English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I personally beleive that 9/11 was Gourge Bushes plan to gain world power, for greed of oil and money. he called it the mass distraction, do you not agree

2007-06-08 01:32:50 · 29 answers · asked by tuff*titty 4 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

29 answers

I do! Osama bin Laden was on the CIA payroll during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and there is no evidence that he was ever dismissed. His family and the Bushes are close friends - George the Elder stayed at their home in Saudi Arabia when he was President - it's possible that 43 and Osama met around the BBQ pit, sucking beer and pork together. They're simply too entangled for all this to be a coincidence - 41 was CIA Director before he became President, and behind the royal family, the bin Laden family is the second richest in Saudi Arabia. They made their money in the same line of work as Halliburton. I think Prince Bandar is the link - that business about flying the Saudis out of the U.S. right after 9/11 seems mighty suspicious, too. Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist, has not been caught, and Bush has said that the search for him is not important?

9/11 played so well into Dubya's hands that, if it was a coincidence, it would be unique in history.

2007-06-08 01:57:34 · answer #1 · answered by Who Else? 7 · 1 2

No, I don't believe that 9/11 was planned by anyone in the US government or any other government. Nearly all intelligence, military and political experts agree that it was planned by Al-Qaeda or people associated with them. I also don't believe that we had prior knowledge and we just let it happen. There were some clues that could have been followed up and then possibly it could have been averted, but that is different from actually knowing what would happen and not doing anything.

I do believe that 9/11 was an excuse used by George Bush and his administration to attack Iraq and dispose Saddam Hussein. But that does not mean he was complicit in the original attack. If Bush wanted to stage some sort of attack on america so we would go to war with Iraq, he did a piss poor job of it.

There was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The attackers weren't Iraqi. They didn't have money or planning from Iraq, or any sort of contact. If they wanted to blame Iraq, they should have had some kind of connection to Iraq. All of the "evidence" that the administration put up was falsified or exaggerated. Iraq didn't have WMD's either.

I don't see any problem with asking the question. In America at least, it's protected speech.

2007-06-08 01:50:46 · answer #2 · answered by Ed C 2 · 0 1

While I don't think that Bush had anything to do with 9/11, except for failing to read intelligence reports. I do believe that he used 9/11 to put forward his agenda to go to war with Iraq, once again without reading the intellgence reports.

When Bush was elected President I told my whole family that before his first term was over we would be at war. When 9/11 happend first thought that came to my mind was, when is Bush going to blame Iraq. When Bush said that the Mission was Accomplished, I knew we were far from it. I can now say that if a Democrat is elected to the White House, Bush's last action is to pull the troops out.

2007-06-08 01:44:16 · answer #3 · answered by White Star 4 · 0 0

For the sake of discussion, let's just say Bush did develop this huge elaborate plan to pull off 9/11. If he was willing to go to such a horrendous extreme, then don't you think he would have planted a few WMDs in Iraq to validate his going in? It's insane to think he would do the one...and not think to do the other.

Now here's another reality check for you. Bush was in office 9 months before 9/11 (or are you saying that Clinton was in on it too?). Just how do you think he was able to put together the people to plan, gather the materials, and then pull off a top secret project like that in such a short period of time? Remember they had to do all this in SECRET. I've heard demolition experts say it would take weeks to plant the charges when everyone knew what was going on. Just how much harder would it be to do when it had to be done without raising suspicion by anyone working in the Towers.

2007-06-08 02:19:47 · answer #4 · answered by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 · 1 1

actual, Clinton began the conflict in Iraq yet via fact Saddam became no longer following the sanctions. humorous how no anti-conflict liberals ever noted that. (I say, good job Clinton) Clinton pulled all the inspectors out of Iraq in 'ninety 8 for wilderness Fox, a significant bombing marketing campaign in Iraq. This of course did no longer artwork out as planned via fact it in easy terms brought about extra issues whilst the inspectors tried to return. Democrats all made speeches that we've considered 1000's of circumstances at right here saying the comparable ingredient approximately WMD's earlier Bush became even president, in the process the Clinton years. additionally, the intelligence reporting that Congress won became no longer from the President, that they had briefings from many different components. Congress does no longer in easy terms do regardless of the President says, he's not a dictator. Liberals fairly sound stupid attempting to declare that Congress became lied to via the President and subsequently they voted for conflict. once you have on checklist, democrats saying the comparable issues and a checklist of briefings via CIA and SOD earlier Congress. it fairly is the common democrat way, vote for some thing and then step back and factor palms and say, "it wasn't my fault".

2016-11-07 22:52:33 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

No, I don't believe that 9/11 was planned by Bush for the purpose of going to war with Iraq.

2007-06-08 01:37:06 · answer #6 · answered by vegaswoman 6 · 4 2

Yes and I don't give one rat's asss what anybody thinks of me because of it. It's pretty simple Bush is going to be gone soon anyway and then the people who support the clown will have to find some other muppet to bum lick. Ok look it's a pretty simple answer to foolish people that keep asking why George Bush didn't stash Iraqi made weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Because he couldn't exactly make Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and stash them in Iraq because how would he manage to convince Iraqis to make some Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and it's not as if he could stash American made weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because the answer is obvious. "Hey guys we have found the WMD's HEEEHAAA. Oh Sh*t guess what they are our own American, made in the USA, WMD's. Damn."

2007-06-08 10:18:35 · answer #7 · answered by Open your eyes 4 · 0 0

Until I started reading the responses on questions like this regarding 9-11 conspiracies, I would never have imagined that there were that many morons in America.
I just hope they aren't allowed to breed- God help us if they do.

You do realize that spouting off this 9-11 conspiracy crap in public is going to make people think you are an idiot and never take you seriously- See how they talk about Rosie O'Donnell(it's not just because she's fat and queer that she is so unpopular)

2007-06-08 01:48:35 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 3

Who is GOURGE BUSHES? You might want to educate yourself to a literate level before thinking about such complicated things.

2007-06-08 01:43:33 · answer #9 · answered by Jared G 5 · 1 1

That's a thought but I don't think Bush is a smart enough guy to pull this off. This is the president of the US here not Hitler.

2007-06-08 01:42:49 · answer #10 · answered by adamtxstud 4 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers