I wasn't an article, it was a OP-ED piece. He talked a lot of crap in it, and was rather vague with proof of his claims.

Where were all these claims of false intel at the time of the invasion? If people knew so much, why not speak out then? Speaking out now serves no purpose other than proving the theory about Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

Cool Hand,

No offense but what news sources do you read? Are you for the Patriot Act? Are you a Bush fan? Do you believe the government has nothing to hide and is really protecting us? Do you even believe in the NWO? Do you even bother reading into history? I'll bet you only read the mainstream news? Am I correct?

Originally posted by mrmulder
Cool Hand,

No offense but what news sources do you read? Are you for the Patriot Act?
Certain parts of it, yes.

Are you a Bush fan?
Yes

Do you believe the government has nothing to hide and is really protecting us?
I believe that whatever it does hide it does for it's own good. I have seen things that it is best for the mainstream not to know about.

Do you even believe in the NWO?
No, I think that it is a bunch of crap. If they were real there would be no way they could do all the things that people here claim and still remain a "secret society."

Do you even bother reading into history?
Yes, I have a degree in it.

I'll bet you only read the mainstream news? Am I correct?
Nope, I read all kinds of news.

Easy MM,

I certainly think there is some merit to CH's comments, plus they are his/her own opinion. You must be concerned about this articles reliability if your only defence is to attack CH's character based on a simple critique of the article you posted.

By the way...the article is from the mainstream press also...I hope you don't believe that the Boston Globe is an alternative media source!

On the article, I do think that it is interesting that it occured on the same day that Bush Sr. made his announcement of the "NWO."

There are plenty of different hypothesis as to why it happened when it did, almost as many as there are ideas of who "really" carried out the attacks.

Luke

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Lukefj]

[Edited on 17-3-2004 by Lukefj]

Cool Hand, NWO exists. I remember all to well hearing Bush Sr discussing it about 14 years ago. What is even more memorable to me is hearing a preacher talk about how NWO would be the end of the world as we know it, this also about 14 yrs ago.

One can see how our rights are being eroded, with out permission!!!! We gladly give up our freedom, we don't need the govt to take them from us!!!!!!!
The Patriot Act seeks to limit some of our freedoms. And we willingly comply.
The new, uniform voting methods we so craved after the 2000 election planned fiasco, can atake away our right to vote. It has been shown that these electronic methods can (and will) be easily rigged. And we asked for this to happen.

Make no mistake, either Bush or Kerry will further the NWO agenda. We can only hope enough of us are aware to thwart its progression.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Cool Hand, NWO exists. I remember all to well hearing Bush Sr discussing it about 14 years ago. What is even more memorable to me is hearing a preacher talk about how NWO would be the end of the world as we know it, this also about 14 yrs ago.


The NWO is sure taking it's sweet time getting around to taking over the world.

That's why they are moving slowly. Few people notice what is really happening because its happening gradually and in 'response' to contrived threats.

Hey another great article ECK! Sounds very similar to the one I found. You know I ask this time and time again. Why can't we impeach Bush since we have the speculating evidence that he misled us and is continuing to lie to us by making us think we're safe but at the same time starting to take away our privacy and freedom? Oh, that's right! "It's unpatriotic to question your president." Whatever man. If Clinton and Nixon can be impeached then so can Bush.

I completely agree. He should definitely be impeached. The legal basis for that position comes from the fact that he LIED in his State of the Union adress last year. That is construed as the same as speaking under oath. Same reason Clinton was impeached. He lied under oath. That's the bottom line. I'm sick to death of all these euphemisms the media use: mislead, intel failure, blah blah blah! The man lied us into war with his eyes wide open. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Wolfe, Feith, Bolton, Perle... etc. should all be hung by their toenails.

I burned to see Clinton impeached. But I have to say, the whole Monica thing was the weakest shyte. He was guilty of far more inidious crimes. Of course the powers that be could not have all of that coming out. It would have implicated a lot of other people - including members of the first Bush administration. For details see Terry Reed's damning book "Compromised: Clinton, Bush & the CIA."

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by mrmulder
Do you even bother reading into history?
Yes, I have a degree in it.

Where exactly did you get your degree from and what year did you graduate?

I'll bet you only read the mainstream news? Am I correct?
Nope, I read all kinds of news.

What would those sources be, exactly?

Just curious..

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I completely agree. He should definitely be impeached. The legal basis for that position comes from the fact that he LIED in his State of the Union adress last year. That is construed as the same as speaking under oath.

But there is no legal binding to what he says during his state of the union. He cannot be punished for what he says through legal means.