Proof of Conspiracy

[Edited]

Breaches of Rules 11 and 12: Posts must be on topic to the thread subject; Attack the argument, not the arguer. Please refrain from continuing this behavior. The comment made will be edited in other posts which quote it.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: LibraryLady
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Loss Leader said:
I'm surprised at your level of certainty. I think that in the exceptionally unlikely event that Bush had set up 9/11, he might still be immune from prosecution.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. He doesn't have the legal authority to order a 9/11-type scheme, so doing so is in no way protected as part of is job.

He would at least have an argument that he was doing it to help the US,
Click to expand...

Legally that wouldn't matter. He doesn't have the authority to do it. Motivation is therefore irrelevant. Hell, even the consequences are irrelevant in terms of whether or not it's illegal.

Certain government employees kill people as part of their official duties on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Under conditions they are legally authorized to do. If they step outside that authorization, they are not protected. Cops can shoot criminals who pull guns on them. Cops are even protected in cases where they only think a gun is being pulled on them. But they are not protected from killing criminals in cold blood. They do not have the legal authority to do such things, and cannot claim qualified immunity to protect themselves in such an event.
 
iAmerican said:
[Edited].
Click to expand...

Do you know what the homosexuals are doing to the soil? They're building landing strips for gay Martians.

I like you, Stuart. You're not like the other people, here in the trailer park.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziggurat said:
I don't think so. He doesn't have the legal authority to order a 9/11-type scheme, so doing so is in no way protected as part of is job.
Click to expand...


Okay, I see your argument. My counter-argument is that there is no actual definition of what it means to "preside" over the US. Presidents do all sorts of things for which no legal authority exists - only tradition and the lack of anyone strongly arguing against it. Is there any legal authority for pardoning the turkey on Thanksgiving? (What a stupid example but go with me.) If Bush put together 9/11, I suspect he'd be doing it as part of his role as Commander in Chief with some sort of argument that the whole things was actually necessary to fight foreign enemies. It might be enough to save him from a criminal prosecution.
 
May G-d Bless You and Yours Always

ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Isn't that how America was formed to begin with: A bunch of foreigners arrived... made a country... decided "how to be American" together.
Click to expand...

Of the course of History, yes.

Studying the actual Author, Founder and Prophet, Thomas Jefferson, and the Whig Party which, by punctuated evolution, formed, in Covenant, A New E Pluribus Unum Nation, a specific and unique Creation in human history is revealed: establishment of Novus Ordo Seclorem in explicit, direct contraopposition to the Old Sectarian Order, anciens régimes, of King and Pope.

This kernel made available a new scale of transmittable, focussed, Annuit Coeptis for the world. American Exceptionalism was the fulfillment of the Promised Land: the New Israel enunciated in Isaiah..."kindling a volcano under their thrones" in Europe.

The threat to monarchical privilege and ecclesiastic perversion is real. Families living in the same castles (or tents), on the same hills (or wadis), for two, and three, and four thousands of years, organized around institutionalized cashflows, power, and accepted "status," built on cultures of tyranny, assassination, pedophilia, rape, and sodomy have not gone quietly into that "night," for them, that is Sovereignty of the Individual.

America's Founding "arrested thousands upon thousands of years of despotism." The plots, assassinations, intrigues, corruption, false wars, and organized invasion now taking place, intended only to subvert the People and Our Constitution, (we each have sworn to defend with our lives), can be mapped out on a table, for all to see, pointing directly to their "noodlers" in the Old Sectarian Order displaced by American Consciousness, and their agents in the Fifth Column...long allied with murder, Rome, BIG OIL and the Saudi rulers.

They killed Meriwether Lewis on the Natchez Trace. It was the boondocks. Their agents in St. Louis recited their lies, perfected over thousands of years, put to the same use, and time marched on. They killed Lincoln and we managed to hang a handful but never got to the nascent Fifth Column grasping political power in Our Capitol. They financed Hitler and the Holocaust, achieving some kind of critical mass. Got away with it. Created the CIA, killed Kennedy for ordering us out of Vietnam and the Golden Triangle, with Nixon and Johnson, Kissinger, and David Rockefeller's full-page ads in support of Spellman and Cushing, dodger Reagan's IranContra in support of the slave masters wishing to retain their slaves, and finance by domestic narcotics trafficking, 9-11 by a pair of draft-dodging perverts, and Afghan heroin is flowing through no-port deal Dubai to the streets of America.

This is my country. My family built it. I gave my life to uphold it. I know what I say is the Truth...and Justice must be done.
 
iAmerican said:
With the Armed Forces' field rank and file aware that he committed 9-11 and lied us into their deaths in false war...
Click to expand...

Evidence?

iAmerican said:
As all Americans know Bush committed 9-11...
Click to expand...

Evidence?

iAmerican said:
This is my country. My family built it. I gave my life to uphold it.
Click to expand...

You "gave your life"? Are you dead? This is a first, then - actual communication with the departed?

And, oh, yes, iA: Was John Fitzgerald Kennedy a Catholic?
 
Loss Leader said:
Okay, I see your argument. My counter-argument is that there is no actual definition of what it means to "preside" over the US. Presidents do all sorts of things for which no legal authority exists - only tradition and the lack of anyone strongly arguing against it. Is there any legal authority for pardoning the turkey on Thanksgiving? (What a stupid example but go with me.) If Bush put together 9/11, I suspect he'd be doing it as part of his role as Commander in Chief with some sort of argument that the whole things was actually necessary to fight foreign enemies. It might be enough to save him from a criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

I don't really see that as a worthwhile counter-argument, and suspect it's just the "lawyer" in you coming out to play (there are no fees to be "earned" here, you realize?!).

"Tradition" and/or "lack of anyone strongly arguing against it" = immunity from orchestrating 9/11 = necessity to fight foreign enemies? Fancy your chances as defence attorney, do you?!
 
Ziggurat said:
But they did. The report I linked to was written in July 2004, well before the election. And the complaints listed in this latest "study" were widely circulating back then too. There's nothing new here.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming the public instantly understood what the report said? Isn't the truth the public was in denial the Bush Administration would do such a thing, further impeded by Fox News acting like the administrations propaganda agency with mis-information? The informed 2008 public would have voted very differently from the 2004.

The bottom line is congress failed to perform their oversight job in 2004. And this failure continues through today. This should anger all Americans.

The neat thing is more people are voting in the 2008 primaries and getting involved.
 
Daylight said:
Are you claiming the public instantly understood what the report said?
Click to expand...

Who said anything about instantly?

The point is not that the public was perfectly informed. It never is. The point is that the information was out there.

Isn't the truth the public was in denial the Bush Administration would do such a thing,
Click to expand...

There is no monolithic public opinion, so this statement is absurd on its face. And the public's understanding (and misunderstanding) cuts both ways: while some people may think the administration's pre-war position was more accurate than it turned out to be, there are also people who think that evidence exists for outright lies when that report found none. Hell, there are parts of the public which think that Bush directed the 9/11 attacks. Who are you going to blame for that, Fox? It's easy to convince yourself of all sorts of conspiracies of deception if you only look for misconceptions in one direction. But that's confirmation bias, and as easy and tempting as it is to fall for, it doesn't get you any closer to the truth.

The informed 2008 public would have voted very differently from the 2004.
Click to expand...

Perhaps. But based on what information? The nuances of our intelligence and the way it was represented to the public? I suspect that wouldn't actually be decisive. Any difference would be more likely due to the discrepency between the public's expectation of the progress of the war in 2004 and their current perception of that progress. And this could prove to cut both ways as well. If things continue to improve in Iraq, it's quite possible that the informed public of late 2008 wouldn't have voted the same way as a 2006 public, and the party balance in congress might be different. But that's always the case, and always will be assuming we don't discover time travel.

The bottom line is congress failed to perform their oversight job in 2004.
Click to expand...

Depends what you think their oversight job is. Because honestly, what else did you expect them to do?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom