They're right to back him too.
If a respected polling company took a poll asking who was tougher on 9/11, I wonder who will come out on top?
Hint, see the man and his ideological allies at the bottom of my post.
Congressional Republicans earlier joined the White House in standing solidly behind Rove, saying he shouldn't apologize and that he was outlining a philosophical divide between a president who sought to win the war on terrorism by taking the fight to the enemy and Democrats who questioned that approach.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160572,00.html
Full Version: Stand firm Karl!
QUOTE
A closer inspection of the poll, however, detects a decidedly biased spin: "Most of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are members of al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups. Generally speaking, is the US treating these prisoners unfairly...better than they deserve...or about right?"
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=...henation/133858
Maybe I could make poll saying "how should anti-US terrorists be treated? - treated well or treated badly"
Anyway - is how does invading Iraq address 9/11?
QUOTE (Gop 4 life! @ Jun 25 2005, 12:27 AM)
If a respected polling company took a poll asking who was tougher on 9/11, I wonder who will come out on top?
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
CNN's not exactly a "polling agency", and I'm sure many will simply say it's just another example of the "biased liberal media", but
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html
QUOTE (Taste o Truth @ Jun 25 2005, 08:37 AM)
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
CNN's not exactly a "polling agency", and I'm sure many will simply say it's just another example of the "biased liberal media", but
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html
CNN's not exactly a "polling agency", and I'm sure many will simply say it's just another example of the "biased liberal media", but
http://www.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/14340.content.html
ToT: News flash! The islamofacist scumsuckers have been at this for over 30 years. They have been warning the US that they were going to do something big long ago! When it (9/11) happened I was surprized it hadn't happened sooner.
It wasn't a matter of "if" It was a matter of when it was going to happen.
Airline security was pretty loose prior to 9/11 and it really is surprising they didn't do it sooner.
I think security could have been much better before 9/11 but hindsight is always 20/20 is it not?
Try just a little intelectual honesty. It may not be comfortable at first. But it sure beats looking like a total nincompoop.
Hey buddy, don't get all uppity on me... I didn't vote in either of those polls.
Just do some research, and try not to be so swayed by your emotions.
Are you calling half of New Yorkers "nincompoops"?
Just do some research, and try not to be so swayed by your emotions.
Are you calling half of New Yorkers "nincompoops"?
Besides, there is a difference between planning and 'benign neglect'...
The Japanese were planning Pearl Harbor, but a bit of benign neglect + a "massive intelligence failure" allowed them to hit Pearl Harbor.
My point? Stranger things have hapened ... specially since BushCo is ON RECORD saynig that "a new Pearl Harbor" to advance their agenda.
Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to advance FDR's agenda.
(another interesting BushCo quote
While there re a lot of merely paranoid people, consipiracies DO happen. We bombed our own ship to start the Spanish American War. Lincoln provoked Fort Sumter. This kind fo thing goes back as far as you want to go in history.
Its not exactly unfeasible. Add in BushCo's agenda to start war in Iraq, the speed at which Iraq was broght to the forefront after 9.11 (that is, on 9.11) BushCo's style of altering facts to fit policy, guys like Paul O'Niel, Tony Blair's concern over the US's lack of concern as to the consequences of starting a war in Iraq, as well, as BushCo's willingness to use a much smaller force than the Brits thought approprite, the lack of postwar planning, etc etc etc.
Its not unreasonable.
Besides, do you really believe the Magic Bullet Theory? I'm not saying anything more about it, except that you don't have to actually do something to want a cover up of something.
This stuff isn't Anti-American ... not saying it is.
The Japanese were planning Pearl Harbor, but a bit of benign neglect + a "massive intelligence failure" allowed them to hit Pearl Harbor.
My point? Stranger things have hapened ... specially since BushCo is ON RECORD saynig that "a new Pearl Harbor" to advance their agenda.
Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen to advance FDR's agenda.
(another interesting BushCo quote
QUOTE
One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq... this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war... our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
http://pilger.carlton.com/print/124759While there re a lot of merely paranoid people, consipiracies DO happen. We bombed our own ship to start the Spanish American War. Lincoln provoked Fort Sumter. This kind fo thing goes back as far as you want to go in history.
Its not exactly unfeasible. Add in BushCo's agenda to start war in Iraq, the speed at which Iraq was broght to the forefront after 9.11 (that is, on 9.11) BushCo's style of altering facts to fit policy, guys like Paul O'Niel, Tony Blair's concern over the US's lack of concern as to the consequences of starting a war in Iraq, as well, as BushCo's willingness to use a much smaller force than the Brits thought approprite, the lack of postwar planning, etc etc etc.
Its not unreasonable.
Besides, do you really believe the Magic Bullet Theory? I'm not saying anything more about it, except that you don't have to actually do something to want a cover up of something.
This stuff isn't Anti-American ... not saying it is.
QUOTE
To announce that there must be NO criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President Right or Wrong, is not only UNPATRIOTIC and SERVILE, but is Morally TREASONABLE to the American Public." Theodore Roosevelt
QUOTE (expat @ Jun 25 2005, 03:12 AM)
Besides, there is a difference between planning and 'benign neglect'...
The Japanese were planning Pearl Harbor, but a bit of benign neglect + a "massive intelligence failure" allowed them to hit Pearl Harbor.
My point? Stranger things have hapened ... specially since BushCo is ON RECORD saynig that "a new Pearl Harbor" to advance their agenda.
The Japanese were planning Pearl Harbor, but a bit of benign neglect + a "massive intelligence failure" allowed them to hit Pearl Harbor.
My point? Stranger things have hapened ... specially since BushCo is ON RECORD saynig that "a new Pearl Harbor" to advance their agenda.
"Before September 11th, I spent as much time as anyone in the Pentagon describing the likely aftermath of a 9/11-like event, although I spent virtually no time wondering what might actually serve as a trigger, because I do not believe such "vertical scenarios" can be predicted with any accuracy. Frankly, that is the best anyone can do in this business, and those who tell you otherwise are either trying to sell you something or are they are just plain lying."
-Thomas PM Barnett, former Assistant for Strategic Futures, now a Professor at the Naval War College. Democrat, voted for John Kerry in 2004. Unafilliated with 'BushCo'
Yeah... planes with disabled transponders flying off course for half an hour doesn't tell you much.
For all we know, the pilots may have just turned around because they remembered they left the oven on.
And if Mr. Barnett is "unaffiliated with BushCo", how would he know anything about their internal operations or agenda?
Of course, many would argue that Clinton is "unaffiliated with BushCo", but the fact is that they are closer than most would assume.
And then you've got the most "unaffiliated with BushCo", John Kerry, the Bush cousin and fellow Eastern Establishment Bonesman.
For all we know, the pilots may have just turned around because they remembered they left the oven on.
And if Mr. Barnett is "unaffiliated with BushCo", how would he know anything about their internal operations or agenda?
Of course, many would argue that Clinton is "unaffiliated with BushCo", but the fact is that they are closer than most would assume.
And then you've got the most "unaffiliated with BushCo", John Kerry, the Bush cousin and fellow Eastern Establishment Bonesman.
QUOTE (Taste o Truth @ Jun 25 2005, 05:07 PM)
Yeah... planes with disabled transponders flying off course for half an hour doesn't tell you much.
For all we know, the pilots may have just turned around because they remembered they left the oven on.
And if Mr. Barnett is "unaffiliated with BushCo", how would he know anything about their internal operations or agenda?
Of course, many would argue that Clinton is "unaffiliated with BushCo", but the fact is that they are closer than most would assume.
And then you've got the most "unaffiliated with BushCo", John Kerry, the Bush cousin and fellow Eastern Establishment Bonesman.
For all we know, the pilots may have just turned around because they remembered they left the oven on.
And if Mr. Barnett is "unaffiliated with BushCo", how would he know anything about their internal operations or agenda?
Of course, many would argue that Clinton is "unaffiliated with BushCo", but the fact is that they are closer than most would assume.
And then you've got the most "unaffiliated with BushCo", John Kerry, the Bush cousin and fellow Eastern Establishment Bonesman.
IT'S ON THE INTERNET...IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 25 2005, 06:38 PM)
IT'S ON THE INTERNET...IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
Well, I guess the TV isn't the only purveyor of truth.
Please be specific.
Which of those statements are you mockingly insinuating are untrue?
And if it is... PROVE IT.
... Except that you can't, because they're all true.
...and only one of those statements came "off the internet":
From Ancestry.com:
D@mn... how many times over are those two shmucks related?
According to William Addams Reitwiesner, and Gary Boyd Roberts of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society, eight times!
Or perhaps you're refering to Clinton's friendship with Bush clan . (not to mention that he was governor of Arkansas while Bush was getting Iran-Contra cocaine flown into Mena).
"Bush didn't say it! It can't be true!"
Ben-T doesn't like to actually read and evaluate information, so he'd rather just say that anything he doesn't agree with is "off the internet", and therefore must have no factual basis.
Ben, you must have a real hard time discerning reality. You don't believe anything on the "leftist liberal media", you don't be believe anything on the internet... where do you get your information?
Which of those statements are you mockingly insinuating are untrue?
And if it is... PROVE IT.
... Except that you can't, because they're all true.
...and only one of those statements came "off the internet":
From Ancestry.com:
QUOTE (MSNBC/Associated Press)
Bruce and Kristine Harrison, Hawaii-based publishers of historical databases, traced back the family histories of Bush and Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
The result? They're cousins.
Well, 16th cousins, three times removed, to be exact. But cousins, nonetheless.
The result? They're cousins.
Well, 16th cousins, three times removed, to be exact. But cousins, nonetheless.
QUOTE (Wikipedia)
Edmund Reade (1563-1623) married Elizabeth Cooke (before 1578 - about 1637). They had two daughters: Margaret (1598-1672) and Elizabeth (1615-1672). Margaret is a direct lineal ancestor of George W. Bush and Elizabeth is a direct lineal ancestor of John Forbes Kerry, Bush's opponent in the 2004 U.S. Presidental election. Bush and Kerry are eighth cousins. (from Ancestry.com)
D@mn... how many times over are those two shmucks related?
According to William Addams Reitwiesner, and Gary Boyd Roberts of the New England Historic-Genealogical Society, eight times!
Or perhaps you're refering to Clinton's friendship with Bush clan . (not to mention that he was governor of Arkansas while Bush was getting Iran-Contra cocaine flown into Mena).
QUOTE
Tons of cocaine were flown into the airport in Mena, Arkansas by Barry Seal, a CIA operative, and possibly others. Barry was immune to prosectution due to his connections in the George Bush White House and the CIA. Meanwhile, the governor of the state of Arkansas, Bill Clinton, rose from relative obscurity to become President of the United States. We'll probably never know the full story of what happened in Mena, but what we do know is incredible.
"Bush didn't say it! It can't be true!"
Ben-T doesn't like to actually read and evaluate information, so he'd rather just say that anything he doesn't agree with is "off the internet", and therefore must have no factual basis.
Ben, you must have a real hard time discerning reality. You don't believe anything on the "leftist liberal media", you don't be believe anything on the internet... where do you get your information?
THUS PROVING THAT BUSH AND KERRY ARE DISTANTLY RELATED COUSINS WHICH PROVES....um....SOMETHING!
That you're being a shmuck.
If it's true, what was this all about?
You don't like the FACTS so you prefer to ignore them and make dumb-a$$ comments about stuff "on the internet".
Gee, Kerry says he's against Bush, and Bush says he's against Kerry... so it must be true! (even if their policies are pretty much the same)
Ooh, but now Kerry wants to impeach Bush! Dim the lights and raise the curtain... it's time for Act II.
If it's true, what was this all about?
QUOTE (Ben-T)
IT'S ON THE INTERNET...IT MUST BE TRUE!!!
You don't like the FACTS so you prefer to ignore them and make dumb-a$$ comments about stuff "on the internet".
Gee, Kerry says he's against Bush, and Bush says he's against Kerry... so it must be true! (even if their policies are pretty much the same)
Ooh, but now Kerry wants to impeach Bush! Dim the lights and raise the curtain... it's time for Act II.
Bush and Kerry are cousins therefore they are both part of the same huge big time oil/zionist conspiracy to oppress the proletariat. I need no evidence to support this claim, the fact that they are distantly related with suffice.
That is awfully, awfully thin. I am aparantly related to Charlamagne and to Mark Twain. It doesn't mean a beeping thing.
Benign neglect ...
BushCo was well aware of the problem of terrorism.
BushCo go warnings of a 9/11 like threat
IF Bushco was serious about preventing such an attack, they could have.
Ashcroft was notably and completely absent from anything having to do with CT. Even going so far as to tell people not to talk to him about it.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=39039
You can link to the actual documents in question nd read it yourself, if you like.
This is what I call benign neglect. Nothing was done, any requests were politely ignored. I don't know about the controlled demolition stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if BushCo thought "If we let our guard down, maybe they will do something big, and we will get our new Pearl Harbor"
Benign neglect ...
BushCo was well aware of the problem of terrorism.
BushCo go warnings of a 9/11 like threat
IF Bushco was serious about preventing such an attack, they could have.
Ashcroft was notably and completely absent from anything having to do with CT. Even going so far as to tell people not to talk to him about it.
QUOTE
5/10/01 – Ashcroft New DoJ Budget Goals Memo: Official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Ashcroft dated 5/10/2001 (directly compares to the 4/6/2000 Reno memo). Out of 7 strategic goals described, not one mentions counterterrorism, a serious departure from Reno.
QUOTE
On page 29 of the PDF, Ashcroft outlines the programs he is trying to cut. Comparing this document to FBI's request to DoJ, it shows that Ashcroft ignored FBI's anti-terrorism requests (detailed in this internal FBI document). More specifically, this document shows that Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers, mentioned above. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to slash funding from counterterrorism and grants and other homeland defense programs before 9/11.
QUOTE
Post 9/11 – Budget Document Detailing OMB Rejection of FBI Counter-Terror Request: Internal document showing that FBI requested $1.499 billion for counterterrorism for the post-September 11 emergency supplemental but received just $530 million from the White House, despite serious counterterrorism needs.
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.as...JRJ8OVF&b=39039
You can link to the actual documents in question nd read it yourself, if you like.
This is what I call benign neglect. Nothing was done, any requests were politely ignored. I don't know about the controlled demolition stuff, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if BushCo thought "If we let our guard down, maybe they will do something big, and we will get our new Pearl Harbor"
Well apparently the New York city council is trying to pass a bill -- seeing if they can get Rove fired.
Full story
QUOTE
The City Council is weighing in on the controversial comments made by President George W. Bush's top adviser about the 9/11 attacks.
Democratic Speaker Gifford Miller says the Council will introduce a resolution next week that calls on the president to fire White House Senior Adviser Karl Rove.
The resolution reads: "Rove's rhetoric and cynical strategy of dividing Americans against each other for partisan gain has no place in our nation's public discourse..."
Democratic Speaker Gifford Miller says the Council will introduce a resolution next week that calls on the president to fire White House Senior Adviser Karl Rove.
The resolution reads: "Rove's rhetoric and cynical strategy of dividing Americans against each other for partisan gain has no place in our nation's public discourse..."
Full story
QUOTE (ToT)
Are you calling half of New Yorkers "nincompoops"?
Absolutely!
And the other half smell bad.Only one is smart and good looking
Karl Rove can kiss my white #####!
That's very nice of you TQ. I had thought you decided Jews weren't white though? That way you too can be a victimized minority!
You are welcome. And if you go up to P-town, many would be interested in doing the same for you.
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 26 2005, 08:42 PM)
Karl Rove can kiss my white #####!
I thought you are a jew! Which would make you kinda like a negro without the color or sense of rhythm!
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 26 2005, 02:02 PM)
You are welcome. And if you go up to P-town, many would be interested in doing the same for you.
What's your point? Lots of gay people live in Ptown? I know.
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 26 2005, 09:04 PM)
What's your point? Lots of gay people live in Ptown? I know.
No point, thought you being a Dartmouth man, you would be probably be up for some rimming action.
Sometimes I am just too caring.
....I see.
Jeez - I hate itwhen I make a great post and it dissolves into stupid name calling.
Yeah, it sucks. But with the kind of vitriol spitters we have here walking the beat, what can you do?
ignore it and get back on track? Speaking of back on track...
QUOTE (Ben-T @ Jun 26 2005, 09:01 PM)
That's very nice of you TQ. I had thought you decided Jews weren't white though? That way you too can be a victimized minority!
Any real Jew would shun or stone him anyway.
Gop, the compassionate conservative voice of tolerance and ...
STONING!
STONING!
QUOTE (Thaiquila @ Jun 28 2005, 07:10 AM)
Gop, the compassionate conservative voice of tolerance and ...
STONING!
STONING!
You really know nothing about Judaism, do you.
I know that the vast majority of American Jews are LIBERAL DEMOCRATS like me, and there won't be any stoning, you fascist SOB.
QUOTE (Ben-T)
Yeah, it sucks. But with the kind of vitriol spitters we have here walking the beat, what can you do?
Oh get OFF it.
QUOTE (BEN-T)
That's very nice of you TQ. I had thought you decided Jews weren't white though? That way you too can be a victimized minority!
QUOTE (BOB)
I thought you are a jew! Which would make you kinda like a negro without the color or sense of rhythm!
QUOTE (BEN-T)
What's your point? Lots of gay people live in Ptown? I know.
QUOTE (GOP 4 LIFE)
Any real Jew would shun or stone him anyway.
...and then to follow it up with self-righteous BULLSH!T like:
QUOTE (Ben-T)
Yeah, it sucks. But with the kind of vitriol spitters we have here walking the beat, what can you do?
Who exactly are you refering to as "vitriol spitters"?
D@mn.
Sorry expat.
ToT,
Good summary of a thread.
This one is closed.
Mike
Good summary of a thread.
This one is closed.
Mike
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.