We need an independent investigation!

[johnny karate]

I'm not sure who is favorite baseball team is either, but what's important is that his account has Bush & Co. gearing up to attack Iraq immediately after the attacks.

I'd also be curious to know how you got "& Co." and "gearing up to attack" out of an account of the President instructing his advisors to investigate any possible links to Iraq.

Is it possible for you to be even a little bit honest?

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm not sure who is favorite baseball team is either, but what's important is that his account has Bush & Co. gearing up to attack Iraq immediately after the attacks.

I am not disagreeing, that according to Clarke (and I have no reason to doubt him), very shortly after the attacks, Bush was "geared up" to get Iraq, IF Saddam was connected in any way to the attacks.

So why, do you think, they then decided to go to war in Afghanistan, and wait a full 500 or so days before going into Iraq?

And please, don't give me some BS about needing time to plan it, or gather troops.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

I am not disagreeing, that according to Clarke (and I have no reason to doubt him), very shortly after the attacks, Bush was "geared up" to get Iraq, IF Saddam was connected in any way to the attacks.

So why, do you think, they then decided to go to war in Afghanistan, and wait a full 500 or so days before going into Iraq?

And please, don't give me some BS about needing time to plan it, or gather troops.

TAM

Afghanistan was obvious since that's were the perpetrators were supposed to be. And you pre empted the obvious since you can't send 165,000 troops to indefinitely occupy a country overnight.

So my question to you is why? I laid out the scenario if the official story is true, how could Bush et al have taken the chance of getting attacked again if they were dividing their focus with a larger operation? They must not have felt all that threatened by AQ, even though their attack was enormously successful and according to Rice, their attacks could never have been imagined.

 

[RedIbis]

Which they didn't do.

Do you have anymore accounts of theoretical events that never actually took place? They're very informative.

You're saying they didn't attack Iraq?

 

[johnny karate]

You're saying they didn't attack Iraq?

Nope. I'm saying your version of events is a complete fabrication.

 

[RedIbis]

Nope. I'm saying your version of events is a complete fabrication.

What's the fabrication? That I referred to Bush & Co. when they're not technically a company?

I used that phrase informally, assuming that most here would know that I was simply referrring to his administration. I didn't expect anyone to be so tediously literal. I'll try not to make that assumption again.

 

[funk de fino]

The TM say that it was an inside job because they knew who it was too quickly after the attack.

Now Red saunters in and infers its an inside job because Bush wanted to check and see if someone else could have been involved

Too funny.

 

[johnny karate]

What's the fabrication?

When you equated one man requesting an investigation with an entire administration preparing for war.

That's the fabrication.

I didn't expect anyone to be so tediously literal.

Says the guy who argued about the literal definiton of "no-planer" over the course of several pages.

Spare us your indignation, Red. In light of your lies and hypocrisy, it's not even remotely plausible.

 

[TexasJack]

Which leads to the question, if 911 was an inside job, and they wanted to use it as a tool to invade Iraq, why didn't they use Iraqi terrorists? Instead, they counted on Saddam completely ignoring numerous UN resolutions. An inside job really doesn't add up.

 

[johnny karate]

Which leads to the question, if 911 was an inside job, and they wanted to use it as a tool to invade Iraq, why didn't they use Iraqi terrorists? Instead, they counted on Saddam completely ignoring numerous UN resolutions. An inside job really doesn't add up.

That's because you're not rewriting history to make it add up.

 

[DavidJames]

Says the guy who argued about the literal definiton of "no-planer" over the course of several pages.

Spare us your indignation, Red. In light of your lies and hypocrisy, it's not even remotely plausible.

Indeed, Red's modus operandi for over 3600 posts has been to play gotcha, he's a sad pathetic troll.

 

[johnny karate]

Indeed, Red's modus operandi for over 3000 posts has been to play gotcha, he's a sad pathetic troll.

And what's even more sad and pathetic is how terrible he is at it.

 

[T.A.M.]

Afghanistan was obvious since that's were the perpetrators were supposed to be. And you pre empted the obvious since you can't send 165,000 troops to indefinitely occupy a country overnight.

So my question to you is why? I laid out the scenario if the official story is true, how could Bush et al have taken the chance of getting attacked again if they were dividing their focus with a larger operation? They must not have felt all that threatened by AQ, even though their attack was enormously successful and according to Rice, their attacks could never have been imagined.

I think that Bush probably wanted Saddam more than OBL. Even though OBL was behind the attacks of 9/11. What Bush wanted, who he wanted to get, after the attacks, even so soon, does not change who carried out the attacks, which is at the heart of this subforum. I think any further conversation on this matter is more appropriate for the politics forum.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The TM say that it was an inside job because they knew who it was too quickly after the attack.

Now Red saunters in and infers its an inside job because Bush wanted to check and see if someone else could have been involved

Too funny.

Exactly. I am ok with the premise that Bush wanted to get Saddam for Daddy...ok I get it. And I get that he was looking for any reason to connect the attacks to him, if it was there, so he could go get him...

But he did not. He waited 500 days. It seems to me that if Bush and Co in anyway helped to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, then they were AWEFULLY ****ING DUMB to blame it on the wrong guys.

TAM

 

[TexasJack]

Exactly. I am ok with the premise that Bush wanted to get Saddam for Daddy...ok I get it. And I get that he was looking for any reason to connect the attacks to him, if it was there, so he could go get him...

But he did not. He waited 500 days. It seems to me that if Bush and Co in anyway helped to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, then they were AWEFULLY ****ING DUMB to blame it on the wrong guys.

TAM

Yes, it was no secret Bush wanted Saddam's head as soon as he took office.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/09/60minutes/main592330.shtml

 

[Pardalis]

So they got pilots for truth, architects and engineers for truth, even political leaders for truth, and all kinds of organizations around the world.

So what the hell are they waiting for? What's stopping them from starting that damned independant investigation?

 

[T.A.M.]

So they got pilots for truth, architects and engineers for truth, even political leaders for truth, and all kinds of organizations around the world.

So what the hell are they waiting for? What's stopping them from starting that damned independant investigation?

They lack a few key things...

1. Evidence
2. Guts
3. Conviction in their own beliefs

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

They lack a few key things...

1. Evidence
2. Guts
3. Conviction in their own beliefs

TAM

And yet when someone does file a lawsuit or publicize their real names and credentials they're assailed by all the resident debunkers.

It's a bit hypocritical, TAM.

 

[bob the analyst]

I think that Bush probably wanted Saddam more than OBL. Even though OBL was behind the attacks of 9/11. What Bush wanted, who he wanted to get, after the attacks, even so soon, does not change who carried out the attacks, which is at the heart of this subforum. I think any further conversation on this matter is more appropriate for the politics forum.

TAM

yah think? what gave it away? The fact saddam had oil and resources that Bush and his friends could plunder?

 

[T.A.M.]

And yet when someone does file a lawsuit or publicize their real names and credentials they're assailed by all the resident debunkers.

It's a bit hypocritical, TAM.

? assailed?

Just because I don't agree with them, and think they are paranoid, and/or gullible, does not mean that I do not appreciate (compared to the cowardice of 99.99% of their fellow truthers) their guts for doing so.

TAM