Bush cancels keynote speech after learning of invite for WikiLeaks founder

here is conspiracy for ya....I always said Keep an eye on Washington and watch for a signal from Denver...So George doesnt want to share a bunker villa the Leakyboy...he will find another.Bad things on the way for the weekend?

Originally posted by antinwochick
reply to post by DimensionalDetective

 

considering assange has just been extradited to sweden pending an appeal and then possible (probable) extradition to the u.s i do find this strange that he would be speaking. Wouldnt have been eventfull anyway since assange is said 2 be speaking via sat. How cool would a celebrity death match be between those 2... (insert daydream here)

What????
Assange is still in the UK and still on bail living in a friends country house..
Please get your facts right...

That doesn't make any sense. From the article in the OP...

Young Presidents' Association's "Global Leadership Summit" in Denver, Colorado, Sherzer said. "This week, upon learning that Julian Assange had recently been invited to address the same summit, President Bush decided to cancel his appearance," said Sherzer.

Denver - in the US. Assange has been kicking up a storm about going to Sweden because he's afraid the US will try to get him. It doesn't matter if they invited him. If Assange really has all the fears of the US that he says he has - there is no chance he'd accept the invite and show up in Denver.

Bush may not be the sharpest pencil in the drawer - but even he has to realize that.

reply to post by Frogs

If Assange really has all the fears of the US that he says he has - there is no chance he'd accept the invite and show up in Denver.

Assange is on bail in the UK and his passport has been confiscated..
I'm sure they meant an appearance by sat link or something..

reply to post by Frogs


Not in person. Also via same article:

the Denver Business Journal reported this week that the 39-year-old Australian was slated to address attendees via satellite.

Him showing up in person would be like a wet dream come true for the 2 party crime family. Easy pickin's for their brand of "justice". lol

Originally posted by MrWendal
Now do you really think there is some secret file some place with the plans and names of those involved in the plot of 9/11? Are you suggesting that the Government pulled off the biggest terrorist attack on it's own population ever... but yet forgot to shred some document which would prove how they accomplished it?

No I don't think they "forgot" to shred the documents. Just take a look at some of the documents that have been released not just by whistleblowers but by declassification. They keep their documents regardless of what it is.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Now do you have any evidence at all that supports what your suggesting?

Ah yes of course. I expected this. It's a popular line on ATS. When challenged with logic people resort to the "do you have any evidence?" line because they believe this helps their argument.

Originally posted by MrWendal
but I base my opinion on what they have released and not on what they have not released.

I like the assumption here. You assume and imply I do not base my opinion off what they release and only base it off what they do not release. Another popular tactic on ATS... assumption and twisting of words.

If all you have are logical fallacies to back up your argument then don't bother responding to me.

Remind me which one of them recruited 50,000 "al-queda" members since 2001

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
No I don't think they "forgot" to shred the documents. Just take a look at some of the documents that have been released not just by whistleblowers but by declassification. They keep their documents regardless of what it is.

Fair enough. So what are these documents pertaining to 9/11 that Wikileaks should be disclosing?

Now do you have any evidence at all that supports what your suggesting?

Ah yes of course. I expected this. It's a popular line on ATS. When challenged with logic people resort to the "do you have any evidence?" line because they believe this helps their argument.

Asking for evidence does nothing to help my argument, it helps YOUR argument. I am personally not arguing anything, I am however asking you to back up your claim that Wikileaks is burying information and refusing to release it. You are the one making the claim, I am simply asking you to show proof of what you are claiming. If I come to you and say Aliens have landed and are killing people, I think it would be a wise idea for you to ask me to prove it. I would think it would be a good idea for me to be able to prove it. By you asking me for proof of my claim, it does not help your argument, because you are not arguing. What you are doing is asking for verification of the point I am making.

Now you say "Yes of course" you have proof.. yet you have not shown it and you expect this response? So again, since you say "yes of course" you have proof, please provide it this proof that Wikileaks is burying information and refusing to release it. Do you have a crystal ball showing you exactly what documents Wikileaks is in possession of? Some inside knowledge? Please enlighten us.

I like the assumption here. You assume and imply I do not base my opinion off what they release and only base it off what they do not release. Another popular tactic on ATS... assumption and twisting of words.

If all you have are logical fallacies to back up your argument then don't bother responding to me.

I am twisting nothing nor am I assuming anything. I based my reply directly on what you posted. You said,

Wikileaks is a CIA front. If it were genuine don't you think some damning evidence about September 11th would have been released by now? Or is there no evidence because the official story is the truth?

Now are you not saying that you believe Wikileaks to be a CIA front because they have not released documents about 9/11? If there are other reasons for what you believe, you certainly have not posted them. I can only reply to what you have posted, I am not a mind reader. My so called "assumption" is based on what you stated and I will say it again. I believe Wikileaks to be a CIA operation and I base my opinion on things I have seen released. If you feel I am implying that you only base your opinion on what Wikileaks has not released, that might have a little something to do with what you plainly stated in your previous post.

I think you are all missing the point. Assange does what the does because of what Bush did. Hello? The Freedom of Information Act? That was enacted under, get this- BUSH.

I saw people saying "Oh, Bush didn't want to see Assange and pot calling the kettle black..blah blah blah". Are you serious? If it wasn't for Bush, we would never be speaking about Assange. Aren't you all so quick to # on Bush? How do youreally know he didn't enact the FIA because he knew he got BS'd about Iraq by many intelligence agencies and he wanted to get a one last 'FU' to the ones who made him look bad?

By no means at all am I a republican, nor a conservative, but I look at all angles before I come to my decisions. Regardless of political ideologies

Anybody seeing another pattern here? Bush cancels this meeting, before cancelled trip to Ft. Knox (but that was legit bad winter storm nobody was flying), cancelled the trip to Switzerland. And we know why he did that one, he didn't want to be held accountable and become a target to be investigated for human rights violations. See what I am getting at? Does he have a reason to keeping a low profile right now? Too late for that he's an exprez, but still has an agenda?

Just my 2sense here.

Originally posted by SunflowerStar
Anybody seeing another pattern here? Bush cancels this meeting, before cancelled trip to Ft. Knox (but that was legit bad winter storm nobody was flying), cancelled the trip to Switzerland. And we know why he did that one, he didn't want to be held accountable and become a target to be investigated for human rights violations. See what I am getting at? Does he have a reason to keeping a low profile right now? Too late for that he's an exprez, but still has an agenda?

Just my 2sense here.

Maybe Switzerland can get interpol involved and seek an arrest in the US..
I heard Interpol have been given imunity in the US..

Originally posted by MrWendal
Fair enough. So what are these documents pertaining to 9/11 that Wikileaks should be disclosing?

If Wikileaks would release them I would know now wouldn't I? But of course they would never do that.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Now you say "Yes of course" you have proof..

All of this blabbering you did here is discredited because of this. Here you are putting words in my mouth again. Nowhere did I say "yes of course I have proof". If you can point out where I said that, then I will respond to your discredited words.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am twisting nothing nor am I assuming anything.

Yes you are. See above.

Originally posted by MrWendal
If there are other reasons for what you believe, you certainly have not posted them.

I haven't seen one reason why you believe they are a CIA front. You have only stated that you believe they are because of what they have released. Where are the specifics on that? Are you throwing hypocrisy in to your posts now as well? You demand specifics from me yet you state none yourself?

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Originally posted by MrWendal
Fair enough. So what are these documents pertaining to 9/11 that Wikileaks should be disclosing?

If Wikileaks would release them I would know now wouldn't I? But of course they would never do that.

Originally posted by MrWendal
Now you say "Yes of course" you have proof..

All of this blabbering you did here is discredited because of this. Here you are putting words in my mouth again. Nowhere did I say "yes of course I have proof". If you can point out where I said that, then I will respond to your discredited words.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am twisting nothing nor am I assuming anything.

Yes you are. See above.

Originally posted by MrWendal
If there are other reasons for what you believe, you certainly have not posted them.

I haven't seen one reason why you believe they are a CIA front. You have only stated that you believe they are because of what they have released. Where are the specifics on that? Are you throwing hypocrisy in to your posts now as well? You demand specifics from me yet you state none yourself?

Wow, fail sure does come in so many forms. So let me make sure I have got this correct, cause I would hate to misunderstand what your saying.

You claim that Wikileaks is a CIA front because they have not released anything pertaining to 9/11, yet you have no idea if Wikileaks even has any documents in their possession that pertains to 9/11. Wow.. and you really said I had "logical fallacies" to back up my claims?

So I am putting words in your mouth? Well let's just take a look at what you did say shall we? I asked you the following..

Originally posted by MrWendal
Now do you have any evidence at all that supports what your suggesting?

You replied with..

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
Ah yes of course. I expected this. It's a popular line on ATS. When challenged with logic people resort to the "do you have any evidence?" line because they believe this helps their argument.

So as you can see I asked you for evidence and you clearly say "Ah yes of course. I expected this." So obviously you answered my question for evidence with "Ah yes of course" and claim that you expected to be asked such a question, yet offer nothing at all. These are your words, not mine. I am not speaking for you. If you have a problem getting your point across, dont blame me, blame your Publik Skool Edjucation instead

To cover your final question.. I am not the person claiming anything specific, you are. You are making the claim that Wikileaks is "burying" information and have nothing to back that up. You can attempt to deflect all you like, but anyone with a 3rd grade reading level can clearly see you are offering nothing and doing your best to make the subject about me. Sorry but I am not taking the bait. If you really would like to know why I think that Wikileaks is a CIA operation, feel free to look at my numerous postings in the numerous threads here on ATS on the subject. It should be very easy to find.

Did Bush actually say that? Is that prick really that stupid? Maybe he should take a look at his past 10 years and rethink who has done more damage to the USA.

reply to post by MrWendal


In all fairness, it could be in the insurance file, the contents of which we are yet to see.

That’s fantastic! Even after his presidential run, Dubya still has class and stands for morals and righteousness. Still acting presidential more than our present communist in Chief Barak Hussein Obama! What class! We need people to stand up for what they believe in and not sway even when the opposition starts to strike at you. If you want to tear down this country and do everything you can to try to damage it, like Julian Assange, you have to know you stand only with the hate America crowd on the liberal demoncrat left. I long for the days of the old CIA when they could actually do something.

Originally posted by MrWendal
You claim that Wikileaks is a CIA front because they have not released anything pertaining to 9/11, yet you have no idea if Wikileaks even has any documents in their possession that pertains to 9/11.

I believe you asked what the documents are. Lets refer back to your question, shall we?

So what are these documents pertaining to 9/11 that Wikileaks should be disclosing?

That looks an awful lot like you are asking me what the documents are, i.e. what information they contain, what person and/or agency's name is on the document etc. It seems to me you are asking for specifics about the documents.

Again with your twisting of words. It's sad that that's the only debate style you possess.

Originally posted by MrWendal
So as you can see I asked you for evidence and you clearly say "Ah yes of course. I expected this." So obviously you answered my question for evidence with "Ah yes of course"

Obviously the sarcasm in my response went completely over your head. Anyone with a 1st grade reading level could have spotted it. But since you obviously cannot, I will hold your hand through it. The "Ah yes" part is the sarcasm hint. Is it still too difficult to understand? If so, well that's tough. You're on your own.

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am not the person claiming anything specific, you are.

You aren't? That's strange. I could have sworn we agree on the point that Wikileaks is a CIA front. Yet I am expected to produce evidence and you are not? That's amusing. From this exchange of ours I have gathered that you are one of two types of people: 1. You argue just to argue or 2. You are trolling. Because it seems a bit hypocritical to me to challenge someone who has the same basic beliefs as you but then demand they prove their beliefs while you on the contrary do nothing to prove yours.

So do you have anything of substance to add? I'm willing to change my mind that you are either arguing just to argue or you are trolling. But I've got to see more than just this sorry performance you are putting on.

reply to post by PETROLCOIN


Only thing sorry is your comments. I dont care what you think of me, if you want to believe I am a "troll" that is ok. My posting history over several years on this site says differently. If you want to believe I just want to argue, that is ok. Again my history on this site shows differently.

I simply asked you for some evidence to back up what it is you claimed. Obviously, you are unable to provide that evidence and your opinion is slanted at best. The only thing you have managed to accomplish when asked to base your opinion with facts is deflect, insult, and do everything you could to change the subject. I see no point in furthering this conversation and wasting anymore of my time on a person with the intellect of a sock puppet. Good day to you sir.

Originally posted by backinblack
Wikileaks has proven 100% that all the politicians you elect are nothing but lying scum..

Yet everyone is quite happy to let them carry on..Odd..

Politics is a sideshow, a distraction. Anyone with half a brain knows they are dishonest scum. We don't need wikileaks for that. It has revealed nothing about truth behind the scenes. It keeps you focused on the politics, which you are obviously are. I couldn't care less about diplomatic cables. Now Assange is getting hero worshipped, despite the fact he disagrees with all the important conspiracy subjects and questions. Even a top Wikileaks guy said it was a CIA conduit. What more do you want? I thought this was ATS. Ye sheep of little brains...

Originally posted by Flighty
reply to post by MrWendal

 

In all fairness, it could be in the insurance file, the contents of which we are yet to see.

I completely agree, that is certainly a possibility. However the poster I have been replying to made the claim that Wikileaks is a CIA front because they have not released any information pertaining to 9/11. He then went on to say that Wikileaks had the information, but was "burying" that information and purposely hiding it from the public. If you disagreed with him, you were biased.

Of course he has no evidence to back up his claim. No proof that Wikileaks has any documents pertaining to 9/11. No proof that they are "burying" information. It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another thing entirely to pass your opinion off as fact with nothing to back it up.