Split Thread Barbra Streisand, Sean Penn, truthers?

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.

Maybe you do not wish to confront your own secret troother. Those who agree with Babs are listed on this troother website. If they are hard up for names why not include Ed Asner, Jesse Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell as well?

56. Barbara Streisand now a 9-11 Truther

http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html

Barbara Streisand now joins the long list of people who agree 9-11 was an Inside Job.


http://nephilim.realrepublic.com/911essentials.htm

Do you also doubt that the other people mentioned on the website, Charlie Sheen, James Streisand, Eric Linkleter, David Lynch, Bruce Willis, Aaron Russo, Michael Meacher, David Shayler, etc are troothers?
 
Last edited:
Guys, take it to 9/11 conspiracies.

I'd really like to know how this related to threats against Census workers.
 
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.

DRG says the same thing. You seem to be making his case that Bush 43 wanted the plan to go ahead by being inactive when he was informed of the first jet hitting the WTC.
 
Guys, take it to 9/11 conspiracies.

I'd really like to know how this related to threats against Census workers.

This was already explained to you in post #104

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.
 
Maybe you do not wish to confront your own secret troother.
Oh, I have. Worry not.

Those who agree with Babs are listed on this troother website. If they are hard up for names why not include Ed Asner, Jesse Ventura, Rosie O'Donnell as well?

56. Barbara Streisand now a 9-11 Truther

http://www.barbrastreisand.com/statements.html

Dude, nothing at that website. Try it. nothing.

Do you also doubt that the other people mentioned on the website, Charlie Sheen, James Streisand, Eric Linkleter, David Lynch, Bruce Willis, Aaron Russo, Michael Meacher, David Shayler, etc are troothers?


Look, I have no idea if these people are truthers or not. I would not be so dumb as to use a truther website to tell me if they are or not. Perhaps you are that gullible. Willis? Sin't he kind of a Republican? I truly doubt he is a truther. But like truthers, if you can bend someone's word to have the faintest possibility that it could be interpreted as support for their cause then you will. Sorry, the rest of us don't do that. We leave those tactics to the truthers...and to you.

Anyway, is brandishing a firearm at your front door a threat or not? I say yes. You say...?
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz has nicely summed up the thread-relevance this tangent has:
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.)

Of course, Cicero has decided to make it all about 9/11 Truthers, while ignoring the larger issue of what a collosal, partisan hypocrite he is.
 
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.
"KNOWING ABOUT THE IMPENDING HIJACKINGS, BUSH DID NOTHING TO BEEF UP AIRLINE SECURITY" Barbara Streisand October 26, 2004
Hijackings were warned about weeks before 9/11. Babs' quote isn't very specific, nor is the August 6th PDB. I'd be hard pressed to call her a truther based on this quote alone. Especially given the fact that hijackings were warned about shortly before 9/11.


Was FDR incompetent or malevolent regarding the handling of the events leading up to Pearl Harbor?
I'm not sure FDR received a PDB entitled "Hirihito determined to strike in the US" weeks before 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?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The following is a transcript of the August 6, 2001, presidential daily briefing entitled Bin Laden determined to strike in US. Parts of the original document were not made public by the White House for security reasons.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a -- -- service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told - - service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S.

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in ---, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveyed our embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks.

Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a ---- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.
The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full-field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

Bush just didn't have his eye on the ball the way Clinton did. As soon as 9/11 happened, that's when Bush started worrying about terrorism.

"Oops!"
 
Hijackings were warned about weeks before 9/11. Babs' quote isn't very specific, nor is the August 6th PDB. I'd be hard pressed to call her a truther based on this quote alone. Especially given the fact that hijackings were warned about shortly before 9/11.

You may be hard pressed, but her comments are good enough for troothers, and one of these unabashed troothers happens to be her husband.

I'm not sure FDR received a PDB entitled "Hirihito determined to strike in the US" weeks before Pearl Harbor.

And Bush 43 didn't get a PDB entitled "commercial airliners would be hijacked to be used against the WTC, Pentagon and White House on 9/11/01." What has never been in dispute is that prior to 12/7/41, FDR knew that the Japanese embassy in D.C. had been instructed to deliver a certain message to the U.S. government at 1 p.m. on 12/7/41 and then destroy their "Magic" cipher machine and secret documents. FDR knew something of monumental importance was about to happen, but he did not know exactly where this attack would occur.

How is Bush 43 any more at fault for 9/11 than FDR is for Pearl?


Bush just didn't have his eye on the ball the way Clinton did. As soon as 9/11 happened, that's when Bush started worrying about terrorism.

"Oops!"

Is that the same ball POTUS Clinton was watching when the WTC was bombed back in 2/26/93?
 
And Bush 43 didn't get a PDB entitled "commercial airliners would be hijacked to be used against the WTC, Pentagon and White House on 9/11/01." What has never been in dispute is that prior to 12/7/41, FDR knew that the Japanese embassy in D.C. had been instructed to deliver a certain message to the U.S. government at 1 p.m. on 12/7/41 and then destroy their "Magic" cipher machine and secret documents. FDR knew something of monumental importance was about to happen, but he did not know exactly where this attack would occur.

Leap of logic from bolded words. They are not equal. Also, you are judging by hindsight (just like I admomonished Babs and others in doing to Bush).
 
Leap of logic from bolded words. They are not equal. Also, you are judging by hindsight (just like I admomonished Babs and others in doing to Bush).

What are you talking about? The Japanese had already sunk the USS Panay in 1937. So FDR knew that Japan was capable of overt hostilities towards the U.S. Also, FDR knowing that the Japanese Embassy in D.C. intended to destroy their codes and cipher machines was a pretty good indication that there was no longer going to be a Japanese Embassy in the U.S. after contents of the message were read. Why would the Japanese no longer have an embassy in the U.S.? A real leap of logic. Please. This isn't hindsight by any stretch of the imagination

I don't disagree with Babs. I see nothing here about advanced knowledge.

"6. KNOWING ABOUT THE IMPENDING HIJACKINGS, BUSH DID NOTHING TO BEEF UP AIRLINE SECURITY" Barbara Streisand October 26, 2004

What the Hell do you think knowing and impending mean if not advanced knowledge?
 
Last edited:
You may be hard pressed, but her comments are good enough for troothers, and one of these unabashed troothers happens to be her husband.
Who? What makes him a truther?


And Bush 43 didn't get a PDB entitled "commercial airliners would be hijacked to be used against the WTC, Pentagon and White House on 9/11/01."
...
How is Bush 43 any more at fault for 9/11 than FDR is for Pearl?
I never said he was at fault. Just pointing out that they knew there were recent preparations for hijackings and apparently not enough was done to stop airline hijackings in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

In that context, Babs' quote doesn't look insane. It looks matter of fact.


Is that the same ball POTUS Clinton was watching when the WTC was bombed back in 2/26/93?
Probably not, but at least those perpetrators were caught and convicted. He was on the ball for the millennium attacks though. Those were thwarted at least.


Take it from Kerrick.
He noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met "nearly weekly" to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, "candidly speaking, I didn't detect" that kind of focus, he said. "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG were doing."

And speaking of Clarke. He asked for a cabinet meeting in regards to Al Qaeda terrorism shortly after the inauguration, it took until a week before 9/11 to have that meeting.
Finally, says Clarke, "The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place-- one week prior to 9/11."

Was Clinton's anti-terror strategy perfect? Obviously not. Was it better than the pre-9/11 Bush strategy? Absolutely. Even those involved who don't have egg on their face will openly admit it and have been for years.

Bush was pretty much hands-off in regards to terrorism until 9/11.
 
What the Hell do you think knowing and impending mean if not advanced knowledge?
But they did have advance knowledge of impending hijackings. Now whether or not anyone thinks they knew of the specific plot and whether or not they let it happen on purpose are other issues.

They were absolutely warned about hijackings, saying they knew of potential hijackings doesn't make anyone a truther. It makes them historically accurate.
 
I have ridiculed Babs attempts to become a major force in the Democratic Party for some time. She has made a number of really dumb statements. But I have seen nothing that indicates she is a Truther. Now her Hubby is a different matter......

As for Sean Penn, I have seen nothing to indicate he is a truther. Besides, his recent statement saying Hugo Chavez was right in throwing people who criticise him into prison is reason enough to show the guy is an idiot.
 
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. ...

Who warned anyone about 19 terrorists cutting throats of aircrew's and taking planes into the WTC, Pentagon, and other DC targets?

Babs would be another nut joining the delusional parade of insane dolts know as 911 truth; so? There will always be a few who fail to gain knowledge and make rational statements. In Babs case it is purely political poppycock, she does not care if it is true; does she?

"6. KNOWING ABOUT THE IMPENDING HIJACKINGS, BUSH DID NOTHING TO BEEF UP AIRLINE SECURITY"
Too bad she never said this before 911 and alerted the Nation to the tragic event about to unfold and also get the 1 million dollar challenge money; seems like Babs let it happen and did nothing. I knew terrorists could hijack planes and I did nothing! Terrorists can still hijack planes. Flight 93 passengers figured out 911 and took action first, taking minutes to figure it out, yet after 8 years 911 truth has no clue.

Babs let it happen on purpose(BLIHOP)! She had the money to buy the means to figure it out and she failed so she could blame her favorite enemies.
 
Last edited:
But they did have advance knowledge of impending hijackings. Now whether or not anyone thinks they knew of the specific plot and whether or not they let it happen on purpose are other issues.

Babs says they knew.

They were absolutely warned about hijackings, saying they knew of potential hijackings doesn't make anyone a truther. It makes them historically accurate.

According to Babs, not "potential hijackings," the actual 911 plot to hijack commercial airliners to use as missiles against the WTC, Pentagon, and White House.
 
Babs is a LIHOP. In her world, the Bush administration's "failure to heed the warnings" can only mean that Bush let 911 happen on purpose.

I think you're stretching quite far to declare BS a LIHOP truther.
Your declaration that her words 'can only mean that Bush let 911 happen on purpose. ' is your interpretation, but there are other valid interpretations.
All you're showing is that she thinks they did not act properly on intelligence that, with hindsight, they might have picked up on.

That really is a statement of incompetence rather than malfeasance. It does not meet the standard of the 'inside job' truther POV.
 
Babs says they knew.
.

The other question that comes to mind is 'so what?' She's entitled to her opinion about the Bush administration (RIP). There are probably dozens of other celebrities who have opinions about it, but that doesn't change the actual facts on the ground.

For example, it doesn't mean that there was a crime committed in the Bush White House, it doesn't mean that there was a government conspiracy of any kind.

It is not evidence of an 'inside job', it's just a celebrity who doesn't think the Bush admin did a good job, or maybe she even feels more strongly than that.

So what? It's just trivia.
 
Who? What makes him a truther?

Who? You do know who Barbara Streisand is, yes? Did you not know she is married to James Brolin, aka James Streisand? The same guy who advised the audience to check out a 911 truth website when he was on The View. The same guy who wished everyone a "Happy 911."

I never said he was at fault. Just pointing out that they knew there were recent preparations for hijackings and apparently not enough was done to stop airline hijackings in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

You did indeed say Bush 43 was at fault. You said 911 occurred because of Bush 43's "incompetence." Knowing about 911 in advance, which is what Babs says Bush is guilty of, and not responding to the threat, regardless of the reason, produces the same result, whether Bush didn't act out of incompetence or malevolence.

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.



In that context, Babs' quote doesn't look insane. It looks matter of fact.

No. She is still insane. Babs'only interest is to blame Bush 43 for 911. That has been her raison d'etre since 2002.

Probably not, but at least those perpetrators were caught and convicted. He was on the ball for the millennium attacks though. Those were thwarted at least.

The perps who carried out 911 didn't need to be caught as they were vaporized. They were? By POTUS Clinton?

The 1/3/00 plan to bomb the USS The Sullivans with a boat full of explosives was defeated only because the boat sank before detonating.

Al-Qaeda successfully bombed the USS Cole on 10/12/00.


Was Clinton's anti-terror strategy perfect? Obviously not. Was it better than the pre-9/11 Bush strategy? Absolutely. Even those involved who don't have egg on their face will openly admit it and have been for years.

Clinton was in office for 7 years when the Cole was hit. Bush was in office for 7 months when 911 occurred. It is apparent that you and Babs do indeed have a lot in common.

Bush was pretty much hands-off in regards to terrorism until 9/11.

And you have been thrilled with what Bush 43 did regarding U.S. security after 911?
 
Last edited:
The other question that comes to mind is 'so what?' She's entitled to her opinion about the Bush administration (RIP). There are probably dozens of other celebrities who have opinions about it, but that doesn't change the actual facts on the ground.

For example, it doesn't mean that there was a crime committed in the Bush White House, it doesn't mean that there was a government conspiracy of any kind.It is not evidence of an 'inside job', it's just a celebrity who doesn't think the Bush admin did a good job, or maybe she even feels more strongly than that.

So what? It's just trivia.

The entire 911 troother contingent is trivia. Check out how many JREF threads are dedicated to the troothers. But the celebs that have caught the attention of the troothers are limited to those who are LIHOPs and MIHOPS. The troothers didn't include Mr. & Mrs. Streisand on their websites because these two are merely Bush bashers.

BTW: Streisand called for Bush 43's impeachment.

“If there was ever a time in history to impeach a President of the United States, it would be now. In my opinion, it is two years too late."
Barbara Streisand December 19, 2005
 
The other question that comes to mind is 'so what?' She's entitled to her opinion about the Bush administration (RIP). There are probably dozens of other celebrities who have opinions about it, but that doesn't change the actual facts on the ground.

For example, it doesn't mean that there was a crime committed in the Bush White House, it doesn't mean that there was a government conspiracy of any kind.

It is not evidence of an 'inside job', it's just a celebrity who doesn't think the Bush admin did a good job, or maybe she even feels more strongly than that.

So what? It's just trivia.

So what? So what??!! So what???!!!

Why, good god, man! She's a librul! So that proves everything. Everything, I say! Why, if she's a librul, then she's clearly evil and if she believes that 911 was an indside job, then clearly ALL LIBRULS believe that 911 was an inside job, and thus all evil libruls are truthers.

So what? Why then that just proves that our favorite deluded bete noir, the 911 CTers are all Libruls and all Libruls are 911 CTers and thus all will be well on the morrow in Ciceroland, where the nice little pig-tailed girls and sweet little Norman Rockwellesque boys will be playing down by the swimming hole and there won't be no talk 'bout no colored fella in the White House redistributing the wealth of Ciceroland and paying for no Evil Health Care, because he's a Librul and thus a 911 CTer and thus evil and McCain really won, after all.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom