posted on May 20, 2002 03:52:45 PM new
SMOKING GUN: The Evidence that May Hang G. W. Bush
Part I: The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense
At the VERY LEAST, Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his quilt involves more
than just a huge intentional sin of omission — this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him,
Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie — that they had no
idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen...they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams...they had
no specific warnings...there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc. etc. ad nauseum. I
have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first,
let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense.
To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin
completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to
GAIN by their actions. Let's take a look at the well documented facts:
First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's
approval ratings had sunk to just 49% — this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or
presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon.
Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception,
he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in
the face of even the most outraged criticism.
Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large
scale crime in pursuit of power.
Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring
war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991 This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a
war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings
way, way up.
So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no
serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would
most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen.
Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He
seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or
serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At
the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These
are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its
principles in the wake of tragedy. It is the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's
presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval
rating high lasted only a few months).
Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and
political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of
huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from
the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped
or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why
should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a
crook!" "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all
swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?
So, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell and knows
that someone has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a
preemptive strike while he still has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus
we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his
friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right — both interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally
exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1 million. In fact, on the same
program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the air on his new
"It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest press.
Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask
you so you can spin them in just the way you want.
Russert asked Cheney how he responded to charges that the information existed in several reports that
showed that a WTC-type attack was a possibility. Cheney responded — incredibly! - that reading all those
reports weren't his concern. There's just too darn many of them. Russert let this ridiculous response go
totally unchallenged and unqualified.
Here are the Qs that are missing — the Qs a real journalist would have asked: "So then, Mr. Cheney,
just what is your criteria for a report that is important enough for you to read? How do you prioritize what
you read or what those under you are directed to call to your attention? What reports on this matter DID
you read?"
It seems an insult to America's intelligence that such questions are not being asked. It's like a grand jury
who refuses to ask a murder suspect questions like "Where were you on the night of such and such? What
was your relationship to the victim?" but instead says, "Well, here's what we heard from the police that
someone thinks you may have killed someone. Go ahead and explain yourself. Don't worry — we won't
interrupt you or ask you any uncomfortable questions. And by the way — your good pal who lives down
the block volunteered to serve as jury foreman!"
Here's one last FACT to consider. The GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately meritless case
against Clinton that involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals. Since Bush took
office, not one dime has been spent by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings,
Bush's stolen election, Tom Delay's boiler room scams that have bilked doctors out of millions, the
mysterious wild trading of American and United Airlines stock the week before 9/11, or any of the other
crimes that were far more serious than Clinton's alleged offenses. Meanwhile, the GOP — so eager to spend
millions to investigate an office romance — has worked overtime to block the initiation of any serious
investigation into the biggest crime to have ever been perpetrated on American soil that claimed nearly 3,000
lives. WAKE UP AMERICA!!
posted on May 20, 2002 04:13:50 PM new
krs (& Helen): WHo is this Cheryl?
>>So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no
serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do?<<
Whatever the puppeteers tell him. You really should read "Sleepwalking thru the 80's" (or close) by Haynes Johnson.
posted on May 20, 2002 05:07:04 PM new
You'll not hear such things on the prime time news. I watched - aghast - at the Cheney interview myself, and the SOB was lying out his a$$ that was obvious that he was twisting the facts and smirking that no one would dare to try to tie him down to anything.
I don't doubt that there was a whole lot more going on than they want to admit to, but I still have a hard time imagining any American actually ignoring what was about to take place so that Power could be kept. You would have to have a government like the one that we have right now and a sitting president like the one that we have right now to make such a thing true.
posted on May 20, 2002 06:17:04 PM newThe GOP spent $40 million to pursue an ultimately meritless case against Clinton that involved diddling an intern and some questionable real estate deals.
The key here is that the GOP spent 40 mil and not Congress. If the case was ultimately meritless then it seems you would be having a good chuckle over their wasted money spent.
not one dime has been spent by Congress to investigate Cheney and his secret energy dealings
The key here is that we are talking about Congress spending money. If you are so sure of the validity of these allegations then why is the Democratic party not spending monies to investigate. It sure seems like it would be a worthy cause to spend on. The GOP spends money on causes they deem worthy.
posted on May 20, 2002 08:37:33 PM new
Borillar
Allright then shouldn't someone launch an investigation. I mean come on now there has to be someone or some organization with the money and the wherewithall to accomplish this. Oh wait I forgot they are owned by the GOP also, LOL.
posted on May 20, 2002 10:26:52 PM new
Of course there should be investigations, yellowstone, with Special Prosecutors. I made this very suggestion when Clinton was still President. It was obvious to me that the Republicans were on a roll, because after smearing Clinton for years with a Special Prosecutor, they went and made it so that Special Prosecutors couldn't be used anymore (or, at least they tried to.) I then suggested at that time that Special Prosecutors should automatically be put into service the moment that a new President is elected, so that the new President could have investigations start right away with a minimum amount of wasted time. Had I been listened to, instead of ridiculed for this idea, Bush might only be a fading nightmare of the American people by now ...
posted on May 21, 2002 06:09:25 AM new
Well, I'm happy to see some movement toward awareness that the Bush administration, the FBI and the CIA knew something and did nothing to attempt to prevent this tragedy. It's criminal that Bush received this momentous intelligence and failed to tell the American public about warnings that might have prevented the worst disaster in US history.
For the first time in the war on terrorism, George is on the defensive, right where he belongs. And the intelligence sources are on the spot too, right where they belong. The American Citizens are angry. The press is beginning to wake up along with the Democratic party. Hopefully, we will learn from this horrible failure and send George back to the ranch, right where he belongs.
posted on May 21, 2002 07:25:46 AM new" ... along with the Democratic party."
Not exactly. Bush said JUMP! And the Democratic Party asked, "HOW HIGH, SIR?!"
You see, after 10 full years of non-stop, Total Partisan Warfare tactics on the part of the Republican Party, Bush and the GOP began to accuse the Democrats the other day of being PARTISAN on asking these questions! Democrats said, "SORRY, SIR! WE WERE ONLY FOLLOWING OUR ORDERS. IT WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN!" and they squeeked out of the minds of the press.
posted on May 21, 2002 07:52:32 AM new
It surely is pathetic that it took 8 months to even consider the issue and the move to investigate is still going at a snail's pace.
But, Hillary took a lot of heat from Cheney and Ari and I haven't heard about her backing down or apologizing. Although her speech was too tame for me, at least it was an effort that we haven't seen any other Democrat take in the last eight months.
Helen
May 16, 2002
Prepared Remarks of
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on 9/11 Warnings
On The Floor Of The United States Senate
Mr. President, I rise today out of respect for, and to speak on behalf of, the people of New York. I am especially mindful today of the memory of the people in New York who were lost on September 11, and their family members and loved ones, who grieve for them to this day.
We learn today something we might have learned at least eight months ago: that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible Al-Qaeda plot to hijack a US airliner.
The White House says that the President took all appropriate steps in reaction to that warning.
The White House says that the warning did not include any specific information, such as which airline, which date, or the fact that a hijacked plane would be used as a missile. Those are all important issues, worthy of exploration by the relevant committees of Congress. The goal of such an examination should not be to assign blame, but to find out all the facts.
And I also support the effort by Senators Lieberman and McCain to have an independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in March.
Such a panel can help assure the people of New York and all Americans that every facet of this national tragedy will be fully explored, in hopes that the lessons we learn can prevent disasters in our future.
I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut's remarks on the floor earlier today indicating his desire to offer this proposal as an amendment at the earliest possible convenience. Because we must do all we can to learn the hard lessons of experience from our past and apply them to safeguard our future.
That is why I also support the call by the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Daschle, for the release of the Phoenix FBI memorandum and the August intelligence briefing to Congressional investigators, because, as Senator Daschle said this morning, the American people "need to get the facts."
Mr. President, I know some things about the unique challenges faced by the person who assumes the mantle of Commander in Chief. No one but those individuals who have that responsibility can truly know the full scope of the burdens of that office. But I've had the privilege of witnessing such history up close. And I know there is never any shortage of second-guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks, ready to dismantle any comment, or critique any action taken, or not taken.
Having experienced that from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I will not play that game, especially in this circumstance.
I am simply here today, on the floor of this hallowed chamber, to seek answers to questions. Questions being asked by my constituents. Questions raised by our newspapers in New York, such as the one with the headline "Bush Knew." The President knew what? My constituents would like to know the answers to those questions. Not to blame the President or any American. But just to know. To learn from experience. To do all we can to ensure that a 9/ll never happens again.
The pain of 9/ll is revisited every time a scene of the flaming towers appears on the television. It is revisited every time we see a picture of the cleanup at Ground Zero. It is revisited every time the remains of a fallen hero is recovered. And it is revisited today, with the questions about what might have been, had the pieces of the puzzle been put together in a different way before that sad day in September.
I cannot answer the questions my constituents are asking. I cannot answer the concerns raised by the families of the victims.
As agonizing as it is to even think that there was intelligence suggesting the possibility of the tragedy that occurred, particularly for the family members who lost a loved one, it's a subject that we are absolutely required to explore.
As for the President, he may not be in a position to respond to all of those concerns. But he is in a position to answer some of them, including the question of why we know today, May 16, about the warning he received, and why we did not know this on April 16, or March 16, or February 16, or January 16, or December 16, or November 16, or October 16, September 16........or August 16?
And I hope that the President will assume the duty that we know he is capable of fulfilling, exercise the leadership that we know he has, and come before the American people at the earliest possible moment to answer the questions so many Americans are asking today. That will help. My constituents would appreciate it.
After all, it's the not knowing that hurts the most.
posted on May 21, 2002 07:58:35 AM new
[i]To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin
completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to
GAIN by their actions.[/i]
This same statement can and should be applied to this entire thread but mostly to Krs' post because of the amount of spin it contains. When you do this it becomes clear what the posters in this thread have to GAIN.
posted on May 21, 2002 08:22:04 AM new
No, yellowstone, all you say is that you subscribe to different spin than do others. Wholeheartedly it appears to me. It's your choice, if it can be called a choice to believe whatever you are told by the GOP, or the administration, or anyone else. I wonder how you can do that a little but it doesn't surprise me. It sure isn't a rare thing for large groups to turn a blind eye to history either through ignorance or preference, but it doesn't change the history, and history is replete with examples of bamboozled populaces sanctioning the most horrific actions by their representative leaders. Some of them later realize their oversight, some never do.
Now, how does anyone feel about martial law? Know what it is? What it entails? How it's implemented? How many know how often it's been declared in this country? Do you think that plans for the imposition of martial law are necessary today? Or the suspension of elections? There's a little on the subject here:http://globalresearch.ca/articles/STA205A.html
posted on May 21, 2002 08:49:15 AM new
So, um, let me get this straight. Bush masterminded the 9-11 attack as part of his re-election strategy? Okay ... no conspiracy theory there.
posted on May 21, 2002 09:17:55 AM newTwinsofts thought?
"So, um, let me get this straight. Bush masterminded the 9-11 attack as part of his re-election strategy? Okay ... no conspiracy theory there."
End of twinsofts thought.
So, um, twinsoft, I realize that it's difficult for you to get things straight so I will try to help you out. Bush is using this attack to his advantage and that of the military industrial complex in order to maintain dominance of the world and it's MONEY. The movement of America closer to a martial-law society is also a part of their agenda, of course.
George Bush knew about this pending attack and just let it happen. What a horrific, miserable human being!!!
posted on May 21, 2002 12:34:39 PM new
It is much more plausible to believe from previous actions like the gulf of Tonkin lie that the government may have very well allowed the terrorist attack to proceed for several self serving reasons including a free hand to attack the terrorists - an improved domestic rating and a free hand to curtail liberties - IF you factor in that fact that nobody - the people hurt by the attack or even the people who planned and carried out the attacks - had any idea how very effective they would be in bringing both towers to the ground in hours.
It was simple an unexpected bonus for them and the final cost was undoubtedly more than the government could have envisioned by several thousand casualities and billions of dollars.
posted on May 21, 2002 03:22:48 PM newall you say is that you subscribe to different spin than do others.
Krs
Actually I don't subscribe to spin at all whenever I can help it. Spin when used in political discussions is pure embelishment and it tends to cloud your view of the facts.
Helenjw
I tried to read the article but it is just way too clouded with spin or embellishment so I gave up on it.
Give me something I can sink my teeth into without any embelishment.
posted on May 21, 2002 05:38:54 PM new
Yellowstone,
I understand how you feel. I tried to read your "top 10 list thread" about Clinton and "it was so "clouded with spin or embellishment so I gave up on it."
"Give me something I can sink my teeth into without any embelishment."
posted on May 21, 2002 05:45:28 PM new"Hasn't a semblance of martial law already begun?"
Actually, it's been Rule By Decree. Just look at Bush declaring a PRIVATE WAR and ABUSING his Presidential Authority to order our troops to kill and get killed! He's worse than Castro!
posted on May 21, 2002 06:01:35 PM new
Helenjw
I suspected that someone might try to call me on my top ten lists as being spin but then I thought that won't work because it is about humour.
The topics of conversation in this thread and in the article aren't about humour are they, or did I miss something here?
If you want to tell a joke about GW or Dumbya, as it has been so aptly used before, then embelish away but when you are talking about cold hard facts of criminal actions that is another story.
If this is a joke thread I would be happy to move my top ten lists over here.
posted on May 21, 2002 07:45:04 PM new
I have always been an independent.
I do not believe in thinking by party rules just American rules.
But I would vote for bush over and over again in order to oppose the bush bashers here at the round table.
All you have succeeded in doing is repulsing anyone who might have once shared a thought with you.
If you would have done the same to ANY party OR president with such contempt and hatred, I would oppose you.
If you represent the left , I am on the right. And if you were on the right I would be on the left.
posted on May 21, 2002 07:52:17 PM new
You sound like my kids when they were teenagers. If I told them I liked the black dress, they would wear the blue dress.
(which is the one that I wanted them to wear) I called it senseless opposition.
posted on May 21, 2002 08:33:53 PM new
breinhold
Not rude just fed-up.
But you do have to understand these left wingers and what their game is all about. The left has a certain percentage of people, lets say for arguments sake it's 40% that will allways vote left no matter what and the same is true for the right, 40%. That leaves 20% of people that will go either way and the leftists that are posting here are trying to sway these
20%ers to their side with their political spin.
When they post their diatribe you have to take it with a grain of salt so to speak and not let it really get to you. Point out their falsehoods when you can and if they or anyone gets it is for each person to decide.
What really gets me though is why more of my fellow Republicans do not post here. I think it's because they think the fight is over, because our guy is in office. The fight is never over.
Edited because I can.
[ edited by yellowstone on May 21, 2002 08:36 PM ]
