Too many co-incidences

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Um, I dont quite understand what your talking about here?
But, Im sure every president has had goals.
But, how many have resultedi n the deaths of hundereds of thousands? while profits are made for the few who wanted those goals?
You honestly think Bush and Co did NOTHING to maniuplate their way into Iraq?

Well gee, think of how presidents like Kennedy, Johnson, Truman conduct their policies that affected tens of millions, which usually resulted in deaths of millions. This president is no different, and its not always about profits. Its what presidents believed in, even if critics say its flawed. Bush wants to see a democratic Iraq, didn't go as planned.

So because the dems lost, your saying that these things never happened?
What about the laws that were broken?
Thats a pretty thin line their,
'' There's no cheating, the dems are just sore losers ''
You would be to, if you won!

What laws are we talking about thats broken? We have seen Republicans and Democrats trying to win elections with irregular means.

That 911 was as crooked as the election.
The people charged to conduct it, were Bush cronnies.
They still say the hijackers were the saudi's whom are alive.
They didnt even publish all the desired evidence.
If you base your statements on the 911 commission, you've just completely failed in your argument im afraid.
The 911 commission has been proven a farse from day 1.

In your belief you say its crooked. And where the heck in the 9/11 Commission report says that the hijackers are still alive????

No im talking about the proof Cheney and Bush claimed they had about Iraq's VAST stockpiles of WMD's. Again revert to my OP.

Based on what intelligence they got, even Clinton pretty much agreed to do the same thing as to mention that Iraq had WMD. No different from Cheney and Bush.

Fair enough, As long as your happy in your reality who am I to judge.
Keep your head in the sand though, because things are going to get complicated for your kind above the dirt.

That last remark sounds like you are pissed off about something.

Originally posted by markjaxson

Well said.

Its only a matter of time until we get our "Solid Evidence" that we rightly deserve.

The people guilty of these crimes will be revealed, i have no doubts about this and im sure all those who know the truth do not doubt this.

Well done Agit8dChop for all your hard work, no one can stop the truth from being told, not even deltaboy.

Only a matter of time? No doubt you are eager for it to happen whatever that would be. Based on a theory and not evidence, but you are waiting for that "Solid Evidence" that you rightly deserved.



[edit on 2-4-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by dariousg


Dude, I voted for Bush both times. The Democrats had a legitimate argument on this. Your debunking is weak and flawed because the facts DID come out that the numbers were tampered with and that Gore DID indeed win the election. However, because of the Supreme Court ruling it was a moot point. And conveniently enough September 11th happened just after this announcement was made so it was swept under the rug.

It wasn't an unfounded complaint. It was a legit complaint that was backed up with proof. GW stole the election because of his brother's state. Kind of coinkidinky for sure.

Dude, the Democrats also mentioned that Ralph Nader stole the votes that should have gone to Gore. WTH?

Is that a good argument by the Democrats as well?

[edit on 2-4-2007 by deltaboy]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by markjaxson

Well said.

Its only a matter of time until we get our "Solid Evidence" that we rightly deserve.

The people guilty of these crimes will be revealed, i have no doubts about this and im sure all those who know the truth do not doubt this.

Well done Agit8dChop for all your hard work, no one can stop the truth from being told, not even deltaboy.

Only a matter of time?

No doubt you are eager for it to happen whatever that would be. Based on a theory and not evidence, but you are waiting for that "Solid Evidence" that you rightly deserved.



[edit on 2-4-2007 by deltaboy]

Were you the lucky one that drew the short straw? Your debunking is weak at best. I thought that there would be more than just one debunker or fighter for 'truth'. Although I do like the idea of having evidence...oh wait, that's right, why would someone in a position of power leave any evidence behind? Wait, it's now a security blanket called 'national security' that has become the front for all illegal actions.

Now answer me this. I mean, seriously please try to answer this with a legitimate answer.

Why are there ANY confidential documents relating to September 11th? There should be NONE. It was an attack on us, right? There should be ZERO documents withheld on it. Even the hit on the Pentagon shouldn't have any confidential documents. The crappy video they have released is a pathetic attempt to dissuade.

So please answer that with a real answer.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Many irregularities that the Democrats try to put out in their embarrassment for losing the election on a very thin margin.

Regarding the election. I live in florida and during both elections there was something wrong, I personally know people (who lived in primarly african-american neighborhoods that vote democartic) That were turned a way because their voting booth was closed or due to 'malfunctions'.There were also issues with the way officials were telling voters to fill out there ballots that caused ballots to be invalid. How odd is it that almost all of the irregularities concern those who voted democratic? No bush votes were thrown outAt least 22,000 ballots that voted for al gore were thrown out in my county alone, the most in the state. This all hapened in Duval county (jacksonville)

.So all this happens in 1 county now multiply that by 67 counties and tell me you dont think any of this could have effected that slim margin.

www.gwu.edu...

Just read this about the voting irregularities in Florida. Long reading, but interesting reading.

www.ecn.org...

The CIA’s Secret War in Iraq

by Randy Stearns, "ABCNews", feb. 1998

"The White House"

If Presidents Clinton and Bush shared one foreign-policy fantasy, it was to live in a world without Saddam Hussein. Both the Republican president and his Democratic successor commissioned secret plots to eliminate the Iraqi despot, and for more than six years the CIA has struggled to carry out that task.

The Geopolitical Rub

The difficulty, however, is that even more than it wants to eliminate the Iraqi leader, Washington needs to maintain political stability in the Gulf. As a CIA deputy put it at the end of the Gulf War, "Our policy is to get rid of Saddam Hussein, not his regime." Thus, nearly every time the United States reaffirms support for the democratic aspirations and human rights of the Iraqi people, it also restates the importance of maintaining the "territorial integrity" of the Iraqi state. Balancing the contending powers—Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iraq—would be vastly more difficult if Iraq devolved into a motley federation of ethnic states.

"Messy Alternatives"

To Washington, the prospect of a popular insurrection in Iraq has been far less appealing than the possibility, however remote, of a palace coup. In practice, that has meant publicly promoting popular resistance as a means of destabilizing the Iraqi regime, but all the while pinning U.S. hopes on an insider job. As a result, policy-makers’ anger at Saddam never overcame their fear of a power vacuum in the Gulf. "We recognized that the seemingly attractive goal of getting rid of Saddam would not solve our problems or even necessarily serve our interests," former National Security Adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft told Newsweek in 1996. "So we pursued the kind of inelegant, messy alternative that is all too often the only one available in the real world."

"Push Came to Shove"

When Shiites in southern Iraq appeared ready to finish the job with a grass-roots revolt against Saddam in the spring of 1991, the Bush administration chose to step aside and permit Iraqi troops to regroup and crush the rebels with helicopter gunships. The alternative, as the White House saw it, might have been the collapse of Iraq and the rise of a new Islamic state bordering Iran. In March 1995 and again in the late summer of 1996, the Clinton administration faced similar dilemmas in northern Iraq. Rather than throw its weight behind a coalition of rebels with divergent allegiances to Iran and Iraq, and aspirations for an independent Kurdistan, Clinton chose to do nothing while Saddam’s troops invaded the "safe haven" and destroyed the CIA-backed opposition. Washington had grown impatient with supporting the political opposition and demanded that the CIA find a way to get rid of Saddam before the 1996 presidential elections. The upshot was that neither popular political resistance nor quick-fix coups were successful and Saddam remained in power. Four days after Saddam’s attack on the northern city of Arbil in August 1996, the president decided to launch a cruise-missile attack—not on the invading armies in the North, but on Iraqi radar installations 500 miles to the south. To Saddam and other Gulf state leaders, the message seemed clear: United States policy toward Iraq remains mired in indecision and a fundamental unwillingness to back its ertswhile allies inside Iraq.

Clinton and Bush must be buddies here with the same agenda about a NWO.

Originally posted by deltaboy
www.gwu.edu...

Just read this about the voting irregularities in Florida. Long reading, but interesting reading.

It was very interesting, while i disagree with findings and pretty much knew they were gonna say nothing wrong happened. i also find it funny that the letter was written by ralph boyd who was given his position by...guess who..Pres. Bush. I know what happened here, and didnt really mean to get into race aspect of it but rather the disparity betwen the way democratic voters were treated in generl but i ended up going down that road anyways. BTW i must give you credit for finding evidence to support your side.(even though i still disagree)

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
It was very interesting, while i disagree with findings and pretty much knew they were gonna say nothing wrong happened. i also find it funny that the letter was written by ralph boyd who was given his position by...guess who..Pres. Bush. I know what happened here, and didnt really mean to get into race aspect of it but rather the disparity betwen the way democratic voters were treated in generl but i ended up going down that road anyways. BTW i must give you credit for finding evidence to support your side.(even though i still disagree)

Well anyways, you can agree or disagee, nobody is going to stop you. You should see me in my classes history related debating on particular topics with my professors as well as my classmates.

Kelldor

I think that the New American Century was already a project in the minds of Bush father and his Carlyle group friends and Business partners, but it was cut short when Bush senior didn’t made it to second term.

Rebuilding American defenses is something that any American patriot will welcome with open arms, but this rebuilding has more to do with all the amount of money that defense will have that will go into the hands of the Carlyle group.

Deltaboy how can we forget Clinton he has was a big obstacle to what the neo-cons wanted for and were preparing for at the time.

darriousg

You are not the only one that feels frustrated with all that is going on in front of our eyes and you get to see the whole deal for what it is, but others cannot.

Yes sometimes I just spend the day listening to music than listening to the media.

Agit8Chop

I feel that Clinton didn’t wanted to get involved in Iraq and become part of the plan because he knew that it was going to be a fiasco and a mess and he wanted to be remembered for no making the biggest blonder of the century trying to change the make over of the middle east and the take over of their resources.

Well the 9-11 commission did not get all the information.

Rememebr Sandy Burgular? The Clinton man who was caught to stealing documents out of the National Archives and admitted to destroying some?

Just what did he destroy? What was he hiding? He agree to take a lie detector but has yet to schedule one..........

Or how about Jamie Gorlick....the Clinton appointee would created the 'wall' between the FBI and the CIA; gets to lead the 9/11 commission

Of course there is no mention of these is this extremely biased thread.....

Or how about Hillary Clintons comments in 2002?......the ones where she stated that she personally investigated all the evidnece regarding Saddam and the WMDs and agrees with the action taken by the US?!? No of course not....

How about your own quote showing that Bill Clinton did nothing for 8 years with the numerous violations of the UN resolutions?.......Should there ever be a deadline? If there is not a deadline than what weight do UN resolutions have?

Or how about the dem workers handing out cigarettes for votes? or the ones would slashed the republican van tires; whom just received slap on the wrist as the judge stated it was a harmless prank.......

Or how about Democrat Johnson......who was found with $90,000 in his freezer?

If you were fair and actually denied ignorance you would of mentioned both parties.......

[edit on 2-4-2007 by ferretman2]

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by ImpliedChaos
It was very interesting, while i disagree with findings and pretty much knew they were gonna say nothing wrong happened. i also find it funny that the letter was written by ralph boyd who was given his position by...guess who..Pres. Bush. I know what happened here, and didnt really mean to get into race aspect of it but rather the disparity betwen the way democratic voters were treated in generl but i ended up going down that road anyways. BTW i must give you credit for finding evidence to support your side.(even though i still disagree)

Well anyways, you can agree or disagee, nobody is going to stop you. You should see me in my classes history related debating on particular topics with my professors as well as my classmates.

First off I like the upgrade on the avatar. Pretty cool.

So, can I please ask this? Why hasn't this question EVER been answered by anyone? Not one debunker has answered it. And please. no stupid one liner or weak answer that has nothing to do with the question.

WHY IS THERE ANY CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT FOR THIS FATEFUL DAY? There should be none for an event such as this. It was supposedly civilian buildings attacked and it is our rights as a civilian based population to know EVERY SINGLE DETAIL about that day. Yet, they use the shield of 'national security'. It's a pathetic attempt to mislead and kept things secret that should not be.

WHY ARE THERE CLASSIFIED DOCUMENTS? How can anything from that day affect our national security?

Gr8t Work Agit8

It seems some people still have their eyes open, im voting you for the way above as it is important that we are all reminded of the lies we are constantly being fed.

You have voted Agit8dChop for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

Yahoo

[edit on 3-4-2007 by reaper2]

Originally posted by ferretman2
Well the 9-11 commission did not get all the information.

I think the 9/11 commission was not given the chance to find all the information.

Remember Sandy Burgular? The Clinton man who was caught to stealing documents out of the National Archives and admitted to destroying some?

That one is something that even I will like to know and even when people do not talk much about it, is still one of the biggest conspiracy surrounding the Clinton administration.

Just what did he destroy? What was he hiding? He agree to take a lie detector but has yet to schedule one..........

You are right we should look into what is going on with this man.

Or how about Jamie Gorlick....the Clinton appointee would created the 'wall' between the FBI and the CIA; gets to lead the 9/11 commission

Well this man is not worse of better than the ones Bush has appointed so far I think.

Of course there is no mention of these is this extremely biased thread.....

Well now, this is unfair . . . instead of trying to under estimate the thread you should bring all the information you have on the Clintons that is important and has to do with the pre-9/11 ordeal.

Everything is welcome.

Marge - Thanks for the reply. In regards to posting anything regarding the Clinton administration it is the overall attitude of most on this board that it doesn't matter. Most on this board do not seem to be interested in the Government in it's totality only spreading hate regarding the Bush Administration.

Lately it seems the ATS Motto of 'Deny Ignorance' was changed when the staff performed the latest update.

Originally posted by ferretman2

Lately it seems the ATS Motto of 'Deny Ignorance' was changed when the staff performed the latest update.

Don't feel like that, you know I saw a small story related to Sandy Burgular and I have to recognized that the man is guilty as sin of whatever he has been hiding all this time. He has some dirty secrets that will be worth to dig out.

I don't know much about his story because I was not much into Clinton as a president, beside the white house sex scandal.

But I will love to know what was going on with Mr. Burgular and the Clintons, also I do remember the scandal about the sell of secrets but that was just bits and pieces of his Clinton presidency that I can recollect.

Have any of you ever gotten documents from the National Archive? I have and they NEVER give you the original document. They give you a copy and then if you want to take that copy out you have to get authorization. THAT was what Burger was trying to evade for whatever reasons.

I was trying to get unpublished material on an architect whose work I really admire (John Calvin Stevens of late 19th and early to mid 20th century Portland Maine) and those were the hoops I was put through... I can assure you access to classified stuff is even more strigent.



[edit on 3-4-2007 by grover]

I think most people looking for the truth behind 9/11 focus on Bush because all of this has happened on his watch, not necessarily that anyone is "pro-dem" so much as wanting to know what is going on with this particular government because it's more immediately relevant to the current situation this country is in.

Excellent work Agit.


It is rare that anyone, unless in college takes time to present a well thought out argument with research and verifiable facts.

Conclusions are always arguable, but I agree with your thesis.

I, unfortunately believe that we will never get this exposed offically.

The government, or those that are in the government with the power to invesigate this and prosecute it, simply will not.

The fact that it is true is irrelevant. The unanimous belief will, in my opinion, be that the truth would have such consequential damage to our image, economy, and our world status as a super power that they (the U S government) could never admit to what was committed. This same train of thought is why the government will always deny the 911 incidents as being something other than what has been publically expressed.

Again, excellent piece of work

if something crazy happens like bush being allowed to stay in office for one more term (obviously impossible due to the 22nd amendment) then that is proof that something is clearly wrong with the country and if people don't realize it at that point then they are truly being manipulated.