johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,569
A requirement remarkably less stringent than those used to determine if a gun-brandishing Conservative intends to shoot census workers, it would seem.
Split Thread Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, truthers?
- Thread starter Cicero
- Start date
A requirement remarkably less stringent than those used to determine if a gun-brandishing Conservative intends to shoot census workers, it would seem.
Shalamar
Dark Lord of the JREF
I think Cicero is trying to claim that because these liberals may be truthers, it is ok for a conservative to scare census workers with shotguns.
Or something.
Did you miss Regnad Kcin's post #46? He posts this obsession of his regardless of thread title.
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
Or it could mean that the Bush Administration ignored the intelligence and because of that 9/11 occurred. But I m just taking the statement at face value, I don't have the luxury of slipping into Bab's mind to re-interpret something.
No need to slip into Babs' void.
"6. KNOWING ABOUT THE IMPENDING HIJACKINGS, BUSH DID NOTHING TO BEEF UP AIRLINE SECURITY" Barbara Streisand October 26, 2004
Babs is specific that Bush 43 personally knew about the actual Al-Qaeda plot to hijack the airliners and took zero actions to foil this known in advance plot. At face value, that is the view of a LIHOPer.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
Was it actionable? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think Bush would have been cut much slack by the media if this were released on 9/12/01. I don't think Obama would be cut much slack if he got a memo like this and didn't dig deeper or take any notable action as a result.
Were we warned? Absolutely.
Was it intentionally ignored by the Bush administration so that it would come to pass? I don't think so.
Biscuit
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Messages
- 6,929
You can look at it like that but perhaps she was stating that Bush could have taken terrorist threats more seriously before 9/11 and thus his inaction is to blame for the events of 9/11.
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
And yet you still can't support your statement that "Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn proclaim 9/11 was an inside job."
You see, here on Planet Rational, words mean things.
Hey, if the words and actions of Babs and Penn are insufficient for you to conclude the former is a LIHOPer and the latter is a Truth Movement supporter that's your problem. But do keep asking for links that support their troofer beliefs. It is amusing to watch you ignore and dismiss the facts.
BTW: The problem may be that you live on a Planet called "Rational" while the rest of us mortals live on a planet called Earth.
Last edited:
Babs does.
Alan
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,714
None of your Streisand quotes suggest that she thinks the Bush administration Let It Happen On Purpose.
Please show me a quote where she said that the Bush administration intentionally didn't stop the 9/11 attacks because they wanted them to happen.
Please show me a quote where she said that the Bush administration intentionally didn't stop the 9/11 attacks because they wanted them to happen.
That particular quote doesn't seem to indicate her belief one way or the other.
Babs blames Bush 43 personally for knowing in advance about the hijacking plot that was to happen on 911 and that he took no precautions to stop it. This is also touted by David Ray Griffin, the pied piper of the troother set.
"Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration"
DRG also shares Babs' suspicions about what Bush did, or didn't do, on the morning of 9/11/01.
"Bush and the Secret Service: Further evidence of advance knowledge is shown by the behavior of President Bush and his secret service agents during the photo-op at the school in Florida that morning. According to the official story, when Bush was first told that a plane had struck one of the Twin Towers, he dismissed the incident as merely a "horrible accident," which meant that they could go ahead with the photo-op." DRG
"8.BUSH WAS INACTIVE AND INDECISIVE FOR A FULL 7 MINUTES THE MORNING OF 9/11 WHEN INFORMED OF THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER. IF BUSH HAD ACTED QUICKLY AND INTELLIGENTLY PERHAPS HE COULD HAVE GIVEN AN ORDER TO SHOOT DOWN THE PLANE HEADED TOWARD THE PENTAGON AND SAVED THE LIVES OF THOSE WHO WERE KILLED" Barbara Streisand October 26, 2004
Does Babs blame FDR for Pearl Harbor? If not, why does she blame Bush 43 for acting or not acting in the same way as FDR did in the events leading up to 12/7/41? It is the same LIHOP nonsense.
Alan
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2009
- Messages
- 3,714
I'm not interested in her saying that Bush didn't do enough, or that he was incompetent, or quotes from people other than Streisand. I'm looking for Barbra Streisand suggesting that Bush let the attacks happen on purpose. That is, that he or his administration knew in advance and didn't do anything because they wanted it to happen. Without that, she's not a LIHOP proponent.
It's perfectly reasonable to think that people (Clinton, Bush, others) didn't do enough to prevent the attacks or could have handled them better once they were happening. If there was better intelligence, if there was less confusion, if things based on chance went another way... But it is not reasonable to believe in LIHOP, MIHOP or other truther fantasies.
I don't have an investment in whether any celebrity is a truther or not. If you could show that she thinks that Bush let the attacks happen on purpose, I wouldn't have any bias standing in the way of me accepting that. It's just that I noticed that the quotes you are providing don't back up what you were saying.
It's perfectly reasonable to think that people (Clinton, Bush, others) didn't do enough to prevent the attacks or could have handled them better once they were happening. If there was better intelligence, if there was less confusion, if things based on chance went another way... But it is not reasonable to believe in LIHOP, MIHOP or other truther fantasies.
I don't have an investment in whether any celebrity is a truther or not. If you could show that she thinks that Bush let the attacks happen on purpose, I wouldn't have any bias standing in the way of me accepting that. It's just that I noticed that the quotes you are providing don't back up what you were saying.
Last edited:
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
Cicero, that's one fine looking dog in your avatar.
Oh, and you're a little obsessed, aren't you? The guy who says he's going to show up to greet census takers at his door with a shotgun isn't actually making any threats, because well, in Ciceroland, you need smoking guns and ironclad proof before you can say such a thing about a person just exercising his First and Second Amendment rights, after all. Unless you can cite the specific line where he said he was going to commit a violent act, then there's no call to read between the lines. (Because the guy's a whackjob conservative nutbar.)
But known liberal (cue booing and hissing sounds) Barbra Streisand says what apparently (to everyone not a citizen of Ciceroland) are a bunch of comments on Bush's incompetence and densitude,... well that's really clear. She's not just exercising her rights of Free Speech and Association - she's clearly a LIHOPer, I mean you can see right through her actual words to get to the REAL meaning. It's so obvious. (Because the woman's a whackjob liberal nutbar.)
Oh, and you're a little obsessed, aren't you? The guy who says he's going to show up to greet census takers at his door with a shotgun isn't actually making any threats, because well, in Ciceroland, you need smoking guns and ironclad proof before you can say such a thing about a person just exercising his First and Second Amendment rights, after all. Unless you can cite the specific line where he said he was going to commit a violent act, then there's no call to read between the lines. (Because the guy's a whackjob conservative nutbar.)
But known liberal (cue booing and hissing sounds) Barbra Streisand says what apparently (to everyone not a citizen of Ciceroland) are a bunch of comments on Bush's incompetence and densitude,... well that's really clear. She's not just exercising her rights of Free Speech and Association - she's clearly a LIHOPer, I mean you can see right through her actual words to get to the REAL meaning. It's so obvious. (Because the woman's a whackjob liberal nutbar.)
Lurker
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 15, 2002
- Messages
- 4,189
No disputing DRG is a total idiot. I myself assumed on first hearing the news that it was a terrible accident. that DRG thinks this is impossible to think places ME along with Bush in on it. Therefore, by DRG logic, I am in on hte conspiracy!
While I disagree with the "shoot down" dentiment, I don't disagree with Babs. I fail to see ANYTHING in here that suggests LIHOP. I am quite confused that you do, Ciccero. I see nothing here about advanced knowledge. I see nothing in here about LIHOP. I see nothing here that compares to DRG's logical leap to LIHOP conclusion. Babs states that had Bush acted quickly to the first plane, future lives may have been saved. Nothing LIHOP there at all.
No, it is not. If we assume Bush somehow knew right away that the first plane was not an accidnet and was a terrorist, then one would logically presume that Bush should have acted faster in mobilizing. I think Babs makes the mistake of hindsight being 20/20 and forgets that it was easy to assume the first plane was an accident (as I had) and not mobilize. That is what Babs is guilty of, judging actions with the knowledge of hindsight. It does not imply that Babs thinks Bush knew about the attacks beforehand. I know plenty of people that think just like Babs does here and I *know* they are not LIHOP. (although I do have one friend who is MIHOP!!)
You do realize there is a difference between being warned of potential hijackings and not reacting to those warnings, and knowing of the specific plot and willfully ignoring that danger in order for it to be carried out to completion, right?
The former is simply incompetence, the latter is malevolence. The former is what happened, though some people believe the latter. DRG obviously believes the latter. As for Babs, all of the quotes I've seen from her in this thread point to the former.
Last edited:
Babs says Bush 43 knew about the "hijackings" of commercial airliners in advance. She doesn't say some terrorist plot, or a "hijacking," she is specifically talking about the 4 planes hijacked on 9/11. Babs is also saying Bush 43 willfully ignored the danger.
Was FDR incompetent or malevolent regarding the handling of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor?
BTW: When you say "the former is what happened," is that the official and historical truth about 911? Where did you read this?
A'isha
Miss Schoolteacher
Where did she say that? You yourself quoted her as saying "BUSH WAS INACTIVE AND INDECISIVE FOR A FULL 7 MINUTES THE MORNING OF 9/11 WHEN INFORMED OF THE ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER."
She says quite plainly that Bush was inactive for seven minutes after being informed of the attack on the morning of 9/11. That's some pretty useless "advance knowledge" there.