or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What neocons don't tell you
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What neocons don't tell you - Page 5

post #161 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

Credible = what you would accept.

In these terms, I submit there is no such info in existence.

Not so AND is so!

From the mind of a hatter comes gibberish! Whoda thunk that would be possible!

There must be some conspiracy software out there, just dump in trillions of pieces of arbitrary bits of information WRT 9/11, and it is off to infinity and beyond!
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 #162 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

For all those who still acknowledge/have faith in the official fairystory, which is the weirdest and most unlikely conspiracy theory of the wackiest kind, but with lots of big media money and time/repetition behind it to shape history with lies and misrepresentations, the lamest and weakest conspiracy yarn of them all, and the ultimate in tinfoil-hattism since the dawn of the Weekly World News, consider:

If the US Government is so blameless in this entire affair, apart from exhibiting "a lack of imagination" (!!!!!!!!!), then why has their conduct been so shifty, secretive, evasive, and untruthful in the aftermath?

I could count off hundreds of incidents of this kind of behavior, which, in the circumstances is weird, illogical and inappropriate. The refusal to open any kind of inquiry until 441 days after the attacks is just the tip of the iceberg. It was only the pressure from the "Jersey Girls" and others which forced the Admin. into opening an "inquiry", the Zelikow "Commission", which was starved of cash and time, and they demonstrably lied and misrepresented the facts on perhaps 65 of the most pertinent aspects of the attacks.

If so blameless, why all the lies, why the obfuscations, why the need to do "hit pieces", why all the behavior that runs 180º in opposition to what would be reasonably expected, if the attacks had been what whey said they were? Furthermore, if 3000 people were killed and $billions of property damage incurred as a result of "government incompetence and lack of imagination", heads would still be rolling now, 6 years later. In contrast, not a single person was fired, or demoted, or carpeted, or reprimanded, or courtmartialed, or tried, fined, jailed. Nothing. In contrast, some of those who exhibited the greatest degree of "lack of imagination" ended up being promoted. Cronyism and mass murder, hand in hand?

We don't even need evidence of explosions in and under the towers, or disappearing planes, or bilocating hijackers.. etc etc. Just look at the conduct of those in charge, and that should convince anyone who displays the remotest degree of sentience, that something is grossly amiss. Then...ask the questions, that is, if one can get behind the multiple concentric rings of security that separate the paranoids in government from the great unwashed they allegedly represent.

Did you miss the title of this thread? Because that essentially sums up what you just said!

Next time spare us from the wordy random chaotic verbiage! \
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 #163 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Did you miss the title of this thread? Because that essentially sums up what you just said!

Next time spare us from the wordy random chaotic verbiage! \

Ok, you don't want to acknowledge, because these facts are undebunkable. You're weaseling out, yet again.

Now think motivation:

Who stood to gain re. the 9/11 attacks? Answers = the NeoConservative movement, the Bush Administration, authoritaranism and big brotherism, defense contractors and warmongers, the private security and mercenary industry, the oil industry and yes, the hardline rightwing Zionist movement, which practises its own brand of anti-semitism (ie hatred of the Arab people, coupled with raging Islamophobia).

And who lost out big time? Answers = the American people, freedom in general, the troops who have needlessly died or been maimed for life, the entire Muslim Arab and the Muslim community worldwide, a million murdered Arabs and their bereaved families...

Police, when investigating a crime, tend to look at motivation as one of the primary indicators as to the culprits. Then, having established the likely suspects, they look at how they behave under questioning. Of course, in the case of 9/11, the crimes were not investigated, the Commission was loaded, the report was a whitewash, full of lies, half truths, distortions, and omissions, all the crime scenes were tampered with impunity, and our leading officials have been shielded from all questioning.

Frank Sargent...You are either incredibly naive, or cannot handle the possibility that our highest elected officers could be any less than 100% honest.
"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 #164 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

There IS a distinct difference between an elected/appointed political figure and a public civil servant, trained to do the forensics, trained to do the analyses, trained to track down credible information, and have a lifetime of experience in these various disciplines.

There is a distinct difference between an elected/appointed political figure and private sector individuals, trained to do the forensics, trained to do the analyses, trained to track down credible information, and have a lifetime of experience in these various disciplines.

There was one, John O'Neill:

Quote:
In September 2002, agents and officials from the CIA and FBI testified before a joint congressional panel about how their security agencies failed to fully share information about suspected terrorists and their activities in the months leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks.

As much as anyone working in counterterrorism, John O'Neill knew about this communication breakdown. In fact, just two months before Sept. 11, in a speech to Spanish police on interagency cooperation, he had asked his audience, "How much more successful could we all be if we really knew what our agencies really knew?" O'Neill's last major FBI investigation -- the attack on the USS Cole on Oct. 12, 2000 -- was a case study of just how bad inter-agency communication had become.

Unfortunately, he was a victim of this bureaucratic mess and one-upsmanship of his colleagues. Frustrated, he retired from the FBI and got a position as Security at the World Trade Towers. He died on September 11, 2001.

Quote:
O'Neill is in his 34th floor office in the North Tower at 8:46 a.m. when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into it. Among others, O'Neill calls Valerie James once he is outside the building. He asks her what hit the building and tells her, "Val, it's horrible. There are body parts everywhere." A few seconds later he tells her, "Okay, I'll call you in a little bit." O'Neill also sends a text message to Fran Townsend to report that he is okay.

In the minutes after the attack, O'Neill makes his way to the command center that had been set up. There he sees FBI agent Wesley Wong. Wong would tell Esquire magazine later, "He was in FBI mode. Then he turned and kind of looked at me and went toward the interior of the complex. From the time John walked away to the time the building collapsed was certainly not more than a half hour or 20 minutes." Wong is the last person to see him alive.

Quote:
The 9/11 Commission's investigation revealed that America's $30 billion intelligence community, spread over more than a dozen agencies, was disorganized, fractured and impaired by organizational and legal restrictions on the sharing of information.

These disclosures directly relate to John O'Neill's story. He came tantalizingly close to possibly uncovering the 9/11 plot. But his investigations into the USS Cole terrorist attack and into Al Qaeda's presence in the United States were both undermined by the CIA and FBI's failure to share information with each other. Read FRONTLINE's "What If" report for details.

Watch Frontline's "The Man Who Knew" for more.
post #165 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Ok, you don't want to acknowledge, because these facts are undebunkable. You're weaseling out, yet again.

Now think motivation:

Who stood to gain re. the 9/11 attacks? Answers = the NeoConservative movement, the Bush Administration, authoritaranism and big brotherism, defense contractors and warmongers, the private security and mercenary industry, the oil industry and yes, the hardline rightwing Zionist movement, which practises its own brand of anti-semitism (ie hatred of the Arab people, coupled with raging Islamophobia).

And who lost out big time? Answers = the American people, freedom in general, the troops who have needlessly died or been maimed for life, the entire Muslim Arab and the Muslim community worldwide, a million murdered Arabs and their bereaved families...

Police, when investigating a crime, tend to look at motivation as one of the primary indicators as to the culprits. Then, having established the likely suspects, they look at how they behave under questioning. Of course, in the case of 9/11, the crimes were not investigated, the Commission was loaded, the report was a whitewash, full of lies, half truths, distortions, and omissions, all the crime scenes were tampered with impunity, and our leading officials have been shielded from all questioning.

Frank Sargent...You are either incredibly naive, or cannot handle the possibility that our highest elected officers could be any less than 100% honest.

... conjectures, doubt the engineering and scientific SME's (without a shred of quantifiable evidence), connect the dots any which way as long as "they did it" meaning Bush, et. al., and you also know that "they did it ON PURPOSE", because you know, "they did it ON PURPOSE", because you know, ... ad infinitum, ad nauseam, ...


There's once was this Nazi guy, you know Joseph something or other, I'm trying to remember what he said, something about lying, can't remember what it was though, can you help me?

Tit for tat, kind of ironic, don't you think? That the hatters keep repeating the same old tired-flawed-false-misleading arguments, over, and over, and over, ...
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 #166 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Who stood to gain re. the 9/11 attacks?...

Nobody gained from 9-11. There were only different degrees of losing.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #167 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Nobody gained from 9-11. There were only different degrees of losing.

No one won from 9/11. But Islamic fundamentalism clearly won the greatest benefit from the invasion, as well as American war-related contractors and their interested parties. It's pretty clear that the numbers of militant fundamentalists and terr'ists has skyrocketed since the Iraq invasion. I'd chalk that up in the "win" column, wouldn't you?
post #168 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Please provide some credible information (e. g. links with documented facts and NOT hearsay links from blog-o-smear central) as to you endless stream of conjectures. I'm waiting!

These are the informations the US-intelligence knew:

1. On September, 11th, 1994, Frank Corder stole a singleengine plane and tried to crash it on the White House. Clinton was not at home.

2. December 1994, Algerian terrorists highjacked a commercial airplane with the goal of crashing it on the Eiffel-tower. During a refueling-stop, they got killed by french commandos.

3. AlQaeeda's plot to destroy 11 airliners, to assassinate Pope Paul II and to highjack a commercial airliner and to fly it into the CIA-headquarter in Langley was prevented on January 7th, 1995.

4. After Clinton's attacks on OBL's headquarters in 1998, OBL decided to attack in the US in retaliation and started to plan for it.

5. In the US, there were thirteen official agencies with an intelligence role, and their assessments were supervised by the director of central intelligence, an office created by Truman to coordinate the various agencies, who was also at the same time the director of the CIA.
This intelligence-community knew in early 2001 about the imminent execution of project Bojinka II , ie. the use of suicide-bombers, trained in american flightschools, that would fly american civilian airliners into high-profile targets on US-soil.
France, Israel and even Russia warned the US of such an attack.

6. For some reason, FBI-investigators were blocked from further investigations, trackings and surveillance in the weeks prior to 9/11/2001.


After 9/11/2001, the Bush administration claimed unashamedly, that noone could have thought that an attack on the US would be done using highjacked commercial airliners as weapons.

Judge yourself, if that was the truth.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #169 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

These are the informations the US-intelligence knew:

1. On September, 11th, 1994, Frank Corder stole a singleengine plane and tried to crash it on the White House. Clinton was not at home.

2. December 1994, Algerian terrorists highjacked a commercial airplane with the goal of crashing it on the Eiffel-tower. During a refueling-stop, they got killed by french commandos.

3. AlQaeeda's plot to destroy 11 airliners, to assassinate Pope Paul II and to highjack a commercial airliner and to fly it into the CIA-headquarter in Langley was prevented on January 7th, 1995.

4. After Clinton's attacks on OBL's headquarters in 1998, OBL decided to attack in the US in retaliation and started to plan for it.

5. In the US, there were thirteen official agencies with an intelligence role, and their assessments were supervised by the director of central intelligence, an office created by Truman to coordinate the various agencies, who was also at the same time the director of the CIA.
This intelligence-community knew in early 2001 about the imminent execution of project Bojinka II , ie. the use of suicide-bombers, trained in american flightschools, that would fly american civilian airliners into high-profile targets on US-soil.
France, Israel and even Russia warned the US of such an attack.

6. For some reason, FBI-investigators were blocked from further investigations, trackings and surveillance in the weeks prior to 9/11/2001.


After 9/11/2001, the Bush administration claimed unashamedly, that noone could have thought that an attack on the US would be done using highjacked commercial airliners as weapons.

Judge yourself, if that was the truth.

Nightcrawler

A lot of nice facts there, or just words as it were, but you know the rules, provide some links to these "facts" from some sites that don't have bias with intent. You know like *.gov, *.mil, *.edu, or any other site in any domain NOT connected to the hatters in any way, shape, or form, TYVM. I'll not waste my time on the blog-o-smear of 18 year old "so called" SME's.

Here's my fact;

0) During WWII the Japanese were known to be suicide bombers aka Kamikazes.

So my theory is that the Japanese planned and executed the 9-11 attacks in retaliation for the USA nuking two of their cities 56 years prior!
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 #170 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

A lot of nice facts there, or just words as it were, but you know the rules, provide some links to these "facts" from some sites that don't have bias with intent. You know like *.gov, *.mil, *.edu, or any other site in any domain NOT connected to the hatters in any way, shape, or form, TYVM. I'll not waste my time on the blog-o-smear of 18 year old "so called" SME's.

1. Radar Detected Airplane before White House Crash

2. Air France Flight 8969

3. 1995 plan selected U.S.-bound airliners from E. Asia

4, 5, 6. Impact of the W. Bush administration on official information, privacy and security issues, 2001-04


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Here's my fact;

0) During WWII the Japanese were known to be suicide bombers aka Kamikazes.

So my theory is that the Japanese planned and executed the 9-11 attacks in retaliation for the USA nuking two of their cities 56 years prior!

Frank, have any links to prove this? Oh, wait...it was an attack on Nightcrawler. Seems you and SDW are in the same bed together with backing up your rhetoric too.
post #171 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Nobody gained from 9-11. There were only different degrees of losing.

Oh right sheesh already. . May I laugh now?
Tell that to the owners/shareholders of Blackwater, KBR, Halliburton, Bechtel, Exxon, and all the others in the corporate/defense/oil/security sectors which have been enjoying record profits on account of the consequences of the 9/11 attacks. "Corporate Welfare Queens Inc". Of course I am not suggesting that any official in these companies had a hand in the attacks, (lets nip that one in the bud before the middle-school "conspiracy" jerks in here grab a hold), but I bet there were plenty of wry, knowing smiles in the boardrooms on realizing the profit potential ahead as a result of the attacks.

And... the NeoConservative movement had their entire wet dream, an unrealizable impossibility without 9/11 (or similar), handed to them, on a plate.
(Which included, of course, a global war against Islam).
Kaboom.

"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 #172 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

1. Radar Detected Airplane before White House Crash

2. Air France Flight 8969

3. 1995 plan selected U.S.-bound airliners from E. Asia

4, 5, 6. Impact of the W. Bush administration on official information, privacy and security issues, 2001-04




Frank, have any links to prove this? Oh, wait...it was an attack on Nightcrawler. Seems you and SDW are in the same bed together with backing up your rhetoric too.

Kamikaze

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Now I just need the flight lists, find 4-5 asians per plane, and I'll have all the proof I need!

But seriously, flying planes into structures, such originality there.

I guess US intelligence should be prepared for all forms of terrorism 247, right? By land, by sea, and by air! The entire US Navy/Marines/Coast Guard on alert 247 protecting our coastal waters, our entire US Army protecting our land borders 247, our entire US Air Force on alert 247 protecting our skies, and our entire US military ready to launch our entire nuclear arsenal at a moment's notice.



You know, "Code Red" or "Red Alert" or "Severe Risk of Terrorist Attacks," 247 given US intelligence's (now there's an oxymoron for you, if there ever was one) proven inept track record, right?

But even more seriously, let's get to the root of the matter wrt 9/11, you know "prior knowledge" of the specific events on that specific day and "we know they knew" that those specific 4 planes on that specific time of day were headed towards those specific 4 targets. Some evidence please?

Points 5, 6 are where this line of argument falls flat on it's face, it's called a disconnect, the CIA wasn't a domestic intelligence agency, and the FBI wasn't a foreign intelligence agency, you know that "artificial wall of separation?" Territorial disputes between these two agencies not willing to share intelligence?

It's called FUBAR! That's why we now have the DHS, right? I mean now with this in place we will never be attacked again, because we just know that now we have infallible intelligence networks spying on us, and spying the world over, because we just know that they'd never ever fail us again, right?
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 #173 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I guess US intelligence should be prepared for all forms of terrorism 247, right? By land, by sea, and by air! The entire US Navy/Marines/Coast Guard on alert 247 protecting our coastal waters, our entire US Army protecting our land borders 247, our entire US Air Force on alert 247 protecting our skies, and our entire US military ready to launch our entire nuclear arsenal at a moment's notice.

No. Not now. Just pour billions of dollars into a program (Homeland Security) that will do nothing to catch terrorists, only erode American's freedoms.

Oh, and another thing, instill fear 24-7 through the media and through false-flag threats and rhetoric.
[CENTER]






[/CENTER]
post #174 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

No one won from 9/11. But Islamic fundamentalism clearly won the greatest benefit from the invasion, as well as American war-related contractors and their interested parties. It's pretty clear that the numbers of militant fundamentalists and terr'ists has skyrocketed since the Iraq invasion. I'd chalk that up in the "win" column, wouldn't you?

I do understand your point, but the invasion of Iraq couldn't have been foreseen as a direct product of 9-11. Even the conspiracy wing of AI have posted memos written by Rumsfeld showing that the decision to invade Iraq was only made well after the disaster took place.

Thus, if the American military-industrial complex/Neo-Conservatives/Israel had pre-planned the 9-11 tragedy, they certainly went to a lot of trouble without linking it directly to the regime they wanted to eliminate. That doesn't make sense.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #175 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I do understand your point, but the invasion of Iraq couldn't have been foreseen as a direct product of 9-11. Even the conspiracy wing of AI have posted memos written by Rumsfeld showing that the decision to invade Iraq was only made well after the disaster took place.

Thus, if the American military-industrial complex/Neo-Conservatives/Israel had pre-planned the 9-11 tragedy, they certainly went to a lot of trouble without linking it directly to the regime they wanted to eliminate. That doesn't make sense.

Dick Cheney wanted to launch the US Empire on June 3, 1997.

Also...


Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000


Quote:
Houston: Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.

He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999, said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. It was on his mind. He said to me: One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. And he said, My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. He said, If I have a chance to invade.if I had that much capital, Im not going to waste it. Im going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and Im going to have a successful presidency.

Another theory...

Did the USA invade Iraq to secretly divert Iraq's oil to hide Saudi Arabia's production decline?

Quote:
I have never been entirely satisfied with the unofficial explanations for the Iraq war. I do accept (as does this article) the idea that the war was somehow about oil, yet none of the existing explanations for why that should be so are terribly convincing. The United States could have achieved significant influence over the disposition of Iraqi oil through standard diplomatic and commercial means, without the expenditure of so many lives and so much money.

AH! I forgot about the oil thing, we all do, don't we?
post #176 of 209

The 9-11 terrorists attack was THE neocon artists wet dream, the excuse they needed to convince the naive American public and the naive MSM that AmeriKKKa needed to bring the fight to them, whomever they believed they were, as told to us by the BushCo, Inc. Brainiacless Trust™.

But proving they had "prior knowledge" of the 9/11 attack is another matter entirely.

[CENTER]
Recently renamed the USS Neocon Artist Titanica[/CENTER]

Displacement = 648,000 tonnes
LOA = 458 m
Beam = 69 m
Draft = 24.6 m

EDIT: Minor point, this graph;



is a bit disingenuous, doesn't show total world production, the y-axis doesn't start at zero, and the x-axis should show pre-post time periods. In other words, it appears to be bias with intent. \
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 #177 of 209
[CENTER][/CENTER]
post #178 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I do understand your point, but the invasion of Iraq couldn't have been foreseen as a direct product of 9-11. Even the conspiracy wing of AI have posted memos written by Rumsfeld showing that the decision to invade Iraq was only made well after the disaster took place.

Absolutely not. The plan to invade Iraq was being talked about on the days immediately after Bush's inauguration in January 2001, some 8 months P R I O R to 9/11. Bush/Cheney said to their team: "Find us a way we can do it". 9/11 seemed to work just fine as a "reason", did it not, re. scaring the public shitless? Cheney was saying that Iraq was linked to the attacks even up until last year. This is according to former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. But, to preempt...according to Frank Sargent, SDW, and co. this is probably a wacky conspiracy theory...

Quote:
Thus, if the American military-industrial complex/Neo-Conservatives/Israel had pre-planned the 9-11 tragedy, they certainly went to a lot of trouble without linking it directly to the regime they wanted to eliminate. That doesn't make sense.

They didn't even have to "preplan it". They just had to "let it happen"; the end result of "letting it happen on purpose" would have been identical to "making it happen on purpose".
"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 #179 of 209
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction

Quote:
On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Goodnight
post #180 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

I do understand your point, but the invasion of Iraq couldn't have been foreseen as a direct product of 9-11. Even the conspiracy wing of AI have posted memos written by Rumsfeld showing that the decision to invade Iraq was only made well after the disaster took place.

Thus, if the American military-industrial complex/Neo-Conservatives/Israel had pre-planned the 9-11 tragedy, they certainly went to a lot of trouble without linking it directly to the regime they wanted to eliminate. That doesn't make sense.

Like others here already pointed out, the Bush-administration made their plans for a new world order well before 9/11. It was the project of a new pax america. The idea behind that was that the US won the coldwar and was now legitimised and entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory by expanding the US-empire onto the rest of the world, and espescially to prevent the rise of future rivals, and to contain potential ones, espescially China.

Doing this required the installation of a net of US-military-bases in central asia and the middle-east, in order to control ressources and strategic areas.

Military-bases are very useful things, even more useful than embassies, while the latter merely allowed spying and recruitment and funding of rebels, military-bases allow that and a show of direct force, with the ability to fly in troops and material if necessary.

With these military bases, it's not only possible to keep other nations in check, it's also a great instrument to negotiate ressource- and other economical and political contracts in favour of the US.

Let's face it, the one finite fossil ressource that is empowering modern economies and modern armies is oil.

Currently Israel has an energy-problem, while importing oil from Russia at high costs, while the US wishes for an additional reliable oil-deliverer besides Saudi-Arabia.

The plan was therefore to install a US-puppet government in Iraq, to get it to make peace with Israel, and to rebuild the old oil-pipeline between southern Iraq and Haifa in Israel. Jordan would have to agree to that project, but then Jordan already made peace with Israel and is highly dependent on iraqi oil, since Iraq is its only deliverer, so that would be an easy talk.


Back to the start, the project for a pax america, needed a new Pearl-Harbor to set it off, a provocative attack on the US, so that the american population would support the new foreign and domestic policy.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #181 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Like others here already pointed out, the Bush-administration made their plans for a new world order well before 9/11. It was the project of a new pax america. The idea behind that was that the US won the coldwar and was now legitimised and entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory by expanding the US-empire onto the rest of the world, and espescially to prevent the rise of future rivals, and to contain potential ones, espescially China.

Doing this required the installation of a net of US-military-bases in central asia and the middle-east, in order to control ressources and strategic areas.

Military-bases are very useful things, even more useful than embassies, while the latter merely allowed spying and recruitment and funding of rebels, military-bases allow that and a show of direct force, with the ability to fly in troops and material if necessary.

With these military bases, it's not only possible to keep other nations in check, it's also a great instrument to negotiate ressource- and other economical and political contracts in favour of the US.

Let's face it, the one finite fossil ressource that is empowering modern economies and modern armies is oil.

Currently Israel has an energy-problem, while importing oil from Russia at high costs, while the US wishes for an additional reliable oil-deliverer besides Saudi-Arabia.

The plan was therefore to install a US-puppet government in Iraq, to get it to make peace with Israel, and to rebuild the old oil-pipeline between southern Iraq and Haifa in Israel. Jordan would have to agree to that project, but then Jordan already made peace with Israel and is highly dependent on iraqi oil, since Iraq is its only deliverer, so that would be an easy talk.


Back to the start, the project for a pax america, needed a new Pearl-Harbor to set it off, a provocative attack on the US, so that the american population would support the new foreign and domestic policy.

Nightcrawler

... fanatical storytellers, and they travelled throughout the land to tell all who would listen, that an evil spell had been cast over them all by some extremely evil and extremely bad men, that they all had been tricked by these extremely evil and extremely bad men, that these extremely evil and extremely bad men had hatched an extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, that these extremely evil and extremely bad men executed their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, ...
.
.
.
... or perhaps these extremely evil and extremely bad men had foreknowledge of others from extremely strange and far off lands who were also extremely evil and extremely bad men. who were hatching their own even more extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, and the extremely evil and extremely bad men of the first party just decided to let the extremely evil and extremely bad men of the second party execute their even more extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, ...
.
.
.
... or perhaps these extremely evil and extremely bad men of the first party lacked the intelligence to fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but they still had their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, that these extremely evil and extremely bad men needed an opportunity to execute their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, and so it came to pass that these extremely evil and extremely bad men prayed extremely often and extremely hard to the lord their savior on high for an opportunity to execute their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, and it came to pass that the lord their savior on high answered their prayers, and thus they were extremely blessed and extremely thankful to the lord their savior on high, for the lord their savior on high doth speaketh to the extremely evil and extremely bad men of the second party, ...
.
.
(flips quickly towards the end of this extremely excruciatingly painful and extremely excruciatingly sad story)
.
.
... and thus a mighty global war, or if you prefer a global holocaust ensued, of unbounded proportions, consuming all the peoples of this distant world in a distant far off galaxy, ...
.
.
.
... and so it came to pass that this species who called themselves human destroyed themselves in their own conflagration, humankind was no more, ...
.
.
.
... but the story does have a happy ending you will see, because all the other species survived on this distant world, to go on to live in relative peace and tranquility, or more simply they lived happily ever after, for these were the meek, and thus did they truly inherit the world called Earth.
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 #182 of 209
post #183 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

Like others here already pointed out, the Bush-administration made their plans for a new world order well before 9/11. It was the project of a new pax america. The idea behind that was that the US won the coldwar and was now legitimised and entitled to enjoy the fruits of victory by expanding the US-empire onto the rest of the world, and espescially to prevent the rise of future rivals, and to contain potential ones, espescially China.Nightcrawler

You guys continually give the Bush admin way too much credit. I guess you figure that if Bush and Rove beat the Democratic brain trust they must be secret geniuses or something. They are not.

The types of plans you reference are continually drawn up by thinktanks and elitist groups. Yes, these guys have a pipeline into the White House (doesn't matter whoever is President) but that's a long way from claiming that the Bush administration planned the 9-11 attacks, or at the very least let them happen.

I have no great love for most neo-conservative positions, but I still think it is silly to imagine that a renegade neo-con group in the administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, so they let 19 Saudi Arabians bomb a US landmark and kill 3000 people. That position makes no sense.
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #184 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

...



Honestly, arguing with you evasive, ignorant trolls is like herding cats.
post #185 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

To simplify...

Whatever the "motivations" for Russia to say there were no WMD, Russia said there were no WMD. And you claimed they believed there were WMD. I guess you just know what everyone is thinking all the time.

And Bush had no "motivations" to lie? Mmmmmkay...


No, Putin said there they had no evidence of WMD. Putin. It was a political statement.

As for Bush, Cheney, et al: I'm glad you brought this "motivation" issue up. Don't you think that Bush and Cheney would know that if they lied about WMD, it would come out very quickly? It simply doesn't make sense. They wouldn't have claimed what they did if they didn't believe it. It's too easy a thing to disprove later if it's a lie. No one...absolutely no one could be that dumb <pause for your comment on Bush's intelligence>.
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 #186 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, Putin said there they had no evidence of WMD. Putin. It was a political statement.

As for Bush, Cheney, et al: I'm glad you brought this "motivation" issue up. Don't you think that Bush and Cheney would know that if they lied about WMD, it would come out very quickly? It simply doesn't make sense. They wouldn't have claimed what they did if they didn't believe it. It's too easy a thing to disprove later if it's a lie. No one...absolutely no one could be that dumb <pause for your comment on Bush's intelligence>.

If you think so. I think Putin is a better source for what Russian intelligence claimed than... wait a minute, who did you say claimed Russian intelligence said Iraq had WMD? Anyone?

You have no support for your claim. Putin is the support against your claim. Support trumps no support, even if you personally believe Putin is not a reliable source.
post #187 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

You guys continually give the Bush admin way too much credit. I guess you figure that if Bush and Rove beat the Democratic brain trust they must be secret geniuses or something. They are not.

The types of plans you reference are continually drawn up by thinktanks and elitist groups. Yes, these guys have a pipeline into the White House (doesn't matter whoever is President) but that's a long way from claiming that the Bush administration planned the 9-11 attacks, or at the very least let them happen.

I have no great love for most neo-conservative positions, but I still think it is silly to imagine that a renegade neo-con group in the administration wanted to go to war with Iraq, so they let 19 Saudi Arabians bomb a US landmark and kill 3000 people. That position makes no sense.

I don't think that the Bush-administration planned 9/11, but I suspect very strongly that they awaited and knew that such an attack was on the way. You think this is unthinkable because of the thousands of deaths among americans, but we are talking here about politicians that are willing to accept victims and risks for major strategic gains.

The plan for the New world order was already tried by Bush Senior shortly after the Soviet-Union collapsed. Unfortunately for him, Clinton won the next two terms, and so the plan had to take a pause, but it didn't matter much, because the US managed to build and man military bases in Saudi Arabia.

I likewise don't think that either of the Bushes or Cheney or whoever is a genius, it's just simple might-policy and simple strategy: The US (-empire) won the coldwar, the Soviet-empire collapsed leaving a powervaccuum in parts of the world, like Asia and the middle-east, which the US decided to fill before regional powers would do so.

Iraq was on the verge of developing nukes, and since nukes guarantee souvereignity and independence, Iraq had to be bombed back to stone-age.

Of course the US could not simply bomb Iraq without a due and visible justification, at least not in 1990/91, ie. before 9/11.

Therefore the US convinced Kuwait to conduct an economical war against Iraq, and made a security-contract saying that in the case of an invasion by Iraq, the US would protect Kuwait. What Kuwait should do and did was to manipulate the price of oil by drastically overproducing oil, therefore driving the price of oil down, and then to drill, ie. steal oil from Iraq's oil-field at the border to Kuwait.

The analysis was made that Iraq would react with an invasion, and therefore allowing the US to cry foul and to intervene. Iraq's leadership on the other hand knew of the possibility of such an intervention, but was deliberately misled by the US, that made efforts to get cozy with Iraq. Not only that, the US assured Iraq, that it would not intervene in any border-conflict between arabs and arabs, and more: The US told Iraq, that it could take and keep the northern part of Kuwait.

Lies are a very strong instrument in the US' foreign policy. The goal of such lies was not only to provoke Iraq into an invasion of a neighbour that led an economic war against it and stole oil, but also to pressure Saudi Arabia into allowing US-troops to be stationed there. In fact, the US began stationing its soldiers in Saudi Arabia days before Saudi-Arabia officially "invited" the US to do so. The reasoning for such an act was the lie (Dick Cheney was over there), that Iraq's armies were on the way through Kuwait to conquer Saudi-Arabia.
Forged satellite-images were used to present the case to the Saudis...

After the war, russian satellite-images debunked the claims.

In fact, had Iraq's regime wanted to conquer east-Saudi-Arabia, it would/should have done it before the US built up their forces there was completed. Up until October 1990, the US-forces brought there would have not been enough to repel Iraq's forces and the conquering of that part of Saudi-Arabia would have severely disturbed the coalition-forces' setup. It was a big strategical error of Iraq not to have done it.

Regardless the war threw Iraq back into stone-age, because the coalition forces chose to destroy alot of infrastructure, from bridges to electricity-facilities, from dams to sewages.

Iraq's army on the other hand deliberately set fire to Kuwait's oil-fields before withdrawing.

A regional power that was on the brink of developing the nuke was neutralised, and the US could build military bases in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia lost the respect of the islamists throughout the world because it sided with the US and Israel, and subsequently tried to regain favour by drastically increasing financial support for radical islamists in the ex-Soviet-states in Central Asia, donating Qurans and building mosques, recognizing the Taliban-regime and helping it against the North-Alliance...


Point is the US, like any other state would do with the same power and influence, uses its power in unethical ways in order to get through its interests. In this case the interests were: a)helping its ally Israel, b)gaining more direct access to its crucially needed ressource oil and c)throwing Iraq back into stone age, preventing a nuclear Iraq, toppling of Saddam Hussein's regime...

The latest point, the US wanted to be done by shias and kurds inside Iraq. The US' CIA called them to rebel against the Baath-regime with the promise that the US would help them. Dick Cheney and George Bush senior chose against a direct regimechange, because it would have broken up the alliance formed, and also because of the casualties US-soldiers would have to endure in urban warfare, and because the US didn't want to have the headaches of taking Iraq and trying to control and govern it.

Instead they figured the weakened regime would be easily toppled by kurdish and shia rebellions, but it didn't work out, the kurdish and shia uprising got brutally crushed.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #188 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
"some catch on faster than others"
Reply
post #189 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, Putin said there they had no evidence of WMD. Putin. It was a political statement.
As for Bush, Cheney, et al: I'm glad you brought this "motivation" issue up. Don't you think that Bush and Cheney would know that if they lied about WMD, it would come out very quickly? It simply doesn't make sense. They wouldn't have claimed what they did if they didn't believe it. It's too easy a thing to disprove later if it's a lie. No one...absolutely no one could be that dumb <pause for your comment on Bush's intelligence>.

Clearly you didn't live through the Nixon Administration. It took several newspapers and 2 years to uncover the Watergate scandal. I recall the second half, since I was a teenager. I watched the Watergate hearings on public television. And Watergate was just the tip of his iceberg*.

And presidents after him tip-toed around scandals all through their terms, some learning along the way to cover them up. Each passing along through their party what works and what to avoid. Two main overseers during the Republican presidencies were Rumsfeld and Cheney, including Wolfawitz, Rove and many others. It's incredible that with all the technology and access to information today, that these scandals don't reach the public immediately. I guess it comes with experience and influence in the media itself.

*Yes, I know it started with Johnson, but Nixon allowed it to continue through his term.
post #190 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... fanatical storytellers, and they travelled throughout the land to tell all who would listen, that an evil spell had been cast over them all by some extremely evil and extremely bad men, that they all had been tricked by these extremely evil and extremely bad men, that these extremely evil and extremely bad men had hatched an extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, that these extremely evil and extremely bad men executed their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, ...
.
.
.
... or perhaps these extremely evil and extremely bad men had foreknowledge of others from extremely strange and far off lands who were also extremely evil and extremely bad men. who were hatching their own even more extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, and the extremely evil and extremely bad men of the first party just decided to let the extremely evil and extremely bad men of the second party execute their even more extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, ...
.
.
.
... or perhaps these extremely evil and extremely bad men of the first party lacked the intelligence to fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but they still had their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, that these extremely evil and extremely bad men needed an opportunity to execute their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, and so it came to pass that these extremely evil and extremely bad men prayed extremely often and extremely hard to the lord their savior on high for an opportunity to execute their extremely evil and extremely devilish plan, and it came to pass that the lord their savior on high answered their prayers, and thus they were extremely blessed and extremely thankful to the lord their savior on high, for the lord their savior on high doth speaketh to the extremely evil and extremely bad men of the second party, ...
.
.
(flips quickly towards the end of this extremely excruciatingly painful and extremely excruciatingly sad story)
.
.
... and thus a mighty global war, or if you prefer a global holocaust ensued, of unbounded proportions, consuming all the peoples of this distant world in a distant far off galaxy, ...
.
.
.
... and so it came to pass that this species who called themselves human destroyed themselves in their own conflagration, humankind was no more, ...
.
.
.
... but the story does have a happy ending you will see, because all the other species survived on this distant world, to go on to live in relative peace and tranquility, or more simply they lived happily ever after, for these were the meek, and thus did they truly inherit the world called Earth.

Bush's Legacy,
Quote:
"We're kicking ass," Bush said to Vaile Tuesday, according the Herald, after the deputy prime minister inquired about his trip to Iraq.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...e-kicking-ass/
with a dose of "SCARY"
post #191 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightcrawler View Post

In fact, had Iraq's regime wanted to conquer east-Saudi-Arabia, it would/should have done it before the US built up their forces there was completed. Up until October 1990, the US-forces brought there would have not been enough to repel Iraq's forces and the conquering of that part of Saudi-Arabia would have severely disturbed the coalition-forces' setup. It was a big strategical error of Iraq not to have done it.

Nightcrawler

You clearly lack any understanding of military planning (ingress and egress) wrt joint logistics, and somehow seem to forget about the US Navy/Marines/Air Force!
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 #192 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

Nobody gained from 9-11. There were only different degrees of losing.

Bush did!

He got his war in Iraq, homeland security, wiretapping, and the perfect setting for paranoia etc. The list goes on.

All justified by 911. As a matter of fact 911 is brought up frequently still to justify things ( " Times have changed since 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 #193 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Bush did!

He got his war in Iraq, homeland security, wiretapping, and the perfect setting for paranoia etc. The list goes on.

Most importantly, 9/11, at a stroke, has been used to justify the "war on terror", as described by Bush himself on 9/12/2001 as a "new kind of war". This is a war which can potentially last for decades, and defense corporations, mercenary organizations (Blackwater etc.), the security and surveillance industry, etc etc. will be chalking up record profits for the long-foreseeable future. That is motivation which anyone can comprehend.

9/11 has fueled the first 6 years of the retreat from democracy, and there's still some mileage to be had from from the scare-exploitation of 9/11, just by listening to current Bush administration and media commentary. At some point in the future, however, the scare factor of 9/11 will started looking threadbare due to the passage of time, and it will be increasingly difficult to publicly "justify" a big US role in the continuation of this "new kind of war", and with 9/11 becoming an increasingly fuzzy memory, there will have to be a new "event" to top up the public reservoir of paranoia and fear. I wonder who's going to 'do the "honors"', and who will be blamed for it next time? It might as well be space aliens; the public appear to be that gullible... Each fresh "bin Laden" video, delivered on cue at every important anniversary or occasion is evidence that they are still milking it for all its worth...

Quote:
All justified by 911. As a matter of fact 911 is brought up frequently still to justify things ( " Times have changed since 911 " ).

Uh huh. When Bush strutted the chickenhawk hop on the USS Lincoln in his codpiece in May 2003, that notorious "Mission Accomplished" banner was inadvertently referring to 9/11's effect in justifying the Bush Admin/NeoCon agenda, rather than to "winning the war" in Iraq, which, back then was still ongoing, and 4 years later, is even "less than won" than it was back then.
"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 #194 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Clearly you didn't live through the Nixon Administration. It took several newspapers and 2 years to uncover the Watergate scandal. I recall the second half, since I was a teenager. I watched the Watergate hearings on public television. And Watergate was just the tip of his iceberg*.

And presidents after him tip-toed around scandals all through their terms, some learning along the way to cover them up. Each passing along through their party what works and what to avoid. Two main overseers during the Republican presidencies were Rumsfeld and Cheney, including Wolfawitz, Rove and many others. It's incredible that with all the technology and access to information today, that these scandals don't reach the public immediately. I guess it comes with experience and influence in the media itself.

*Yes, I know it started with Johnson, but Nixon allowed it to continue through his term.

Well, it's now been 4.5 years and we still have no evidence Bush knowingly made false claims. So what does that tell you?
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 #195 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Well, it's now been 4.5 years and we still have no evidence Bush knowingly made false claims. So what does that tell you?

That you are a fatuous fanboy in the depths of denial?
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 #196 of 209
Let's start a chorus...

You're in denial, SDW.
post #197 of 209
Let's breath a little sanity here -- Chomsky is all over this:

Noam Part 1

Noam Part 2

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #198 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmz View Post

Let's breath a little sanity here -- Chomsky is all over this:

Noam Part 1

Noam Part 2

... he seems spot on on in both clips, IMHO.

The first clip just verifies the obvious in authoritarian and democratic governments actions after 9/11, Patriot Act, etceteras.

The second clip pretty much refutes all of the hatter nonsense.

And as a side bar, the military is always considering (or planning) for future contingencies in "our" tactical/strategic and national interests, same would be true of the national parties, to establish policies that they would consider to be "in our national interests" should they gain (or regain) control of government through the political process called elections.
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 #199 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... he seems spot on on in both clips, IMHO.

The first clip just verifies the obvious in authoritarian and democratic governments actions after 9/11, Patriot Act, etceteras.

The second clip pretty much refutes all of the hatter nonsense.

And as a side bar, the military is always considering (or planning) for future contingencies in "our" tactical/strategic and national interests, same would be true of the national parties, to establish policies that they would consider to be "in our national interests" should they gain (or regain) control of government through the political process called elections.

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 #200 of 209
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Bush did!

He got his war in Iraq, homeland security, wiretapping, and the perfect setting for paranoia etc. The list goes on.

All justified by 911. As a matter of fact 911 is brought up frequently still to justify things ( " Times have changed since 911 " ).

Right, see he's just drunk with power. That's what it's all about. It's not about stopping Americans from getting killed or anything. I mean damn...I thought I was cynical.

And 9/11 DID change everything. 3,000 Americans were slaughtered on their way to work and on civilian airliners. It had to change everything. It's bad enough you can't see this, but what's worse is that you essentially mock those who say it. If you can't see that times have in fact changed, then all I can say is thank God himself you're not running the country.

But hey...I shouldn't surprised. Your position is essentially what Obama and Edwards and the left wing of the Democratic Party want. They want to convince Americans that security isn't important so we can finally talk about Really Important Stuff (TM) Like Education (TM) and Healthcare (TM).

Quote:
Originally Posted by segovius View Post

That you are a fatuous fanboy in the depths of denial?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Let's start a chorus...

You're in denial, SDW.

Sing all you'd like. The very best anyone has been able show was that the admin selectively used intel to build a case for war. Well no shit. I mean, whooda thunk it? You also have one statement by Bush referencing a supposed report out of the IAEA that Saddam was "I think, 6 months away from a nuclear weapon" which turned out not to be true. That's what you have. If there was more, he'd have been impeached by now. Even the new Democratic Majority isn't trying that. Explanation? Hmmm.
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
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › What neocons don't tell you