Bush is about to get bombshelled in election. [9/11 hearings]

Yay

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002/20040324/1523927286.htm&photoid=20040324WAS115D_WAS114D&floc=NW_1-T

-

Bush is about to get bombshelled in election. [9/11 hearings]

Is he fuck...as we know the guy just apologised for failing to stop 9/11 and criticised Bush's handling of Al-Qaeda after 9/11 and (as I expected) didn't carry out the real bombshell - exposing Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen in order to get an excuse to raid the Middle East for it's oil.

What's the bet he was threatened in some way by the government before the hearings? (like a key murder witness or something, given the potential damage he could cause Bush and his masters)

The Ultimate DooMer said:

What's the bet he was threatened in some way by the government before the hearings?

If you're talking about a "not guilty plea" of making decisions under extreme duress, then that doesn't save Bush or his cabinet from the public branding of Figurehead Under The Influence of Private Investors. Which won't get him reelected anyway.

The problem is, these hearing were delayed long enough to allow dirty money to be made-- when all of this could've been avoided long ago. All the information was there when it was happening. Don't tell me Bush's cabinet were the only people aware of a possible WTC attack before 9-11, because it's not true.

exposing Bush for allowing 9/11 to happen in order to get an excuse to raid the Middle East for it's oil.

Yeah, sure.

Explain in what other way the U.S. Government could have gained the popular support for a military intervention into Iraq, where there's a bucketload of oil and hardly any terrorists or WMD. That is, other than allowing a massive terrorist attack that would cause a sufficiently brutal shock to drive the required amount of people out of their minds enough to support a false pretext into the Middle-East.

Tell me the truth, are you one of the deluded ones, or simply a hypocrite who would say "go" to the invasion even without the moralizing and purifying shell around it? Or a bit of both, perhaps?

That's great. What railgunner is too ignorant to recognize is that the false sense of security began with the Clinton administration. Bush may be partially at fault, but no more at fault than Gore would have been. If Gore had been on watch, nothing more would have been done to thwart 9-11.

I really think far less would have been accomplished in the aftermath of 9-11 if Gore was in the mix, and we'd be no better off than we were on 9-10-201. And Gore was a far superior candidate than Kerry is. Hm.

gatewatcher said:

I really think far less would have been accomplished in the aftermath of 9-11 if Gore was in the mix, and we'd be no better off than we were on 9-10-201. And Gore was a far superior candidate than Kerry is. Hm.

What you mean like catching osama bin laden or preventing al qaeda from further terrorist attacks?

Or maybe you're talking about invading soverign nations under false pretense and a guise that they had something to do with the aforementioned attacks?

Cyb said:

What you mean like catching osama bin laden or preventing al qaeda from further terrorist attacks?

You talk like Osama is the sole entity in Al Queda, and controls everything. But as long as we're talking about preventing attacks, well then yes, we have prevented further US attacks.

It also said there were four times from late 1998 to 1999 when bin Laden possibly could have been targeted, once when he was near a hunting lodge in Afghanistan frequented by United Arab Emirates officials.


Tenet said it was unclear whether bin Laden was there and another complicating factor was that "you might have wiped out half the royal family in the UAE in the process, which I'm sure entered into everybody's calculation in all this."

Sounds like a pretty tiny royal family. I don't buy it.

The thing with real life is that it only happens once. You can never be sure how things would have developed if different decisions had been made. You might think things have gone badly since 9/11, but you can't know what would have happened if a less belligerent approach had been adopted by the US government.

On the subject of Clinton, I recall that on one occasion when he tried to make a statement about terrorism (and specifically Bin Laden, IIRC), the journalists showed no interest at all, and just questioned him about the relatively trivial Lewinski stuff.

As for Iraq, I don't think it's at all clear that there is any more international support for the US than there would have been if 9/11 hadn't happened. Iraq was already a major issue before 9/11, and wasn't going to go away.

gatewatcher said:
But as long as we're talking about preventing attacks, well then yes, we have prevented further US attacks.

True, further US attacks on Iraq and Afganistan are unlikely... well, at least as long as said nations continue to have governments that are compliant to US policy; and especially if the US keeps troops in strategic locations in order to assure that.

To consider what would have happened had Gore been in power, you'd still have to be able to determine if the event itself would have happened in the first place under that different scenario. And you can't say that it's carved into stone, so that no matter what, the planes would have crashed into the towers. Very unlikely. Everything is very circumstantial in such events, and the circumstances have to be very propitious, if not unique, for it to happen.

Grazza, I agree; Iraq, and its oil wells, weren't going anywhere. They're just there. As for support for the US; did that matter that much? What mattered more was getting US citizens riled up. Other countries that supported the US had among the biggest protest marches and strongest internal criticism against the matter, really.

My guess is that you'll see the US and allies pretty much turning a blind eye on Osama Bin Laden unless a replacement for him is found, or unless there's a need for a policy change in regards to terrorism; due to government changes or if playing around becomes too risky and an easier alternative becomes available.

Also, it's most relevant to observe that terrorism is being used as the pretext for militaristic and forceful economic expansion; much more relevant than to speculate on how harsh a policy is required against terrorism (a question which is pretty much invalidated considering the amount of bullshit involved.)

The talk on the article about looking back and "targetting" Osama is pretty dumb, since, agreeing with gatewatcher here; killing some dude doesn't really necessarily change things that much. Not to mention that most "targetting" going on never seems to hit the publicly expected targets, and that talking about the past like that considering events that happened only later may as well be placed in a Sci Fi book, if anywhere.

Plus, like I said, there's too much to gain in not killing Osama.

I kind of understand people putting supposed moral values (the ones claimed as the objective "against terrorism") into the actions taken, since openly viewing the actual crudeness behind events would make them wonder if they are in Hell, or at least to question why they don't themselves get more out of the matter.

Still, that doesn't make them any less deluded, naïve, or false (when not stupid.) They moslty just need to reassure themselves to go on with their "normal" lives while that dirty work is being perpertated by those in the business of power.

gatewatcher said:

You talk like Osama is the sole entity in Al Queda, and controls everything. But as long as we're talking about preventing attacks, well then yes, we have prevented further US attacks.

Yes I realize that, my point was that we've accomplished very little aside from pissing off al queda and various other radical islam groups around the world. The director of the CIA has even said there will be more attacks on US soil. Not 'might be' or 'there's a high possibility', but 'will be'.

Would the planes have crashed into WTC if Gore had won? I think it's highly likely, but there's no way to be 100% sure of course, but if he had followed Clinton's policy of holding terrorism in the highest regard I think there might have been a greater chance of finding out about it, but who knows. It was clearly a very well masterminded plan spanning several years, most during the Clinton administration.

As for after that, I don't think Gore would have quite fixated on Iraq, especially given the intelligence findings of no WMD and the complete lack of UN support, though it's likely we'd still have gone into Afganistan.

All this is moot of course since Gore didn't win, but I do think that we'd be in a better position with the rest of the world at the very least since Bush so quickly squandered the sympathy we had from nearly the entire world after 9/11.

Grazza said:

Things that make you go Hmm...

All sound logic in my head, especially when you referred to future prospects-- if anyone has ever compared the business of world leaders to a game of chess, they'd be pretty accurate. You think in the long-term(i.e. more than 4 years); the events we've witnessed branching from the WTC attacks are only a single "episode" in a series of goals set by Bush and this GOP(if not their "customers"). There were things going on in the background prior to it, and there will be goings on in the years to come.

And there's something to say to the skeptics who find it hard to accept that almost 4000 lives were sacrificed in the interest of the priveleged: if you want to go down the "what if it didn't happen" highway, go to Philosophy class. The WTC attack DID happen. There is NOTHING that can refute the evidence showing that many people in positions of power were FULLY AWARE of the time, target, and severity of the attacks. This alone is inexcusable-- but if not for their own good, then WHY IN GOD'S NAME would they ignore such a clearly defined, scarily imminent and widely known threat? Would you consider "negligence caused by arrogance" an ACCEPTABLE answer? We are not in a position to allow our leaders to make our decisions with an air of excessive pride. Hubris, as you'd learn in early literature, is often the cause of tragedy. The only difference is that this is not fiction, we are dealing with very REAL danger, and the catharsis will eat away at our emotions long after the players have left the stage.

Numbermind said:
the events we've witnessed branching from the WTC attacks are only a single "episode" in a series of goals set by Bush and this GOP(if not their "customers").

The events are determined by these goals they set? Sounds Godlike! And this talk of episodes reminds me of Star Wars, or Sci Fi shows on TV, or even DOOM...

And there's something to say to the skeptics who find it hard to accept that almost 4000 lives were sacrificed in the interest of the priveleged: if you want to go down the "what if it didn't happen" highway, go to Philosophy class.

That goes on during a Philosophy class? There was a comics series Marvel put out called What if?, though. Anyone remember those?

The WTC attack DID happen.

Huh?

We are not in a position to allow our leaders to make our decisions with an air of excessive pride. Hubris, as you'd learn in early literature, is often the cause of tragedy. The only difference is that this is not fiction, we are dealing with very REAL danger, and the catharsis will eat away at our emotions long after the players have left the stage.

Welcome to Earth. We've been doing such things for thousands of years. Plus, are we in any position to tell our "leaders" anything?

By the way, what's this about catharsis eating away the emotions? I think you'll have to reread the notes left by Aristotle's students sometime.

I mean, you're saying we should look to early tragedy in order to see what reality, which is supposed to be something else, more hardcore and whatnot (thus we spell it in caps, right?), is brewing for us, whilst using a concept some ancient philosopher used in his Poetics notes, most likely written during a Philosophy class, to define its effect on our present international political scenario.

Hey... got an idea here. Lets play DOOM a bit, talk about its characteristics as a game, draw some conclusions, define some basic concepts, and then finally apply them to world politics and history. That should work too!

Numbermind said:

...if anyone has ever compared the business of world leaders to a game of chess, they'd be pretty accurate. You think in the long-term(i.e. more than 4 years)...

Most chess thinking and planning is relatively short-term. Grandiose long-term plans are too prone to being derailed to be useful. If the short-term plans mesh together to form what appears to be a seamless whole, that's normally due to the player's good intuition/positional sense.

myk said:

Plus, are we in any position to tell our "leaders" anything?

You act as if there's a written contract somewhere that we signed saying that being an elected representative entitles one to substitute one's own empowerment in lieu of that of the public. OUr sworn leaders' influences reach far and wide, but they would be powerless to force submission if, for example, every person in America were to stop paying taxes altogether(regardless of other ramifications).

By the way, what's this about catharsis eating away the emotions? I think you'll have to reread the notes left by Aristotle's students sometime.

I mean, you're saying we should look to early tragedy in order to see what reality, which is supposed to be something else, more hardcore and whatnot (thus we spell it in caps, right?), is brewing for us, whilst using a concept some ancient philosopher used in his Poetics notes, most likely written during a Philosophy class, to define its effect on our present international political scenario.

Hey... got an idea here. Lets play DOOM a bit, talk about its characteristics as a game, draw some conclusions, define some basic concepts, and then finally apply them to world politics and history. That should work too!

You seem to be criticizing what I'd said, yet what your sarcasm implies in the concluding sentence seems geared toward the same point I was making.

Numbermind said:

If you're talking about a "not guilty plea" of making decisions under extreme duress, then that doesn't save Bush or his cabinet from the public branding of Figurehead Under The Influence of Private Investors. Which won't get him reelected anyway.

I was referring to Richard Clarke probably being threatened or something to persuade him not to drop the big bombshell on Bush.

Numbermind said:

Don't tell me Bush's cabinet were the only people aware of a possible WTC attack before 9-11, because it's not true.

I know - the entire upper levels of the FBI, CIA and White House knew about it, as well as the corporate executives who pull their strings.

myk said:

The events are determined by these goals they set? Sounds Godlike!

That's probably because I bet that's exactly how they see themselves...

Numbermind said:
You act as if there's a written contract somewhere that we signed saying that being an elected representative entitles one to substitute one's own empowerment in lieu of that of the public.

You said we are not in a position to allow our leaders to make our decisions with an air of excessive pride. And my point is, if we're following what you're saying, where you're declaiming against something you see is indeed happening, then we are in fact in a position to allow it, for we are genuinely allowing it.

You seem to be criticizing what I'd said, yet what your sarcasm implies in the concluding sentence seems geared toward the same point I was making.

You mean the point you fail to make, since your argument is anchored in the way fiction works, not reality.

Grazza said:
Most chess thinking and planning is relatively short-term. Grandiose long-term plans are too prone to being derailed to be useful. If the short-term plans mesh together to form what appears to be a seamless whole, that's normally due to the player's good intuition/positional sense.

Which now makes the analogy kind of valid...

The Ultimate DooMer said:
That's probably because I bet that's exactly how they see themselves...

They are probably more like you or me playing an RTS game. My point was, naturally, that power groups don't determine events; instead they work within their circumstance. The fact that elites may have plans is because the rules of the game they play (economic conditions), and the disposition of the board (geography and strategic positioning) grant only certain possibilities for the accumulation of power, so they aim for certain goals in particular.

Wow I'm surprised they mentioned the private Saudi jet that was allowed to fly to 5 major US cities and pick up twenty members of the Bin Laden family to get them back to Saudi Arabia. Of course things were being held back.

Have they mentioned the Carlyle Group (of which the Bin Ladens were members of at the time and the senior Bush is a member of)?

I hope he doesn't win the election... i am hoping carry will win

Weakmind said:
I hope he doesn't win the election... i am hoping carry will win

I think Kerry might have a better chance.

gatewatcher said:

That's great. What railgunner is too ignorant to recognize is that the false sense of security began with the Clinton administration. Bush may be partially at fault, but no more at fault than Gore would have been. If Gore had been on watch, nothing more would have been done to thwart 9-11.

I understand this fully. BBC noted that during the Clinton administration, Terrorism was always a big priority (notice the lack of terrorism during his years). When Bush came, terrorism wasn't his priority until 9-11.

Kerry may not defend against terrorism better than Bush, but he's less dangerous to the US.

Also, a CNN article noted that Osama preferred Bush to win because he thinks Bush is dumb. He noted that Kerry would "crush" him.

Weakmind said:

I hope he doesn't win the election... i am hoping carry will win

I hope you never have the opportunity to vote. Rather than thinking for yourself you obviously just follow the crowd and you can't even follow them correctly with your weakminded spelling errors.

BlackFish said:

Clinton ... notice the lack of terrorism during his years

Er, what? There was an attempt to destroy the WTC in 1993, and several attacks on American targets outside the USA during Clinton's years as president.

Grazza said:

Er, what? There was an attempt to destroy the WTC in 1993, and several attacks on American targets outside the USA during Clinton's years as president.

The WTC happened a little while after election, heh.

Most of the things that went with Clinton didn't associate with terrorism.

Blackfish, before you start talking about politics on the doomworld forums, make sure you have something to back up your stupid ass opinionated facts first (articles, audioclips, etc). Keep in mind we've already seen thousands of political views that actually never made sense.

Ralphis said:

Blackfish, before you start talking about politics on the doomworld forums, make sure you have something to back up your stupid ass opinionated facts first (articles, audioclips, etc). Keep in mind we've already seen thousands of political views that actually never made sense.

I agree.

God I love it when you guys think I'm a moron.
*points and laughs*

Grazza said:

Er, what? There was an attempt to destroy the WTC in 1993, and several attacks on American targets outside the USA during Clinton's years as president.

Actualy, there were several terrorist attacks stopped during his administration's rule. They stopped this one guy at the border up in Blaine, WA who had explosives. Turns out he was working for Al-Queda and they managed to get information from him on several targets on the West Coast that they were planning to blow up or something. One of them was the Space Needle, which they actualy closed to the public for New Years 1999. Then they ended up catching some more guys with the info they got. So it's not like the administration back then was completely oblivious.