you mean bush and his part in 9/11?
That Jonathan Bush’s Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama’s brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
That so many influential figures in and close to the Bush White House had expressed, just a year before the attacks, the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" before their militarist ambitions could be fulfilled, demonstrates nothing more than the accidental virtue of being in the right place at the right time.
That the company PTECH, founded by a Saudi financier placed on America’s Terrorist Watch List in October 2001, had access to the FAA’s entire computer system for two years before the 9/11 attack, means he must not have been such a threat after all.
That whistleblower Indira Singh was told to keep her mouth shut and forget what she learned when she took her concerns about PTECH to her employers and federal authorities, suggests she lacked the big picture. And that the Chief Auditor for JP Morgan Chase told Singh repeatedly, as she answered questions about who supplied her with what information, that "that person should be killed," suggests he should take an anger management seminar.
That on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney took upon himself the job of co-ordinating a response to domestic terror attacks even as he was crafting the administration’s energy policy which bore implications for America's military, circumventing the established infrastructure and ignoring the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman report, merely shows the VP to be someone who finds it hard to delegate.
2006-10-18 03:47:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by dstr 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
This is what liberals are all about....the ONLY thing they are about. It is important to understand that the various principles, idealogies and causes that liberals champion are a deception. Even marxism which is the root of liberalism is discarded with not even a rationalization given.
The repeating pattern of behavior that DEFINES liberalism is that they do everything possible, to politically manipulate governments into NOT intervening in the most heinous of behaviors done by various rogue regimes. This is a repeating and constant pattern. Nazi germany, stalinist russia, maoist china, castro and cuba, north korea and the insane fruitloop Kim Jong Il. Wherever there are people being murdered (hundreds of millions of innocent men, women and children) or enslaved or starved, beaten, raped and worse....you find liberals blocking anyone who tries to do anything about it. There is an ocean on blood on their hands (and that's not even counting the effect they have had in today's situation of 1 in 4 american pregnancies being aborted or the blocking of the partial birth abortion ban).
This is the only thing that remains constant about liberals and it is the only cause they put true energy and resources towards. You see this very clearly in examining various liberal organizations (ACLU, NOW, Nation of Islam etc.) that have a specific cause and how they immediately abandon that cause wholesale in the pursuit of aiding and abetting murder. That's why you have the ACLU aiding the "God Hates Fags" crew, the Nation of Islam supporting governments where blacks are kept as slaves and NOW defending the Taliban against George Bush. It's why you have Jimmy Carter kissing every murderous scumbag on the planet and declaring obvious malfeasance as being legitimate. It's also why you see a pissant country like North Korea threatening the US with nuclear war (the fruits of the Clinton administrations insane policies toward North Korea.....or did he, in fact, know exactly what would happen?)
Indeed, that is the most cherished goal of liberals. World War 3, preferably with nukes that the US loses. It's what all their behavior works towards. It's a damn good reason to round them all up and put them in a padded cell. Liberals are the precursor of the jackboot wearing stormtroopers you saw in the various regimes I mentioned above and it is what the liberals want to become but cannot because westernized countries have a strong rule of law. In some of the countries where socialism has rotted out some of the rule of law, you see liberals getting more and more violent and acting more and more out in the open showing solidarity with groups like Hamas, the national socialists, North Korea etc.
Even in our country you see them emboldened this way. During the recent unprovoked attack in Israel by Lebanon, all you saw on the daily KOS (the main liberal blog) was talk about how we need to solve the middle east problem by getting rid of the jews (ie advocating genocide). KOS tracks the popularity of posts and these posts were IMMENSELY popular. This is valuable information about what liberals are really all about and why we should consider them a serious internal security threat. Who knows what crazy **** these people are planning. They would LOVE to have the power to come to your door, drag you and your family out and put them on a train to a gulag or to "the showers".
Luckily, we have guns. And that **** is unlikely to happen.
But the point is that they want it.
2006-10-18 11:11:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Funny, the UN just came out and said that Israel is commiting "ethnic cleansing" in Gaza. Are you going to get mad at that mass-murder? Or are you just going to keep bashing Muslims and ignore people who are actually commiting genocide as we speak?
Personally, I'm not sure what mass-murder you're talking about? Are you reffering to Darfur? Yes, it is a horrible tragedy...
Do you know what real mass-murder looks like?
Iraq, civilian death count: 600,000+
Lebanon civilian death count: 1,187
Vietnam, civilian death count: 2,000,000 - 4,000,000
But I'm sure these death tolls were all justified right?
2006-10-18 13:12:05
·
answer #3
·
answered by John S 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Until Bush is out of office and Hilary is in, or whatever Democrat gets the ticket. There is no way a democrat will be elected that does not support the war on terror.
2006-10-18 11:58:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by Nels 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
When will conservatives stop bandying about the reckless and inaccurate accusation that liberals are pro-Islamic terr0rist. We DO NOT defend them. However, we do insist that we not abandon our Constitution when dealing with them.
Apparently you don't realize that Islam is a profoundly conservative religion. Why would liberals want to help them? It makes more sense to accuse American conservatives of being sympatico and of making common cause with them.
2006-10-18 10:48:41
·
answer #5
·
answered by kreevich 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
The Army and Marine Corps is hiring for jobs in Iraq. Get after 'em.
2006-10-18 10:59:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
Islamic jihadists are just the victims of humiliation at the hands of white Europeans! You can't blame them!
2006-10-18 10:47:22
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Look, I was not making excuses for President Bush, so don't criticize me.......
2006-10-18 10:48:48
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
you can't spread democracy with a bomb, bush has proven that.
2006-10-18 10:47:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by pip 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
when we promise to surrender to there "power"
2006-10-18 10:47:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋