THIS IS NOT ->Delawareliberal

CHECK US OUT AT: http://delawareliberal.wordpress.com/

Monday, September 11, 2006

 

9/11/2006

While reasonable people can disagree about whether or not George Bush had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, nobody disputes the fact that he wanted a "pearl harbor" type event (see below) to happen in order to create a pretext for attacking Iraq. And while nobody denies the fact that George Bush has been the biggest beneficiary of Osama Bin Laden's inhumanity, I think it is probably a stretch to say that he was "happy" that the attacks happened.

That is as far as I'll go.

The events of 9/11 were, to the NEOCONs, a dream come true.

Comments:
"Reasonable people can disagree ..."?

Come again?
 
Some people think that Bush did not have prior knowledge of the attacks and some think he did.

I think the April PDB is conclusive proof that the knowlwedge was in front of his face - whether he ignored it out of stupidity of design is an open question.
 
And while nobody denies the fact that George Bush has been the biggest beneficiary of Osama Bin Laden's inhumanity....

I have to disagree....Haliburton and the Oil companies have been pretty big beneficiaries....

I put w in the top 5 though
 
I watched Matt Lauer's interview with W on Today this morning. Our president looks pretty insane to me. It was very scary to watch.
 
Michael Castle thinks he is doing a great job.
 
Jase: Having a PDB about "an attack" does not mean whatsoever that GWB had "prior knowledge" about the specific 9/11 attacks.

You're as bad as idiot Howard Dean, trying to spin 9/11 into Bush's fault. Don't even go there, w/o examining the previous eight YEARS instead the previous eight MONTHS. Want to talk responsibility for 9/11? For real? No you don't.
 
add another layer of tin foil, Haliburton has upped the power on their mind control sattalites.
 
hap & hube.

Now I'm curious. What evidence would you have to have in hand befor you changed your minds about Bush?

Would a video tape of him having a cup of tea with Osama make you wonder if Bush is the leader you imagine him to be?

Big Oil and Haliburton profits are meaningless to you. Okay. The April PBD, and Niger Unranium scam - so much Democratic propaganda...okay. The PNAC plan just a coincidence. Fine.

Is there anything you could learn about Bush that could make you not like him?

What evidence of Bush's Iraq war crime would you find legitimate?
 
I think you were just called an idiot....
 
Jase: Why are you baiting and switching? The relevant point -- which you yourself brought up -- is did Bush have prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

Quit playing the purposeful dunce and changing the goal posts, so to speak.

Liking Bush is irrelevant to the point. Halliburton profiting from Iraq is irrelevant to the point. Etc. But I know why you want to engage in these irrelevancies: It's because your initial point about Bush having prior knowledge of 9/11 is sick, twisted and demented. Your contempt for Bush has driven you to make complete asinine statements.

Face it -- you're in no way different from the hardcore Clinton haters who impeached a guy for lying about an improper sexual relationship. IOW, pathetic.
 
Did Bush have prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks?

Let's look at the facts:

He had Able Danger which knew the identities of four 9/11 hijackers. He had the April PDB saying that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with Planes. He had Richard Clark saying can we PLEASE take Al Qida seriously. He had Sandy Berger saying "you are going to be spending more time on terrorism than you can image". He had the complete Clinton plan ready to root out Al Qida from day one and he ignored it. he had an Attorney General named John Ashcroft who stopped flying commercial airlines in July of 2001 due to a threat assessment.

The info was there but he ignored it. Does that mean he did not have prior knowlwedge? That is a semantic question. If you choose to ignore something - do you have knowledge of it?

I will allow that it is open to debate, but given the facts I'm saying that he had prior knowledge.
 
I don't think he had prior knowledge but then again who knows?
 
"He had the April PDB saying that Bin Laden was determined to attack the US with Planes..."

First of all, the Clinton administration had similar intel. Second, does this mean Bush had specific knowledge of 9/11? No it does not. Using this as an argument of Bush's knowledge of 9/11 specifically is just outright stupid. Stop begging.

"He had the complete Clinton plan ready to root out Al Qida from day one and he ignored it."

Why didn't Clinton execute this plan, Jason? Further, why didn't he take out Bin Laden? Does he bear no fault in this whatsoever?

What about our embassy? What about the Cole?
 
Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]





<< Home

Archives

November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   May 2007  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]