the use of the English language problems not withstanding...thi should be good:
torgos_pizza (36 posts) Fri Nov-07-08 12:01 PM
Original message
If Bush and his handlers really carried on 9/11. then why is he giving up power?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x227541
The crime of Bush and his minions was not causing 9/11, but exploiting it for political gain.
Bush can't be called an idiot, yet be given credit for carrying out 9/11 and covering it up with no leaks of any kind- If there is one thing the Bush administration accomplished, it's establishing their across the board incompetence. If the Bushies did carry out 9/11, they were anything BUT incompitant..
That being said, i defend the Truthers right to their beliefs, and encourage them to seek the truth....
I do have a question, for those who think Bush, Cheney, etc were behind 9/11- If they carried this out as a means to seize power- then why are they walking away from it all, and allowing Obama and the Democrats to assume power? Had Bush canceled the election, I might have been persuaded to think there may have been involvement with 9/11- but Bush leaving and Obama coming it has convinced me 9/11 was in no way an inside job. If it was, Bush wouldn't let something like an election depose him.
AND, we're off to the races!!!
Ghost in the Machine (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
1. Once again, someone uses the failed premise that it was Bush himself...
instead of actors within the Bush *administration*. George Bush is an incurious idiot who is nothing more than a puppethead for the PNACers. He was the perfect front. They let him come out and make a fool of himself just to give the illusion of incompetence. Yes, *Georgie* is incompetent, but the puppetmasters pulling the strings behind the curtains sure aren't. Being incompetent doesn't accomplish all your goals, does it? Look how much they gained.
It wasn't Bush who did the planning, it was the neocons, through PNAC, who did the planning. This is why Cheney chose himself as V.P. when he was in charge of finding a V.P. for Bush.
Just follow the PNAC trail... look at the PNACers in high places in the government and military: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, JEB Bush,.... put the pieces of the puzzle together, it's not that hard.
Peace,
Ghost
You have to love Ghost's ability to throw any sane thought out the window, nail the window shut, and then cover the window in 3 inches of lead.
RedSock (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-08 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
2. "but Bush leaving and Obama coming"
A peaceful transition of power has not happened yet.
Just sayin'.
...(One thing I have learned in the last 8 years is to never, ever, ever say "Well, they wouldn't do THAT.")
Now, in four years we may have a problem. Doubt we will in Jan 09.
petgoat (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-08 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
3. What makes you think they're giving up power?
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 01:08 PM by petgoat
They're not seizing power because they can't. They're too unpopular, things
are too screwed up, and won't get away with it. The success of their neo-fascist
program is that nobody noticed. Overtly seizing power through election fraud or
emergency legislation was not practical.
And it's not necessary. They hold the cards. They've handed Obama the Augean
stables to clean, and they're going to do everything they can to obstruct and
thwart him, and blame him for his failures. They can certainly arrange military
embarrassments for him (as was done for Carter and Clinton) and another 9/11 might
cause a Republican sweep in 2012. They're not just going away.
Besides, Obama won't dare pursue any meaningful change--taking down the Federal
Reserve and the CIA and the military-industrial complex, for instance. He's
already declared a hawkish nature. And he can't afford any fancy social programs.
So from their standpoint, how much damage can he do? He's the ideal front man
for them--the one who may not even know he's a front.
Nothing changes, we just switched from Sprite to Pepsi, that's all.
What in the hell? Destroy our money system, security, AND the military?
petgoat (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-07-08 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Because the debt-based monetary system is the source of corruption.
Edited on Fri Nov-07-08 02:34 PM by petgoat
Why do we have wars? Because they make the bankers rich!
Waste and destruction are the font of debt. When everybody
has everything they need, nobody borrows. What's right wing
about copping to that?
My Green friends are fully aware of the corruption inherent in
the fractional reserve banking system. Dems know too, but
they're all on the take.
Petgoat is crazier than a...pet goat.
noise (969 posts) Sat Nov-08-08 01:57 AM
Response to Original message
22. CIA withholding of intel
Edited on Sat Nov-08-08 02:11 AM by noise
related to alHazmi and alMihdhar started in January 2000. Richard Clarke was a bigshot back then. Why won't he tell the public what happened? President Clinton was in office at the time. Why did Clinton's national security adviser Sandy Berger steal al Qaeda related documents from National Archives and then destroy them? Do you think this isn't important because an asshole like Rush Limbaugh uses it to bash Democrats? To reiterate, CIA was protecting al Qaeda operatives during the Clinton administration's time in office.
Bush vs. Clinton and Rice vs. Clarke debates are too simplistic. I don't care what party they are from. A lot of people were murdered and these officials owe the public some answers.
ETA: Bush vs. Clinton debates remind me of the binary "with us or against us argument." As if the choices are limited to support for Bush's police state or Bin Laden's Sharia law. That is a stupid argument yet the GOP and many of their supporters think acceptance of this crap is patriotic. With regard to 9/11 it is possible to despise Bin Laden and question whether US officials told the truth about 9/11. It isn't an either/or choice.
1. Why did CIA withold intel from January 2000 through August 2001?
2. Why did the NSA fail to seek FISA warrants or alert the FBI so they could seek the warrants?
3. Why did the FBI UBLU (Bin Laden unit) withhold intel from the Cole investigators which prevented these agents from heading the search for alHazmi and alMihdhar?
CJCRANE (1000+ posts) Sat Nov-08-08 07:22 AM
Response to Original message
27. Why did Musharraf give up power?
Why does any leader give up power?
You give up power when the other guy has more supporters - both voters and inside the govt. For me that is the crucial difference - I believe Obama has support within the bureacracies - the Pentagon, State Dept, Langley, the Treasury etc because they want a return to competence.
The Pentagon?
The people in the Pentagon think you've elected McClellen...without the redeaming qulities.
