Bush's Shrinking Safety Zone

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by steppana

Strange how the US forensic experts can find serial numbers (in Microsoft Times font) on tiny fragments from explosives in Iraq which they can trace back to Iran (famous for stamping Microsoft Times font on all its illegal weapons intended for export)...

when the same US forensic experts can't find an aeroplane in the hole in the ground in Pennsylvania nor in the debris at the Pentagon.

I expect they went on a refresher course between 2001 and 2007. That would explain it.

So your contention is that no airplane crashed in the ground in Penn or the Pentagon!?!?!

Ok, answer me this... not a very hard question so just try to stick to answering this one very simple thing, ok?


Where are they hiding all of those people who were on the airplane manifest's???? They have them hold up in a camp in the hills? Was it a conspiracy among the funneral directors to have a bunch of false funnerals so they could make some money? Wait, wait, no I got it... it was a conspiracy from the air plane manufactures because those two planes were old and they wanted to remove them from the inventory so they just made them invisable on the radar and flew them to some secret location and all those people are really just hanging out down in Mexico on the beach sipping fruity drinks... THAT's it! Isn't it!?!?!?

Well? Help me out here.

[piercehawkeye45]

The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one. I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC are pretty much busted by real engineers along with most of the other main critiques but you can't prove that the US didn't have anything to do with it.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one.

And IMHO you can't prove any of them.

[piercehawkeye45]

You can prove them but the ones you can prove most likely never happened for obvious reasons.

If the US was involved in 9/11, I am 99% sure we would never find out or couldn't prove it but you technically could prove it. You can never prove that they didn't though.

It is basically like the "is there a god" debate. If a god shows itself then, yes, it is proven but that will really never happen so you can't really prove that god exists unless that happens. It also goes both ways with you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

You can prove them but the ones you can prove most likely never happened for obvious reasons.

If the US was involved in 9/11, I am 99% sure we would never find out or couldn't prove it but you technically could prove it. You can never prove that they didn't though.

It is basically like the "is there a god" debate. If a god shows itself then, yes, it is proven but that will really never happen so you can't really prove that god exists unless that happens. It also goes both ways with you can't prove that a god doesn't exist.

Hence the basis of all conspiracy theory. Voids that allow others to fill in and make connections that do not exist. But because there is enough mistrust among all governments or controlling organizations there are people out there that will believe anything. Well that is until you point out the GLARING idiocy in their thinking, hence my example above about the airplanes in Penn and the Pentagon.

[piercehawkeye45]

From looking through different conspiracies I have found two similarities. First, everyone one of them want the conspiracies to be true and they all think they are seeing things that everyone else is missing, making them to try to further see things that aren't there.

There are some very good questions regarding the 9/11 conspiracy (the fact that Bush needed 9/11 to do just about everything he has done so far) but that isn't proof by any means.

[tw]

From The Washington Post of 11 Apr 2007:

3 Generals Spurn the Position of War 'Czar'
Bush Seeks Overseer For Iraq, Afghanistan
The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said.

Nothing new in a report that confirms what the generals have long been saying quietly. This has long been a problem for George Jr and especially under Rumsfeld. An administration that overtly mocked even basic military doctrine is still dominated by the same wacko mental midgets.

No accident that the administration had to reach way down to Lt Gen Sanchez to find a commander for "Mission Accomplished". Suspicion remains so strong that the administration had to reach out to a Pacific based Admiral for a Central Command commander. So many previous generals remember what happened to Generals Shelton, Shinseki, Keane, Garner, Caffery, Schoomaker, Myers, and others.

Meanwhile, why a Czar for "Mission Accomplished" and Afghanistan? That is the job of Central Command's commander? Or is this Admiral not able to run both Central Command wars? Why another layer of bureacracy? Or must Central Command prepare for a third war? Who would an Admiral conduct attacks against?

Since 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management, then why would anyone work for an administration with so much contempt for the American soldier? Why would the administration need another general - another level of bureacracy? The obvious part is why so many generals don't want to work for George Jr's administration - where contempt for basic military doctrine is so extensive.

[Gilk]

Originally Posted by tw

From the BBC of 7 Dec 2005: And clearly enlisted men brought dog collars with them to Iraq so as to walk naked prisoners down the halls of Abu Ghriad. Clearly Americans at the highest levels don't condone torture - just like Saddam conspired to attack the World Trade Center. After all, did not an honest president claim that in his State of the Union address?

Honest, decency, morality, and god's chosen people. Yep. That's US. Therefore when we torture, it must be for the greater glory of god ... or maybe our leaders are corrupt?

All politicians are corrupt. In order to attain that level of power, one must be willing to give up one's soul. There's no hope for this system or any other system of government that takes the power out of the direct control of the people. And until people can regulate themselves without chaos, there's no hope for that either.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by tw

Suspicion remains so strong that the administration had to reach out to a Pacific based Admiral for a Central Command commander. So many previous generals remember what happened to Generals Shelton, Shinseki, Keane, Garner, Caffery, Schoomaker, Myers, and others.

Well, the administration has a pretty narrow candidate profile- someone smart enough to make it to 4 star general and dumb enough to take the job.

Since so many soldiers are already being recruited from the ranks of non-citizens, maybe they'll offer the job to a general from Mexico or South America. I'm sure Cheney probably has some friends from the old military junta days in Chile. He should ask one of them.

Who would want to take the job knowing that the White House will put it's own agenda above dealing with the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention (and blame) away from themselves onto whoever fills the slot. In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.

Between this and the EPA debacle in the supreme court, it appears that the administration wants the power, but not when it comes with responsibility and accountability.

[glatt]

I just read a great quote from Lee Iacocca's new book, Where Have All The Leaders Gone?

Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."

Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!

You might think I'm getting senile, that I've gone off my rocker, and maybe I have. But someone has to speak up. I hardly recognize this country anymore. The President of the United States is given a free pass to ignore the Constitution, tap our phones, and lead us to war on a pack of lies. Congress responds to record deficits by passing a huge tax cut for the wealthy (thanks, but I don't need it). The most famous business leaders are not the innovators but the guys in handcuffs. While we're fiddling in Iraq, the Middle East is burning and nobody seems to know what to do. And the press is waving pom-poms instead of asking hard questions. That's not the promise of America my parents and yours traveled across the ocean for. I've had enough. How about you?

I'll go a step further. You can't call yourself a patriot if you're not outraged. This is a fight I'm ready and willing to have.

Tell it Lee!

[SquadRat1]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The 9/11 conspiracy has so many variations you can't just disprove one. I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC are pretty much busted by real engineers along with most of the other main critiques but you can't prove that the US didn't have anything to do with it.

Bombs? What bombs? You probably believe that a missle struck the pentagon too?

Do a little a research on the pentagon, and read the interviews with the two firefighters that were there at the helicopter landing pad. (In one of the photos taken that day, you can see a burning fire truck.) They will tell you it was PLANE they saw. And have the burns on their backs from running away!

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Who would want that job knowing that the White House will put it's own political agenda above the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention. Who wants a job that will only get them the blame? In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.

What was always more important? Early in 2003, the White House had White House spokesmen assigned to Central Command public information offices just so the message was correct. Realities are secondary when MBAs and lawyers make the decisions. (Same people who said global warming does not exist and that Man to Mars will advance science.)

Humvees had no armor. Why? "Mission Accomplished". If we sent armor kits, then that would be an admission that "Mission Accomplished" had not happened. The message was more important than realities. Therefore soldiers died.

A soldier asks Rumsfeld why so few armored humvees. Rumsfeld said the armor was being delivered as fast as possible. Again, a message was more important than reality. Company that made those armor kits said they could increase production by something like 400 per month - but Rumsfeld would not order it. Why? The message was “Mission Accomplished”. Therefore more soldiers died.

Message said evil Baathists must be removed. Where did military doctrine even from 500 BC (Art of War) ever appear in that message? Therefore Baathists, teachers, electric utility workers, government officials, police, military, .... all were fired because of the message. Therefore 'the message' created an insurgency.

The message said Saddam has WMDs everywhere. Better to leave those ammo dumps alone. Message was more important than reality. Therefore the country remains chock full of munitions to arm an insurgency.

Col Spain needed his twenty MP companies to perform his job. He got three. Why? The message was that the Iraqis would welcome occupation forces. When that did not happen, then the 507th Maintenance Company (Jessica Lynch) was virtually wiped out. They were deployed with no radios, no GPS, and without the MP escorts they were equipped to expect and that would have provided protection. Message was that Jessica Lynch was shot and captured while firing her weapon. More lies because the message is always more important than reality.

The message was “There’s no question but that in those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute”. Wolfowitz repeated the same message on Capitol Hill: “remnant of the old regime”; that resistance was almost eliminated. Therefore reality - a massive American created insurgency was growing and killing Americans in increasing numbers. An insurgency created by Bremer and the George Jr administration then was renamed Al Qaeda. Again the message was more important than reality. Label them as bogeymen rather than angry Iraqis who wanted Americans gone.

After October 2003, Americans were being attacked 1500 and 3000 times every day. The message from Rumsfeld was, "We're in a low intensity war that needs to be won, and we intend to win it." Over 1000 attacks every day is low intensity? But reality was contrary to the message. So many Americans had so much contempt for the troops as to believe the message.

By mid-October, the insurgency was obviously spiking. Instead US commanders were planning for troop reductions to 100,000 the next summer and something like 40,000 by next year. Why? The message was Iraqis were happy to be liberated - when their lives had never been worse. But again, the message is more important than reality.

By this point, after obviously lying about WMD, one might say, “Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me twice; shame on me.” Instead, majority of American were believing the message; ignoring reality; blaming the press for being too negative.

"Mission Accomplished" was never justified by a smoking gun. It has no strategic objective. Therefore it has no exit strategy. All this is now being demanded by Congress that wants milestones. George Jr is fighting and obstructing what the military needs. No strategic objective means victory is not possible - Vietnam deja vue complete with contempt for the troops.

Wait... wait... I think I see light at the end of the tunnel. No. That's someone looking for electricity in Baghdad. Why would anyone with intelligence want to work for an administration enchanted by their own message? Why would they want to accept blame when so many Americans would not even see through “the message” from a compulsive liar?

A “Mission Accomplished” Czar must ignore reality to promote the President Cheney message.

[richlevy]

Uh TW, it's really a small point but my post read:

Who would want to take the job knowing that the White House will put it's own agenda above dealing with the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention (and blame) away from themselves onto whoever fills the slot. In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.

You quoted me as: (I added the underlines)

Who would want that job knowing that the White House will put it's own political agenda above the real situation and will also attempt to shift attention. Who wants a job that will only get them the blame? In effect, they will order the 'czar' to 'stay the course' and then tell everyone that they had no input and that it was the "czar's" idea since he is ostensibly the one in charge.

I don't mind anyone snipping sections from posts. Even doing what reviewers do with the "It was a great book......great summer read" is ok.

The meaning wasn't altered significantly, and I realize that my original sentence was in danger of becoming a run-on sentence. However, I really don't want anyone acting as my editor here. Parsing quotes is fine. Actually changing words and sentences, even if the result is an improvement, is not a good idea.

I really do enjoy your input and I am very happy that you quoted me, so I hope that you will not take this as a rebuke but rather as a minor correction.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by SquadRat1

Bombs? What bombs? You probably believe that a missle struck the pentagon too?

Do a little a research on the pentagon, and read the interviews with the two firefighters that were there at the helicopter landing pad. (In one of the photos taken that day, you can see a burning fire truck.) They will tell you it was PLANE they saw. And have the burns on their backs from running away!

When in my post did I say I believe in the 9/11 conspiracy?

The actual quote you quoted me from says "I'm pretty sure the bombs in the WTC is busted" meaning that I don't believe in it and have evidence that supports my opinion. Don't quote me and accuse me of saying one thing when my post clearly says the other.

[tw]

Originally Posted by richlevy

Uh TW, it's really a small point but my post read:

I did not realize I had perverted the quote. Don't know how it happened but my mistake is not relevant to the topic. I have no idea either how or why I would have perverted that quote so massively.

Points posted were facts related to your original post. Irrelevant is whether it contradicts or confirms what you posted. The situation: why so many generals have proclaimed "Mission Accomplished" as wrong for various reasons - including every general that served in Iraq and has since retired .... that fact remains.

Facts posted are the reality of our current history and therefore current situation. Because same mental midgets remain and continue to lie to us, then why would any general want to work for people whose "message" is more important than reality? Military professionals even list examples of dead soldiers because the "message" had no basis in reality. Specific examples of dead soldiers directly attributed to *the message*.

Everyone here should have long learned those lessons; be it from W E Deming's concepts (ie "Out of Crisis") or from Vietnam. Tactical victories are wasted efforts when conducted without a strategic objective. Quality control inspectors mean no quality. In each case, doing a better job means no victory; no accomplishment. - because the bigger picture is bogus; a lie.

Even if the enlisted man believes he is doing so much good, his perspective hides a reality: his good intentions are wasted when not contributing to a viable strategic objective. So many 2003 soldiers insisted they were doing so much good when reality was opposite. It was only creating an insurgency. They would not know - they could not see the bigger picture - the strategic objective that did not exist.

A general who fails to understand why the "message" has no basis in reality would take that Czar job. That job is a no win situation because a political agenda - wacko extremist bias - is subverting realities. No strategic objective is a well proven formula for defeat.

Vietnam is the classic example of why a war could not be won - why propaganda - the message - a political agenda - will only create more dead troops. The Vietnam War Memorial in Washington is a tribute to so many killed watefully because our leaders were so self serving and stupid - did not have the courage and intelligence to acknowledge reality. Vietnam dead because the president’s legacy was more important than 30,000 American lives.

Why would anyone want to work for people with so little intelligence, so little grasp, so little courage, and massive, self serving political agendas? Yes, what George Jr is doing borders on treason; with so much contempt for the American soldier.

As an MBA, then what is his solution? Another layer of bureaucracy? George Jr, an MBA without 'dirt under his fingernails', has a long history of solving problems with more bureaucracy and increased spending. He even denies our only viable solution - the Iraq Study Group.

A Czar will somehow accomplish what is supposed to be the job of Central Command? No. But then we have leaders so short on intelligence as to even increase a subordinates pay from $130,000 to about $195,000 per year just for sex (that is not considered as despicable bad as 'nappy headed ho'?). Just another example of how wacko the entire George Jr administration really is.

Why would any General want to work for people with so much contempt of the American soldier, American principles, and Americans? No wonder religious right extremists are so in love with these *leaders*.