take out bin Laden on August 20th 1998, right?

That's how I "connect the dots."

As to Zeitgeist the Movie (ZtM), that URL at wikipedia didn't even exist several days ago! I couldn't even get through the first few minutes of the second part, and even then, I knew I'd be doing some fact checking wrt to first part. For example Horus as depicted in ZtM is way off base according to Egyptologists;

Quote:
There is no evidence that Horus was born of a virgin, that he had twelve disciples, or that he was considered incarnation of God.

Parallels between Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God

And they couldn't get the The Great Month of Aquarius correct;

Quote:
Timeframes

In 1928, at the Conference of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Leiden, the Netherlands, the edges of the 88 official constellations became defined in astronomical terms. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600.

The Austrian astronomer, Professor Hermann Haupt, examined the question of when the Age of Aquarius begins in an article published in 1992 by the Austrian Academy of Science: with the German title Der Beginn des Wassermannzeitalters, eine astronomische Frage? (The Start of the Aquarian Age, an Astronomical Question?). Based on the boundaries accepted by IAU in 1928, Haupt's article investigates the start of the Age of Aquarius by calculating the entry of the spring equinox point over the parallel cycle (d = - 4°) between the constellations Pisces and Aquarius and reaches, using the usual formula of precession (Gliese, 1982), the year 2595. However Haupt concludes: "Though it cannot be expected that astrologers will follow the official boundaries of the constellations, there will be an attempt to calculate the entry of the spring equinox point into the constellation of Aquarius." and "As briefly has been shown, the results and methods of astrology in many areas, such as concerning the Aquarian age, are controversial on their own and cannot be called scientific because of the many esoteric elements."

Zodiacal 30 degrees

Heindel-Rosicrucian based interpretation: begins in ca. AD 2654 (the Orb of influence started in ca. AD 1934/1930s)

Note: in this case, the Orb of influence (10th degree of Pisces) coincides with the discovery of Pluto, technological advancements including nuclear fission, the invention of the radar, the invention of SSB and FM in radio transmission, the first television broadcasts with a modern level of definition (1936); in the worldwide period of the Great Depression and the World Wars.

Elsa M. Glover interpretation:[11] ca. AD 2638

Neil Mann interpretation: begins AD 2150

Dane Rudhyar was one of the most important astrologers of the 20th century. His many influential books helped reconcile astrology with modern psychology and free it from the deterministic trappings of the past. According to his interpretation, the Age of Aquarius will begin in 2062.

Constellation

Shephard Simpson interpretation: begins in ca. AD 2680
Hermann Haupt interpretation begins in ca. AD 2595

So basically the IAU and most people consider ~2,600 AD to be the start of the the Age of Aquarius NOT ~2,150 AD.

ZtM is an unmitigable incontrovertible POS IMHO.

The real truth will set some of us free. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #109 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Sammi Jo, you were doing exceptionally well until this paragraph. You have to admit that controlled demolitions have been de-bunked, period. As far as the other statements, you should keep evaluating and researching them. Others just need to be tossed aside for now, you tend to stack the deck too high to support another statement. In discarding some of the flotsam, you will hold up a lot better to credibility.

I know that site very well. It's a great example of cherrypicking data to support preconceived conclusions, just like the Bush Administration did in the run up to the Iraq war, ir the 9/11 did in their botched (whitewash) "investigation". Even if one did a wild thought experiment, where everything on "debunking911.com is accurate, and complete, we are still left with hundreds of gaping holes, unanswered questions and outright lies. Lets ask: Why the lies????? Can debunking911.com answer *that*?

People are going to debunk the official story, then debunkers will debunk the debunkers, and the debunkers of the debunkers will get debunked, and so on in an infinite loop. Lots of speculation .. and much of it because the data is missing.

Nobody (in all probability) has the 9/11 story entirely correct (perhaps by a long shot). It's a shame that the official version's survival as a working theory is more based upon faith, endless repetition, and namecalling. The Bush Corp version has not been held to any worthwhile standard of rigor, and their best evidence (cellphone calls, security-cam tapes, videotapes of bin Laden, etc.) would never stand up as evidence in a court of law as none of these supposed items of "evidence" have verifiable chains of custody. I guess that in this age of "faithbased initiatives", a faith-based conclusion was what some folks were satisfied with.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #110 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I know that site very well. It's a great example of cherrypicking data to support preconceived conclusions, just like the Bush Administration did in the run up to the Iraq war, ir the 9/11 did in their botched (whitewash) "investigation". Even if one did a wild thought experiment, where everything on "debunking911.com is accurate, and complete, we are still left with hundreds of gaping holes, unanswered questions and outright lies. Lets ask: Why the lies????? Can debunking911.com answer *that*?

People are going to debunk the official story, then debunkers will debunk the debunkers, and the debunkers of the debunkers will get debunked, and so on in an infinite loop. Lots of speculation .. and much of it because the data is missing.

Nobody (in all probability) has the 9/11 story entirely correct (perhaps by a long shot). It's a shame that the official version's survival as a working theory is more based upon faith, endless repetition, and namecalling. The Bush Corp version has not been held to any worthwhile standard of rigor, and their best evidence (cellphone calls, security-cam tapes, videotapes of bin Laden, etc.) would never stand up as evidence in a court of law as none of these supposed items of "evidence" have verifiable chains of custody. I guess that in this age of "faithbased initiatives", a faith-based conclusion was what some folks were satisfied with.

What factual lies wrt the specifics of terrorists actions (prior to and) on 9-11? And who EXACTLY started the "cherrypicking" and "preconceived conclusions" anyway?

Did the Bush administration hand pick the 9-11 Commission, the NIST scientists/engineers who conducted their investigations, or those professionals (e. g. structural engineers, forensics experts, aircraft experts, etceteras) in the private sector who supported their conclusions?

And since I haven't been to NYC since 9-11, how do I even know that the WTC isn't still there? How do I know that the Eiffel Tower even exists since I've never seen/touched it myself? Or the Pyramids in Egypt? Perhaps the Sun doesn't exist, since I've never touched it!

Do you know what the acronyms ASCE, ASME, ACI, and AISC stand for?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Do you know what the acronyms ASCE, ASME, ACI, and AISC stand for?

Sure...
the ASCE: Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy
the ASME: Association for the Study of Medical Education
the ACI: Andean Counterdrug Initiative
the AISC: The Art Institute of Southern California

OK, so a bunch of Cuban economists, studying medicine and drugs in South America are secretly training to do terroristic art thefts?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #112 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Do you know what the acronyms ASCE, ASME, ACI, and AISC stand for?

I'm an ASNT certified weld inspector, does that count?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Sure...
the ASCE: Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy
the ASME: Association for the Study of Medical Education
the ACI: Andean Counterdrug Initiative
the AISC: The Art Institute of Southern California

OK, so a bunch of Cuban economists, studying medicine and drugs in South America are secretly training to do terroristic art thefts?

You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #113 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Even if one did a wild thought experiment, where everything on "debunking911.com is accurate, and complete, we are still left with hundreds of gaping holes, unanswered questions and outright lies. Lets ask: Why the lies????? Can debunking911.com answer *that*?

Those "gaping holes" are what the towers and WTC 7 had that brought them down. What is unfortunate is that the cult of "truthers" have bred (cloned more like it) countless copy-cat CT sites that overshadow the reason to keep investigating. Out of thousands of these there are only three that I know of (I'd include Popular Mechanics, but we already know the assumptions of them being "yellow journalism") that try to keep scanning the assumptions, allegations and yes, lies that the "truthers" have propagated.


World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”


More papers there too.

Read it. Review it. Hell, write the author and try to argue your points! That's what it's there for ("peer reviewed"). Maybe the experience will enlighten you both. I found talking to Philadelphia, NYC firemen, police and demolition experts over the years. It has been the most important and moving experiences I've had concerning 9-11.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

People are going to debunk the official story, then debunkers will debunk the debunkers, and the debunkers of the debunkers will get debunked, and so on in an infinite loop. Lots of speculation .. and much of it because the data is missing.

That's called dissemination of information. Hell, even the Loose Change dudes have revised their claims what...3-4 times already? Look also at the JFK assassination...two new books out on that. Watergate..."Deep Throat"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Nobody (in all probability) has the 9/11 story entirely correct (perhaps by a long shot). It's a shame that the official version's survival as a working theory is more based upon faith, endless repetition, and namecalling. The Bush Corp version has not been held to any worthwhile standard of rigor, and their best evidence (cellphone calls, security-cam tapes, videotapes of bin Laden, etc.) would never stand up as evidence in a court of law as none of these supposed items of "evidence" have verifiable chains of custody. I guess that in this age of "faithbased initiatives", a faith-based conclusion was what some folks were satisfied with.

Seen "Who Killed John O'Neill?". Covers the money chain quite well.

As far as the Bush/Cheney/Neocon conspiracy...that argument will be going on (and has since Nixon) for centuries too.
post #114 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


As far as the Bush/Cheney/Neocon conspiracy...that argument will be going on (and has since Nixon) for centuries too.

So, out of curiosity (since both you and I have written a lot on this subject here), a question for you:

Do you fully believe the Bush Admin's official position in its entirety, namely, that "19 fundamentalist Muslim men boarded 4 commercial planes, and flew 3 of those 4 planes into high profile targets (while the 4th crashed due to passengers' actions), and the entire operation came as a complete surprise, namely that nobody in the Federal Government, or security/intelligence/law enforcement community had any idea or expectation beforehand that it was going to happen, and the sole motivation for it was "because they hated our freedoms?"

Just out of interest.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #115 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

So, out of curiosity (since both you and I have written a lot on this subject here), a question for you:

Do you fully believe the Bush Admin's official position in its entirety, namely, that "19 fundamentalist Muslim men boarded 4 commercial planes, and flew 3 of those 4 planes into high profile targets (while the 4th crashed due to passengers' actions), and the entire operation came as a complete surprise, namely that nobody in the Federal Government, or security/intelligence/law enforcement community had any idea or expectation beforehand that it was going to happen, and the sole motivation for it was "because they hated our freedoms?"

Just out of interest.

Of course not. I don't believe that we blew up the WTC Towers, WTC 7 or had a remote controlled missile penetrate and blow up the Pentagon. I do believe that this administration (& the neocons before them) had this all set up for their agenda to take over oil production in strategic areas in the Middle East *, instill fear into the general populous and set in motion all the other scandals that power hungry humans have done since the beginning of time.

* Since 1975 mind you...

I'm old. I sense weirdness, coincidence and conspiracy both ways with a little more clarity. So get off my grassy knoll...
post #116 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Of course not. I don't believe that we blew up the WTC Towers, WTC 7 or had a remote controlled missile penetrate and blow up the Pentagon. I do believe that this administration (& the neocons before them) had this all set up for their agenda to take over oil production in strategic areas in the Middle East *, instill fear into the general populous and set in motion all the other scandals that power hungry humans have done since the beginning of time.

* Since 1975 mind you...

I'm old. I sense weirdness, coincidence and conspiracy both ways with a little more clarity. So get off my grassy knoll...


I feel the same way. No there's no smoking gun I can produce but it all seems a little too convenient. Too many questions. From the lame response to this event to the way it just worked out for Bush over the years. Until now of course.

Just how does one attack the center of the western military world so easily? You'd think they would have been targeting them miles away. We've always heard that minutes are an eternity for modern warfare. And don't tell me if they had a clear shot they wouldn't have taken the plane out. How many lives were on the plane versus how many died at the Pentigon?

We'll probably never know the whole truth.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #117 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

warfair

The most correct misspelling I have seen in many moons. I need to cook up a definition for that one. Something that involves the carnival-Saturday-afternoon-won't-this-be-fun spirit of getting into sectarian conflicts... anyone?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #118 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

The most correct misspelling I have seen in many moons. I need to cook up a definition for that one. Something that involves the carnival-Saturday-afternoon-won't-this-be-fun spirit of getting into sectarian conflicts... anyone?


Yes, yes, yes, warfare. The Warfair let's all go!

I've let several of yours go. Not anymore.

You had better be A number one perfect from now on.

But at least my posts have some subject matter pertaining to the discussion at hand. Not trying to appear clever by dwelling on the other's spelling or typos.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #119 of 126
If we tried to correct every grammatical, diction and spelling error on these pages we would be here forever and would also all be guilty. Let's get on with life.

If anyone is really bent upon correcting grammar and spelling, spend some time sending feedback to either CNN or most any source on Yahoo News (especially AP); they are professional writers that have trouble with the most basic of points to the point that the meaning is sometimes unclear.

If pro sites don't suit your fancy, dissect anything GWB has ever said.
"More and more of our imports are coming from overseas."

If your friends come over for a dinner party and have a chat, they will make hundreds of errors in the course of the evening; such is the nature of conversation. AI is a digital extension of conversation, and thus not a place for perfect grammar and spelling.

A lengthy blurb on the topic form someone who makes lotz and lotz ov typin erorz on me big phancy keybored (how I miss a thumb board).

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #120 of 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Yes, yes, yes, warfare. The Warfair let's all go!

I've let several of yours go. Not anymore.

You had better be A number one perfect from now on.

But at least my posts have some subject matter pertaining to the discussion at hand. Not trying to appear clever by dwelling on the other's spelling or typos.

Boo hoo. Chill out, jimmac. Stop looking for a reason to be offended, K? As usual, you think that my post is "all about you." Well, it's not "all about you." Sorry. You simply gave the slightest spark for another idea. I was simply pointing out how appropriate the new spelling might turn out being... we may have created a new and very usable term concerning the GWOT.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence