That's a whole lot of lying. And SCHEMING!
It's almost as if they knew 9/11 was going to happen.
Huh.
War criminals. They should be tried, convicted and hung for war crimes including murdering thousands of innocents. There is no justice.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2008 04:21 PMMV, you're not going there, are you? Heh. Besides, this is about Iraq lies, innit?
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2008 04:21 PMMaskedVigilante, of course they knew. It was part of the plan.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2008 04:22 PMIt gives me such a hopeless feeling to see it all spelled out so clearly and know that no one is going to do anything about it. Isn't someone at least trying to impeach Cheney? Why hasn't there been more news on this?
Posted by CG at January 23, 2008 04:41 PMAs long as the 911 atrocity is not truly investigated and the official narrative, limited and unproven as it is, is the only one propragated by the CONgress and corporate media, the US will continue to rot from within.
Specific areas ignored by the 911 "cover your ass" Commission relate to who financed and who enabled this despicable act.
Conspiracy theories flourish in the absence of transparancy. This administation lies freely about everything...why on earth would anyone believe they are truthfull about 911?
An independent and well funded investigation is needed, including sworn public testimony from Cheney and Bush. Without it, there is no more America...it is an illusion and a sad one at that.
Posted by brisa at January 23, 2008 04:51 PM"why hasn't there been more news on this?"
CG, that's almost comic. You know why.
Please, let's hold back with the 9/11 conspiracy theories for once.
Posted by euzoius at January 23, 2008 05:00 PMActually, CG, Rachel Maddow had one of the guys who put this together on Air America this afternoon - they talked about how much coverage they got by most of the cable news, and on the web and seemed very pleased by it. It's a nifty searchable thing, even chronologically, so if you looked up "aluminum tubes" you could find who said what about them when. Then, you could find out at what point they knew they were telling "falsehoods" when they pushed the tubes talking point. Pretty cool.
Goddammit, Vigilante! Lookit what you did! I'll get you for this!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 23, 2008 05:12 PMCG, that is exactly how I feel.
Brisa, how right you are and how sad it is indeed.
Posted by Judith at January 23, 2008 05:15 PM
first you must understand that these so called leaders are hiding behind the bible.(thank you religious rite) for the eye for an eye, go as low as they go old testament theme. This gives them a morality credit card to spread lies, death,and WAR MONEY for all their rich defense buddies.As for why they did it this way,WE LET THEM!! their still high fiving each other.As for why no one is doing anything about it. WE ARE ALL TO BLAME!!!ALL we want is our fancy house, fast cars, big bank accounts, spoiled kids and designer dogs.THINK ABOUT IT .Before we can do anything we have to kick our selves first for being so stupid before we start cleaning the house and senate .We still have alot of looking at the person in the mirror .
Posted by ron at January 23, 2008 05:25 PMLatest Arizona ASU poll on our local CBS news:
(Our Governor has endorsed Obama)
1.McCain 41%
2.Romney 18%
1.Clinton 45%
2.Obama 18%
(+/-5%)
Posted by TIKI AL at January 23, 2008 05:49 PMtiki,
hillary's well ahead in most of the feb. 5 states.
Posted by Turkana at January 23, 2008 06:55 PMPlease, let's hold back with the 9/11 conspiracy theories for once.
Actually, if you apply logic and reason to the known evidence there are a lot of open, unresolved questions.
Add to that the undisputed reality that a lot of people benefited from the event of that day -- to the tune of billions of dollars. And that this result was predictable.
Add to that the fact that in the days after 9/11 there were numerous reports of excessive stock option puts and short sells against AA and UA .. and then the press was totally silent on this topic.
Add to that the Bush administration behavior regarding 9/11 investigations. From stonewalling to their "unusual" conditions for the 9/11 commission's interviewing of Bush.
Again, it is irrational in the face of this to assume, without evidence, that of course the 9/11 bombers acted independently, funded by OBL, and in complete secret. The demand for a full, transparent investigation is the only rational response.
Posted by Commenter from afar at January 23, 2008 07:19 PMThe sad news is that Hillary supported the war, and continues to support the war. Hillary would continue the war. Yet, she gets support from people who are "supposedly" against the war.
I know Hillary is going to win, because the corporate fix is in. She'll be 4 more years of Bush-lite. Sad for our country.
Posted by Burt at January 23, 2008 07:31 PMHans Blix, Mohamed ElBaradei, Mel Goodman, Charles Hanley, Joseph Hoar, Larry Johnson, Ted Kennedy, John Brady Kiesling, Dennis Kucinich, Jonathan Landay, Barack Obama, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Eric Shinseki, Warren Strobel, James Webb, Joseph Wilson, Anthony Zinni, millions of sensible American citizens and those of its allies saw through these lies. They opposed the moral depravity those lies justified and the inevitable strategic disaster that would be their legacy. All to no avail.
No, the incredible assortment of corporate hardware salesmen, Likud shills, oil patch cronies, news bunnies, bobble heads and beltway detritus comprising our brilliant national security elite simply had to have their splendid little cakewalk in the Land of the Two Rivers. Now that it's clearly failed, with Iran the most obvious beneficiary, this same gaggle of parasitic losers lacks the simple decency and common sense to end it quickly and mercifully, thus willfully compounding the disaster needlessly.
We're ruled by damaged people, al Qaeda's sole indispensible allies.
Posted by Pvt. Keepout at January 23, 2008 08:52 PMI agree that it's a weird schizophrenia from Hillary supporters who are also against the war.
There is a story out of Britain today about that bit of crap of Saddam being able to launch missiles that would hit Britain in 45 minutes. The Downing Street Memo stuff is getting dissected.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 23, 2008 08:54 PMThis might seem naive, but I am still holding out hope that once the fucker and vice fucker are out of office and cannot use the power of the US government to put up firewalls and send behind-the-scenes-misinformation into the ozone, that they will end up at The Hague facing war crimes charges and crimes against humanity charges.
Yes, it is a dream....but in this season of hope, it is all I (we?) have got.
Posted by jcricket at January 23, 2008 10:07 PMGoddammit, Vigilante! Lookit what you did! I'll get you for this!
Hey, what'd I tell you yesterday? TROOTH BOMBS!
Lying and scheming to this extent is not a drop of the hat kinda thing. And it's not, "Hey, look what happened! Now we can further that agenda we've been planning on!"
I'm glad this is opening some minds. Now go back and look over the circumstantial clues. The stock options. Building 7. The fact that no skyscraper in history has ever been brought down by fire in the history of construction.
Just go look and draw your own conclusions. I'll wait patiently.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 05:10 AMThere should be a metal detector at the entrance to this thread. Please remove your tin foil fedoras.
Picture thousands of DMV workers chatting while on cigarette breaks. Now picture these people in charge of seeing 9-11 coming or New Orleans flooding.
I rest my case.
Oh, and the trade center buildings were fabricated from recycled aluminum window blinds with q-tips for rivets.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 24, 2008 06:18 AMThe fact that no skyscraper in history has ever been brought down by fire in the history of construction.
There was a time prior to which no human had ever experienced powered flight too.
There was a time when no human being had ever set foot on the surface of the moon too. (Or do you believe that the Apollo missions were a fake too?)
Do you have any understanding whatsoever of the specific contruction of WTC Building 7? The building was not simply on fire. It suffered an indetrminate degree of structural damage when a 100 plus story building next to it completely collapsed. The NIST updated the status of it's investigation in December. They will be releasing their reports starting in February beginning with their determination as to the nature of the initiating collapse event.
So yes, just keep waiting patiently.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 06:32 AMLook how quickly the "tin foil hats" and "oh i suppose the moon landing was fake too" talking points come out.
I don't care whether you believe it or not. Buy the story, go back to sleep. I'm only posting because coyote called me out by name.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 06:47 AMBuy the story, go back to sleep.
Show me some evidence that Building 7 could not have collapsed according to the NIST's working hypothesis and stop talking about 'circumstantial evidence'. You're the one who offered the "it's never happened before " canard as evidence that it could never happen dim wit.
I'm not asleep. But you are fantasizing.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 06:51 AMWhy does this make you so angry, snark? Ever think about that?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 06:56 AMI'm still convinced that 9/11 was allowed to happen. How did NORAD and the FAA become so inept on that day? Euz it's theory until it's proven.
Posted by JohnT at January 24, 2008 06:58 AMWhy does this make you so angry, snark? Ever think about that?
You mistake passion for anger.
The same canards are repeated over and over again no matter how many times they are debunked.
Having someone cite bogus 'evidence' and then tell me I'm the one sleeping evokes a response from me. Why is it you can't understand that?
Am I expected to read your nonsense and just overlook it? Is that what you'd like? No one to disrupt your fantasy?
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 07:04 AMHow did NORAD and the FAA become so inept on that day?
Here's your answer.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 07:17 AMHaving someone cite bogus 'evidence' and then tell me I'm the one sleeping evokes a response from me. Why is it you can't understand that?
I never said "evidence". I said "circumstantial clues".
It amazes me that you can look at the documented history of lying about the events that transpired as a direct result of 9/11 and not even question whether 9/11 itself was an intended event.
And it's not that you refuse to question it -- you PASSIONATELY refuse to question it and PASSIONATELY denounce and name call anybody who does.
Again, I don't care what you think nor do I care to convince anybody of anything. I said, "Draw your own conclusions" and clearly you have. I'm just a lunatic in a tin foil hat and you are 100% spot on.
Okay?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 07:22 AMNow the "moon landing" set is a different story. It's here in Arizona, and we enjoy having picnics next to the Sea of Tranquility on Sundays.
It is very peaceful there, and I contemplate for hours about who really killed JFK, and why Mrs. Lincoln would shoot her own husband in a crowded theatre.
Medication time....medication time.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 24, 2008 07:42 AMLovely chapeau you have there, MV! I've seen snark's full argument several times, and it's convincing. He's passionate about it, as am I, because the crackpot theories render any inquiry into the actual events of the day impossible because no one wants to look like they're pandering to the looneys. In essence, you and the other conspiracy theorists are giving Bush cover for his incompetence surrounding 9-11.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 07:47 AMLovely chapeau you have there, MV!
That's the second time in two days you've made me go to dictionary.com. 8) Now I'm wearing a hood of some sort that I'm hiding behind. Maybe. I just don't really wanna talk about it. Aside from my inital, vague comment.
In essence, you and the other conspiracy theorists are giving Bush cover for his incompetence surrounding 9-11.
That is a wild conclusion, coyote. I don't accept any responsibility for that. This was the greatest crime to take place in our country since the JFK assassination. Lots of people would like to see a truly independent investigation, if such a thing actually exists.
Look, please move on. Everyone. As much as I'd love to spend the day debating this issue, I'm at work and I don't have the time. I'm just the crazy Chapeaud Vigilante and the lying started after 9/11.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 08:21 AMThat is a wild conclusion, coyote.
Well we all know you're familiar with those.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 09:07 AM
That is a wild conclusion, coyote.
Is it? Have you noticed how many people roll their eyes when you try to tell them Bush masterminded 9-11? Oh, some will listen, but most will just ignore it. I think there were a lot of missteps and criminal negligence that went on prior to, during and after that day that should be looked into, like lack of proper communication between agencies, no clear command structure, poorly equipped monitoring agencies, the EPA's horrific denial that the air was fine and dandy to breathe, etc., not to mention the ignored warnings, that all get overshadowed by the "Building 7 was an inside job!" crowd. And none of this shit was ever fixed, either.
So, yeah, you're not totally responsible for the lack of investigation, but you're not helping, either. Now, get back to work, dammit!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 09:15 AMI never said Bush masterminded this. I don't believe that.
Snark, you don't even know my conclusions. Bugger off.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 09:17 AMYou may not have said it explicity, MV, but that's the crowd you're encouraging, in my view. But we've had this go-round before, and I'm not really into it today so you guys go for it if you want. Still, since I didn't like the "bugger off" comment, I'm gonna poke you with the latest poll from Florida showing Ron Paul trailing Fred Thompson. And this was done after Thompson quit. So there! Phlllpppltt!
Posted by iamcoyote at January 24, 2008 09:48 AMWhy so angry MV?
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 10:23 AMI got nuthin' but love.
Posted by MaskedVigilante at January 24, 2008 12:09 PMI got nuthin' but love.
Too bad, if you had a brain the conversation would be more interesting.
Your problem MV is that YOUR argument is all about PASSION and not about evidence. The lies that the Bushies have told since that day have nothing to do with the physical evidence of what happened on September 11, 2001. You cited "Building 7" and "no skyscraper in history has ever been brought down by fire" as clues. But when challanged on them you get all defensive. You said you'd wait patiently while we formed our conclusions but then claim you have no interest in what anyone else thinks. You say you're glad that eyes are being opened but close yours and turn tail when confronted with actual facts.
There's no there there in anything you've written on this issue. It's all just PASSION and your hatred of the Bushies. And not about the evidence.
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 01:39 PMIs anybody else curious as to why, after Andrew Card whispered into dubya's ear while he was reading about a goat that "we're under attack", that the Secret Service didn't whisk him out of there? Isn't that their sole purpose for being is to protect the President? Without knowing what was going on seems they would have errored on the side of caution and moved him to a safe place. It could be just me though...
Posted by curious at January 24, 2008 02:31 PM...the Secret Service didn't whisk him out of there? Isn't that their sole purpose for being is to protect the President?
What tells you that 'wisking him out of there' would have in anyway enhanced their ability to 'protect the president'? You're making a big assumption. What do you know about the specifics of Secret Service protocol?
Without knowing what was going on seems they would have errored on the side of caution and moved him to a safe place.
A need to 'Move him to a safe place' assumes two things. That he was not deemed to be safe where he was. And that 'moving him' would not have potentially put him into more danger than he was in exactly where he was.
Also, the implication of the Secret Service being 'in on the plan' unnecessarily expands the number of people who would need to be 'in on the plan'. Why purposefully give the Secret Service info that would make them seem to act sucpiciously (to people like yourself) when allowing the Secret Service to wisk Bush out of the room and immediately back to Air Force One would have avoided questions like this from ever being asked? From the point of any possible conspirators it makes no sense for the Secret Service agents to know about 'the plan'. What possible reason could a conspirator have to want the SS to act in anything but a completely ordinary manner if their intent is to keep the whole thing hush hush?
Posted by snark at January 24, 2008 02:58 PM