Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on January 08, 2010, 02:53:49 PM
-
I'm glad 9/11 never happened! HAd it actually occurred, the GOP would be responsible for the worst terror attack on U.S. soil in American history! I'm glad we didn't really have an anthrax attack, either!Since neither of those ever happened, the GOP has a clean slate! We should all vote for them because they kept us so safe. And, thank god they had the wherewithal to make sure we purchased duct tape and plastic or we'd all be dead! Where the hell did they hide the WTC buildings, anyway?
-
::) ::) ::)
-
what the fck is rudy talking about ???
-
Is it any surprise he went from GOP front runner for the presidential nomination to crashing and burning without winning a single state, or even being competitive? ::)
complete moron
-
I'd pay money for Wiggs to tie down Rudy G, and rape him...
-
dementia
-
Giuliani: 'I Do Remember Sept. 11'
Rachel Slajda | January 8, 2010, 5:53PM
Rudy Giuliani appeared on CNN this afternoon in an attempt to explain what he meant when he claimed that no domestic terrorist attacks happened under President George W. Bush.
"I usually say, 'We had no major domestic attacks under President Bush since September 11,'" he told Wolf Blitzer.
"I did omit the words, 'since September 11,' and I apologize for that," he went on. "I do remember September 11. In fact, Wolf, I remember it every single day and usually, frequently during the day."
-
He had his moment of glory - mostly by chance and he's still making vain attempts to capitalize upon it.
-
Thanks 240. Giuliani meant after 9/11.
There have been 2 attacks in the U.S on Obama's watch so far and several thwarted plots. It's not getting better, that's for sure.
-
"Thanks 240. Giuliani meant after 9/11."
Richard Reid happened after 9/11 ;) and that was VERY similar to the Obama detroit christmas thing.
-
"Thanks 240. Giuliani meant after 9/11."
Richard Reid happened after 9/11 ;) and that was VERY similar to the Obama detroit christmas thing.
Ok 240 lets play a game:
Either both GWB & Obama are both incompetent and failed in this respect?
or
Both are blameless for these attacks?
Which is it in your mind?
-
and I gotta say, it's VERY weak to say "no attacks AFTER 911"...
even that is poor. Bush let the biggest attack since pearl harbor happen - threw very good intel in the trash can - and we're supposed to just let that one slide?
Rudy planned his presidential campaign on the ashes of ground zero - and he brought up 9/11 every five minutes to scare people into thinking only he could keep them safe. no denying that. And for him to 'accidentally' forget 911.... and even then to exclude it from bush's terrorism record...
Doesn't matter... repubs saw thru his shit and he dropped in every place he campaigned. He was owned by the weak likes of Huck for gods sake! He's a relic of the cheney fear era, using selective memory to bash the party who currently owns his party, and who isn't making all that many strides for 2010.
-
bush gets no blame for anthrax or reid attacks. 911 is only on his hands because our allies and his own intel agencies all came with a midnight memo to his ranch 6 weeks out with details (redacted for us of course). And he, condi, and rummy all passed the memo around without opening it ;)
if Obama had such a memo, he's to blame too. No memo exists yet on that.
-
First Perino, then Matalin, now Sylvester The Cat. The guy milked 9/11 for all it was worth, and now he seems to have forgotten what year it happened? What a friggin' numbskull.
Well, at least there's a bright side--we won't have to worry about him being a prominent political figure from now on.
-
Giuliani: 'I Do Remember Sept. 11'
Rachel Slajda | January 8, 2010, 5:53PM
Rudy Giuliani appeared on CNN this afternoon in an attempt to explain what he meant when he claimed that no domestic terrorist attacks happened under President George W. Bush.
"I usually say, 'We had no major domestic attacks under President Bush since September 11,'" he told Wolf Blitzer.
"I did omit the words, 'since September 11,' and I apologize for that," he went on. "I do remember September 11. In fact, Wolf, I remember it every single day and usually, frequently during the day."
Rudy is still wrong - the shoe bomber, anthrax attack and even the DC Sniper guy were all after Sept 11th
-
Rudy is still wrong - the shoe bomber, anthrax attack and even the DC Sniper guy were all after Sept 11th
I always thought that the DC Sniper case should have gotten more attention since that tpye of thing to me seems far easier to pull off than any other type of terrorism event.
Quite frankly, I am shocked we have not had crap like that happen since.
-
::)
-
bay, props for the clip.
I think many republicans seem to ignore the fact Bush was warned by our allies and our own intel agencies. They knew 5 of the hijackers names, the attack date, and targets. They redacted many of the details (blacked out). But germany's ambassador told their newspaper that he told Bush personally of 5 of their names.
Seems a lot like "letting it happen" to me. When a foreign ambassador delivers that kind of info, and you just sit on it (when your sworn job is to protect), it makes ya wonder...
Hell, after that memo, bush CALLED off the FBi atta suirveilance in hollywood, FL. I'd llove to hear 333386 and friends explain that one ;)
-
bay, props for the clip.
I think many republicans seem to ignore the fact Bush was warned by our allies and our own intel agencies. They knew 5 of the hijackers names, the attack date, and targets. They redacted many of the details (blacked out). But germany's ambassador told their newspaper that he told Bush personally of 5 of their names.
Seems a lot like "letting it happen" to me. When a foreign ambassador delivers that kind of info, and you just sit on it (when your sworn job is to protect), it makes ya wonder...
Hell, after that memo, bush CALLED off the FBi atta suirveilance in hollywood, FL. I'd llove to hear 333386 and friends explain that one ;)
Do you have any evidence of tat 240 that Bush canceled surveillance on Atta? Of course you dont.
-
333386, are you familiar with Able Danger? Did you read FBI siebel's 2009 testimony once her gag order was lifted? Did you know repub congresman weldon admitted they had atta's cell identified a year before 911 but were ordered to drop the investigation?
No, you're not :)
-
wonder where we'd be today if Bush had just accepted the Talibans offer to turn over Bin Laden.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
-
333386, are you familiar with Able Danger?
No, you're not :)
240 - this is now at least the 10th time I have asked you for anything concrete as to a 9/11 CT. So far you have provided absolutely nothing.
One minute its a controlled demo, the next minute its GWB knew but did nothing, the next minute its a rogue CIA unit, the next minute its a missle, the next minute its traces of explosives, the next its Israel knew, then its people selling put options on ariline stocks, then its Condi, then its Cheny, then its Halliburton, then its aliens.
Just give me something concrete backed up by fact.
-
wonder where we'd be today if Bush had just accepted the Talibans offer to turn over Bin Laden.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5
Probably the same place as if Clinton did the same thing no Straw?
-
Does anyone here remember how the Cheney/Bush admininstration were completely opposed to ANY investigation of 911
And speaking of the results of the 911 commission.
How many of the recommendations has the Congress implemented?
-
333386, are you familiar with Able Danger? Did you read FBI siebel's 2009 testimony once her gag order was lifted? Did you know repub congresman weldon admitted they had atta's cell identified a year before 911 but were ordered to drop the investigation?
No, you're not :)
Provide some damn evidence if you have it. Serious, you only undermine yourself when you make claims you never back up.
This now the 11th time I am asking you.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
See, yo're making it all about "aliens"?
PATHETIC!!! Man, that's sad. You start reading here. A repub congressman admitted that we had atta before 911, his whole cell, and that FBI was ordered to drop it by exec order. Then, in 2005 and the shit hit the fan, the congressman changed his story when the families and media went nuts that atta was allowed to operate freely.
PLEASE man, don't go changing the story to aliens and every other thing. Focus on the fact that yes, atta was allowed to operate freely and actions to stop his cell were directly halted by white house. A repub in the know admitted it, then later said "i dont rememebr" once bush got in hot water over this.
fuckkit... you're a child on this matter... I love your posts on obama, but fo ryou to revert to ALIENS in the middle of a specific discussion on able danger? Pathetic dodge man...
-
Probably the same place as if Clinton did the same thing no Straw?
I don't understand your statement
I was not aware that Clinton was ever offered Bin Laden (though it's a popular lie among the uninformed right)
http://mediamatters.org/research/200407230005
-
man, you asked what got me pissed off. THIS pisses me off. You want to talk about aliens when faced with shit like this.
fuck it. enjoy your obama bashing.
i can't let myself get all worked up ... youre emotionally tied to 911... to believe it was allowed to happen makes you feel vulnerable in light of the fear you felt that day... a common thing among people near it... i can understand not wanting to accept those who were sworn to protect you, let you be so scared so that you'd be okay with a war for their profit...
it's cool. i'll see you on the obama threads... but i get too worked up when talking 911 with people who want to talk about aliens, instead of repub congressmen questioning why bush stopped atta from being arrested a year before 911...
peace
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
See, yo're making it all about "aliens"?
PATHETIC!!! Man, that's sad. You start reading here. A repub congressman admitted that we had atta before 911, his whole cell, and that FBI was ordered to drop it by exec order. Then, in 2005 and the shit hit the fan, the congressman changed his story when the families and media went nuts that atta was allowed to operate freely.
PLEASE man, don't go changing the story to aliens and every other thing. Focus on the fact that yes, atta was allowed to operate freely and actions to stop his cell were directly halted by white house. A repub in the know admitted it, then later said "i dont rememebr" once bush got in hot water over this.
fuckkit... you're a child on this matter... I love your posts on obama, but fo ryou to revert to ALIENS in the middle of a specific discussion on able danger? Pathetic dodge man...
Did you even read the damn link you gave me?
It completely destroys your claims and if anything the people there said that it goes back to Clinton and Gorelick wall.
WTF is wrong with you 240?
-
man, you asked what got me pissed off. THIS pisses me off. You want to talk about aliens when faced with shit like this.
fuck it. enjoy your obama bashing.
i can't let myself get all worked up ... youre emotionally tied to 911... to believe it was allowed to happen makes you feel vulnerable in light of the fear you felt that day... a common thing among people near it... i can understand not wanting to accept those who were sworn to protect you, let you be so scared so that you'd be okay with a war for their profit...
it's cool. i'll see you on the obama threads... but i get too worked up when talking 911 with people who want to talk about aliens, instead of repub congressmen questioning why bush stopped atta from being arrested a year before 911...
peace
No, all I am asking you to do is present a SHRED of credible evidence that is not disputed or contradicted by a plethora of other information.
FACE IT: You have zero evidence of a coherent 9/11 conspiracy that stands up to an ounce of credibility, logic or fact.
If you have a valid CT, present it, name names, places, dates etc and we will discuss it. But when you send me a link that completely contradicts your own assertions, what do you want me to make of that?
-
I guess Clinton was lying then Straw?
-
bay, props for the clip.
I think many republicans seem to ignore the fact Bush was warned by our allies and our own intel agencies. They knew 5 of the hijackers names, the attack date, and targets. They redacted many of the details (blacked out). But germany's ambassador told their newspaper that he told Bush personally of 5 of their names.
Seems a lot like "letting it happen" to me. When a foreign ambassador delivers that kind of info, and you just sit on it (when your sworn job is to protect), it makes ya wonder...
Hell, after that memo, bush CALLED off the FBi atta suirveilance in hollywood, FL. I'd llove to hear 333386 and friends explain that one ;)
This is the problem with you libtards you condemn bush for not following intel in one instance and condemn him for following it in another.
You little bitches sit back and complain bout 333 and how he will condemn obama for anything but you do the same thing with bush ::) and then when you do say something about obama its to draw a moral equivalency to bush to justify obamas actions even though you bitched about it when bush did it.
silver line much? ::)
-
No, all I am asking you to do is present a SHRED of credible evidence that is not disputed or contradicted by a plethora of other information.
FACE IT: You have zero evidence of a coherent 9/11 conspiracy that stands up to an ounce of credibility, logic or fact.
If you have a valid CT, present it, name names, places, dates etc and we will discuss it. But when you send me a link that completely contradicts your own assertions, what do you want me to make of that?
the popular CT that 19 guys with boxcutters did it doesn't hold up either
I guess we're back to square one
-
240 - you know I like you and I hate doing this. But here you go - SMACKED DOWN BY YOUR OWN LINK CLAIMING GWB ORDERED THE INTEL DESTROYED.
FROM YOUR OWN LINK YOU PROVIDED!
________________________ ________________________ __________________
Weldon changes his story
A Time magazine article dated August 14, 2005, reports that Weldon admitted he is no longer sure that Atta's name was on the chart he presented to Hadley and that he was unable to verify whether this was the case, having handed over his only copy, and that a reconstruction was used for post-9/11 presentations.[19] Weldon gave a talk at the Heritage Foundation with a chart he described as the one handed over on May 23, 2002. However, a week later he referred reporters to a recently reconstructed version of the chart in his office where, among dozens of names and photos of terrorists from around the world, there was a color mug shot of Mohammad Atta, circled in black marker.
[edit] Comments by members of the Able Danger team
[edit] Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
After Weldon's assertions were disputed, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a member of the Able Danger team, identified himself as Weldon's source. Shaffer claimed that he alerted the FBI in September 2000 about the information uncovered by the secret military unit "Able Danger," but he alleges three meetings he set up with bureau officials were blocked by military lawyers. Shaffer, who at the time worked for the Defense Intelligence Agency, claims he communicated to members of the 9/11 Commission that Able Danger had identified two of the three cells responsible for 9/11 prior to the attacks, but the Commission did not include this information in their final report.[20]
Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, has revealed that Shaffer had been placed on paid administrative leave for what he called "petty and frivolous" reasons and had his security clearance suspended in March 2004, following a dispute over travel mileage expenses and personal use of a work cell phone.[21]
As Lt. Col. Shaffer received a memorandum of OPCON status from Joint Task Force (JTF) 121, confirming his attachment to this element 1 November through 1 December 2004, and participating in the 75th Ranger Regiment's nighttime air assault of 11 November 2003, the controversy of his wearing the 75th Ranger Regiment patch as his "combat patch" is closed in his favor. In the Army Reserve, LtCol Shaffer is now assigned as the G6 of the 94th Division (Prov), Ft. Lee, VA.
Congressman Weldon has asked for a new probe into the activities undertaken to silence Lt. Col Shaffer from publicly commenting on Able Danger and Able Danger's identification of the 9/11 hijackers. Weldon called the activities "a deliberate campaign of character assassination."[22][dead link]
Shaffer has also told the story of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) opposition to Able Danger, prior to 9/11, based on the view Able Danger was encroaching on CIA turf. According to Shaffer, the CIA representative said, "I clearly understand. We're going after the leadership. You guys are going after the body. But, it doesn't matter. The bottom line is, CIA will never give you the best information from 'Alex Base' or anywhere else. CIA will never provide that to you because if you were successful in your effort to target Al Qaeda, you will steal our thunder. Therefore, we will not support this."[23][dead link]
[edit] Navy Captain Scott Phillpott
Capt. Scott Phillpott confirmed Shaffer's claims. "I will not discuss this outside of my chain of command," Phillpott said in a statement to Fox News. "I have briefed the Department of the Army, the Special Operations Command and the office of (Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) Dr. Cambone as well as the 9/11 Commission. My story has remained consistent. Atta was identified by Able Danger in January/February 2000," he was quoted as saying.[24]
[edit] James D. Smith
Shaffer's claims were also confirmed by James D. Smith, a civilian contractor who worked on Able Danger. In an interview with Fox News, Smith reported that the project had involved analysis of data from a large number of public sources and 20 to 30 individuals.[25]
Smith stated that Atta's name had emerged during an examination of individuals known to have ties to Omar Abdel Rahman, a leading figure in the first World Trade Center bombing.
[edit] Major Eric Kleinsmith
Major Eric Kleinsmith, who was with the Army and chief of intelligence for LIWA until February 2001, testified that he was ordered to destroy Able Danger's information. "I deleted the data," he said. "There were two sets, classified and unclassified, and also an 'all source,'" which contained a blend of the two, "plus charts we'd produced." Kleinsmith deleted the 2.5 terabytes of data in May and June, 2000, on orders of Tony Gentry, general counsel of the Army Intelligence and Security Command.[26]
[edit] Other witnesses
The Defense Department announced its findings on September 1, 2005, after a three-week investigation into Able Danger. The statement announced the discovery of three other witnesses in addition to Shaffer and Philpott who confirm Able Danger had produced a chart that "either mentioned Atta by name as an al-Qaeda operative [and/or] showed his photograph." Four of the five witnesses remember the photo on the chart. The fifth remembers only Atta being cited by name. The Pentagon describes the witnesses as "credible" but did not rule out the possibility their recollections were faulty.[27][28][dead link]
[edit] The wall
Former chief assistant U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy and others have asserted that the Able Danger intelligence was suppressed as a result of a policy of forbidding the CIA and FBI to share intelligence known as "the wall."[29] During the 9/11 Commission hearings, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified the wall was strengthened under the Clinton administration by Jamie Gorelick to prohibit sharing of terrorist intelligence within the federal government.[30]
This assertion was disputed by former senator Slade Gorton (R-WA), a member of the 9-11 Commission, who said, "nothing Jamie Gorelick wrote had the slightest impact on the Department of Defense or its willingness or ability to share intelligence information with other intelligence agencies." Gorton also asserted that "the wall" was a long-standing policy that had resulted from the Church committee in the 1970s, and that the policy only prohibits transfer of certain information from prosecutors to the intelligence services and never prohibited information flowing in the opposite direction.
-
the popular CT that 19 guys with boxcutters did it doesn't hold up either
I guess we're back to square one
Why not? This guy in Detroit, but for the faulty fuse almost blew up a plane himself singlehandidly.
-
I guess Clinton was lying then Straw?
seriously 333 - did you even listen to that audio in that ridiculous clip or did you just look at the silly pictures (why was there a picture of Monica Lewinsky in that video).
listen to the audio again and tell me EXACTLY what you hear that incriminates Clinton.
The only thing he mentions is something in 1996 but says he couldn't take him because Bin Ladne had not commited any crime against the US and we had no legal basis on which to hold him (you're an attorney right?).
If you're up for reading or watching a video that doesn't include showing pictures of Clinton dressed as an arab then try here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/18/60minutes/main624848.shtml
-
Why not? This guy in Detroit, but for the faulty fuse almost blew up a plane himself singlehandidly.
your logic eludes me
what's the underpants bomber got to do with validating the popular CT of 911
I'm just not following how one proves the other
please explain
-
I read that piece Straw. My thing is that I dont confuse evil genius for incompetence. Sure clinton probably made a few token efforts, like bombing an aspirin factory.
As far as the clip goes, they were well aware of Bin Laden and really didnt do that much. Again - are we trying to prosecute a legal case or defeat our enemies?
-
"Again - are we trying to prosecute a legal case or defeat our enemies?
"
Any person or group who allowed an attack to happen by not donig their sworn jobs to prevent them = enemy of the USA.
Maybe you forget that. *IF* any person knowlingly allowed terrorists to operate here, they are just as guilty. if any person didn't act to stop an attack he knew was coming - he's just as guilty.
once i saw you write "Even if bush did know.." or something like that... I mean... really? ??? Anyone who didn't act to stop it is just as guilty man.
-
your logic eludes me
what's the underpants bomber got to do with validating the popular CT of 911
I'm just not following how one proves the other
please explain
You said that you didnt think its plausible for 19 people with box cutters to take down a plane. Why the hell not? Especially considering what we just saw with the panty bomber. It does not take much to frighten people into shock and inaction and fear.
The passengers of the plane had no reason to believe that they were involved on a suicide mission.
The only ones who did took control of the plane in PA after speaking to their loved ones and learning what happened in NYC.
-
"Again - are we trying to prosecute a legal case or defeat our enemies?
"
Any person or group who allowed an attack to happen by not donig their sworn jobs to prevent them = enemy of the USA.
Maybe you forget that. *IF* any person knowlingly allowed terrorists to operate here, they are just as guilty. if any person didn't act to stop an attack he knew was coming - he's just as guilty.
once i saw you write "Even if bush did know.." or something like that... I mean... really? ??? Anyone who didn't act to stop it is just as guilty man.
240 - did you read my post above yes or no containing quotations from the link you provided me?
Since that attempt failed, can you give me something at least with some plausibility to look at?
Serious - your own link oblierated a good deal of your 911 CT's.
-
19 guys with boxcutters didn't turn off norad, or keep the order standing in DC as the plane approached. didn't tell the other defense group to just take the day off. didn't set off explosions in wtc7 or report on BBC it fell an hour before it actually did. 19 guys with boxcutters didn't bet on those 2 airline stocks to fall a week eahd of time. Hell, the pakistan genereal who wire atta $100 K just 4 days before 911...
19 guys with boxcutters didn't throw the aug 6 memo in the garbage or stall a 911 investifation for 400 days or lie on oath about norad response times that day...
You don't know much about that 100K, do ya 33386? ;)
shit, i'm caught up in this thread again!! dammit whens the nfl start?
-
"Weldon changes his story"
EXACTLY.
He made the white house look really bad admitting the shit we knew ahead of time - you posted the CHANGED STORY he delivered 4 years later. Sorry, I believe what he said when he answered honestly - not after a major media shitstorn and him having his ass handed to him by the GOP... he apologizes for embarassing Bush, changes his story, and that's all you post.
Classic. Dude, you believe the shit people say when they're just answering. not the version they release 4 years later when they start a shitstorm and just need to put it out because they made their boss look bad ;)
-
19 guys with boxcutters didn't turn off norad, or keep the order standing in DC as the plane approached. didn't tell the other defense group to just take the day off. didn't set off explosions in wtc7 or report on BBC it fell an hour before it actually did. 19 guys with boxcutters didn't bet on those 2 airline stocks to fall a week eahd of time. Hell, the pakistan genereal who wire atta $100 K just 4 days before 911...
19 guys with boxcutters didn't throw the aug 6 memo in the garbage or stall a 911 investifation for 400 days or lie on oath about norad response times that day...
You don't know much about that 100K, do ya 33386? ;)
shit, i'm caught up in this thread again!! dammit whens the nfl start?
Ok, so some pakis were in on it. How does that connect GWB to destryoing the ATTA investigation via exec order as you claimed?
-
You said that you didnt think its plausible for 19 people with box cutters to take down a plane. Why the hell not? Especially considering what we just saw with the panty bomber. It does not take much to frighten people into shock and inaction and fear.
The passengers of the plane had no reason to believe that they were involved on a suicide mission.
The only ones who did took control of the plane in PA after speaking to their loved ones and learning what happened in NYC.
"taking down a plane" does not = 911
911 has been debated ad naseum on this site and I'm out the door for lunch
I don't believe the popular CT of 19 hijackers
other than that I have no conclusions on what exactly happened.....yet
what's odd is that you dont' trust the Govt about ANYTHING yet you believe the ridiculous CT (from our GOVT) about 911
-
"Ok, so some pakis were in on it. "
Not just 'some'.
The top general of the nation. Musharraf's right hand man. AND when it was annoucned on c-span in the 911 hearings, the name was deleted from all white house recordings and written transcripts. Only the live cspan recording that day included it.
Why would the white house hide this? If the TOP GENERAL of ANY COUNTRY paid a guy $100k right before he attacked america, that would be automatic "bomb the shit outta them", wouldn't it?
Now, I think you might be starting to get it ;)
-
"Weldon changes his story"
EXACTLY.
He made the white house look really bad admitting the shit we knew ahead of time - you posted the CHANGED STORY he delivered 4 years later. Sorry, I believe what he said when he answered honestly - not after a major media shitstorn and him having his ass handed to him by the GOP... he apologizes for embarassing Bush, changes his story, and that's all you post.
Classic. Dude, you believe the shit people say when they're just answering. not the version they release 4 years later when they start a shitstorm and just need to put it out because they made their boss look bad ;)
240 - now you are in total idiot mode again. I put in red bold the testimony from the guy who was ordered the intel destroyed in JUNE 2000! and somehow you are making something of this?
BTW - I am still looking to see back up your claim of GWB via exec order shutting down an investigation of ATTA, by name prior to 911.
-
240 - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS?
________________________ ________________________
I think many republicans seem to ignore the fact Bush was warned by our allies and our own intel agencies. They knew 5 of the hijackers names, the attack date, and targets. They redacted many of the details (blacked out). But germany's ambassador told their newspaper that he told Bush personally of 5 of their names.
-
Rudy didn't put his words crystal clear. So what.
Do we really want a political climate where politicians are too afraid to say anything because of the risk they may be misinterpreted and consequently crucified?
Whether Rudy really feels USA was safer under Bush is the real issue.
I don't think so.
USA has gained tremendous support around the world the last year.
-
240 - WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR THIS?
________________________ ________________________
I think many republicans seem to ignore the fact Bush was warned by our allies and our own intel agencies. They knew 5 of the hijackers names, the attack date, and targets. They redacted many of the details (blacked out). But germany's ambassador told their newspaper that he told Bush personally of 5 of their names.
its very simply 333 you have to look at it from the stance of 240 politics
bush=bad
obama=good
obama does something 240 knows is wrong and 240 draws a morally equivalency to bush to justify obama
you see now it all makes sense ;)
-
Wow... Rudy also insisted the Richard reid shoebombing (Dec 2001) was a PRE-911 event.
You can see the video in his own words. That's TWO major mistakes in a single interview.
Watch the video yourself:
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/maddow-shreds-giuliani-forgetting-911/
"We had no domestic attacks during Bush".
911, reid shoebomber, 2001 anthrax were called a terrorist act by bush and ashcroft.
DC sniper case - one of those guys was convited on terror charges.
The NC 2006 attack at the university where an al-Q inspired kid pwloed down a crowd with his car.
-
Wow... we also see Rudy Guiliani praising Clinton AND bush for using the justice system to prosecute (in civilian courts) those behind the WTC93 and WTC2001 attacks.
After the 2006 conviction of moussaui - Rudy praised the justice system conviction of the 911 conspirator.
But he's hating all over obama for prosecuting KSM in civilian courts.
-
BUSH BADDDDD, OBAMA GOOOOOODDDDD
fixed ;)
-
tony,
What do you think of Rudy's statement that Reid attack was BEFORE 911, as well as him saying we were never attacked under Bush?
-
Giving the suspects full trials adds to USA's credit when making demands on eg Iran.
It may not be the populist decision but it could be well invested. You reap what you sow.
-
tony,
What do you think of Rudy's statement that Reid attack was BEFORE 911, as well as him saying we were never attacked under Bush?
I think he was an idiot, was never a real big fan of rudy he does give a good speech though so who knows maybe he will be the next president...ehhh what am I saying he cant play the race card to get out of his connections and statements :-X
240 what do you think about condemning bush for not following intel in one instance and then condemning him for following it in another? seems very silver lining of you ;) :D
how about it?
-
good call on rudy.
where did I condemn Bush for following intel?
-
Rudy didn't put his words crystal clear. So what.
Do we really want a political climate where politicians are too afraid to say anything because of the risk they may be misinterpreted and consequently crucified?
Whether Rudy really feels USA was safer under Bush is the real issue.
I don't think so.
USA has gained tremendous support around the world the last year.
Hedge- What Support!??! Admittedly Obama's apology tour has done absolutely shit in helping our country from a foreign policy standpoint, national security standpoint or otherwise. Winning a meaningless Nobel piss prize and having some equally meaningless opinion polls taken from the EU indicating a slightly more favorable opinion of the US because Obama is president does not mean we have generated more support from anybody. In the process Obama has also kissed our enemies asses, abandoned our allies and taken an unbelievably naive and unrealistic stance with Iran, North Korea etc. To suggest America is safer with Obama is patently absurd.
-
good call on rudy.
where did I condemn Bush for following intel?
WMD ring a bell? ::)
-
there was mor than enough intel to warrant getting UN inspections.
Which we got.
Bush decided he didn't like the answers the UN researchers found (you know, that there were no WMD).
So, he attacked anyway.
All the quotes from dems was BEFORE spring 2003. You see, everyone and their mother was convinced saddam had WMD. Then, they got to look and whattya know, he had none.
Bush clearly IGNORED the intel found by UN inspectors on the ground.
So, please, again, where did I condemn bush for following intel?
-
there was mor than enough intel to warrant getting UN inspections.
Which we got.
Bush decided he didn't like the answers the UN researchers found (you know, that there were no WMD).
So, he attacked anyway.
All the quotes from dems was BEFORE spring 2003. You see, everyone and their mother was convinced saddam had WMD. Then, they got to look and whattya know, he had none.
Bush clearly IGNORED the intel found by UN inspectors on the ground.
So, please, again, where did I condemn bush for following intel?
LOL there was still plenty of intel that pointed to Iraq having wmd dont be a dumb ass...you continually condemn bush for following that intel
-
You resort to namecalling when the argument doesn't go your way?
Are you familiar with www.downingstreetmemo.co m ?
There is a lot of evidence that Bush and Blair manufactured the cause for war, after UN searches failed to find a thing.
If you want to suppose the 2% of evidence they helped manufacture was more important than the 98% of evidence (including UN feet in saddam's own bedrooms and anywhere else they wanted with the best machines in the world for finding WMD)... you can keep on doing that.
But most people in the world, most people in congress, and most americans know the WMD weren't there. And, after 7 years with boots on the ground, we still haven't found them.
no need to call names though, man. we're just having a discussion here.
-
You resort to namecalling when the argument doesn't go your way?
Are you familiar with www.downingstreetmemo.co m ?
There is a lot of evidence that Bush and Blair manufactured the cause for war, after UN searches failed to find a thing.
If you want to suppose the 2% of evidence they helped manufacture was more important than the 98% of evidence (including UN feet in saddam's own bedrooms and anywhere else they wanted with the best machines in the world for finding WMD)... you can keep on doing that.
But most people in the world, most people in congress, and most americans know the WMD weren't there. And, after 7 years with boots on the ground, we still haven't found them.
no need to call names though, man. we're just having a discussion here.
I resort to name calling when youre being a jack ass...what about the intel from other countries that pointed to iraq having wmd? LOL Im not arguing whether iraq had wmd dip shit what im saying is there was intel pointing to them having them...this you cannot deny
I love the 98% bullshit did it hurt when you pulled it out of your ass?
lol hindsight is 20/20 and its effecting you right now, its ok you probably dont know much about the hindsight bias effect that is gripping you so much right now... ::)
-
yes, the other countries gave us a lot of intel - and as a result of this, the UN decided to inspect.
They didn't find any WMD in iraq. They went wherever they wanted, including saddam's bathrooms and bedrooms.
They looked every place the intel claimed there was WMD. and they didn't find any.
I think you're a little confused here - all this intel was used to get our goal - UN inspections. When they didn't find anything, most countries were satisfied - which is why they didn't send troops like iraq I.
-
I stand corrected, Reid was in December of 2001. I didn't realize that was after 9/11. That was certainly another terrorist attack. Thank you.
Still,things are any better under this administration. These muslim extremists should be given zero mercy and zero rights after they commit something like this.
-
shoot, nobody expects you to have to know the dates of these things.
Rudy, on the other hand, is supposedly one of the top 3 voices on terror in the world. For him to defend Reid's civilian trial as "Well, that was before 911" is really really poor.
-
yes, the other countries gave us a lot of intel - and as a result of this, the UN decided to inspect.
They didn't find any WMD in iraq. They went wherever they wanted, including saddam's bathrooms and bedrooms.
They looked every place the intel claimed there was WMD. and they didn't find any.
I think you're a little confused here - all this intel was used to get our goal - UN inspections. When they didn't find anything, most countries were satisfied - which is why they didn't send troops like iraq I.
LOL b/c its not possible at all that in the time that saddam was keeping the inspectors out that he was able to conceal the wmd? right?
I think youre forgetting the cat and mouse games that saddam played with the UN and letting your hindsight bias get the better of you...
fact: intel that bush had pointed to Iraq having wmd
fact: you condemn bush for not following intel in one instance leading to 9/11 and condemn him for following it in another in invading Iraq...what would you have done if he was right and iraq had used wmd? let me guess condemn bush ::)
you seem to have alot in common with what you portray 3333 as 240 ::)
-
hey, you keep defending WMD. History has already spoken (they weren't there). UN didn't find them, we didn't find them. They weren't there.
-
after being 8 years in Iraq shouldn't the military have found any evidence by now of WMD's?
Would be interesting to see journalists press Cheney about that.
-
nah, rove, bush and others have since come out and admitted there were no WMD.
we're really just arguing something that's already been decided.
-
hey, you keep defending WMD. History has already spoken (they weren't there). UN didn't find them, we didn't find them. They weren't there.
youre misunderstanding you dip shit, im not arguing whether they were there or not simply that intel pointed to them being there...DENY THAT OR DISPROVE IT
fact: intel that bush had pointed to Iraq having wmd
fact: you condemn bush for not following intel in one instance leading to 9/11 and condemn him for following it in another in invading Iraq...what would you have done if he was right and iraq had used wmd? let me guess condemn bush ::)
you seem to have alot in common with what you portray 3333 as 240 ::)
while youre at it deny that too ::)
-
nah, rove, bush and others have since come out and admitted there were no WMD.
we're really just arguing something that's already been decided.
obviously you read what you want, seems to be a habit of yours i.e. the daily kos and the national enq... ::)
"LOL Im not arguing whether iraq had wmd dip shit what im saying is there was intel pointing to them having them"
guess you missed that part huh?
-
Dont let facts get in your way 240 make up your own revisionist history ::)
while youre at it make it so that the stimulus worked too ;)
-
youre misunderstanding you dip shit, im not arguing whether they were there or not simply that intel pointed to them being there...DENY THAT OR DISPROVE IT
fact: intel that bush had pointed to Iraq having wmd
fact: you condemn bush for not following intel in one instance leading to 9/11 and condemn him for following it in another in invading Iraq...what would you have done if he was right and iraq had used wmd? let me guess condemn bush ::)
you seem to have alot in common with what you portray 3333 as 240 ::)
while youre at it deny that too ::)
wow three eye rolls in one post
::) ::) ::) ::)
Cheney/bush also had intel that Saddam did not have WMD's
you can't DENY that either
and it is easilly PROVABLE too
I remember hearing it on the news
weapon inspectors said Saddam did not have WMD's
-
wow three eye rolls in one post
::) ::) ::) ::)
Cheney/bush also had intel that Saddam did not have WMD's
you can't DENY that either
and it is easilly PROVABLE too
I remember hearing it on the news
weapon inspectors said Saddam did not have WMD's
2 were from a previous post the quote function doesnt work ;)
you too are missing the point...
FACT: THERE WAS INTEL THAT POINTED TO IRAQ HAVING WMD
FACT: YOU CONDEMN BUSH FOR NOT FOLLOWING INTEL IN ONE INSTANCE AND CONDEMN HIM FOR FOLLOWING IT IN ANOTHER
DENY THAT...
-
2 were from a previous post the quote function doesnt work ;)
you too are missing the point...
FACT: THERE WAS INTEL THAT POINTED TO IRAQ HAVING WMD
FACT: YOU CONDEMN BUSH FOR NOT FOLLOWING INTEL IN ONE INSTANCE AND CONDEMN HIM FOR FOLLOWING IT IN ANOTHER
DENY THAT...
FACT: THERE WAS INTEL THAT POINTED TO IRAQ NOT HAVING WMD
FACT: YOU CONDEMN BUSH FOR NOT FOLLOWING INTEL IN ONE INSTANCE AND CONDEMN HIM FOR FOLLOWING IT IN ANOTHER
DENY THAT...
-
FACT: THERE WAS INTEL THAT POINTED TO IRAQ NOT HAVING WMD
FACT: YOU CONDEMN BUSH FOR NOT FOLLOWING INTEL IN ONE INSTANCE AND CONDEMN HIM FOR FOLLOWING IT IN ANOTHER
DENY THAT...
LOL no doubt intel pointed both ways
difference is I dont condemn bush for not following intel before 9/11 and then condemn him for following up on intel in Iraq like you dousche bags do :)
somewhat hypocritical dont you think?
-
LOL no doubt intel pointed both ways
difference is I dont condemn bush for not following intel before 9/11 and then condemn him for following up on intel in Iraq like you dousche bags do :)
somewhat hypocritical dont you think?
you keep ignoring one obvious point
Bush knew at the time that intel in favor of WMD's was bogus
you're the schmuck who is defending his lie today
-
you keep ignoring one obvious point
Bush knew at the time that intel in favor of WMD's was bogus
you're the schmuck who is defending his lie today
LOL really he did, did he? so all the other countries that pointed to Iraq having wmd were in on this too?
face it hoss weve been over this time and time again and you never come out ahead...there was intel that pointed to iraq having wmd...
-
LOL really he did, did he? so all the other countries that pointed to Iraq having wmd were in on this too?
face it hoss weve been over this time and time again and you never come out ahead...there was intel that pointed to iraq having wmd...
YES
he did know it at the time
so did the Brits and at least a few other countries
that's the whole point
what is it about that fact that you don't understand?
-
YES
he did know it at the time
so did the Brits and at least a few other countries
that's the whole point
what is it about that fact that you don't understand?
so exactly what countries are in on the fix straw?
-
so exactly what countries are in on the fix straw?
before we go there I'm assuming you agree that Britain knew the Intel in favor of WMD's was fake (and therefore Bush knew it was fake too) right?
-
before we go there I'm assuming you agree that Britain knew the Intel in favor of WMD's was fake (and therefore Bush knew it was fake too) right?
no, I dont did they try to make the threat seem greater than it was surely they did. Did they fabricate intel no they did not face it straw there was intel, REAL INTEL that pointed to iraq having wmd...
-
no, I dont did they try to make the threat seem greater than it was surely they did. Did they fabricate intel no they did not face it straw there was intel, REAL INTEL that pointed to iraq having wmd...
ok well if you can't aknowledge the fact that the Brits knew the Intel in favor of WMD was bogus and (in their opinion at the time) manufactured by the Cheney/Bush admin. then we have nothing left to discuss
let me know when you get back to reality
-
ok well if you can't aknowledge the fact that the Brits knew the Intel in favor of WMD was bogus and (in their opinion at the time) manufactured by the Cheney/Bush admin. then we have nothing left to discuss
let me know when you get back to reality
so youre under the impression that there was never any intel that ever pointed to iraq having wmd?
LOL ok then straw who in your theory is in on the fix? Id like to hear your CT
-
I always thought that the DC Sniper case should have gotten more attention since that tpye of thing to me seems far easier to pull off than any other type of terrorism event.
Quite frankly, I am shocked we have not had crap like that happen since.
You'd be surprised what has been stopped in DC
And remember the Holocaust Museum shooting, the perp, a old man, died last week.
-
240 - this is now at least the 10th time I have asked you for anything concrete as to a 9/11 CT. So far you have provided absolutely nothing.
One minute its a controlled demo, the next minute its GWB knew but did nothing, the next minute its a rogue CIA unit, the next minute its a missle, the next minute its traces of explosives, the next its Israel knew, then its people selling put options on ariline stocks, then its Condi, then its Cheny, then its Halliburton, then its aliens.
Just give me something concrete backed up by fact.
Although I cannot state to any degree of certainty that we were complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen, I *do* know that President Cheney and his people recognized immediately after it happened that it would be worth billions in profits to them. There's no disputing that fact.
-
Although I cannot state to any degree of certainty that we were complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen, I *do* know that President Cheney and his people recognized immediately after it happened that it would be worth billions in profits to them. There's no disputing that fact.
I agree and have said many times that I am open to any credible evidence or CT that makes logic or coherent sense. So far I see questions and little else.
-
so youre under the impression that there was never any intel that ever pointed to iraq having wmd?
LOL ok then straw who in your theory is in on the fix? Id like to hear your CT
bump for who all is in on the fix...
-
I agree and have said many times that I am open to any credible evidence or CT that makes logic or coherent sense. So far I see questions and little else.
The ONLY possible argument I see is that, in the U.S., we have never had strict pre-flight screening like they do in countries like Turkey, where passengers have to arrive 3 hours early to travel as every inch of everyone's carry-ons are carefully scrutinized.
BUT, in the wake of the attempted Christmas Day attack, the civil libertarians are arguing that millions of passengers would be 'unnecessarily inconvenienced' (their words) by that level of scrutiny either here or on planes bound for U.S. soil, even if it did make air travel much safer.
So, if there's a right-wing conspiracy to bring American planes down, then the civil libertarians are in on it, too.
...
Regarding what happened after the Twin Towers were hit, it *is* possible that Bldg 7 (I believe that's the one) was destroyed in order to prevent the leakage of certain information. I read something that seemed credible about this several years ago, but cannot recall the details. I did agree (and still do) that buildings are often rigged with auto-destruction mechanisms to protect company or even national security. I have a kill switch on my computers in my office and I'm sure many companies have something similar in place.
-
"Regarding what happened after the Twin Towers were hit, it *is* possible that Bldg 7 (I believe that's the one) was destroyed in order to prevent the leakage of certain information. "
Very possible, yes.
Video shows the firefighters were all crouched in safe positions as the countdown to collapse commenced. They all knew it was coming, and many cameras picked up the 'booms' of explosives before the tower fell.
WTC7 was without a doubt a controlled demolition. The clasic 'kink' and collapse of penthouse, coupled with both columns blasting and failing simultansously is proof of this.
The only problem is that WTC1 and 2 ALSO fell that day in similar fashion - with people inside.
-
I'm with 386 on this one. Bush and his posse took advantage of the 9/11 aftermath to launch their foreign policy agenda.
But I have not seen a single concrete evidence pointing to that they were actively behind it.
-
I'm with 386 on this one. Bush and his posse took advantage of the 9/11 aftermath to launch their foreign policy agenda.
But I have not seen a single concrete evidence pointing to that they were actively behind it.
The plan to kill Saddam and steal Iraqi resources was already in place.
All 9/11 did was to get the liberals onboard with Cheney's plan.
The thing is, Halliburton could've successfully competed for a large % the servicing contracts, but they were upset that the Chinese were given a contract as well and had to halt them.
-
Tre = very wise man.
Tre, I remember talking with you back in 2005 about 911 back when I was all gung-ho about it.
I said "controlled demolition" on building 7, and you were like, "What in th world are you talking about? ???" I recall clearly as I was very new to it and it was the first time I spoke up.
So it's pretty funny to see you discussing it, and possible reasons for it. The 'kill switch' idea is very possible.
-
Tre = very wise man.
Tre, I remember talking with you back in 2005 about 911 back when I was all gung-ho about it.
I said "controlled demolition" on building 7, and you were like, "What in th world are you talking about? ???" I recall clearly as I was very new to it and it was the first time I spoke up.
So it's pretty funny to see you discussing it, and possible reasons for it. The 'kill switch' idea is very possible.
240 - congrts in nearing 40,000 posts.
-
thanks 33.
I'm betting as Nov 2010 elections near, you'll be at 120 posts per day...
your current 18,000 posts is very impressive as well!