|
I think Bush is a crooked elitist f*ck. What do you think?
Bush does not want the 9-11 report to come out
I wonder why? I guess it would look really bad if say, Ashcroft was warned not to fly publicly shortly before 9-11 or that the U.S. planned for the scenario that Condi Rice said "no one could have anticipated"or that warnings and failures were ignored by the highest officials in the land, or that many , many other nations warned us shortly before 9-11 that an attack was imminent. Is it just me or is there a pattern developing with the Bush administration? The FBI seem to have dropped the senate Anthrax investigation. I find it odd that the anthrax in question was likely made in the U.S.A.. I guess this was just a way to sent Daschle a message. |
Re: I think Bush is a crooked elitist f*ck. What do you think?
Quote:
|
Where are you going with this one Scott? Bush is a politician, that makes him evil by definition. He has and wants to keep a job controlling the lives of other people.
|
Scott, try turning down the vitriol a little.
So he's not releasing a report that has classified elements. Big damn deal. Frankly I'm not having a problem at the moment over release of a document that may well become a "how to" manual for the next time. Or (yep, I'm wearing my tinfoil hat) what would be the utility of revealing that the hero passengers of Flight 93 didn't bring that plane down, but an F-16 did? I'm not standing fully behind Bush at this point ... he's a politician and I don't trust any of them ... but I do think he's doing the best possible job under difficult circumstances. I don't think Gore would have managed nearly as well. |
He refused to release the sections of the report that were already in the public domain. Read the article.
Quote:
Quote:
It would be beneficial to the public if we knew where the errors took place and who we need to fire to correct the errors. It would help to know why John Ashcroft stopped flying publicly shortly before 9-11. It would help to know who knew what when - and why they did not alert the public about an attack that we were warned about. It would help to know why Condi Rice, Bush and others lied - to cover up their ineptitude or malfeasance. Quote:
Why do I sound so paranoid and shrill? Read below. The Secrets of September 11 April 30, 2003 "One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'" http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10 FBI Warned D.C. It Was A Target September 25, 2002 "A Minnesota FBI agent investigating Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that he notified the Secret Service weeks before Sept. 11 that a terror team might hijack a plane and 'hit the nation's capital.'" http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/1...T+WAS+A+TARGET Moussaoui Warnings Ignored September 24, 2002 "An FBI supervisor, sounding a prophetic pre-Sept. 11 alarm, warned FBI headquarters that student pilot Zacarias Moussaoui was so dangerous he might 'take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,' a congressional investigator said in a report Tuesday." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...2&cid=512&ncid =716&e=4&u=/ap/20020924/ap_on_go_co/attacks_intelligence America had 12 warnings of aircraft attack September 19, 2002 "American intelligence received many more clues before the 11 September attacks than previously disclosed, that terrorists might hijack planes and turn them into weapons, a joint congressional committee was told yesterday." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/ story.jsp?story=334633 U.S. Was Aware on bin Laden Threat September 19, 2002 "Basically, we know that bin Laden had the means and the intent to attack Americans, both at home and abroad." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...2&cid=512&ncid =716&e=5&u=/ap/20020919/ap_on_go_co/attacks_intelligence 9/11 Probers Say Agencies Failed to Heed Attack Signs September 19, 2002 "U.S. intelligence agencies received many more indications than previously disclosed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was planning imminent "spectacular" attacks in the summer of 2001 aimed at inflicting mass casualties." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002Sep18.html 9/11 report documents credible clues September 18, 2002 "The U.S. intelligence community received a surprising number of credible reports of a likely terrorist attack prior to Sept. 11, including some threats to domestic targets, according to a congressional report to be unveiled today." http://www.msnbc.com/news/809370.asp?pne=msntv U.S. knew of 12 plots for jet attacks September 18, 2002 "Plan to attack WTC was among warnings that preceded 9/11, panel told." http://www.msnbc.com/news/809484.asp Panel Presents 9/11 Intelligence September 18, 2002 "An intelligence briefing two months before the Sept. 11 attack warned that Osama bin Laden ( news - web sites) would launch a spectacular terrorist attack against U.S. or Israeli interests, congressional investigators said Wednesday." http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...=542&ncid=703& e=1&u=/ap/20020918/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/attacks_intelligence Spy Agencies Had Pre-9/11 Threats on U.S. Soil September 17, 2002 "U.S. intelligence agencies picked up threats of attacks inside the United States and of using airplanes as weapons during the spring and summer before last year's Sept. 11 attacks, but were more focused on the possibility of an assault overseas, a congressional source said on Tuesday." http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...2&cid=578&ncid =578&e=1&u=/nm/20020917/ts_nm/attack_ congress_intelligence_dc Ashcroft Flying High July 26, 2001 "In response to inquiries from CBS News over why Ashcroft was traveling exclusively by leased jet aircraft instead of commercial airlines, the Justice Department cited what it called a "threat assessment" by the FBI, and said Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001 /07/26/national/printable303601.shtml Bush briefed on hijacking threat before September 11 May 16, 2002 "President Bush's daily intelligence briefings in the weeks leading up to the September 11 terror attacks included a warning of the possibility that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network would attempt to hijack a U.S.-based airliner, senior administration officials said Wednesday." http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/15/bus....11/index.html Revealed: The Taliban minister, the US envoy and the warning of September 11 that was ignored September 7, 2002 "Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil." http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...p?story=331115 Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner? July 3, 2001 "A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April." http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Hatfield -R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html Bin Laden’s Relatives Evacuated From NYC October 2, 2001 "Patrick Tyler of the New York Times is reporting from Washington: 'In the first days after the attacks on Sept. 11, the Saudi Arabian ambasador to Washington, Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, supervised the urgent evacuation of 24 members of Osama bin Laden's extended family from ther United States fearing they might be subjected to violence.'" http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0110/S00008.htm Our Pearl Harbor: The latest NSA revelations suggest the 9-11 plot could have been foiled. June 21, 2002 "Recent news that the National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted two messages the day before the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks -- messages that indicated imminent action -- obliges us to reconsider whether the airliner hijackings that led to 3,000 lost lives and $20 billion in property damage could have been foiled." http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/...s-j-06-21.html Al-Qaida monitored U.S. negotiations with Taliban over oil pipeline June 5, 2002 "A memo by military chief Mohammed Atef raises new questions about whether failed U.S. efforts to reform Afghanistan's radical regime -- and build the pipeline -- set the stage for Sept. 11." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/05/ memo/index_np.html?x U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda June 4, 2002 "U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group, but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur, according to U.S. officials. The disclosures add to a growing body of evidence to be examined in congressional hearings that open today into how the CIA, FBI and other agencies failed to seize on intelligence pointing to the deadliest terror attack in U.S. history." http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/...ia-attacks.htm Heads-Up To Ashcroft Proves Threat Was Known Before 9/11 June 3, 2002 "Don't let them fool you, folks: They knew. They might have been surprised by the ferocity of the attacks, but the highest-ranking members of the George W. Bush administration knew before Sept. 11 that something terrible was going to happen soon." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi? file=/gate/archive/2002/06/03/hsorensen.DTL Egypt Warned U.S. of a Qaeda Plot, Mubarak Asserts June 3, 2002 "Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/national/04WARN.html U.S. Ignored Warnings From French May 28, 2002 "A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11." http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/ridgeway2.php Whopper of the Week: Condoleezza Rice Abroad at home. May 23, 2002 "The overwhelming bulk of the evidence was that this was an attack that was likely to take place overseas." - White House National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, in a May 16 news briefing. "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." - Title of the CIA's Aug. 6 briefing memo to President Bush . . . http://slate.msn.com/?id=2066154 Tracking a Counterterrorism Breakdown Timeline Shows Failure to Connect Key Clues Before Sept. 11 May 23, 2002 "Lawmakers are questioning what the administration knew and when. NPR's Mike Shuster reports on Morning Edition that government agencies had several clues that might have triggered alarms in the months before Sept. 11. But no one put them together." http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/...ine/index.html U.S. was warned that Moussaoui had close ties to al-Qaida, analyst says May 23, 2002 "Who knew what, and when? Could the FBI have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks?" http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html Poppies for planes: White House hides behind veil of executive privilege May 22, 2002 "Clinton National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger was "totally preoccupied" with the prospect of a domestic terror attack. He warned his replacement, Condoleezza Rice, "You will be spending more time on this issue than on any other." Problem was, she didn't." http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemId=13365 The U.S. ignored foreign warnings, too May 21, 2002 "When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001." http://www.iht.com/articles/58269.html Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes May 20, 2002 "George Bush received specific warnings in the weeks before 11 September that an attack inside the United States was being planned by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, US government sources said yesterday." http://www.guardian.co.uk/september1...718312,00.html Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings May 19, 2002 "Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism." http://www.sundayherald.com/24822 U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida May 16, 2002 "President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News." http://www.msnbc.com/news/753359.asp Bush Was Warned bin Laden Wanted to Hijack Planes May 15, 2002 "The White House said tonight that President Bush had been warned by American intelligence agencies in early August that Osama bin Laden was seeking to hijack aircraft..." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/16/politics/16INQU.html? US agents told: Back off bin Ladens November 7, 2001 "US special agents were told to back off the bin Laden family and the Saudi royals soon after George Bush became president, although that has all changed since September 11, it was reported today." http://www.old.smh.com.au/news/0111/.../world100.html Hijackers reportedly made test runs October 11, 2001 "During a six-hour flight from Boston to Los Angeles in August, movie actor James Woods said te only passengers besides himself seated in first-class were four men who he said appeared to be Middle Eastern in origin. Woods said the four neither ate nor drank, did not read or sleep and talkedto each other in whispers. On Sept. 12, Woods called the FBI to tell investigators about his experience. He was interviewed by agents on Sept. 13, but has had no comment." http://www.gazettenet.com/americantr...12001/7363.htm Bush: ‘We’re At War’ September 24th, 2001 "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns." http://www.msnbc.com/news/629606.asp US 'planned attack on Taleban' September 18, 2001 "A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks." http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/ newsid_1550000/1550366.stm Israeli security issued urgent warning to CIA of large-scale terror attacks September 16, 2001 "ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent." http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$52PMOXQAAD W5PQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml&sShe et=/news/2001/09/16/ixhome Willie Brown got low-key early warning about air travel September 12, 2001 For Mayor Willie Brown, the first signs that something was amiss came late Monday when he got a call from what he described as his airport security - - a full eight hours before yesterday's string of terrorist attacks -- advising him that Americans should be cautious about their air travel. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file= /chronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL Commission warned Bush September 12, 2001 "But on Wednesday, two former senators, the bipartisan co-chairs of a Defense Department-chartered commission on national security, spoke with something between frustration and regret about how White House officials failed to embrace any of the recommendations to prevent acts of domestic terrorism delivered earlier this year." http://www.salon.com/politics/featur...ush/index.html Jeb Bush signs Executive Order allowing him to declare martial law in Florida... September 7, 2001 "Based on the potential massive damage to life and property that may result from an act of terrorism at a Florida port, the necessity to protect life and property from such acts of terrorism..." http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/eog_new/eog/orders/ 2001/september/eo2001-261-09-07-01.html |
Some of those links may have died since I added them to favorites. Let me know which ones died and I will look in LexisNexis for the culprit.
|
Oh, look, it's the post that sent Undertoad over the edge.
Brevity, man. Brevity. |
And the majority of the intelligence failures can be laid at the feet of the Clinton Administration.
It's not ALL Bush, Scott. |
Actually, that is not true, Wolf. The Gore Commission Report on Aviation Safety & Security along with numerous other classified and unclassified reports were all created and compiled by the Clinton administration then passed on to Bush when he took office. Bush was briefed on these issues. For months before September, the CIA and the FBI were receiving warnings from other nation's intelligence agencies, internal watchdogs were trying to make noise, and the actions of Ashcroft and the U.S. security aparatus indicate knowledge of an impending attack. He had the choice to reacte or to wait. For whatever reason, he chose not to reacte.
|
Damn it, why can't the aliens come down and attack us now? That way, we can all be friends after Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum save us.
|
Obviously a consipracy occurred on 9-11. A large group of people conspired to kill a lot of Americans in multiple sites of attack.
The issue is how many other people were involved and how many other people knew about it. To simply dismiss it because the media catagorizes the 9-11 conspiracy with big foot and UFOs is illogical and stupid. If you look at all of the pieces - you see that there is a very disturbing chain of events that has been unfolding for years now. There were a lot of points along the way that anyone with half a brain could have connected the dots and created a security plan - or at least informed the public. Nothing was done. The U.S. changed after 9-11. The Iraq war, the Afghanistan war, the PATRIOT Act, the jingoistic shift in the media were all predicated upon 9-11. The tragedy has been a great boon to Bush - and anybody with Rove's knowledge of history would understand that a Reichstaag fire would really benefit a hawkish president. Is it not unreasonable to thnk that they let it happen? We already know that they lied to start a war. They are lying to push a tax cut for the rich. They lied about homeland security. How many lies does it take to get you to notice that the emperor is naked? |
Ah, goodness... is the Reichstag fire enough to invoke Godwin's Law?
|
No one should ever be bitten by a shark because the gumint knows damn well the ocean is full of them.
20/20 hindsight and righteous indignation.....sigh. Oh, and a soapbox. Don't forget the fuckin' soapbox.:shotgun: |
Come on - I was using the concept of the reichstaag fire - I could have used sinking of the Maine , but the Reichstaag fire is a little more famous. If you want to invoke Godwin's Law, I will aquiesce and stop posting on this thread. :)
Quote:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/index.html Maybe I am wrong. Maybe Bush really did not know anything about terrorists, airplanes, and the WTC - like Condi Rice said. If, however, they did know, would you even be able to acknowledge it? Would you think that the ends justified the means? Yes, hindsght is 20:20. When anybody does an investigation, they try to work their way back from the event - along the way the find pieces of information that point the investigator in different directions. Simply because a person can discern a pattern after the fact does not necessarily mean that the pattern did not exist or that it was an aberration. Are you really aware of the information that you are so readily dismissing? I am not standing on a soapbox. i am just trying to make a point. I think Bush is a crooked elitist f*ck, and I am trying to prove it. |
Not a straw man, a verbal picture to save a thousand words.
Bush is a man. One man. Do you really think he reads any of these zillions of reports the feds generate? C'mon. Synopsis is the word. Pasteurized, homogenized, triple distilled, combed and culled. Even his staff and advisors don't see a thing that umpty nine people haven't folded, spindled and mutilated. Mr President, we have a pretty good idea that terrorists are going to attack the USA. Bush,( thinking USS Cole, embassy bombings,etc) Well if we do everything we can to prevent it, the economy goes right down the crapper. Complete disruption. Tell the FBI and Cia to try to get specifics. Next item. Now I really don't think that's a farfetched scenario. Nobody was thinking 9/11 except the terrorists. Mistakes were made, but it was a lot of little ones and not a whopper. |
Quote:
Do I think Bush read any reports? God no. I don't think Bush reads anything. I think Bush is very much like Ronald Reagan. He is a good public face for a comitee that makes all the policy decisions and gives him a script to read. This is why you never get Bush to answer questions in an unscripted moment about anything that is beyond the general talking points of the day. This committe is made up of Washington insiders, intelligence insiders, security insiders, and generally inteligent people. I cannot imagine that none of these people would have connected the dots - especially given the numerous warnings - that an attack was imminent on American soil ( as opposed to what Condi said ). Why would it have been inappropriate to make sure that there were attack aircraft in the ready - in case something happened. Why would it have been wrong to put undercover skymarshalls in the air? Why would it have been disruptive to station antiaircraft guns around New York and Wasington ( like they did in Genoa ). preparation would not have sent the public into a panic. Did you even visit that site and take a look at what they compiled? Or are you just ready to simis it out of turn? |
OK, OK, BUSH KNEW.
Whata ya gonna do about it, you nobody? :rolleyes: |
Quote:
Soon after September 11th, the student called and had the grade adjusted to an A. I'm guessing that there is no way that crashing planes into buildings evaded the planning of our national intelligence agencies. |
Quote:
|
Well, when you have warning that Al Qaeda was in the final phase of an operation, that it was going to involve airlines and massive casualties, you would dust off all your airline scenarios. When you received field data from agents that were noticing Muslims training in numerous flight schools, you look at the scenariaos in which the muslims would need to be trained as airline pilots. Then you look at symbolic days in the future - days which may have some symbolic meaning for the terrorists - such as mid September - the time period of the Camp David Accords, or Yom Kippur, or the end of Ramadan. You reschedule fighters to be on alert near the larger cities. Then you watch the radar. You put out anotice to the FCC that any hijackings need to be reported immediately ( which is the regulation anyway ) - and you look at the direction the aircraft are traveling in. You attempt to contact the aircraft and tell them that if the exceed a 50 mile radius of approach to any large city, they will be shot down. Then, shoot down the aircraft if they don't respond.
I think it would have been a fairly easy thing to predict if my job was to sit around all day developing scenarios. These scenarios would be the ones that got passed to Cheney. |
Hindsight
|
Scott, calm down dude.
I'll be happy to concede that they knew something was suppose to happen on 9/11. Hell, I knew that and I'm just some guy in Arkansas. The Isrealis told us something was supposed to happen that day. Janes reported it. And yeah, the fact that planes were used is no surprised. So, can you prove anything? Look, I hate Bush too, but going around name-calling and making accusations that will never come to anything effects nothing and changes no ones mind. Calling someone a crooked, elitist fuck is pointless even when it's an accurate description. Cool down and I'm sure that you can resonably find something about Bush that everyone hates. Without polarizing people by getting hardcore anti-Bush. All that does is make people back Bush more. |
I guess you are right. We should not call politicicans crooked or elitist or fucks. Even though CLinjtons was called a rapist, a murderer, and an adulterous asshole. We could not call Gore a liar or Nixon a crook. We can;t do any of that.
WhY? Why can't you call a spade, a "spade"? The guy has got a crooked history. he was a draft dodger that made his money by getting sweetheart deals from politically connected companies. He won the election by appointment. He has lied about so many things since he came into office that it boggles the mind. He even lied to start a war. If you can;t call that kind of guy a crook, who can you call a crook? He is an elitist. He knows that he used to use drugs and alcohol in the past. But with him they were "youthful indescretions". However, other people's indiscretions don't get dismissed that easily. He signed into law a bill that barred anyone with any type of drug conviction any time in their past from getting federal financial aid. Even after they've paid their debt to society, they cannot receive federally subsidized grants or loans. You have to be one hell of an elitist to lie to a nation to start a war in which the middle class and poor will suffer the most - on both sides - then claim victory while the bodies were still piling up. The guy is a Connecticut blue-blood with a fake Texas twang. He grew up in comfortable private schools - the best ones available. Then he got into Ivy League schools even though he was an average student. He got into the National Guard in front of thousands of other soldiers that were on the waiting list. If that is not elitist behavior, I do not know what it. I called Bush a "fuck". I guess that is the only part of that phrase that I don;t have any reason for. I apologize to Mr. Bush for calling him a fuck. :) If being critical about a president makes one back said president, then people should have been rallying behind Clinton and Nixon when the media was skewering them. |
Quote:
Exactly what "sweetheart deals" are you talking about? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Come on, admit it. He's a pretty good guy. He seems personable enough to me. I've never seen him say anything that would suggest he thinks he's better than other people. |
Quote:
Get over it. You have another chance in 2004. Use it wisely. |
Hey Scott, Juju and Wolfs posts were perfect examples of what I mean. You caused that defense of Bush. Quit name-calling for a minute and use solid points that you can easily back and you'll do a lot better. With all the really good reasons to dislike GWB you're pushing people the other way by being bithchy with your opinions. By the by, as someone that has a problem with Bush you're making my life harder. Talking to people from the same side of the fence as you they are likely to assume I'm just a name caller too. Of course, I'm still willing to try anyway.
Juju, for "sweetheart deals" read up on Bush's business failures. You're damn good at finding stuff so I'll leave it to you. Look through them with a point of comparing how much he spent going into the companies and how much he walked away with. Taking a company that was running in the black and banrupting it within a few years and making a mint off selling it off piecemeal may not be illegal, but as a guy that could find himself out of a job it pisses me off. I think you should consider that point of view, what if that was the job you had for ten years or so? No, he shouldn't be arrested for it, but consider if you want a guy with that mentality in the White house. Hey Wolf, we know how you feel about the second amendment, how about the sixth? Doesn't it deserve just as much protecton as the second? |
Quote:
|
Actually I was referencing those people that were taken off to Guanton... er... Guantana... :confused: that base in Cuba! They get no trial, they get no lawyer. Hell, do they even get charged with anything officially?
|
Those guys? At Gitmo? Prisoners of War. Conflict still ongoing. See Geneva Convention.
|
Ok, I just spent some time looking and I can't seem to find any evidence that the "War on Terrorism" is anything more than a title, much like the "War on Drugs". The Geneva Convention doesn't apply if it's only called a war for political expediency. Or perhaps you believe that all these people were connected with Iraq?
Regardless, is it okay with you when the Government comes and hauls American citizens off? Giving only the Patriot Act as a reason? Perhaps you're one of those people that believe the Government would never abuse its authority? If the people they are hauling off are connected to terrorism then maybe they should prove it, in court. |
Actually, the kids at Guantanamo are "unlawful combatants," and apparently not subject to the rules of the Geneva Convention...or at least that's what Rummy has said in the past. There was talk of treating fedayeen fighters in the same manner, but last I heard, all the Iraqi fighters are considered POW.
Scott, quit using the whole 2000 election debacle. You and the Dems are going to run that shit into the ground, and fall flat on your face. Bush won, fair and square...it's that simple. Were there issues in Florida? Absolutely...their election system needs some serious work. Did they contribute to Gore's loss? Most likely, no. The end. |
The problem is, the news media in the U.S. ( with a couple of exceptions ) have treated George W. Bush with kid gloves on just about every issue. Months of reporting went into Whitewater, the travel office scandals, Gore's "inventing" the internet, etc. All stories that turned out to be fabrications and egregious examples of journalistic malfeasance. If you don't believe me, I suggest you peruse the archives of the Daily Howler - which is an exhaustively documented expose of the level of media manipulation of political discourse in recent years. If you think that Somersby is to objective for you ( or too liberal ) just do the Lexis Nexis searches yourself.
The corporate media has become the voice of the right wing of America, and as The Weekly Standard's Matt Labash admits: Quote:
This is why Bush is made of Teflon, and Clinton was make of crazy glue. The media started skewering Clinton from the moment he started to run for office, and they continue to skewer the left to this day while they conveniently ignore and distort the actions of the president. This is why you never heard about Bush's sweetheart deals. Quote:
Dubya's financial relationship with Richard Rainwater during his tenure as Texas governor is a textbook example of Crony Capitalism. Rainwater is a billionaire speculator and money manager who ranks among the wealthiest 100 Americans. It's well known that Rainwater has been a major financial backer of Bush's political career, but it's a little-known fact that he's also largely responsible for Bush's personal wealth. Rainwater and Bush sold the baseball team to another Texas high roller and Bush campaign contributor, billionaire Tom Hicks. But their relationship didn't stop there. When Bush became Gov in '95, he put all his Texas Rangers stock into a blind trust managed by--surprise--Rainwater. The financial relationship was not a one way street. Bush is nothing if not loyal to Rainwater, who has done very nicely while his pal has been governor. Among the favors Rainwater has enjoyed:
But that is still just a tiny sliver. Once Bush became governor, he appointed Tom Hicks chairman of The University of Texas Investment Management Co (UTIMCO) which manages the 1.7 billion dollar University Permanent Fund. Hicks invested one third of the money in funds run by Hicks' business associates or friends along with five funds run by major Republican political donors. Hicks has been secretive about where any of the funds have gone - and state auditors have criticized the board for conflicts of interest, but pressure from above put a halt to the investigation. When Bush first got into office, he also pressured the University of Texas Board of Regents to place millions of state dollars into the Carlyle Group - even though Bush had just quit his job as a corporate director of Carlyle-owned Caterair to pursue a gubernatorial candidacy. During Bush's first term as governor of Texas he had an active and ongoing relationship with Hicks and Rainwater to the advantage of all three men. Bush has used his power for the benefit of other friends, too. When funeral home chain SCI (donated $35,000 to Bush campaign ) was cited by the Texas Funeral Services commission for using unlicensed embalmers, Bush's top aide, Joe Allbaugh met with Robert Waltrip ( SCI's CEO ) and shortly thereafter the funeral home regulator that made the charges against SCI was fired and blacklisted. Not long after the investigation began, Waltrip called the regulator's boss and demanded that he 'back off.' If not, funeral commission chairman Charles McNeil recalls Waltrip telling him, 'I'm going to take this to the governor.' Eliza May, the regulator, filed a lawsuit against Bush, Allbaugh, and Waltrip. The defendants ended up settling out of court for $210,000. This is just a small sample of the stuff that has been reported in the corporate press. If this does not make Bush look like an insider politician making deals for his buddies, I don;t know what does. But hell, they are doing the same thing for Halliburton, Bechtel, and Worldcom - right this very minute. I know it may be hard to ask for honesty from a politician, but it is wrong to use government power for the benefit of your friends and former employers. I can't understand why we are supposed to accept this blatant confluence of government power and corporate interests. |
Quote:
The NAACP filed a suit against DBT On-Line - where it was disclosed that 54% of the voters purged were black, while 95% of the purged voters were purged illegally. Of the 94,000 voters removed from the list, only 3000 were likely convicted felons. The BBC estimates that this action cost Gore 22,000 votes. On December 8, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide recount of “undervotes,” i.e., ballots that failed to register a preference for president in the machine tabulation. The Republicans, who believed this would cost them the election, were desperate to stop the recount, which began Saturday, December 9. Then, on December 9, like the proverbial cavalry to the rescue, the US Supreme Court issued an extraordinary order to stop the recount. It did so prior to even holding a hearing on the merits of the suit filed by the Bush camp. In issuing the order to halt the recounts, Justice Scalia was fairly brazen, writing that the vote-counting had to be halted because it might do “irreparable harm” to Bush. In other words, Bush might lose. Three days later, in a 5-4 decision, the right-wing majority headed by Scalia declared that counting all disputed votes was a violation of “equal protection of the law,” that in any event the US Constitution did not give the people the right to vote for president, and that there was not enough time to set new criteria for a fair count of contested ballots in Florida. On the basis of this thoroughly cynical and unscrupulous legal concoction, the Court majority handed the election to Bush. However, a Miami Herald study of all of the votes found that Gore would have won in a manual recount - even though it's liberal media headline stated that Bush would have prevailed. That is a twisting of the facts. You have to read the whole story to get even part of the real picture, and they buried. While Republicans were saying that discerning the "intent of the voters" was a Carnac the magician routine, vote-counters in G.O.P. counties not only discerned the intents of the voters, they RECREATED ABSENTEE BALLOTS based on their discernment of that intent. Ten thousand ballots were RECREATED this way. Absentee votes went to Bush by a ratio of 2:1. That's a net of 3,300 votes for Bush! Republican officials in 16 counties failed to carry out automatic machine recounts on November 8, the day after the election. This was a clear violation of state election laws, which require such machine retabulations whenever the initial vote count produces a margin of victory of 0.5 percent or smaller. Studies done by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and Hamilton College in NY have both confirmed ( and rebutted John Lott's erroneous study ) that black votes were undercounted, spoiled, or excluded at a much higher rate than white or Hispanic votes. On November 12, 2001 a consortium of major US news organizations, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal and CNN, released the results of a 10-month investigation into disputed votes cast in Florida during the 2000 presidential election. The media report presented as its central finding the claim that Bush would have won the election in Florida—by 493 votes—even if the US Supreme Court had not intervened to stop the statewide recount ordered by the Florida high court. It further asserted that Bush would have won by 225 votes if recounts had been completed in the four Florida counties where Gore was seeking them. The consortium’s report could not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the response of the media, including what passes for the liberal press, to the unprecedented events of last year. Previous surveys, including a Miami Herald / USA Today study released last April, produced similar results. Both during and after the 2000 election, the main preoccupation of the media has been to insist on Bush’s political legitimacy and dismiss the election crisis as little more than a partisan squabble. Just two months ago, New York Times Washington bureau chief Richard Berke wrote a column in which he said the events of September 11 had rendered the consortium’s recount “utterly irrelevant.” But the study was little more than a great example of bad journalism. |
In fact, the actual findings of the media consortium contain information that is highly damaging to Bush and the Supreme Court.
The study found that hundreds, if not thousands, of legal votes for Gore had not been counted. These fell into two categories. They included undervotes that, upon examination, were found to be valid under Florida law, i.e., the ballots showed a “clear indication of the intent of the voter.” The other category was so-called “overvotes”—ballots that were wrongly rejected because a voter punched or marked a ballot for Gore and also wrote in the Democratic candidate’s name, circled it, or made some other mark around or near the candidate’s name or party. According to state law these votes were also legal and should have been counted. The study acknowledged that if all of the undervotes and overvotes in Florida had been examined fairly and objectively and the legal ballots in these categories had been added to the final tally, Gore would have won the election. The Wall Street Journal is forced to admit, for example, that the study “provides strong evidence” that a “clear plurality of voters went to the polls on Nov. 7, 2000, intending to vote for Mr.. Gore.” The New York Times states that the study found “Mr.. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots.” If the media had a different political agenda, the news headlines last Monday might very well have read: “Recount Casts New Doubt on Supreme Court Role in 2000 Election,” or “Florida Voters Preferred Gore.” To present the radically different picture desired by the news organizations, they were obliged to proceed in a highly selective and tendentious manner, choosing to emphasize certain facts and partial truths from the ballot data and weave them together to “prove” a conclusion that was not warranted by the totality of circumstances. In other words, the media report is a classic whitewash. For example, to arrive at the scenario where Bush won by 493 votes, the consortium had first to limit itself to a review of the state’s 60,000 undervotes, rather than the total of more than 176,000 rejected ballots. It justified this on the grounds that the Florida Supreme Court had only ordered a hand count of undervotes. But to get the desired result, the news organizations had to go a step further. They chose to examine many thousands of undervote ballots on the basis of the highly restrictive criteria used by Republican county officials—criteria that were guaranteed to discount hundreds of ballots, most of them for Gore, that met the legal standard set by state law for a legitimate vote. Why didn’t the media apply a reasonable interpretation of Florida law to make a genuinely independent tally? By the consortium’s own admission, Gore would have picked up at least 885 votes if overvotes had been examined, more than enough to overcome Bush’s final official lead of 537. In all of the scenarios where these votes are examined, the news organizations admit Gore would have won. In fact, Gore would have won—by a margin of between 42 and 171 votes—in six of the nine scenarios developed by the consortium. A critical issue generally ignored by the consortium is the role of the Florida state apparatus, headed by Governor Jeb Bush, the brother of the Republican candidate, in suppressing pro-Gore votes. The report does, however, note, although only in passing, one damning fact—that Republican officials in 16 counties failed to carry out automatic machine recounts on November 8, the day after the election. This was a clear violation of state election laws, which require such machine retabulations whenever the initial vote count produces a margin of victory of 0.5 percent or smaller. The media study reports—without drawing any political conclusions—that had these counties observed the law and carried out machine recounts on November 8 and the valid votes were included, Gore would have taken over the lead by 48 votes. In Jeffrey Toobin’s recent book, Too Close to Call, the author, a legal analyst for ABC News, says a total of 18 counties—accounting for 1.58 million votes, or more than a quarter of all votes cast in Florida—did not carry out the legally mandated machine recount. This was done, Toobin writes, with the full knowledge of Secretary of State Katherine Harris, an appointee of Jeb Bush who also served as co-chair of Florida’s George W. Bush campaign committee. This fact alone—buried in the media report—is sufficient to prove that the Bush campaign and the Republican Party used illegal means to steal the election. By November 9, as a result of the machine recounts that were carried out, Bush’s official lead had fallen by 80 percent—from 1,784 votes to 327 votes. Can there be any doubt that Republican officials, fearing that Gore would take the lead, gave the word to forego the required machine recounts in a whole number of counties? The consortium’s study suggests further evidence of election fraud, including the disappearance of hundreds of contested ballots in the possession of Republican county officials. On November 8, Florida officials announced there were more than 176,000 rejected ballots. However, the National Opinion Research Center was able to obtain only 175,010 uncounted ballots, 1,427 fewer overvoted ballots than counties reported on November 8, and nine fewer undervotes. The 2000 elections were the worst assault on democracy that this country has experienced in my lifetime. The corporate press - from the very beginning - covered for Bush and presented an image to the public that was misleading and false. They gloss over the important questions, and they imply that anyone that worries about the past is simply a partisan hack - trying to beat a dead horse. in short, they say, "Move along, there is nothing to see here". You should recognize this. This is the way the media has reported about Bush's failed first tax cut, the unanswered questions about 9-11, the SOTU aids relief claim, the weapons of mass distraction in Iraq, the latest tax cut, etc,etc,etc. When will you decide to wake up and smell the coffee. Your country is being taken over by a dishonest, manipulative pack of jackals that have no problem ignoring reality to further their own interests. Move along... there is nothing to see here. |
Quote:
Do you really think that it is okay for a politician, a public servant, to kill people without without making it clear why they are being killed? The president is not going to feel the blowback, we are. He is writing checks that we have to cash. You think it is okay for him to deceive us about a matter of grave national importance? What if he had a good reason to imprison anyone with the moniker "Juju"? Should we simply accept that Bush has his reasons - and never ask him why you are rotting in jail? Is this the way a free country functions? You have a responsibility as a citizen within a democracy to keep yourself informed about the actions of the people that run the government. If they are willing to lie about a war, what else are they willing to lie about? If they use bad logic and poor reasoning when they talk about nation building, are they going to be left holding the bag in 5 years? DO you think that THEY would be held responsible for the fallout? I guess you would prefer to live in a nation like Iran, where the leaders are always right and the paeons have no right to question them. Jefferson would be rolling in his grave. BTW - US: 'Saddam Had No Weapons of Mass Destruction' White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq President Meets With Blair on Strategy Ahead of Speech The Miscalculations of Yes-Men Bush Officials Change Tune on Iraqi Weapons USA lied about Iraq's weapons 1. Powell relies on FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror. MSNBC: "They have been the closest of allies. But under the intense pressure of a diplomatic crisis at the United Nations and an imminent war in Iraq, the friendship between the United States and Britain is beginning to fray. The most recent strain emerged when U.N. nuclear inspectors concluded last week that U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear program were based on forged documents. The fake letters supposedly laid out how Iraqi agents had tried to purchase uranium from officials in Niger, central Africa." MORE: http://www.msnbc.com/news/883164.asp?cp1=1 CNN: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Intelligence documents that U.S. and British governments said were strong evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons have been dismissed as forgeries by U.N. weapons inspectors. MORE: http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/14/spr...nts/index.html Sydney Morning Herald, Australia: The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, has demonstrated that UK and US intelligence authorities relied on forged documents to support assertions that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa. MORE: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...583740556.html LA Times: WASHINGTON -- Phony weapons documents cited by the United States and Britain as evidence against Saddam Hussein were initially obtained by Italian intelligence authorities, who may have been duped into paying for the forgeries, U.S. officials said Friday. The documents, which purport to show Iraqi efforts to acquire uranium from Niger, were exposed as fraudulent by U.N. weapons inspectors last week. The matter has embarrassed U.S. and British officials. MORE: http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-docs15m...,5016930.story And even more: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=...rged+documents * * * 2. Bush/Powell's UN "evidence" relies on even MORE supposedly "up to date" FORGED documents to link Saddam to terror. CNN: Large chunks of the 19-page report -- highlighted by U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell at the U.N. as a " fine paper ... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities" -- contains large chunks lifted from other sources, according to several academics. " The British government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical errors and typographical mistakes," Rangwala said. Al-Marashi's article, published last September, was based on information obtained at the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Rangwala said. " The information he was using is 12 years old and he acknowledges this in his article. The British government, when it transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that acknowledgement. " So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the information it is using is 12 years old." MORE: http://asia.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast...rq.uk.dossier/ UK Guardian: Downing Street was last night plunged into acute international embarrassment after it emerged that large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - allegedly based on "intelligence material" - were taken from published academic articles, some of them several years old. Amid charges of "scandalous" plagiarism on the night when Tony Blair attempted to rally support for the US-led campaign against Saddam Hussein, Whitehall's dismay was compounded by the knowledge that the disputed document was singled out for praise by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on Wednesday. MORE: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comme...892069,00.html http://education.guardian.co.uk/high...890962,00.html http://iafrica.com/news/worldnews/207939.htm And what have we found? 2 trailers that Judith Miller has been told are biological weapons labs. Oddly enough - NOT ONE TRACE OF ANY BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS HAVE BEEN FOUND! |
Quote:
Before president Bush became the Chosen son of God for the right-wing, he was a corrupt governor of Texas. The Dallas Morning News heard stories for years about the rich society man's rough life. They asked him whether or not he had ever used cocaine. Now, a person that has not used cocaine would say, "Hell, no". Bush had a more lawyerly way of answering the question: Quote:
This is one of those issues that one cannot prove, but you really have to wonder. The guy was a rich party guy in the 60s and 70s - he was an alcoholic. Is it really a stretch to think that he was probably tooting a little blow, too? More info |
Sorry about writing so much - I know it is a lot to read.
I just get a little worked up about all of this. Here is Bush's scorecard of evil I don;t agree with everything in the site above. It is just a good starting point to see things from a different perspective. Sorry again for such long posts. |
I can't believe you. You just copy and pasted everything from this web page. Did you write the article on the World Socialist Web Site yourself? If not, then I really, really don't know what to say. I'm speechless. But I'm sure I'll think of something.
It will take me some time to digest the rest of your posts. What percentage did you actually write yourself? |
Quote:
|
You even took the time to mix up the paragraphs and intersperse them with paragraphs that aren't in the article.
|
How does this behavior compare to the behavior mentioned in the thread on cult thinking?
|
Scott's starting to sound like the Radar of the left. That's scary.
|
We needed the balance, though. We would tip over otherwise.
|
Quote:
|
I'm not going to respond tit-for-tat to Scott's posts (I'm sorta catching up here), but regarding the whole election 2000 thing...
We seem to have several people here (myself included) who have worked in politics. Anyone who tries to claim that their party follows the rules is full of shit. You can't follow the rules if you want to win. Once it became obvious that the Florida situation was going to become a knock-down, drag-down fight, both sides did everything in their power to try to make it come out in their favor. Scott makes it sound like Gore and his team just sat by and waited for democracy to happen, while Bush, the Supreme Court, Katherine Harris, and the press spun their wheels in a vast conspiracy to disenfranchise the voters at all costs. Bullshit. Both sides formed their strategy on how to win, and followed through on that strategy. Bush's strategy won. Gore was silly to try that selective recount business. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but in hindsight, it was a foolish strategy. Anyone who has done any work in science knows that any instrument used to measure a quantity has an inherent margin of error. When the difference between two values falls within the margin of error inherent to the method of measurement, you must call the values equal. That's exactly what happened in Florida. Their punchcard system of measuring the voters' intent was so poor, and the values so close, that it is <I>scientifically impossible</I> to determine who won the vote. So because that system failed, the decision had to be made somewhere else. Bush's strategy on how to ensure that decision was in his favor was the better of the two. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But there are some things that are wrong. Stripping the voter rolls of people with names that sound like felon's names is wrong. Recreating absentee ballots is wrong. The federal goverment overriding a state supreme court on a state issue is wrong. In the whole, Bush had a home field advantage in Florida, and the vote was decided in Bush's favor becasue of this. Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I better shut up, then. I used to be a weird little shit.
|
All growed up now, though.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:09 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.