Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the numbers aren't that high, then they are close.

I don't know anyone - ANYONE - who believes the gov't line about what happened. Including my Conservative parents.

Cycloptichorn

You really should get out more, Cyclops.

Can't you get a weekend pass?

0 Replies

I'm actually going on a cruise this coming week. Oughta be fun.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If the numbers aren't that high, then they are close.

I don't know anyone - ANYONE - who believes the gov't line about what happened. Including my Conservative parents.

Cycloptichorn

Even after all this time, I'm still shocked when I read statements like these - even though I realize Cyclops' rage began to manifest itself well before Bush became president for the second time.

My question is, am I the only one who sees this irrational hatred (culminating in someone actually believing the tragedy of 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government) as being out of proportion to reality?

To me, there's something weirdly self-destructive in such beliefs - a bizarre anger that I can only imagine comes from a very deep and sad place.

0 Replies

I'd remind you that I voted for Bush in 2000. It wasn't until 9/11 that I started taking a closer look at my party (I wasn't comfortable with everything in the Patriot act) and it wasn't until Bush gave up the search for Bin Laden and went to war in Iraq that I really begin to question what went wrong.

I'm not sure where the 'irrational hatred' aspect comes from. Is it an attempt to paint me as an irrational person? I don't 'hate' Bush or with ill of him, I just can't stand being lied to over and over and over.

As I said before, even my parents don't believe the official story of 9/11 any more. My dad called me up talking about Able Danger the other day and wondered why they didn't listen to these guys beforehand.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As I said before, even my parents don't believe the official story of 9/11 any more. My dad called me up talking about Able Danger the other day and wondered why they didn't listen to these guys beforehand.

Did you tell them it was because of Jamie Gorelick's 1995 memo, or did you tell them it was because Bush wanted an attack to happen?

0 Replies

The second one is far more likely.

We can sit around and discuss whether or not such an event was allowed to occur, but it is a fact that 9/11 worked strongly in Bush and the Neocon's favor; there were warning signals beforehand, which were ignored; and there is a lot of confusion about what actually took place on that fateful day.

Noone really knows what happened on that day, but I, and many many others around the world, don't believe the official line; because those peddling it have been shown to be liars time and time again.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

it wasn't until Bush gave up the search for Bin Laden

Gee,I wonder if the 15000 thousand troops still in Afghanistan know they arent looking for OBL?

0 Replies

They might as well not be. The results to date have been zero. Once the focus was removed, the search was effectively over, as the majority of both our forces and our intelligence community focused on Iraq.

Note that it took just 6 months for Bush to take his eye off of Bin Laden:

Quote:

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...."
- Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool,
The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

How does a guy go from being our #1 priority, to being of no concern, in just 6 months?

The answer: He was never the number one priority in the first place.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Don't forget that Bush and the DOD used much of the money appropriated to fight AQ to plan the Iraq war:

Quote:

Bush Administration diverted scarce resources from fight against al Qaeda to Iraq. Despite the fact that much remained undone against al Qaeda and the Taliban, Special Forces and other critical intelligence and military personnel were pulled from Afghanistan in 2002 to prepare for missions in Iraq. USA Today has reported that, "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq...The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered." (USA Today, 3/29/04).

In addition, deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz admitted that the Defense Department diverted hundreds of millions of dollars appropriated for the war on terrorism to plan for a war in Iraq, in contravention of the spirit if not the letter of the law. Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary Wolfowitz acknowledged that, before Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq, the Defense Department used $178 million from the Fiscal Year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill designed to fund the global war on terrorism (GWOT) in the Middle East. The Wall Street Journal reported that this money was used to fund "21 military-related projects in the Mideast...that were culled from a larger list prepared for Gen. Tommy Franks...who was charged with secret planning for the [Iraq] war," with "at least 11 of the projects in Kuwait, which became the major-jumping off point for U.S. troops in the 2003 Iraq invasion" (4/22/04) Secretary Wolfowitz also testified that "after [Congress authorized force in Iraq on] October 25th, some $800 million was made available over the following months to support Iraq preparatory tasks," meaning that a total of nearly $1 billion from the GWOT supplemental funding bill was used to plan a new war in Iraq instead of fighting the primary front of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

When all the money and all the specialists are being used to plan a different war, the chances of successfully prosecuting the current one go down signficantly. This is why there was no serious search for Bin Laden; we didn't care about catching him near as much as we cared about nation-building in the ME, something that Bush promised not to do.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclo,
Have you ever been to Afghanistan?
I Have.

It is a very mountainous country.
We are looking for 1 man in an area slightly smaller then Texas.

Now,since there are many caves,valleys and mountain trails going into several different countries,exactly what would you do to find him?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'm not sure where the 'irrational hatred' aspect comes from. Is it an attempt to paint me as an irrational person?
Cycloptichorn

You don't see your statement that more than 90% think 9/11 was an inside job as irrational?

I can kind of see you thinking that - after all, you also told everyone they should buy a rifle the day after the 2004 election. You also said that you'd been cooking up 'plans' (in case Bush won) and advocated civil disobedience (anarchy, if you will) and the worst of it is, you were completely serious.

And you wonder why anyone questions your "rationality"?

It leaves me wondering...how do you think Bush/Cheney/Halliburton pulled off 9/11 and what kind of gun did you end up buying to protect yourself from the "secret police" you said would overrun this country?

0 Replies

If I was Rumsfeld I would look in New Jersey.

0 Replies

Um, I would use a whole lot of people?

Which is exactly what we were doing before the whole Iraq debacle, if you recal.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I'm not sure where the 'irrational hatred' aspect comes from. Is it an attempt to paint me as an irrational person?
Cycloptichorn

You don't see your statement that more than 90% think 9/11 was an inside job as irrational?

90% of the world population. My statement is that they don't believe the official line, not that Bushco. neccessarily cooked up the whole thing.

Quote:

I can kind of see you thinking that - after all, you also told everyone they should buy a rifle the day after the 2004 election. You also said that you'd been cooking up 'plans' (in case Bush won) and advocated civil disobedience (anarchy, if you will) and the worst of it is, you were completely serious.

Yup. I still believe that there is ample evidence that shows the Republican party has been engaging in some serious vote-tampering, with Diebold & ES&S's help, for some time now. Without strong citizen outcry, we'll never get rid of these problems with the basic nature of our election system. In Eastern Europe, countries rebel and engage in Civil Disobedience over elections whose results are far less questionable than our own.

Quote:

And you wonder why anyone questions your "rationality"?

Not anyone, just those such as yourself who have never, ever demonstrated the ability to think critically and clearly.

Quote:

It leaves me wondering...how do you think Bush/Cheney/Halliburton pulled off 9/11 and what kind of gun did you end up buying to protect yourself from the "secret police" you said would overrun this country?

This is a two-part question.

First, I believe that there needn't have been a large number of people involved in order to make 9/11 work. As few as a handful of people could have done the neccessary things to allow 9/11 to happen: change the rules governing plane downing authority, schedule some 'training exercises' that day to fool the ATControllers, and wait for history to take care of itself.

It's a win-win situation for Bush. Either we would catch the terrorists, and it would be a victory for America that allowed us to ratchet up a war against the Middle East and Islaam in general, or we wouldn't, they would blow up a few buildings, and we really would ratchet up the war, the war which the neocons desperately wanted, Iraq. We've already seen how Bush began to ignore Bin Laden almost immediately, and shifted his focus to attacking Iraq; which was the real target all along.

I honestly don't believe Bush knew a damn thing about 9/11 before it happened; but I think that others in his admin did. For a long time I have stated that Bush seems to be little more than a pawn for the Neocons such as Feith and Wolfowitz. The events of 9/11 couldn't have worked out better for the Neocons if they had planned it themselves; and that raises a red flag in my mind.

As a student of history, consistently, throughout every civilization, there have been instances of corruption and downright conspiracies amongst the leaders of the country to commit acts that the populace of the country wouldn't approve of. This has verifiably happened many many times throughout the last several hundred years, and many times throughout the last fifty years even, in many countries around the world. Yet, for some reason, many Americans don't believe the same could happen here, even though it historically has!. Why? Is it that ol' 'American exceptionalism' raising it's head again? I don't know.

Whenever I see a situation such as this in which one party/group benefits greatly, I am instantly suspicious, and have good reason to be. If we were discussing a whole different country, other than America, you would not be so quick to dismiss the possibility that the leaders of that country duped the citizens, would you? There is no reason to believe that America is any different.

Second, as a red-blooded American male, I've owned and operated several rifles for years before 9/11 even happened. I believe that every American should own a rifle (civil defense is no laughing matter, it's a responsibility) and be trained in its safe use.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cyclops wrote:

First, I believe that there needn't have been a large number of people involved in order to make 9/11 work. As few as a handful of people could have done the neccessary things to allow 9/11 to happen: change the rules governing plane downing authority, schedule some 'training exercises' that day to fool the ATControllers, and wait for history to take care of itself.

So, you think 9/11 was conceived of and planned by no more than 5 people (maybe less according to you), yet you claim I'm the one unable to think clearly?

I can't see it and don't buy it. Am I being irrational?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I'd remind you that I voted for Bush in 2000. It wasn't until 9/11 that I started taking a closer look at my party (I wasn't comfortable with everything in the Patriot act) and it wasn't until Bush gave up the search for Bin Laden and went to war in Iraq that I really begin to question what went wrong.

I'm not sure where the 'irrational hatred' aspect comes from. Is it an attempt to paint me as an irrational person? I don't 'hate' Bush or with ill of him, I just can't stand being lied to over and over and over.

As I said before, even my parents don't believe the official story of 9/11 any more. My dad called me up talking about Able Danger the other day and wondered why they didn't listen to these guys beforehand.

Cycloptichorn

Well said, Cyclo. It's not "irrational hatred" to question the words and the motives of Bushco, just plain good sense.

And insofar as you seem to be taking some stick for statements made by me, thanks!
And congratulations for being a Bush voter who has seen the light. Tico knows my opinion of Bushco, I've stated it often enough. I get accused of exaggerating. I'm not exaggerating. The man is a criminal, leading (sorry, fronting) a corrupt and dishonest administration.

0 Replies

Wow, McTag & Cyclops joined at the hip in their political views. This is something worth study I think just as Blatham and CI seem to be cut from the same cloth at least to the extent that they seem to adore each other's point of view.

There must be some way to exploit this for money or something don't you think? At the very least we should have more black helicopters. Smile

0 Replies

Quote:

So, you think 9/11 was conceived of and planned by no more than 5 people (maybe less according to you), yet you claim I'm the one unable to think clearly?

I can't see it and don't buy it. Am I being irrational?

No, I didn't say it was 'conceived and planned' by less than 5 people. Read carefully.

Let's say that information about a possible plot to attack the US was uncovered - say, information that Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. The only people who really are aware of what response that we chose to take to this information are the Prez. and his closest circle of advisors.

What is to stop the PNAC goons Feith and Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld, from advising the president that we 'need' a Pearl Harbor type event in order to advance the agenda that they wished? It isn't as if they hadn't said this sort of thing before.

America was, contrary to all reports, basically undamaged by 9/11. I say this as someone whose family experienced a personal loss on 9/11. I actually dropped out of school that semester because of the shock it sent through my family. Realistically, and through a few years of seperation from the event, on a national level we took almost no damage from the 9/11 attacks. This makes it easier to justify the ends by those who wished to propagate their policy; slight damage taken by America leads to great gains in the Middle East, which according to their own policy initiatives, was of the greatest importance in the new century.

Even if Bin Laden concieved the entire 9/11 attack by himself, and had no knowledge that the US gov't was on to him, there still exists a great opportunity for the PNAC by allowing him to carry out his plan. I have never seen any of these people show a shred of evidence that they actually care about the welfare of the American person; every single writing put out by their organization shows that the overal goal of American dominance in the new century trumps any individual concerns. And I have spent years researching the writings of the PNAC. Therefore, I don't put allowing 9/11 to happen past them.

You need to disassociate yourself from the concept that this is your own country we are discussing, and try and imagine that these are all leaders of a foriegn country. The personal connection makes it too difficult for the average American to look at the facts. Does such a plan sound ridiculous, in that light? Is it any more ridiculous than the plans which actually have been carried out in the past by foriegn governments? No.

I believe a large part of the problem is that this group also happens to represent the Republican party. I don't think this is a Republican Party problem and I don't think it reflects on the Party or its constituents. I believe the Republican party has been co-opted by these neocons and is being used in order to further gains that are decidedly against the interests of the average American. I understand the natural desire to protect and defend one's party leaders, but in this case, I think a careful examination of those involved would show that these people are not in fact representative of the Republican party as a whole; remember that Bush was (as is plainly obvious by listening) little more than a puppet, a lightning-rod, for the Neocon movement.

My daddy taught me a long time ago, that when there's smoke, there's usually fire. And there's a lot of smoke when it came to 9/11.

Note that I really don't care what anyone's opinion of me, or my mental state, is; so responding with an insult probably won't have the effect you are looking for. Instead, I invite you to begin your own research on the subject; I believe you will be converted to my point of view in an attempt to prove me wrong.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

If I was Rumsfeld I would look in New Jersey.

hehehe Dyslexia.... I often suggest the pig farm in Texas. Might be a reason for king george's all too frequent visits! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

Changing the subject somewhat, where is the NOW gang on this one?

Steamed about Rice,
Russian pol unleashes rant

Russian pol Vladimir Zhirinovsky says what Condi needs is a man.

Condoleezza Rice might want to see if there's room in one of those "black site" terror-suspect prisons for Russian politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
The wacko leader of Russia's Liberal and Democratic Party has surpassed his earlier screeds with a misogynist attack on our secretary of state.

Speaking with Pravda this week, Zhirinovsky chastised Rice for calling on Russia to "act responsibly" in supplying natural gas to Ukraine.

The fascistic pol attributed that "coarse anti-Russian statement" to Rice being "a single woman who has no children."

"If she has no man by her side at her age, he will never appear," Zhirinovsky ranted on. "Condoleezza Rice needs a company of soldiers. She needs to be taken to barracks where she would be satisfied.

"Condoleezza Rice is a very cruel, offended woman who lacks men's attention," he added. "Such women are very rough. They can be happy only when they are talked and written about everywhere: 'Oh, Condoleezza, what a remarkable woman, what a charming Afro-American lady! How well she can play the piano and speak Russian!'

"Complex-prone women are especially dangerous. They are like malicious mothers-in-law, women that evoke hatred and irritation with everyone. Everybody tries to part with such women as soon as possible. A mother-in-law is better than a single and childless political persona, though."

MORE HERE

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know