Bush-Cheney are behind 9/11?

Of course not! That is, however, where the mantra, lock-step left are taking it. They just haven't quite gotten the cojones to say it...yet. That may be due to instruction. Perhaps the general public haven't been softened up quite enough for that pill to be swallowed, again yet...
Edit: Afterthought, perhaps timing this accusation just before the next presidential election as a last ditch election ploy? Possible...

Therefore this thread.

It is, in part, a personal vent. Also an opportunity/challenge for the left , and anyone else who believes the above to make their case, be it opinion, link or perceived proof.... in other words, no holds barred, unrestricted opining on the issue.

I challenge the 'left' or those that support this particular view, or even a lesser version of it, to put up or shut up. so to speak.

I also challenge those on the 'right' or again, those that think that the spin/mantra against both has been a 'crock' to put up or shut up. Opinion, fact, or link, it matters not. ( personally, I blame the those that also disagree with the above of 'bowing out', ignoring the spin as a form of contribution to it's gaining traction.) "all it takes if good men doing nothing....."

The last part of this thread allows for the alternatives. What would have a Democrat President have done? What would Gore likely have done? What were Bush and Cheney's alternatives? The consequences of those 'alternatives'?

Yes, that IS speculation. Yet, making a decision requires the measure of those potential consequences and MUST be considered. In a sense, as we will likely never have all the information behind these events, then this whole thread is, to some degree 'speculation'. So be it.

My turn/vent. How the hell did we get from the obvious evil that Saddam was, the multitude of evil both within and outside Iraq that the world knew and loudly proclaimed-both on the left and right- to a point where Bush and Cheney are now the preeminent 'evils' of the 21st. century?

I say, first and foremost, spin! Pure and simple. Some based on the lousy results of those choices, some perhaps based on personal losses as a result of those choices, many for pure political purposes.

One Note: For, at least this thread, let's keep in mind that the higher the 'IQ', the more likely alternative scenarios can be conceived, especially when all the information isn't forthcoming. Higher IQ/creativity WILL result in more variations than in a roomful of twits....

I will try to keep my temper in check and hope that the posters will as well.

If there was solid proof they were behind it, I would have hoped both had been arrested and either imprisoned or sent to Gitmo. But as there isn't solid proof, it's all supposition. There have been cover ups in the past, but if they were it would be the mother of them all.

However, you posed a good question about what a Democrat President would have done. If Bush and Cheney were behind it all, it wouldn't have occurred, surely?

a reply to: nwtrucker

Greetings- I'd opine that You have more in common w/a "Lefty" than You do with either Mr. Cheney or choose anyone from the Bush Cabal but don't let that stop You...

What do You get when You "win"? Let Us see how far We can divide the division...

No Man is an island.

Shalom

a reply to: nwtrucker

If Obama has taught us anything, it is that it is the previous presidents fault. So 9/11 is Clinton's fault.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Dick Cheney's Halliburton made billions off of the war in Iraq though:

en.wikipedia.org...:_The_War_Profiteers

Great documentary "Iraq For Sale" if you are interested. (Preview here via facebook: video )

Halliburton/KBR would buy brand new trucks and equipment (sometimes the wrong equipment, on purpose), then bring them to "burn pits" and literally incinerate $70,000 trucks, then claim it as a "loss" and re-order, because it meant more money for Halliburton.

Also, they charged $99 per load of laundry for soldiers - all for profits from their contracting. Civilian contractors took the jobs or highly trained military personnel and got paid dozens of times more than the military personnel would have been paid - again, under the smoke and mirrors and government contracts.

They likely weren't behind it, but as Winston Churchill said, "Never let a good crisis go to waste". They certainly did not. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

a reply to: Cobaltic1978

Look. If there was proof that Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11 I'd flay them alive! Publically, on national TV, and do it personally!

The problem being, and here we go into the 'who knows' area, that the planning for 9/11 went back around two years. Long before the Republicans won the Presidency, which they weren't projected to win, and implies the intent was to have a Democrat President in power at the time of 9/11.

I suppose Gore could have file a law suit.....

a reply to: FamCore

And that's where most critical thinkers see a connection. The guy at the top being associated with Halliburton who makes a killing, pardon the pun, from the relating stance the Republican President took.

It's more than likely a case of 'never let a good crisis go to waste' scenario, but I smelled a bad whiff when Bush came up with his axis of evil, and when you put Iraq and Iran in the axis, well pull the other it has bells on it.

Iraq and Iran are the best of enemies, they fought a terrible war for many years. The behaviour of both sides was atrocious and any little respect was totally lost. It will probably take another couple of Generations to get anywhere near restoring it.

There is a reason it's called the "9/11 conspiracy theory" rather than the "9/11 false flag", lack of proof.

9/11 will always be a conspiracy theory. When people talk about the "9/11 false flag" by not making the distinction clear that it is a conspiracy theory (meaning a alternative historical narrative to that held by the majority as being scientifically and historically correct) they are implying in my mind that its a absolute fact that 9/11 was a false flag.

But all these years later there has yet to be one scrap of truth that confirms this,

NOTHING.

Now those who subscribe to the 9/11 false flag conspiracy do make some very interesting arguments and even I will admit that there are a few things that don't sit quite right with the official story. For example the missing 28 pages that may prove Saudi involvement or the fact that there was a huge intelligence failure in the run up to the attacks and so on.

However there is zero proof that 9/11 was a conspiracy anywhere near the scale that many on the interweb would have you believe with explosives, faked planes, missiles, CIA created boogymen, covering up various crimes and so on.

So OP with that said let me tell you this.

There are many on this site who believe 9/11 was a operation conducted by the American government at the time (usually at the behest of the even more evil NWO) but they cannot prove it and probably never will be able to prove it. Yet even in the absence of any kind of proof of their silly and fanciful conspiracies we are all basically idiots in their eyes for not believing them.

Yet for those of us who have a more grounded view on these things... well we know how MR. Truther looks through our eyes.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Two years in the making, a presidential race that the projections did not predict the actual winner, re-counts in Florida, Gore being advised to challenge the result in Florida, but deciding not to, we could go on.

a reply to: FamCore

I had the paperwork to apply for the driving position out of Kuwait.

The work conditions were obscene. Outdoor cold water showers, no booze, broads, no weapon for self-defense allowed either. All the while driving tankers from Kuwait to Iraq waiting for a sniper to blow up your tanker truck.

You were allowed 80K tax free, had room and board paid, free flights in and out. A month paid vaction to anywhere you wanted at company expense. You paid for smokes and that's about it.

You'd probably bank 60-70k for one year's work! How many years work back home to 'bank 60-70k? Near a lifetime.

Still, I didn't take the job.... The turnover was amazing from what I hear. Sand fleas and the like...

In other words, corporately, an expensive undertaking. Cheney was long gone-having already cleaned up for his services-and 'if' I understand correctly, the contract with Halliburton was signed/won during the Clinton Administration.

This raises the point that a huge number of corporations make a fortune during that war, as with any war. The MRE suppliers, Nestle and their bottle water companies. The oil companies, obviously, both well-head prices and refined products for the tanks and planes, ammo outfits. The medical industry...The list goes on and on.

It's Halliburton that gets hit. Why? Cheney! The nearly direct hit at the Republicans. They couldn't pin anything on Bush, they worked over Rumsfeld, Tried it with Condi and that one backfired, Rumsfeld's replacement, the name escapes, pretty everyone was belted until traction was found....Cheney....

a reply to: FamCore

Halliburtion does not prove that Cheney played a role in 9/11.

I could understand if you were to argue that it proves that by lying about Iraq and WMDs opening up a huge market for PMCs Cheney was directly connected to Halliburtion who profited from this and as such you could say start making all kind of connections off that and why he got his $20 million out of them before he left the company in 2000.

But Iraq and 9/11 have nothing really to do with each other, even if the Neo-cons liked to try to spin it.

I see this argument about Haliburtion benign made quite a bit, but weather or not you realise it or not, its really just a truther misdirection.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: FamCore

Halliburtion does not prove that Cheney played a role in 9/11.

Did you read my post? I explicitly stated that Bush and Cheney likely were not behind it, but that the company Dick Cheney used to be Chairman and CEO secured a number of government contracts in the Iraq war, creating billions of dollars in profit.

I agree, the "Neo-cons" & our representatives tried to demonstrate a "link" between Iraq and 9/11 by saying Al-Queda had a presence in Iraq. Pathetic and sickening how they find ways to justify the murders of innocent people. Don't get me started on depleted uranium or other human rights violations...

NYTimes

a reply to: nwtrucker

Comrade Kali reporting in from the Lock-Step Left:

I don't think 9/11 was an inside job even though Bush/Cheney are evil fascist bastards. However I don't think it would have happened if they weren't in office. I think the plot was designed to happen when an Administration such as Bush's was in power to evoke the response given.

Also I have zero doubt that the Iraq invasion was based on intention, not a mistake. I also have no doubt that they are guilty of war-crimes but then again so is Obama.

a reply to: FamCore

I agree that Halliburton wasn't behind it. Yet, Halliburton-again, if I understand correctly,-had won the supply contract during the Clinton Administration. That contract overlapped between administrations.

While there was an Al-queda presence in Iraq, if I recall correctly, it was a one-time statement-press secretary(?) and follow-ups on the comment said it was more a liaison scenario more than anything else.

I don't think Bush or Cheney ever claimed a direct link to Iraq regarding 9/11.

Although it raises the point that many took issue with going into Iraq implying that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse for finishing off Saddam, Some said in revenge for an attempt on Bush senior's life.

It is worth exploring that aspect, don't you think?

a reply to: Kali74

I am seeing more agreement than disagreement in this thread.

The first attack on the towers occurred under Clinton so, the political component of the speculation of timing on the part of Al Qaeda doesn't add up.

I think Islamists hate all Americans equally and don't care whose administration they might upset.

a reply to: Kali74

Well, we have one point of agreement. I believe that Bush went in with intention and not a 'mistake'.

Simply put, a new 'war' was foisted on him and he took the pragmatic view that it was better to finish off the 'old' war, that still have shots and missiles fired almost on a daily basis, before taking on the new 'task' at hand.

Again, a simplification, yet closer to what I see as the truth, than not.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Now those who subscribe to the 9/11 false flag conspiracy do make some very interesting arguments and even I will admit that there are a few things that don't sit quite right with the official story. For example the missing 28 pages that may prove Saudi involvement or the fact that there was a huge intelligence failure in the run up to the attacks and so on.

There are plenty of NIST official story explanations that are complete bunk, covered in the scientific literature. Not to mention the facts that were completely ignored in their "official" investigation.

a reply to: greencmp

I don't think the intention was to upset a particular type of administration but a particular type of administration was needed to get the reaction they wanted and got. Complete destabilization of the ME.

a reply to: olaru12

Yet that 'official' investigation was carried out by largely a Democrat appointed team led by lawyers. One would think that the left would dearly love to expose Bush and Co. and NOT ignore points...

Definitely a point to explore further....

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: greencmp

I don't think the intention was to upset a particular type of administration but a particular type of administration was needed to get the reaction they wanted and got. Complete destabilization of the ME.

There may be something to that but, I can't imagine that a Clinton administration would have reacted any differently, at least initially pre-Iraq.

When it happened, I started looking into the Quranic doctrine of intentionally provoked invasion and the 60 day holy period before "kill them where you find them". I did feel a little like a Nintendo.