Our colleague, wd, is on the record as saying that President Bush MAY (yes, he gave himself a little wiggle room) have known in advance that 9/11 was going to happen, and let it happen as a pretense to start a war in Iraq. An interesting theory, isn't it? I do have to wonder, though. Is wd aware that, had those planes struck a little differently and the evacuation not gone so smoothly, it wouldn't have been 3,000 human beings dead? It would have been 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 human beings dead. Does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme? Hm, I guess that only he can answer that, huh?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
A lot more than that have died in Iraq.
That's a separate issue, Jerry. And, as I like to tell all of my liberal friends, I was against that action well before Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. ever were. And well before it was ever fashionable, too.
Before anyone starts screaming I'm in league with WD on this I do not believe Bush nor that asshole Cheney had any foreknowledge of what was going to happen. But there is one small part to the 9/11attacks that I find strange.
Asshole Cheney has stated several times that the Secret Service manhandled him down to the bunker underneath the White House when the Pentagon was hit.
But Bush was informed of the attacks while in a normal public classroom whose visit had been scheduled months in advance. There was no rush to get him to safety and in fact the man sat there looking like nothing had happened.
Yeah, I understand the tired and strained logic in not wanting to upset and scare the kiddies but it seems unusual that the "leader" of the free world was not simply told by his handlers that he had to go while Cheney was rushed to his first of many undisclosed locations.
Good observation, Beach Bum. Isn't it on record that they knew bin Laden was planning to attack with airplanes? The infamous Condi Rice memo they all either ignored with incompetence, or willfully ignored. There is wiggle room that they actually wanted an attack! These people obviously didn't care about keeping Iraqi civilians or U.S. soldiers alive.
The Bush admin followed the Clinton administration precedent of ignoring the threats and aggression from bim Laden and Al Qaeda.
No, what you've stated concerning what I'm "on the record" as saying is wrong.
In the comment thread for your 8/13/2011 post (Totally Slimy, Nearly Great") I said bush ignored the PDB "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" because he wanted an attack to occur (to give PNAC the New Pearl Harbor they desired).
Then you asked, "Bush allowed the attacks on 9/11 to occur so he could have an excuse to wage war on Iraq?"
And in response I said, "Yes, I think that it is possible that is what happened. But I doubt we'll ever know for sure".
I did NOT say, "have known in advance that 9/11 was going to happen". I do not believe he knew specifically what was going to happen or when it would happen. I believe they never imagined so many people would be killed.
Is bush that evil? Yes, I think so. I doubt he sees it that way though. I think people who commit acts of evil rarely see themselves that way.
I wrote a post on this subject titled, Best Friends George and Osama. It is a satirical post, but all the facts are there, including all the warnings the bush received prior to 9/11 that al Qaeda was planning something.
Will: as I like to tell all of my liberal friends, I was against that action well before Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. ever were.
Hillary Clinton was against going to war. Before voting in favor of the resolution Clinton said, "even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war..."
Joe Biden was in agreement with Hillary Clinton that voting yes on the resolution would allow us to apply maximum pressure to Saddam to engage with the rest of the world diplomaticaly. On the 11/17/2005 airing of "Meet the Press", Biden said, "We gave the president the authority to unite the world to isolate Saddam. And the fact of the matter is, we went too soon. We went without sufficient force. And we went without a plan".
When asked if he would now change his vote to NO, Biden said, "Absolutely I would vote no".
John Kerry was also against going to war. Regarding his YES vote, Kerry said, "the president promised to build the international coalition, to do this [go to war] as a matter of last resort, to go through the United Nations process and respect it".
A 6/21/2003 Fox News article says, "Kerry said he voted for the resolution with the understanding that the administration would build an international coalition before attacking Saddam Hussein's forces".
The fact is that bush LIED and told Congress that a YES vote would show Saddam that were were serious, which would cause him to buckle and give in to our demands for complete cooperation regarding inspections. bush said war was the last option when they actually intended to go to war immediately after it passed.
The bushies used the fact that everyone rallied around the president after 9/11 and lied and lied and lied to get the war they so desperately wanted.
Clearly they were dead wrong to trust the president, but your statement that you were "against that action well before Biden, Clinton, Kerry, etc. ever were" is FALSE. You couldn't have been against war with Iraq before they were, because they were against going to war from the beginning.
dmarks: The Bush admin followed the Clinton administration precedent of ignoring the threats and aggression from bin Laden and Al Qaeda.
The bush administration did ignore the threat posed by bin Laden, but it wasn't a precedent set by the Clinton administration. That assertion is totally false.
An 8/12/2002 Time Magazine article titled "They Had A Plan" says, "Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger... set up a series of 10 briefings by his team for his successor, Condoleezza Rice, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley".
One of those meetings "dealt with the threat posed to the US by international terrorism, and especially by al-Qaeda. 'I'm coming to this briefing', [Berger] says he told Rice, 'to underscore how important I think this subject is. Berger says he told [Rice], 'I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject'..."
BTW Will, what is up with the title of your post? I can't express my opinion without you labeling it "hate". That's BS.
I examined the facts and drew conclusions. My "hate" wasn't a factor.
Let me ask you a question... why do you allow your hatred of Barney Frank and poor people to color your judgment in regards to the financial crisis? Barney Frank most certainly DID warn that F&F might be a problem (due to deregulation). Calling my source an "after-the-fact press-release from Mr. Frank and his handlers" doesn't change the facts.
Barney Frank DID work together with Republican Chairman Mike Oxley on the only bill that the Republicans considered during that period to restrict Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac... and the bill WAS defeated because of strong opposition from the bush White House.
THESE ARE FACTS, yet you are so desperate to pin this on the hated Rep Frank and hated irresponsible poor people... that you just don't care.
That, folks, is a "strange hate" indeed.
Again, wd, I challenge you. Show me one piece of IN-TIME testimony in which Barney Frank tried to warn ANYBODY about the perilous state of Fannie and Freddie. I've personally never seen one.
Just like Kerry and Clinton, you're playing semantical word games, wd. In order to ALLOW something to happen, you DE FACTO have to know that it's GOING to happen. I mean, I know that linguistics aren't your forte and all but this is absolutely pathetic.
And I have another question, wd; if Kerry, Clinton, and Biden were so dead-set against military action, then why didn't these 3 blind and cynical mice protest when the fighting began. None of them even remotely did. You know why? It was because everything was going really well early on. It was only AFTER the operation went south that they started spinning and covering their cowardly and miserable asses. I mean, how frigging pathetic is that?
Will: In order to ALLOW something to happen, you DE FACTO have to know that it's GOING to happen.
Sandy Berger to Condy Rice: "I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on al-Qaeda specifically, than any other subject".
They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11.
Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.
Of course there were warnings that (at least in retrospect) should have been heeded more closely. And, yes, there were dots that should have been connected but weren't. I would even go as far as to say that the Bush administration failed the country mightily in this regard. But that is a HUMONGOUS difference than saying that Bush administration ALLOWED (because it wanted some sort of modern day Pearl harbor) 9/11 to happen because it wanted to start a major war in Iraq. That, wd, is crazy talk and a big reason why nobody outside the progressive blogosphere takes you even remotely seriously.
Perhaps "benign neglect" is a more appropriate term...although "sinister" may be more appropriate.
Will: That, wd, is crazy talk and a big reason why nobody outside the progressive blogosphere takes you even remotely seriously.
This sounds like something Rusty would say. How the hell would you know how everyone outside the progressive blogosphere views me??? Have you hacked and installed spyware on my computer?
IMO "crazy talk" is when someone suggests that free trade is a good idea, or worries (out loud) about taxes on the wealthy going too high, or suggests eliminating the corporate income tax.
I "know", wd, because I'm 54 years old and have 4 college degrees and have NEVER met anybody even remotely as hard-core as you. Even my professors in the 70s weren't as hard-core as you. You just gotta face it here, wd, you are about as far outside the mainstream as it gets.......Free trade is crazy? Hm, what do you say that we look at the opponents of it; Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, wd, Jesse Jackson. Now THOSE guys are crazy!......Taxes on the rich? I'm for the top rates going back to 40%. That puts me in lock step with the mainstream Democratic party. You're 77.65% rate - yeah, that's crazy talk.......Yes, dude, I'm for eliminating the corporate income tax. But you conveniently (or perhaps maliciously) left out the fact that I'm also in favor of ELIMINATING the special consideration for capital gains. Under my proposal, the rich will probably pay far more than they do today. And it isn't just conservatives who argue for eliminating the corporate income tax. One of my inspirations for the idea came from the liberal rag, Firedog Lake. And RN's liberal friend, Jersey McJones also agrees with me. Nice try on the pigeon-holing, though.
This probably is not the place to ask this question, but unless you are corporation, why would you want to eliminate corporate income taxes? Maybe you should do a post on it.
Will: That, wd, is crazy talk and a big reason why nobody outside the progressive blogosphere takes you even remotely seriously.
from Wikipedia...
In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?"
And according to a study from Stanford University, 32% of Democrats and 18% of Republicans blame "the Jews" for the financial collapse.......So, yeah, maybe you're right, we are a crazy country.
Post a Comment