| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Xomicron" |
| Date: |
14 Apr 2004 09:09:06 AM |
| Object: |
What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
Kerry's campaign mantra - "You go to war because you have to, not
because you want to" - clearly resonated with Americans as they tried
to make sense of Bush's Sept. 10 attack on Afghanistan. Neither the
president, nor national security adviser Condoleezza Rice convincingly
defended their actions during the recent "9-10 Commission" hearings,
which Congress ordered in response to public outcry.
The commission's purpose was to try to determine what compelled the
president to launch a war against Afghanistan. What kind of
intelligence suggested that such an act was justified?
The main target of the attack was bin Laden, friend to Afghanistan's
brutal Taliban regime, as well as al-Qaida training camps in that
war-ravaged nation. Al-Qaida, an international terrorist network, has
been blamed for numerous attacks on U.S. interests, including the USS
Cole bombing, which killed 17 sailors.
Even though Bush's military campaign was successful in ending the
oppressive Taliban regime, bin Laden apparently escaped and al-Qaida
continues to flourish.
Some intelligence sources speculate that bin Laden's operatives may be
trying to secure weapons of mass destruction from Iraq's Saddam
Hussein. Even though Saddam continues to send money to the families of
Palestinian terrorists and is believed to have programs for developing
WMD, Kerry says he is committed to containing Saddam through continued
sanctions and the U.N. oil-for-food program.
In any case, experts say that intelligence about Saddam's WMD program
is just as speculative as was the intelligence that prompted Bush to
attack Afghanistan. The man credited with sounding the alarm on bin
Laden and al-Qaida was Richard Clarke, a counterterrorism expert who
has served four presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. Bush
and William Jefferson Clinton.
In a Jan. 25 memo to Rice, for instance, Clarke urged immediate
attention to several items of national security interest: the Northern
Alliance, covert aid, a significant new '02 budget authority to help
fight al-Qaida and a response to the USS Cole.
At Rice's and Clarke's urging, Bush called a meeting of principals
and, after "connecting the dots," decided to wage war against
Afghanistan. What did the dots say? Not much, in retrospect.
Apparently, the president decided to bomb a benign country on the
basis of "chatter" that hinted at "something big."
With no other details on the "big," and weaving together random bits
of information from a variety of questionable sources, Bush and
company decided that 19 fundamentalist Muslim fanatics would fly
airplanes into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on 9-11.
Under questioning by the "9-10 Commission," Clarke denied that his
memo was anything more than a historical overview with a "set of ideas
and a paper, mostly." The bipartisan commission concluded, therefore,
that Bush's "dot-connecting" had destroyed American credibility and
subjected the United States to increasing hostility in the Arab-Muslim
world.
Last week, Saddam Hussein and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat joined
French and German leaders in condemning Bush and urging the American
voters to cast their ballots for regime change in America. President
Kerry was the clear response to that call.
In a flourish of irony and the spirit of bon vivant for which the new
president is widely known, Kerry gave his acceptance speech from
Windows on the World, the elegant restaurant atop the World Trade
Center's Tower One.
.
|
|
| User: "Mack North" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 10:06:14 AM |
|
|
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
But of course, if rightwingers could think that far ahead their
pea-sized brains would explode.
---Mack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 11:27:14 AM |
|
|
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton around
1997 but he never had them implemented.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 11:59:43 AM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton around
1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation" - Anonymous
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin
"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 12:05:11 PM |
|
|
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:c5jqm0$2i390$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before 9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 07:31:26 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:c5jqm0$2i390$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before 9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
If no one knew before 9-11 what was going to happen, why was
Bush in a pre-announced location unconcerned with putting his
life and the children's lives in the class room at risk, after being told
4 planes had been hijacked and one had just hit a tower, that the
USA was under attack, and still Bush went to this pre-announced
location. Why other wise? Is he so petty a photo-op toward
reelection is more important than 3000+ lives, if so, did he wag the
dog?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 12:42:20 PM |
|
|
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407DD473.378E3BCF@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:c5jqm0$2i390$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack
on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are
responsible.
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before 9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
If no one knew before 9-11 what was going to happen, why was
Bush in a pre-announced location unconcerned with putting his
life and the children's lives in the class room at risk, after being
told 4 planes had been hijacked and one had just hit a tower, that the
USA was under attack, and still Bush went to this pre-announced
location. Why other wise? Is he so petty a photo-op toward
reelection is more important than 3000+ lives, if so, did he wag the
dog?
Why do you keep posting this *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 06:19:27 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407DD473.378E3BCF@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:c5jqm0$2i390$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack
on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are
responsible.
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before 9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
If no one knew before 9-11 what was going to happen, why was
Bush in a pre-announced location unconcerned with putting his
life and the children's lives in the class room at risk, after being
told 4 planes had been hijacked and one had just hit a tower, that the
USA was under attack, and still Bush went to this pre-announced
location. Why other wise? Is he so petty a photo-op toward
reelection is more important than 3000+ lives, if so, did he wag the
dog?
Why do you keep posting this *****?
The truth does not change over time. The truth is however always
***** to conservatives because conservatives will believe anything
but the truth.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&s=alterman
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 06:32:54 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Horn" <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in message
news:407F14FB.4AB079AB@Horn.uk...
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407DD473.378E3BCF@Horn.uk:
Xomicron wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:c5jqm0$2i390$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four
years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his
bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a
nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence
that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack
on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest
of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime"
was
attending American flight schools. The Council on
American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a
joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them
to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen
or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill
Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are
responsible.
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before
9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
If no one knew before 9-11 what was going to happen, why was
Bush in a pre-announced location unconcerned with putting his
life and the children's lives in the class room at risk, after being
told 4 planes had been hijacked and one had just hit a tower, that the
USA was under attack, and still Bush went to this pre-announced
location. Why other wise? Is he so petty a photo-op toward
reelection is more important than 3000+ lives, if so, did he wag the
dog?
Why do you keep posting this *****?
The truth does not change over time. The truth is however always
***** to conservatives because conservatives will believe anything
but the truth.
I wonder if he realizes his statement above makes him a bigot?
Naaa, I doubt it
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 11:28:50 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Daniel Horn" <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in message
If no one knew before 9-11 what was going to happen, why was
Bush in a pre-announced location unconcerned with putting his
life and the children's lives in the class room at risk, after being
told 4 planes had been hijacked and one had just hit a tower, that the
USA was under attack, and still Bush went to this pre-announced
location. Why other wise? Is he so petty a photo-op toward
reelection is more important than 3000+ lives, if so, did he wag the
dog?
Why do you keep posting this *****?
The truth does not change over time. The truth is however always
***** to conservatives because conservatives will believe anything
but the truth.
I wonder if he realizes his statement above makes him a bigot?
Naaa, I doubt it
This is the newest attempt of conservatives to twist a word or
phrase around to throw it back at the user. When in fact by
your definition as you use the word bigot, a slave would be
a bigot for demanding equal rights and equal treatment. That the
slave is a bigot because he is intolerant of his masters intolerance.
How dare he. The only ones with a homosexual agenda are your
lot (you Trent Lott) the homosexual agenda of hate.
The usual response of bigots is to accuse people of being in
one of the groups they hate.
You two keep snipping these URLs what smatter poor boo boos
are scared of the truth?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&s=alterman
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 09:20:46 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Matt <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in
news:c5jqm0$2i390$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before 9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
There were warnings regarding the possibility of highjacking, anyone
with atleast an ounce of lateral thinking would ask, "what else could
they use the plans for apart from a normal highjack, ask for prisoners
to release scenario". The fact is, although there was never any
*direct*, "this is what is going to happen", the least GWB could have
done was step up security at airports.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation" - Anonymous
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin
"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 11:50:01 AM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
I wouldn't go that far. No one could have predicted 9-11. Before 9-11,
hijackings never meant planes flying into buildings.
There were warnings regarding the possibility of highjacking, anyone
with atleast an ounce of lateral thinking would ask, "what else could
they use the plans for apart from a normal highjack, ask for prisoners
to release scenario". The fact is, although there was never any
*direct*, "this is what is going to happen", the least GWB could have
done was step up security at airports.
And it is not like this is the first time a plane has hit a building in
New York, the Empire State Building was hit by a smaller fighter
plane lost in a fog, anyone reading about this building would have
found that out, and there are movies about plots of planes hitting
buildings. The fact they had no scenario for this proves how inept
they are, and when they talk about Bush being the safer guy,
hell, he was the one reading Bunny the Rabbit "after" being told
4 planes had been hijacked, that one had hit the tower, and
still Bush saw reading Bunny the Rabbit at a photo-op toward
his reelection was more important than 3000+ lives and defending
this nation. By all his actions he acted like he and the secret service
knew this was going to happen and took no action to protect
the president or the children at a pre-announced location where
he might have been a targeted if it was not his buddy bin Laden.
Buddies don't kill each other.
THE GW BUSH--OSAMA BIN LADIN CONNECTION
James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a
cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to
set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from
the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between
GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit
International (BCCI) is well documented.
BCCI was the Bank of Crooks and Criminal Internationally.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "relic" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 12:05:31 PM |
|
|
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
--
- relic -
They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 12:24:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:05:31 GMT, relic wrote:
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
Most liberals can't understand that simple fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 12:37:54 PM |
|
|
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:1tpe6r502dosg.1ry0k821aeet2.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:05:31 GMT, relic wrote:
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
Most liberals can't understand that simple fact.
No, I think they understand it. They choose to purposely ignore and distort
while a Republican is sitting in the seat.
They would be singing a different tune if a Liberal Democrat was sitting in
the seat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 09:45:13 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:1tpe6r502dosg.1ry0k821aeet2.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:05:31 GMT, relic wrote:
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
Most liberals can't understand that simple fact.
No, I think they understand it. They choose to purposely ignore and distort
while a Republican is sitting in the seat.
They would be singing a different tune if a Liberal Democrat was sitting in
the seat.
Yet a person like you completely ignores the first post; both presidents
had the opportunity, with Clinton being the one who could have made the
biggest impact, on counting terrorism. The fact is, it wasn't done, it
wasn't done because there were no votes in it because terrorism wasn't
on the national agenda.
Matt
--
http://home.iprimus.com.au/matgarnz
"You don't have to live next to me, Just give me my
equality" - Nina Simone (Mississippi *****)
"Atheism is a non-prophet organisation" - Anonymous
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a
statistic." - Joseph Stalin
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." -
Joseph Stalin
"There are no morals in politics; there is only
expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just
because he is a scoundrel." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 10:37:01 PM |
|
|
"Matt" <kaiwainz@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:c5ksvp$2uaab$1@ID-220941.news.uni-berlin.de...
Osprey wrote:
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:1tpe6r502dosg.1ry0k821aeet2.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:05:31 GMT, relic wrote:
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
Most liberals can't understand that simple fact.
No, I think they understand it. They choose to purposely ignore and
distort
while a Republican is sitting in the seat.
They would be singing a different tune if a Liberal Democrat was sitting
in
the seat.
Yet a person like you completely ignores the first post; both presidents
had the opportunity,
Yet a person like you gets it wrong...again
with Clinton being the one who could have made the
biggest impact, on counting terrorism. The fact is, it wasn't done, it
wasn't done because there were no votes in it because terrorism wasn't
on the national agenda.
No kidding. And if you read some of my other post I have said basically the
same thing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 07:36:16 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:1tpe6r502dosg.1ry0k821aeet2.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:05:31 GMT, relic wrote:
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
Most liberals can't understand that simple fact.
No, I think they understand it. They choose to purposely ignore and distort
while a Republican is sitting in the seat.
They would be singing a different tune if a Liberal Democrat was sitting in
the seat.
Any other president would not be sitting in a class room reading
Bunny the Rabbit while the USA was under attack, and after
being told before going to thre school 4 planes had been hijacked
and one had hit the tower.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 08:21:54 PM |
|
|
"Daniel Horn" <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in message
news:407DD597.EC6A6674@Horn.uk...
Osprey wrote:
"Xomicron" <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:1tpe6r502dosg.1ry0k821aeet2.dlg@40tude.net...
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 17:05:31 GMT, relic wrote:
Matt wrote:
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four
years
of demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his
bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a
nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it
now seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence
that
Saudi Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an
attack on the United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept.
10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation
and,
in all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N.
Secretary-General Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry
King
Live," said the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal
likely would bring charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in
this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on
the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest
of
19 foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime"
was
attending American flight schools. The Council on
American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a
joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John
Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search
and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them
to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen
or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
You do realize that those same suggestions were made to Bill
Clinton
around 1997 but he never had them implemented.
Hence the reason I've maintained that both presidents are
responsible.
oo- I thought Usama was resonsible.
Most liberals can't understand that simple fact.
No, I think they understand it. They choose to purposely ignore and
distort
while a Republican is sitting in the seat.
They would be singing a different tune if a Liberal Democrat was sitting
in
the seat.
Loon alert...Loon Alert!!!!
Snipping out nonsense
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 09:19:53 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
Loon alert...Loon Alert!!!!
Snipping out nonsense
This coming from a guy with his tongue so far Xomicron' ***** that
you are licking his tonsils. The fact is where you live, on planet
La La, the truth looks loony.
Any other president would not be sitting in a class room reading
Bunny the Rabbit while the USA was under attack, and after
being told before going to the school 4 planes had been hijacked
and one had hit the tower.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20031006&s=alterman
http://www.oilempire.us/standdown.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 06:10:50 AM |
|
|
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407DEDE0.EBE2AFBB@Horn.uk:
Osprey wrote:
Loon alert...Loon Alert!!!!
Snipping out nonsense
This coming from a guy with his tongue so far Xomicron' ***** that
you are licking his tonsils. The fact is where you live, on planet
La La, the truth looks loony.
Any other president would not be sitting in a class room reading
Bunny the Rabbit while the USA was under attack, and after
being told before going to the school 4 planes had been hijacked
and one had hit the tower.
If you ever decide to read what you actually write, you will discover why we
are laughing so hard at you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 11:37:04 AM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407DEDE0.EBE2AFBB@Horn.uk:
Osprey wrote:
Loon alert...Loon Alert!!!!
Snipping out nonsense
This coming from a guy with his tongue so far Xomicron' ***** that
you are licking his tonsils. The fact is where you live, on planet
La La, the truth looks loony.
Any other president would not be sitting in a class room reading
Bunny the Rabbit while the USA was under attack, and after
being told before going to the school 4 planes had been hijacked
and one had hit the tower.
If you ever decide to read what you actually write, you will discover why we
are laughing so hard at you.
Nah, you are just so stupid, you think that tongue flapping around
at the back of your throat is yours, and that tiny little brain of
yours has to interpret it somehow, so you think you are laughing.
What are you stupid or something?
The only activist judges are George Bush and the Riech Wing
Republicans, actively prejudging the groups they hate.
The activist judges were the one that selected George Bush
to Supremely select him into the White House.
-- This wasn't about what San Francisco did -- it was
about appeasing the right wing of the Republican
Party. (To use some citizens for his own petty self
interest to get reelected.)
-- Bush was going after gay marriage as a way of
diverting attention from his record on the economy
and Iraq.
-- And Bush should keep his hands off the
Constitution.
-- "Stated simply, my actions are consistent with
California's constitution, the highest law of our state.
There is no ambiguity on our constitution when it
comes to discrimination. It is prohibited.
Mayor Gavin Newsom SF,CA Feb 18, 2004
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 12:44:35 PM |
|
|
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407EB6AA.3458F46E@Horn.uk:
-- This wasn't about what San Francisco did -- it was
about appeasing the right wing of the Republican
Party. (To use some citizens for his own petty self
interest to get reelected.)
-- Bush was going after gay marriage as a way of
diverting attention from his record on the economy
and Iraq.
He's going after it because it's an important issue for those who voted
for him, dumbass.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 06:26:58 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Daniel Horn <Daniel@Horn.uk> wrote in news:407EB6AA.3458F46E@Horn.uk:
-- This wasn't about what San Francisco did -- it was
about appeasing the right wing of the Republican
Party. (To use some citizens for his own petty self
interest to get reelected.)
-- Bush was going after gay marriage as a way of
diverting attention from his record on the economy
and Iraq.
He's going after it because it's an important issue for those who voted
for him, dumbass.
True, and that is because:
A Vote for Bush is a Vote for Bigotry.
It is a vote to yell: Segregation Now, Segregation Forever.
"The fact is that the GOP is still the only place where a klansman
can feel at home."
---David Duke, 2002
Bush's Louisiana campaign chairman, Gov. Mike Foster, was
fined $20,000 for purchasing mailing lists from Klansman
David Duke, an act Bush has yet to publicly comment on
despite repeated inquiries from the press.
While in South Carolina Bush went and spoke at Bob Jones
University. Bob Jones University is a university that
forbids its students from inter-racial dating. In South
Carolina by speaking at Bob Jones University he was
reaffirming to the southerners Reagan's stance. Bob Jones
represents one of Reagan's early signs of being antiblack.
Reagan fought to revoke the Internal Revenue Service's
authority to deny charitable tax exemptions to the school.
The denial was over the school's ban on interracial dating.
"I have watched carefully what's happened in San
Francisco, where licenses were being issued even
though the law states otherwise, I have
consistently stated that I'll support law
to protect marriage between a man and a woman.
Georgia Bush Feb 18, 2004
So Georgia Bush feels marriage should be decided by
the tyranny of the majority.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 08:12:46 PM |
|
|
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in message news:<esiq70547b50hgsk0t0c0on4pvsiq5qh58@4ax.com>...
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre attack
on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the United
Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring charges of
genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
But of course, if rightwingers could think that far ahead their
pea-sized brains would explode.
---Mack
The point is that if Bush had acted to thwart the hijacking he would
have had a much harder time convincing congress and the rest of the
world that an all out war and invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was a
good idea.
As he Cheney and Rumsfeld had already planned these events he needed a
foolproof excuse.
So he sat back, read his goat book and let it happen.
After all New Yorkers did not vote for him so they were expendable.
Quotation from the PNAC document:
"REBUILDING AMERICA'S DEFENSES
Strategy, Forces and Resources
For a New Century"
"A transformation strategy that solely
pursued capabilities for projecting force
from the United States, for example, and
sacrificed forward basing and presence,
would be at odds with larger American
policy goals and would trouble American
allies.
Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor."
Authored by Paul Wolfowitz amongst others in 1997.
From Rumsfelds 911 statement:
"But imagine for a moment that we were back before September 11, 2001.
Imagine that a U.S. President had
looked at the information then available, and gone before the Congress
and the world, and said: "We need to
invade Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and destroy the al-Qaeda
terrorist network," based on what little
was known before September 11th.
How many countries would have joined in a coalition? Many? Any? Not
likely.
We likely would have heard objections to "pre-emption" similar to
those voiced before the Coalition
launched Operation Iraqi Freedom."
As for getting Bin Laden before 911 Rumsfeld said this:
"Some have asked: Why wasn't bin Laden taken out, and if he had been
hit, would it have prevented
September 11 th ?
First, I know of no actionable intelligence since January 20, 2001
that would have allowed the U.S. to attack and capture or kill Usama
bin Laden."
Does this mean there was no "actionable intelligence" before January
20, 2001? If there was, why not act on it?
If there was not is he saying that Clinton was wrong to even try?
We do know that Clinton warned the new administration that
they would(should) be spending a lot of time and resources chasing
Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Not that they bothered much.
It would seem however that there was intelligence to justify action to
minimise the risk of hijackings
but less than nothing was done. Apart from warning Ashcroft off
commercial flights.
I believe that the Bush/ Rumsfeld story of 911 is full of holes.
There was clear evidence of their intended foreign policy but the only
way that they believed
they could get assent for it was to allow some horrific attack to
succeed on America. They were prepared to make the sacrifice.
That is sacrifice other Americans but not themselves. They just get
richer.
This has to be the most disingenuous and corrupt administration in
American history
and there have been a few led by both parties.
Stevel
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Diogenes" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 10:08:10 AM |
|
|
Mack North wrote:
On 14 Apr 2004 14:09:06 GMT, Xomicron <xomicron@wp.pl> wrote:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kathleenparker/kp20040410.shtml
In a Parallel Universe Called 'What If.'
Kathleen Parker
April 10, 2004
NEW YORK - President-elect John F. Kerry's rise to the nation's
highest office came as little surprise following almost four years of
demonstrations against President George W. Bush for his bizarre
attack on the defenseless people of Afghanistan.
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, was the right man for a nation
outraged by the Bush administration's pre-emptive war, which, it now
seems clear, was based on highly speculative intelligence that Saudi
Arabian-born terrorist Osama bin Laden was planning an attack on the
United States.
Absent absolute proof of such an imminent attack, Bush's Sept. 10
bombing of Afghanistan earned him international condemnation and, in
all likelihood, an indictment in coming weeks. U.N. Secretary-General
Kofi Annan, appearing last night on "Larry King Live," said the
United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal likely would bring
charges of genocide against Bush.
Ah, the mysteries of the neocon mind. What exactly would bombing
Afghanistan accomplish, especially since 9/11 was thwarted in this
case? (Hint: a lot of ***** Arabs and bin Laden still on the
loose).
Bush also faces federal charges at home for his baseless arrest of 19
foreign nationals, many of them native Saudis, whose "crime" was
attending American flight schools. The Council on American-Islamic
Relations has joined the American Civil Liberties Union in a joint
suit against both Bush and former Attorney General John Ashcroft,
charging racial profiling, unlawful arrest and illegal search and
seizure.
If Dubya is so suspicious, why not put heavy surveillance on them to
catch them in the act? Surely extra airport security and a dozen or
so undercover agents on each plane would have thwarted a hijack
attempt.
But of course, if rightwingers could think that far ahead their
pea-sized brains would explode.
---Mack
Mack, I'm curious... don't you get embarrased when you actually _read_ what
you write?
--
Diogenes
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mack North" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
14 Apr 2004 10:53:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:08:10 GMT, "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr>
wrote:
Mack, I'm curious... don't you get embarrased when you actually _read_ what
you write?
Try learning how to spell "embarrassed" first, kid.
Spanked.
---Mack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Xomicron" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 12:41:14 PM |
|
|
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:0d1s701mc5l1sr8hi295iia6h9tas8jupe@4ax.com:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:08:10 GMT, "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr>
wrote:
Mack, I'm curious... don't you get embarrased when you actually _read_
what you write?
Try learning how to spell "embarrassed" first, kid.
When all else fails, there's always spelling flames, eh *****?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daniel Horn" |
|
| Title: Re: What if Bush *had* acted on 09/10/2001? |
15 Apr 2004 06:33:45 PM |
|
|
Xomicron wrote:
Mack North <root@yomama.edu> wrote in
news:0d1s701mc5l1sr8hi295iia6h9tas8jupe@4ax.com:
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:08:10 GMT, "Diogenes" <diogenes@sinope.gr>
wrote:
Mack, I'm curious... don't you get embarrased when you actually _read_
what you write?
Try lea | | | | | |
