Why all the coverups if Bush is innocent?
Just wondering...
2007-04-15 08:42:02 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Didn't Gonzo suspend Habeas Corpus?
2007-04-15 08:51:52 · update #1
YES!
Just like he demanded Saadam prove no WMD in Iraq.
GWB needs to prove he had no involvement in 9/11.
Too many suspicion actions, too many mistakes and falsehoods. He needs to open the books and come clean.
Let the inspectors in GWB! NOW!
2007-04-15 08:54:53 · answer #1 · answered by d c 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Last I checked this country is still using the policy of Innocent until Proven Guilty.
Here's a question, why do you think a government who can't keep intelligence programs secret, who broadcasts military strategy to all the world, and is led by an "idiot president" could pull off something as intricate as 9/11 and keep it from the public?
Is Bush the most brilliant mastermind in history or is he an idiot? It can only be one of the two. They are mutually exclusive.
2007-04-15 08:49:43 · answer #2 · answered by Jon M 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What was Bush's motive for faking a terrorist attack on the US?
To start a war with Afghanistan? Doubtful they have no oil there and we are not exporting anything of value from them,, unless you count Opium.
To start a war with Iraq? He didn't need to crash 4 planes to do that, plus none of the terrorists was claimed to be from Iraq. It appears that the liberals may be right on this one,, the government of Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Besides we probably could have started a War with Iraq without crashing 4 planes and killing thousands of Americans.
So what would be his motivation for doing that only 9 months into his administration?
Time for Achems Razor Kids!!! Who is to blame for 9/11?
1. George W. Bush who only had 9 months to plan the attack hire the conspirators and get everything ready for apparently no reason and no gain but to kill a bunch of his own countrymen?
2. Osama Bin laden who was a leader of a terrorist organization with a long history of attacks on Americans, had declared war on Americans, took credit for the attacks on that day, was planning attacks such as the ones on 9/11 for at least 5 years before the actual attacks, and had the financing to pay for the attacks.
I think it is easy for everyone to see number 2 is the correct answer.
2007-04-15 09:01:26 · answer #3 · answered by Willie 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well the case for impeachment, conviction for office removal in the Senate, ect. on OTHER "high crimes and misdemeanors" is much clearer. If we still honor the Constitution, as Dumbya does not, we would want the burden of proof to be where it has always been, on the prosecution. There are a LOT of unanswered questions that need to be answered about the WTC attack. Demand answers and go wherever the evidence leads.
2007-04-15 09:17:56 · answer #4 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
What cover ups?
There has been more investigating of this event since the JFK assignation and NONE has shown that President Bush had anything to do with it.
Regardless of those who believe in the conspiracy theory.
2007-04-15 09:14:47 · answer #5 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I dont know what country youre from but in America you are innocent until proven guilty. (especially of mindless accusations that he caused 9/11)
2007-04-15 09:02:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, no one that could possibly be taken seriously is accusing Bush of it, and the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.
2007-04-15 08:46:41 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Innocent until proven guilty buddy. Considering the conspiracy comes from loosechange.com, i dont know if u guys have a case.
2007-04-15 08:46:48 · answer #8 · answered by Daniel 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Facts available, smart A$$?
2007-04-15 08:47:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Burden of proof is on the accuser. That's you.
2007-04-15 08:50:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋