[B]Well like i said, it matters not what I post, it will be so-called "debunked" for one reason or another, no matter how trivial. You know it, I know it. So let's not fool ourselves here.
Everything you post gets "debunked", whether there is a link or not. I have yet to see a single one of your opinions supported by facts.
Again, this completely invalidates your rationale that posting links would be a "waste of time".
I'll try to make it easy for you - show me even ONE link that deals with this so-called body count that is NOT part of a political website.
warroom.com is, like you say, a political site. Every site with a CBC list that I can find on Google is part of a political site, and each one tends to lean a bit to the right. The only non-political site I can find is the one on the snopes.com urban legend website.
oops - here is another non-political site that deals in debunking internet rumors -
Well like i said, it matters not what I post, it will be so-called "debunked" for one reason or another, no matter how trivial.
Well, when you are posting 'clinton body count' trash, what do you expect?
Quote:
That's OK go about your Bush bashing.
Your completely and totally debunked 'Clinton body count' conspiracy theory permanently invalidated any and all statements of this kind that you have made or will make in the future.
Note, too, that no one is on your case for attacking Clinton, we are on your case for promoting undeniably false crackpot conspiracy theories.
This was a conversation about an issue in the real world: that two of Bush's chief terrorism advisors are speaking out against the Bush admin's lack of attention to terrorism, that a cabinet secretary is saying the same thing (as well as many other damning things) and so are a list of individuals from the pentagon and state departments. Add to this all of the individuals still in the administration who are talking to reporters anonymously. This is happening in the real world, not in clinton death squad fantasy land.
Look at it: the fact that these bush admin officials and staff are speaking out is undeniably true, while the crackpot 'clinton body count' conspiracy theory is undeniably false. We couldn't possibly have it any simpler.
Well, when you are posting 'clinton body count' trash, what do you expect?
Your completely and totally debunked 'Clinton body count' conspiracy theory permanently invalidated any and all statements of this kind that you have made or will make in the future.
Note, too, that no one is on your case for attacking Clinton, we are on your case for promoting undeniably false crackpot conspiracy theories.
This was a conversation about an issue in the real world: that two of Bush's chief terrorism advisors are speaking out against the Bush admin's lack of attention to terrorism, that a cabinet secretary is saying the same thing (as well as many other damning things) and so are a list of individuals from the pentagon and state departments. Add to this all of the individuals still in the administration who are talking to reporters anonymously. This is happening in the real world, not in clinton death squad fantasy land.
Look at it: the fact that these bush admin officials and staff are speaking out is undeniably true, while the crackpot 'clinton body count' conspiracy theory is undeniably false. We couldn't possibly have it any simpler.
Once again, I did not bring up the alien or the death squads or even the CDC, you guys did. I suppose it is my fault that those clinton officials are dead.
We were having a convo on disgruntled employees and someone asked me to name some from Clinton's admin, guess what I ran across those names. I guess, according to you, I cannot even mention that and dare not mention they are dead. I thought that it was kinda funny and therefor I posted my findings.
As far as undeniably true or false, that is up to each person to decide. Read the article that SDW just posted above. I think you should not use the word "undeniable" when you proclaim truth. Maybe you should say "perceived" instead.
Read the article that SDW just posted above. I think you should not use the word "undeniable" when you proclaim truth.
I did type it in english:
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The fact that these bush admin officials and staff are speaking out is undeniably true, while the crackpot 'clinton body count' conspiracy theory is undeniably false.
This couldn't be a simpler sentence.
Fact: multiple bush administration officials, including two of his (meaning George W Bush) chief counter-terrorism advisors and a cabinet secretary, are speaking out that the Bush admin has been horrible on terrorism. This is a fact that requires no dots to connect. It is a fact that is undeniably true.
Fact: multiple bush administration officials, including two of his (meaning George W Bush) chief counter-terrorism advisors and a cabinet secretary, are speaking out that the Bush admin has been horrible on terrorism. This is a fact that requires no dots to connect. It is a fact that is undeniably true.
Albright said something interesting yesterday: basically that when they did bomb the asprin factory, and cruise missle the wildlife in Afghanistan they were accused of DOING TOO MUCH.
innnnnteeeeereeeesting
I remember Billy Boy not cumming clean on ML and Wag the Dog coming out at that time---errily close to the bombings. Everyone was talking about whether or not BC did this not in response to OBL but to draw attention to other quarters.
Not good timing---I think it led America to think that OBL was an "over there" problem, and more minor than it really was. Much in the same way that the bungled car bomb in the WTC tower gave a feeling of incompitence to these terrorists---honestly---they went back for the deposit on the van--and--their understanding of how the WTC towers were put together was not what it could have been.
Doubtless Clarke was there, kicking ass and using his flawless advisory powers to advise Amercia through dire straights. Maybe not.
So the Bush admin gets in late, the transition team is late, and ding dong (GB) orders a complete rework of the OBL strategy---and yep, it was too little too late. Some of the highjackers were in country in 1999, others came in a couple of months into 2001.
Albright said something else very interesting: that former Sen Bob Carrey(?) was THE ONLY ONE SHE KNEW OF THAT WANTED TO INVADE AFGAHNISTAN pre 9/11. That gives you an idea of how limited America was in it's repsonse. If GB had invaded Afghanistan in early 2001 they would have crucified him on the White House lawn---face it guys the whole thing is one big goupthink clusterfu<k.
The fact that GB can't hire loyal people IS a problem---maybe he's a prick---it doesn't matter, but this has little to do with the real reasons why America got sucker punched. Almost none---huge bueracracies DO NOT turn on a dime.
The last thing is the most worrisome. I heard somewhere right after 9/11 that in just about any other country that kind of event would have brought down the government.
It just did in Spain. Legitimzing this cheap sniping of the president---or even kicking him out of office---over 9/11 is giving the terrorists what they want---even more validation of their power over geopolitics. A profoundly dangerous thing.
Hey you guys hate Bush. fine You really believe in the two party system, fine. Pick Iraq, pick WMD, pick the economy, anything---demonize him how you want to---so we can get a "big change" in government. But Clarke, CBS and most of you on this thread are so eaten up with hating Bush that you have overlooked the wisdom of staying united on the issue of al Qeada---what kind of brains does a security advisor have to have in order to clearly sabotage a sitting president over this issue?
"I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fu<king each other over for a goddamn percentage "
It's rather specific formality. If he has a bad impression of Bush on 9-11 he would have mentioned something else. Or nothing at all while being polite.
It's rather specific formality. If he has a bad impression of Bush on 9-11 he would have mentioned something else. Or nothing at all while being polite.
I'd be willing to bet there's a lot we haven't heard about concerning this that will probably ( hopefully ) come out in the next few months.
Although this is pretty damning.
During that time everyone was dealing with the angst of the situation. During a time like that it's not customary to speak in the negative about your leader. Also now in hindsight it seems more telling.
I'd be willing to bet there's a lot we haven't heard about concerning this that will probably ( hopefully ) come out in the next few months.
Although this is pretty damning.
During that time everyone was dealing with the angst of the situation. During a time like that it's not customary to speak in the negative about your leader. Also now in hindsight it seems more telling.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. So he just sat on this? Oh come on. The man is not credible. Everything he's said is totally unsubstantiated. His 60 minutes interview was laced with interpretation and conjecture.
I love these little stories they tell themselves to explain away the obvious.
So tell me, guys, if all of these senior officials don't know what they are talking about, WTF is wrong with the Bush admin that it appoints them to the highest positions?
And how do you reconcile your belief that Bush has a super-duper counter-terrorism strategy with your belief that the Bush admin officials in charge of counter-terrorism don't know what they are talking about?
What's the story this time? And try not to talk about the freemasons or Cydonia.
It just did in Spain. Legitimzing this cheap sniping of the president---or even kicking him out of office---over 9/11 is giving the terrorists what they want---even more validation of their power over geopolitics. A profoundly dangerous thing.
translation: a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden.
Why is this only coming up now? Why not go public right away? Answer: To sell books, aided by CBS btw, whose parent company stands to profit.
Anyone need a shovel?
Nice spin attempt. What a total non-event.
A LoR in the professional world always goes along the lines of "it's been a pleasure", not "hey boss, I'm quitting because you are a lying prick".
Even if you feel that way, you go out with some class. You might say how you really feel later, somewhere else, but not in your LoR. A "screw-you" LoR just isn't done, especially at that level.
Did you notice this from your link:
But the letter contains no praise of Bush's anti-terror actions before or after the attacks ? only on the day of.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. So he just sat on this? Oh come on. The man is not credible. Everything he's said is totally unsubstantiated. His 60 minutes interview was laced with interpretation and conjecture.
Comments
Originally posted by NaplesX
Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Les Aspin, Mary Mahoney, Herschell Friday, Charles Meissner.
No wait my mistake they did not have time to be disgruntled, they all died suddenly and mysteriously.
Maybe I am wrong maybe there are no disgruntled Clinton people... still alive.
not that hard to look
note the subtle innuendo
Originally posted by NaplesX
[B]Well like i said, it matters not what I post, it will be so-called "debunked" for one reason or another, no matter how trivial. You know it, I know it. So let's not fool ourselves here.
Everything you post gets "debunked", whether there is a link or not. I have yet to see a single one of your opinions supported by facts.
Again, this completely invalidates your rationale that posting links would be a "waste of time".
I'll try to make it easy for you - show me even ONE link that deals with this so-called body count that is NOT part of a political website.
warroom.com is, like you say, a political site. Every site with a CBC list that I can find on Google is part of a political site, and each one tends to lean a bit to the right. The only non-political site I can find is the one on the snopes.com urban legend website.
oops - here is another non-political site that deals in debunking internet rumors -
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors...tonfriends.htm
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well like i said, it matters not what I post, it will be so-called "debunked" for one reason or another, no matter how trivial.
Well, when you are posting 'clinton body count' trash, what do you expect?
That's OK go about your Bush bashing.
Your completely and totally debunked 'Clinton body count' conspiracy theory permanently invalidated any and all statements of this kind that you have made or will make in the future.
Note, too, that no one is on your case for attacking Clinton, we are on your case for promoting undeniably false crackpot conspiracy theories.
This was a conversation about an issue in the real world: that two of Bush's chief terrorism advisors are speaking out against the Bush admin's lack of attention to terrorism, that a cabinet secretary is saying the same thing (as well as many other damning things) and so are a list of individuals from the pentagon and state departments. Add to this all of the individuals still in the administration who are talking to reporters anonymously. This is happening in the real world, not in clinton death squad fantasy land.
Look at it: the fact that these bush admin officials and staff are speaking out is undeniably true, while the crackpot 'clinton body count' conspiracy theory is undeniably false. We couldn't possibly have it any simpler.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...er_3&printer=1
Why is this only coming up now? Why not go public right away? Answer: To sell books, aided by CBS btw, whose parent company stands to profit.
Anyone need a shovel?
Originally posted by Scott
I think it's an election year or something?
yeah...I think you're right.
Originally posted by giant
Well, when you are posting 'clinton body count' trash, what do you expect?
Your completely and totally debunked 'Clinton body count' conspiracy theory permanently invalidated any and all statements of this kind that you have made or will make in the future.
Note, too, that no one is on your case for attacking Clinton, we are on your case for promoting undeniably false crackpot conspiracy theories.
This was a conversation about an issue in the real world: that two of Bush's chief terrorism advisors are speaking out against the Bush admin's lack of attention to terrorism, that a cabinet secretary is saying the same thing (as well as many other damning things) and so are a list of individuals from the pentagon and state departments. Add to this all of the individuals still in the administration who are talking to reporters anonymously. This is happening in the real world, not in clinton death squad fantasy land.
Look at it: the fact that these bush admin officials and staff are speaking out is undeniably true, while the crackpot 'clinton body count' conspiracy theory is undeniably false. We couldn't possibly have it any simpler.
Once again, I did not bring up the alien or the death squads or even the CDC, you guys did. I suppose it is my fault that those clinton officials are dead.
We were having a convo on disgruntled employees and someone asked me to name some from Clinton's admin, guess what I ran across those names. I guess, according to you, I cannot even mention that and dare not mention they are dead. I thought that it was kinda funny and therefor I posted my findings.
As far as undeniably true or false, that is up to each person to decide. Read the article that SDW just posted above. I think you should not use the word "undeniable" when you proclaim truth. Maybe you should say "perceived" instead.
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as undeniably true or false, that is up to each person to decide.
We shouldn't have to tell anyone not to believe this claptrap, but we will anyway.
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm
Read the article that SDW just posted above. I think you should not use the word "undeniable" when you proclaim truth.
I did type it in english:
Originally posted by giant
The fact that these bush admin officials and staff are speaking out is undeniably true, while the crackpot 'clinton body count' conspiracy theory is undeniably false.
This couldn't be a simpler sentence.
Fact: multiple bush administration officials, including two of his (meaning George W Bush) chief counter-terrorism advisors and a cabinet secretary, are speaking out that the Bush admin has been horrible on terrorism. This is a fact that requires no dots to connect. It is a fact that is undeniably true.
Got it?
Originally posted by SDW2001
Whoops. It seems Clarke praised Bush on his departure. He's full of shit, folks.
It's called a formality SDW.
Originally posted by giant
It's called a formality SDW.
Oh so don't believe the LOR, just believe what you say to believe. Just pretend that the LOR doesn't exist.
Originally posted by giant
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/clinton.htm
I did type it in english:
This couldn't be a simpler sentence.
Fact: multiple bush administration officials, including two of his (meaning George W Bush) chief counter-terrorism advisors and a cabinet secretary, are speaking out that the Bush admin has been horrible on terrorism. This is a fact that requires no dots to connect. It is a fact that is undeniably true.
Got it?
I like how you avoided the other part of my post.
innnnnteeeeereeeesting
I remember Billy Boy not cumming clean on ML and Wag the Dog coming out at that time---errily close to the bombings. Everyone was talking about whether or not BC did this not in response to OBL but to draw attention to other quarters.
Not good timing---I think it led America to think that OBL was an "over there" problem, and more minor than it really was. Much in the same way that the bungled car bomb in the WTC tower gave a feeling of incompitence to these terrorists---honestly---they went back for the deposit on the van--and--their understanding of how the WTC towers were put together was not what it could have been.
Doubtless Clarke was there, kicking ass and using his flawless advisory powers to advise Amercia through dire straights. Maybe not.
So the Bush admin gets in late, the transition team is late, and ding dong (GB) orders a complete rework of the OBL strategy---and yep, it was too little too late. Some of the highjackers were in country in 1999, others came in a couple of months into 2001.
Albright said something else very interesting: that former Sen Bob Carrey(?) was THE ONLY ONE SHE KNEW OF THAT WANTED TO INVADE AFGAHNISTAN pre 9/11. That gives you an idea of how limited America was in it's repsonse. If GB had invaded Afghanistan in early 2001 they would have crucified him on the White House lawn---face it guys the whole thing is one big goupthink clusterfu<k.
The fact that GB can't hire loyal people IS a problem---maybe he's a prick---it doesn't matter, but this has little to do with the real reasons why America got sucker punched. Almost none---huge bueracracies DO NOT turn on a dime.
The last thing is the most worrisome. I heard somewhere right after 9/11 that in just about any other country that kind of event would have brought down the government.
It just did in Spain. Legitimzing this cheap sniping of the president---or even kicking him out of office---over 9/11 is giving the terrorists what they want---even more validation of their power over geopolitics. A profoundly dangerous thing.
Hey you guys hate Bush. fine You really believe in the two party system, fine. Pick Iraq, pick WMD, pick the economy, anything---demonize him how you want to---so we can get a "big change" in government. But Clarke, CBS and most of you on this thread are so eaten up with hating Bush that you have overlooked the wisdom of staying united on the issue of al Qeada---what kind of brains does a security advisor have to have in order to clearly sabotage a sitting president over this issue?
"I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fu<king each other over for a goddamn percentage "
Originally posted by giant
It's called a formality SDW.
It's rather specific formality. If he has a bad impression of Bush on 9-11 he would have mentioned something else. Or nothing at all while being polite.
Originally posted by Scott
It's rather specific formality. If he has a bad impression of Bush on 9-11 he would have mentioned something else. Or nothing at all while being polite.
I'd be willing to bet there's a lot we haven't heard about concerning this that will probably ( hopefully ) come out in the next few months.
Although this is pretty damning.
During that time everyone was dealing with the angst of the situation. During a time like that it's not customary to speak in the negative about your leader. Also now in hindsight it seems more telling.
Originally posted by jimmac
I'd be willing to bet there's a lot we haven't heard about concerning this that will probably ( hopefully ) come out in the next few months.
Although this is pretty damning.
During that time everyone was dealing with the angst of the situation. During a time like that it's not customary to speak in the negative about your leader. Also now in hindsight it seems more telling.
Bullshit. Total bullshit. So he just sat on this? Oh come on. The man is not credible. Everything he's said is totally unsubstantiated. His 60 minutes interview was laced with interpretation and conjecture.
So tell me, guys, if all of these senior officials don't know what they are talking about, WTF is wrong with the Bush admin that it appoints them to the highest positions?
And how do you reconcile your belief that Bush has a super-duper counter-terrorism strategy with your belief that the Bush admin officials in charge of counter-terrorism don't know what they are talking about?
What's the story this time? And try not to talk about the freemasons or Cydonia.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Everything he's said is totally unsubstantiated.
'Unsubstantiated' here apparently means 'corroborated by multiple individuals.'
Originally posted by dmz
It just did in Spain. Legitimzing this cheap sniping of the president---or even kicking him out of office---over 9/11 is giving the terrorists what they want---even more validation of their power over geopolitics. A profoundly dangerous thing.
translation: a vote for Kerry is a vote for Bin Laden.
Originally posted by SDW2001
[B]Whoops. It seems Clarke praised Bush on his departure. He's full of shit, folks.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...er_3&printer=1
Why is this only coming up now? Why not go public right away? Answer: To sell books, aided by CBS btw, whose parent company stands to profit.
Anyone need a shovel?
Nice spin attempt. What a total non-event.
A LoR in the professional world always goes along the lines of "it's been a pleasure", not "hey boss, I'm quitting because you are a lying prick".
Even if you feel that way, you go out with some class. You might say how you really feel later, somewhere else, but not in your LoR. A "screw-you" LoR just isn't done, especially at that level.
Did you notice this from your link:
But the letter contains no praise of Bush's anti-terror actions before or after the attacks ? only on the day of.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bullshit. Total bullshit. So he just sat on this? Oh come on. The man is not credible. Everything he's said is totally unsubstantiated. His 60 minutes interview was laced with interpretation and conjecture.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" His 60 minutes interview was laced with interpretation and conjecture "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Your statement sounds like conjecture to me!