It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ATS: Pentagon: Rumsfeld Misspoke

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 06:55 PM
link   
"I have yet to see any evidence that Bush had anything to do with 9/11."

Well I don't either,
but Bush still uses 9/11 to steal trillions of dollar from your and mine and our children's children's futures.

That's the real CRIME!

[edit on 12/28/2004 by bodebliss]



Odd

posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:09 PM
link   
And that may very well be true-- but the thing of which I am really getting sick is this ceaseless insistence that Bush gave the order to have the towers destroyed.

I do not think he is the best man for the job he is supposed to be doing. However, I do NOT beleive that he gave any such command, and it really bothers me to see people repeating that theory as proven.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Misspeaking is defensible. It is an act of stupidity.

Misspeaking is not an act of stupidity. It is usually a result of unfamiliarity with topic or stress caused by overload.

Making statements such as the ones quoted is stupid.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:12 PM
link   

PistolPete:How do you provide evidence someone misspoke?


Ya provide a link to the misspoken words.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky


Making statements such as the ones quoted is stupid.



And yet another personal attack about someones opinion from your friendly neighborhood conservative neocon
How about you prove its not stupidity.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   
How about you stop trolling and kiss my arse?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How about you stop trolling and kiss my arse?


No trolling here on my part j. I have replied to the thread when it started, and I think Rumsfield finally told the truth about something, which also means I think there has been MANY lies. You made a remark about someones opinion about Rumsfields "mis-speak", which I happened to agree with the opinion that YOU attacked, so I defended it.

Now, instead of resulting to personal attacks and telling people to kiss off, how about you actually prove it was not stupidity that let the truth slip. Afterall, they had been lying to us all along, so it HAD to be stupidity to break from the story you have been using for 3 years


Lets see what witty accusations you can com up with for that. Trolling? Hardly. Defending a statement I believed in? Your damn skippy, skippy.

[edit on 12/28/04 by Kidfinger]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Misspeaking is not an act of stupidity. It is usually a result of unfamiliarity with topic or stress caused by overload.

Making statements such as the ones quoted is stupid.





I don't support jsobecky's analysis at all. Do you believe that Rumsfeld was unfamiliar with the topic of what happened to the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania? Do you believe that he is in some way overloaded with stress about it?

Or do you believe that he knows the truth about what happened to the flight in Pennsylvania, and blurted it out "intelligently"?

Your version does not compute.

Try not to lose your composure so easily in future. Even the outgoing Rumsfeld appears more composed under more pressure than Dick Cheney, and other people who let fly with insults rather than sticking to topic.

[edit on 28-12-2004 by MaskedAvatar]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Do you believe that he is in some way overloaded with stress about it?

Or do you believe that he knows the truth about what happened to the flight in Pennsylvania, and blurted it out "intelligently"?

Your version does not compute.

Of course it doesn't compute to you, in your narrow outlook of events. The stress he may be overloaded with doesn't have to be "about it".


Try not to lose your composure so easily in future. Even the outgoing Rumsfeld appears more composed under more pressure than Dick Cheney, and other people who let fly with insults rather than sticking to topic.

Keep your advice to yourself, thank you.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Excuses, excuses

No matter what unfortunate terminology the goon squad choses at the White House its always "stress" or "misinformation"


Maybe they should keep their yaps fermez s'il vouz plait....



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
And yet another personal attack about someones opinion from your friendly neighborhood conservative neocon

Ok for some to resort to name calling in this forum, apparently, but not ok to call them out on it.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Im sorry j, I thought calling a republican that agrees with the conservative far right, a neocon was just calling them by the name they chose. Friendly neighborhood neocon is as bad as calling me the friendly neighborhood Liberal.


If I hurt your feelings by calling you a bad name, then I truly apologise. I, however, am honered when someone refers me as a Liberal, or a Leftist, cause thats what I am. Are you not a republican conservative neocon?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by jsobecky

Misspeaking is not an act of stupidity. It is usually a result of unfamiliarity with topic or stress caused by overload.

Making statements such as the ones quoted is stupid.


I don't support jsobecky's analysis at all.

What you fail to address, and try to deflect attention away from, is the fact that I was not defending nor attacking Rumsfeld's position at all. I was addressing your incorrect statement that misspeaking is a result of stupidity. That was stupid.

You missed that in your overzealous rush to reply. Then you attempt to offer an "analysis" of my statements.

:shk:



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Im sorry j, I thought calling a republican that agrees with the conservative far right, a neocon was just calling them by the name they chose. Friendly neighborhood neocon is as bad as calling me the friendly neighborhood Liberal.


If I hurt your feelings by calling you a bad name, then I truly apologise. I, however, am honered when someone refers me as a Liberal, or a Leftist, cause thats what I am. Are you not a republican conservative neocon?

How about you just stop calling people anything, Kidfinger? That is, unless you can't hold up your end of a debate without doing so. I realize that labeling and pigeon-holing people makes it easier for you to communicate; that way, you don't have to think. But it really does bore me, as I've told you before.




posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Actually, I'll leave it to readers at large to determine what is stupid and what is not in the foregoing, by whatever means they choose.

I do not accept an analysis that suggests Rumsfeld's stupidity is caused by an overload of stress related to any sequence of events. It is caused by an overload of this administration's lies.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

How about you just stop calling people anything, Kidfinger? That is, unless you can't hold up your end of a debate without doing so. I realize that labeling and pigeon-holing people makes it easier for you to communicate; that way, you don't have to think. But it really does bore me, as I've told you before.



Awwww, someone doesnt like the name thier affiliative party goes by? I believe I have held up every debate I have had with you. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember you and another attempting to gang up on me in another politically related thread, and you and your little friend ended up with nothing left to say. Every argument you gave was countered and repealed.

I point out that you were downing someones opinion, and then I ask you to prove your case for downing them, and you resulted in the personal attacks. Thats why there is a little warn on your profile, and not mine. I have not attacked anyones opinion, nor have I attacked anyones integrity. Now, the debate I had with a conservative ended up much ads this. All name calling and misleading talk, and no proof or evidence to really back up thier claim. Now why dont you go back and reread the post, and see if you can answer the questions I posed to you. That is, unless it is you that cant back up what you claim. Im gonna run to the store and get some smokes. Be back in 15 minutes to see if you have answered anything.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is that I am sure the events on 9-11 can be recalled by anyone at anytime. This is not something that has just been forgotten about and will die out anytime soon. I'm sure everyone knows the Official word from the Government that Flight 93 was taken down due to the heroics of the passengers on board. This is something that does not slip my mind and should not come even close to skipping the Secretary of Defense's mind. If you carry on with a lie in your everyday life, at one point your going to slip up, whether this happened here is the question. I find it utterly disgusting that the man behind the plans for Afghanistan and Iraq can not remember this simple piece of information that is so vital to the war on terror and a very, very important day in not only American History, but the World as well.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickmastertricK
I'm sure everyone knows the Official word from the Government that Flight 93 was taken down due to the heroics of the passengers on board. This is something that does not slip my mind and should not come even close to skipping the Secretary of Defense's mind.


Oh come on! The Secretary of Defense knows exactly what happened on 9/11 and so should you people. The plane was intentionally crashed when the hijackers felt they were in trouble. As has been documented time and again on this very board all of the facts are consistent with that finding. Rummy mispoke. Everyone does it. Some here even mis-post. This has no more relavence than Shepard Smiths "oral sex" gaffe, and much less humor. Let it go.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Awwww, someone doesnt like the name thier affiliative party goes by? I believe I have held up every debate I have had with you. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember you and another attempting to gang up on me in another politically related thread, and you and your little friend ended up with nothing left to say. Every argument you gave was countered and repealed.

Go back and re-read the thread, Kidfinger. You were incoherent. That's why I had to use bigger font to tell you that you bored me. That was the time you tried to impress with your educational credentials, remember?
You were so proud that you could actshually scratch yore name on the back of a cole shovel!


Smokes, Kidfinger? Don't you know that second-hand smoke is harmful to children? Almost as harmful as beating them, eh?



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Im sorry j, I thought calling a republican that agrees with the conservative far right, a neocon was just calling them by the name they chose. Friendly neighborhood neocon is as bad as calling me the friendly neighborhood Liberal.


Actually a better correlation would be "pinko-commie" or "left-wing nut job". Do you consider yourself to be these? Keep your labels to yourself.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join