>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.
Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.
So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.
Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...


No I'm not, I'm questioning why they felt had to lie about this. That is all. Don't put words in my mouth, or even try to think you know what motivates me please.

So, if you think that collaborating to bend the truth to deceive and trick the public to achieve a common goal is not a conspiracy I suggest you read up on the definition of what a conspiracy is. Just because I use the word "conspiracy" does not mean I'm referring to some wild, far fetched and unbelievable scenario. That's not always what a conspiracy is, that's what the general public has come to think of what a conspiracy is due to people like you that apply the most extreme definition to the word. Just like a UFO is not necessarily an alien space craft. It's that due to society, and per-conceived notions, most people automatically think of alien space ships when someone refers to seeing a UFO.

Sorry, you're smug little, "I know all the facts, and you are delusional" act is a joke. Yeah, you are far more superior to us "conspiracy nuts".

Oh, where did I say anything about Bush being in bed with Bin Laden or planting explosives in the towers? Why is it that once someone talks about a conspiracy they are automatically "crazy"? Not all of us believe what the fringe is trying to sell, my friend. But we also don't believe what is being force fed down our throats either.

>> ^Duckman33:

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”
Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”
I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.
Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.


Oh for heavens sakes, your acting like discovering that politicians spin things and choose their wording carefully and to their own benefit is a discovery you've made through some stroke of genius.

Politicians will use the truth to deceive and trick the public as long as it's in their own interest, and if it's better to lie they'll do that to. That's not news, it's not a conspiracy, it's common knowledge.

So you seem to accept that an Afghan leader was warning of a 'major attack'(no mention of airplanes, just a major attack) leading up to 9/11. You don't act like his assassination on the 10th of September was a surprise either. What is surprising is your quotes you throw out thinking that officials were unaware or lying about this. EVERY quote you gave specifically states there was no idea that civilian aircraft would be used as missiles in an attack. Remembering that politicians are deceitful monsters, you'll notice they do NOT deny having warnings of an impending Al Qaeda attack. In fact, multiple official reports, investigations, and even Bin Laden's own public statements all make it very clear there were warnings of pending attack from Bin Laden's organization. The only denial in your quotes is specifically to the method.

Sorry, your whole act depends on people being either ignorant of the facts or shocked that politicians might hedge and be dodgy in their answers on a massively political topic...

I've dug plenty deep. I already know that people were trying to warn of the attacks coming, that's old news. So then why lie about it in a press conference? You know, that part where we were lied to by Condie Rice, etc. When they knew fair and well they had conceived that very scenario?

President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and other White House officials have consistently denied knowing about the 9/11 plot or receiving information that (or even imagining that) commercial aircraft could be used as weapons. For example, Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ... “Never in anybody’s thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never.”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said that “the President did not – not – receive information about the use of airplanes as missiles by suicide bombers ... Until this attack took place, I think it’s fair to say that no one envisioned that as a possibility.”

Then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: “I don’t think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that.”

I don't care about the buildings anymore, that's all been "debunked" for the most part.

Like I've said to you before, you can quote all you want from information you find on the interwebs, that doesn't make it any more or less true than anything I can Google and quote. There's a lot more to 9/11 than just the buildings coming down, there's a lot of lies, repeated lies in fact. A lot of denial and finger pointing. And a lot of convenient "failures of the system". Whether you like it or not, or want to admit it or not there is something fishy going on here. But hey, I'm just a crackpot, loonie conspiracy theorist. What do I know, right? I should be a good robot and always implicitly trust people that lie to me on a continual basis, that way I don't have to face an ugly truth, or facts, or think for myself.

^I'm with overcast. Controlled demolitions and missiles seem like they would be too hard to execute in secrecy -no matter how competent the conspirators may be - but we know for a fact Condi Rice had a briefing that warned of the attack.

>> ^LostTurntable:
Bush did "inherit" 9/11 in as much as Clinton didn't do a great job fighting Osama Bin Laden on his watch, but Bush just flat out IGNORED him. There's more then enough blame to go around on that one.


Actually, Clinton wanted to go after Bin Laden more. There was just this little issue with an intern's stained dress that the GOP thought was more important at the time. Had the GOP-heavy congress given him the OK, he probably could have found Bin Laden before 9/11 would've ever happened. After all, the attack on the USS Cole did happen on his watch, so you'd think that the GOP would've put bringing him to justice for it up on their list of priorities. Sadly, pursuing terrorists is only a priority when it makes one of their own look good for doing it.

But Clinton knew something big was going to happen the second week of September 2001. He even made sure to let the Bush administration know everything his administration knew about it. Condi Rice had been photographed several times carrying around that report, but I could never find a pic of anyone actually reading it.

That report was leaked not long after 9/11 happened. The media largely ignored it, however. It spelled out a number of scenarios, as well as counter-strategies for dealing with issues as they came up when it came to diplomacy and the Middle East. Sadly, none of the warnings were heeded. The rest, as they say, is history.

So let us place blame where it should fall - on the Republican-led Congress that Clinton fought with for 6 years. They repealed Glass-Stegall. They put more effort into looking at sperm on a dress than intelligence reports. They put party before country, and we're STILL paying for it, over 10 years later.

So Fuck Newt Gingrich. Remember, he resigned as Speaker of the House (who is next in line after if the Prez and VP are unable to perform their duties) because he was a fucking hypocrite who, despite being an ugly, fat sack of shit, managed to find someone other than his wife who would let him fuck her. His intended successor was guilty of the same crime, so they had to get Dennis fucking Hastert, a retired high school wrestling coach, to play third-string House Speaker. (And someone who made a living of watching young men grapple and roll around isn't gay at all. Really.)

And Mary Matalin must have her head so far up her ass she can see an alternate reality. Let's get NASA on that shit.

Someone find Condi Rice's Speech from the 2000 Republican Convention, that's another piece of work. It still gives me shivers and I haven't seen it since the night it was broadcast.

I have read Richard Clarke's book. It was good.
He was one of the few whitehouse staffers that wasn't replaced when bush took office (and he served other presidents before clinton as well).

Most remarkable comment about the day of Sept 11th was that Condi Rice's reaction was near panic to the point where she became completely useless at her job.

I also liked his remark about how Bill Clinton was always up late reading books (no, not porn mags) and always read every major paper each morning. And George W. Bush was always in bed around 9pm. (I guess the latter relied more on prayer for guidance, than on information).

>> ^Yehoshua:
You're ignorant, Farhad. Yehoshua is Joshua. Which is my name. Yeshua, on the other hand...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshua_(name)

There is debate about the Hebrew phrasing of Jesus between Yehoshua, Yeshua or Yeshu by references from Numbers, the old testament and writings of the time. But that's besides the point. But lets not get into a theological discussion here.

Do you disagree that the elections that put Hamas in power were free?

Elections are the only form of expression the Palestinians had in opposing the Fatah government, it was their way of showing a loss of confidence in Fatah which at the time was in utter turmoil. Remember at the time Condi Rice and Bush as a whole were pushing for democratic action in the Middle East as a whole (ironically not with Egypt or Saudi Arabia).

When Hamas won Israel and the US basically went around Hamas and started to reinstate Fatah as the power representation of Palestine. Hamas isn't wholly compromised of terrorists, as its cell based, negotiations and concessions would have been better then outright ignoring Hamas and further imposing a blockade on Gaza. Which only solidified extremist elements within Hamas.

The lack of dealing with your enemies is a severe strategic failure shown by both the US and Israel, even during the height of the Cold War there was constant contact and negotiation to avert a possible third world war. Talking to Hamas would have been difficult as Israel does not claim responsibility for many hostile actions over the last 60 years as it never gives a platform to Palestinian interests, its always wanted to deal down concessions to Palestinians.

As to Lebanon, it's my understanding that the head of Hezbollah apologized for the war in Lebanon, until he heard that the Israelis considered it a defeat. Then he proclaimed that it was a tremendous victory for Lebanon. As a matter of fact, the Lebanon border had been very quiet up until this latest conflict, and still remains relatively quiet.

Hasan Nasrallah is an idiot, but one cannot simply brush aside the massive excessive and needless military campaign Israel brought down on Lebanon. This is where the 2006 war was a failure because it painted Israel in entirely the wrong light, when it basically decapitated Lebanon's social and economic structure. Israel won the battle but lost the war.

Israel sets very high goals for itself, and when it does not meet them, it considers that a failure. I don't think that's wrong, but I don't think that means that Israel should stop protecting itself.

On this point I disagree with you as what Israel claims on political channels is disconnected with the reality on the ground, by treating the Palestinians as prisoners, by constantly forcing them through countless check points, taking pot shots at them and over watching them with large towers, bulldozing their homes to build settlements it only further marginalizes and drives Palestinian people to terrorist act which it then claims it defends itself from.

Israeli policy on the ground provokes the very attacks it then uses as a pretext to occupy Palestinian lands. The most apparent of which can be seen on US media which so commonly shows Israeli soldiers fighting civilians with rocks, defending Isreali 'settlements' which they never explain to say that its Palestinian homes bulldozed over. This skewed perception is the reason a recent poll showed that almost half of the US population supports Israeli actions because of differing Media narrative provided.

Something that is explored in this sift http://www.videosift.com/video/Global-Pulse-Analysis-of-Gaza-Media-War-and-Reportage

I say this again and again, terrorist actions in Palestine towards Israel is a symptom not a disease, which can be found in parallel with the independence wars fought by Algerian rebels with France and Americans with the English and many others.

For background of where my comment comes from understand I'm a Republican, a McCain supporter and disappointed the Condi Rice had no interest in running even after the draft Codi movement that rose up within my party at the start of the primaries.
The video shows us some racist individual morons with a couple choice quotes. Beyond that, I suggest you see past what the videographer and editor is feeding you.
1. There was a crowd of pissed McCain supporters. Why so angry? Maybe because they came to a McCain rally to be confronted by sign-carrying Obama supporters. How warmly would McCain chanting supporters be welcomed at an Obama rally?
2. Were the Obama supporters shouting anything rude and provocative? Obviously not. They were silently waving their signs in slow motion to hip, upbeat music as the video shows. Opposition that shows up at a prearranged political rally would never be rude. Right.

If you are so easily lead to judge a large group of people by a small number of individuals fed to you by the media (even small indy web media manipulators can use misleading techniques) then you may be past being able to think for yourself.

Me? I'll choose not to judge all Obama supporters by a few worst examples, who would say hateful things like, "A perfect opportunity to call in an air strike," and "...and 2 days after the election they will go back to eating potatochips and watching tv."(jsut one of several snarky, urban elitist jabs in the comments at perceived hillbillies between New York and L.A.) I'm afraid of the kind of easily manipulated people who are fed a piece of video propaganda and are ready to propose opposing "ignorance" of "30-40% of the population" by "getting rid of religion to start with, or forcing some mass mandatory re-education program..." I hope they are rare as I think.

Lets all remember who Scott Ritter is exactly, he was chief UN inspector for WMDs in Iraq, in March 2003 he said that the US case for invading Iraq based on WMD was bullshit, he was publically ridiculed and sidelined as Condi Rice declared that we shouldn't let the "smoking gun be a mushroom cloud".

And yes invading Iran would create a huge problem it would mean the US is implicit in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and undue support of Isreal in the oppression of Palestinan people. Already the invasion of two soverign states is a violation of UN charters on aggression and are considered war crimes by Nuremberg standards.

But somehow bombing civilians is far more legit then someone fighting the oppression of a imperalistic power. People should take their blinders off and realize that the War on Terror is simply the new logic of the Cold War fighting communism applied in a new context in order for the US to project power and influence, first how does on fight a tactic? Second how many states were invaded or destabalized during the 60s, 70s and 80s in the fight against the red menace (guatemala, chile, bolivia and so many others)? How many inhumane states are supported now in their regimes if they are against terrorism (egypt, jordan, uzbekistan and many others)?

hey that wasn't Condie Rice!