The real agenda behind the accusations that President Bush had advanced warnings about the September 11 attacks and did nothing, is to set up a law suit against the Federal Government. The Lawyers who are representing a few of the families of 9-11 victoms in New York are looking for deeper pockets to sue. Expect this news to break soon! Hilliary Clinton will make sure she's in front of a camera as much as possible, as she will champion this effort.
The real agenda behind the "Bush Knew" news.
- Thread starter Rebeldon
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
I believe that it's possible, but only if the government allows itself to be sued. It's a long process, and on something like this, doomed to failure.
We now have the equivilent of Pearl Harbor on our hands, folks. The same sort of situation, as "Roosevelt knew, but withheld the information so as to draw the United States into the war..."
Just as with that supposed scenario, this one will provide fodder for years of second guessing, "discovery" of the "smoking gun proof," and what not.
We now have the equivilent of Pearl Harbor on our hands, folks. The same sort of situation, as "Roosevelt knew, but withheld the information so as to draw the United States into the war..."
Just as with that supposed scenario, this one will provide fodder for years of second guessing, "discovery" of the "smoking gun proof," and what not.
The real agenda behind 9/11 Intlligance
Go to:
www.newsmax.com
The are offering to sell a book that tells that the Clinton's gutted America's intelligance gathering agencies.
Go to:
www.newsmax.com
The are offering to sell a book that tells that the Clinton's gutted America's intelligance gathering agencies.
Tom Matiska
New member
Fer Pete's sake, Bin Laden boasted in the now infamous tape that some of the hijackers didn't even know. Good operations security on their part, that simple.
Tom
Tom
Marko Kloos
New member
Moved to Legal & Political.
I don't know about the lawsuit angle. I think it's too difficult to sue the federal gov't. But lately I've wondered if this latest political tactic move is not related to the earlier looney statements by Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-TX). First the Dems allow or even encourage her to make outrageous accusations about Bush allowing the 9-11 attacks to take place so that his "oil buddies" can make money, then the Dems launch phase 2, in which they talk about previous knowlege and allege negligence. These latest accusations plant a seed of doubt, making unsphisticated people think that maybe there was something to McKinney's original claims after all. It doesn't have to stand up in court or even make sense. It only has to make people doubt the President and soften him up for phase 3, whatever that will be.
Sad thing is, there are enough people ready to believe anything the Left feeds them. Hell, I live in a state full of them.
In the local fishwrap yesterday there was a story about how Chuckie and Hilly are pushing for an investigation into Bush's knowledge of the 9/11 disaster.
They claim "The people of New York want to know". They are calling for a "Blue Ribbon" panel to investigae Bush.
What they hope for is another Watergate brouhaha.
In the local fishwrap yesterday there was a story about how Chuckie and Hilly are pushing for an investigation into Bush's knowledge of the 9/11 disaster.
They claim "The people of New York want to know". They are calling for a "Blue Ribbon" panel to investigae Bush.
What they hope for is another Watergate brouhaha.
What I don't understand is why the Bush administration is countering with the following points:
1. Much of the planning and training for the attack occurred during the Clinton administration - where were the Democrats then?
2. Because of Gore's silly electoral games, the Bush administration did not have enough time to form an effective transition team. Clearly the Democrats were interested in power rather than the well-being of the country.
3. Because of the intrasigence of many Democratic members of Congress, President Bush has had to work with less than a "full" government - many of the appointments are still being held back. How can the government work effectively to deter attacks when Democrats want to play partisan politics rather than allow the president to fill the important positions in the executive and judicial branches?
Instead of these, the White House sheepishly responds by "Democrats are playing politics because we really didn't know better" type of a weak-kneed argument.
Skorzeny
1. Much of the planning and training for the attack occurred during the Clinton administration - where were the Democrats then?
2. Because of Gore's silly electoral games, the Bush administration did not have enough time to form an effective transition team. Clearly the Democrats were interested in power rather than the well-being of the country.
3. Because of the intrasigence of many Democratic members of Congress, President Bush has had to work with less than a "full" government - many of the appointments are still being held back. How can the government work effectively to deter attacks when Democrats want to play partisan politics rather than allow the president to fill the important positions in the executive and judicial branches?
Instead of these, the White House sheepishly responds by "Democrats are playing politics because we really didn't know better" type of a weak-kneed argument.
Skorzeny
Ed Brunner
New member
Look forn somebody like Dick Chaney to point out the Democrat hypocracy. The facts point to BOTH Clintons leaving it to George.
Check out http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/5/17/124142
Check out http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/5/17/124142
FYI, FWIW, look here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/685442/posts
Bush and Clinton and 911- some
facts...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/685442/posts
Bush and Clinton and 911- some
facts...
Bush knew of terrorist plot to hijack US planes - of course he knew!
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.
In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998.
Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned…
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,718310,00.html
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.
In a top-secret intelligence memo headlined 'Bin Laden determined to strike in the US', the President was told on 6 August that the Saudi-born terrorist hoped to 'bring the fight to America' in retaliation for missile strikes on al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998.
Bush and his aides, who are facing withering criticism for failing to act on a series of warnings, have previously said intelligence experts had not advised them domestic targets were considered at risk. However, they have admitted they were specifically told that hijacks were being planned…
http://www.observer.co.uk/waronterrorism/story/0,1373,718310,00.html
Fanta, they were told that Al Qaeda planned to hijack planes at some point in the future. When, where, how, or why they would do this was not known. If the White House briefing had included the information that an FBI field agent had noticed that something fishy was going on at flight schools, it's possible (though not likely) that the President or someone at the White House would have connected the dots. However, that information never made it past the field office.
Do you have any idea how many times a day the President of the United States gets threat warnings like these (and often more dire?) The man starts every day off with a threat assessment briefing. Yes, he got caught napping on this one. So did 99% of our nation. That includes the Congress, the same people now calling for Bush's head, because they had basically the same information.
And if you are anything more than a troll, you are now seeing the problem with throwing out wild falsehoods as you did on your last thread. Frankly, you threw a lot of credibility away on that one and anything you say about Bush is now going to be evaluated in light of your deep personal hatred and slander of the man.
I don't even particularly like Bush; imagine how much weight his Republican supporters on this board will give your arguments from now on.
Do you have any idea how many times a day the President of the United States gets threat warnings like these (and often more dire?) The man starts every day off with a threat assessment briefing. Yes, he got caught napping on this one. So did 99% of our nation. That includes the Congress, the same people now calling for Bush's head, because they had basically the same information.
And if you are anything more than a troll, you are now seeing the problem with throwing out wild falsehoods as you did on your last thread. Frankly, you threw a lot of credibility away on that one and anything you say about Bush is now going to be evaluated in light of your deep personal hatred and slander of the man.
I don't even particularly like Bush; imagine how much weight his Republican supporters on this board will give your arguments from now on.
The point the Bushies have been trying to make is that, all demagoguery to the contrary, a normal hijacking of a plane is not the same as what happened on 9/11. The typical hijacking is stopped before it gets started, and even if it gets started, you generally (pre-9/11) have ways to end it without anyone getting killed except sometimes the hijacker.
With the vague non-information they had, the only thing they could have done to be certain of stopping this threat would have been to shut down civil aviation. No one would have stood for this before 9/11--be honest and search your feelings, you know it to be true. In fact, I think it likely that had Bush taken that course, he'd have become immensely unpopular, lost any chance of achieving anything in his term, and been forced to give it up well before September--in other words, before the terrorists were ready to move anyway. There's a very real chance 9/11 would still have happened!
The one thing Bush really should have done and didn't was to order the FBI and other groups to launch a serious investigation along these lines. Then again, maybe he did. The FBI was and is in pretty bad shape, and the CIA has been sucking wind for years.
With the vague non-information they had, the only thing they could have done to be certain of stopping this threat would have been to shut down civil aviation. No one would have stood for this before 9/11--be honest and search your feelings, you know it to be true. In fact, I think it likely that had Bush taken that course, he'd have become immensely unpopular, lost any chance of achieving anything in his term, and been forced to give it up well before September--in other words, before the terrorists were ready to move anyway. There's a very real chance 9/11 would still have happened!
The one thing Bush really should have done and didn't was to order the FBI and other groups to launch a serious investigation along these lines. Then again, maybe he did. The FBI was and is in pretty bad shape, and the CIA has been sucking wind for years.
Don Gwinn - I agree with much of what you say. But I was merely posting a link to a news story.
I am not a troll - though it is clear I do not agree with the majority of posters here. Why should that be a problem anyway? I've apologised for being a bit too confrontational and argumentative, so I'd appreciate it posters stopped dismissing me as a troll.
I do think Bush is very very bad. I think he is a pampered rich boy who gets what he wants through nepotism in a country renowned for being a meritocracy. Frankly, I do not care what Republican supporters or other apologists for Bush think. They do not probably care what I think either. I do not think that people are ever won over in forums about their political convictions anyway...
I do not think I have posted wild falsehoods abot Bush here, I know plenty of Americans who agree and would even say I was holding back with the criticism of him.
I am not a troll - though it is clear I do not agree with the majority of posters here. Why should that be a problem anyway? I've apologised for being a bit too confrontational and argumentative, so I'd appreciate it posters stopped dismissing me as a troll.
I do think Bush is very very bad. I think he is a pampered rich boy who gets what he wants through nepotism in a country renowned for being a meritocracy. Frankly, I do not care what Republican supporters or other apologists for Bush think. They do not probably care what I think either. I do not think that people are ever won over in forums about their political convictions anyway...
I do not think I have posted wild falsehoods abot Bush here, I know plenty of Americans who agree and would even say I was holding back with the criticism of him.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Fanta,
Winston Churchill knew that Coventry was going to be bomed off the face of the earth several hours before it happened, and did nothing.
Some leader, eh?
Actually, I'd say that you ARE a troll.
Why?
Because of your either inability or unwillingness to learn about factual issues, such as how presidential elections work in the United States, you hold to a continuous, shrill line of "Bush was selected, not elected!"
Troll in fact or by proxy, it still means that you're a troll.
And here we go with the "nepotism" again.
If you're smart enough, Fanta, please open the dictionary, read the definition of "nepotism," and then please explain to us how George Bush, who holds the highest office in the land, can be a current recipient of nepotism given that his father has been retired from government service for over 8 years?
Finally, you have posted several crass falsehoods about Bush, and have refused to acknowledge them:
1. Bush is a felon. Please look up the words felon and felony, and then get back to us.
2. Bush is the "selected" President of the United States. I won't get into this again.
You can see your other crass inaccuracies and out and out lies in your other post.
Winston Churchill knew that Coventry was going to be bomed off the face of the earth several hours before it happened, and did nothing.
Some leader, eh?
Actually, I'd say that you ARE a troll.
Why?
Because of your either inability or unwillingness to learn about factual issues, such as how presidential elections work in the United States, you hold to a continuous, shrill line of "Bush was selected, not elected!"
Troll in fact or by proxy, it still means that you're a troll.
And here we go with the "nepotism" again.
If you're smart enough, Fanta, please open the dictionary, read the definition of "nepotism," and then please explain to us how George Bush, who holds the highest office in the land, can be a current recipient of nepotism given that his father has been retired from government service for over 8 years?
Finally, you have posted several crass falsehoods about Bush, and have refused to acknowledge them:
1. Bush is a felon. Please look up the words felon and felony, and then get back to us.
2. Bush is the "selected" President of the United States. I won't get into this again.
You can see your other crass inaccuracies and out and out lies in your other post.