Will Clarke's exposing of pre 9-11 keep Bush (for a while anyway)

[Zinfandel]

from using 9-11 in every other sentence in his campaign speeches?

We know Bush by ignoring the facts presented to him was complicit (at the very least) and allowed 9-11 to occur, (and we know why).


Truth is, 9-11 was the best thing that could happen to Bush.

It united the country behind him, gave him an excuse to rewrite the Constitution

Gave him an excuse to have a shadow government with a black budget,

Gave him an excuse to invade any country he wants on the slimmest of whims and anyone who objects to anything is branded a traitor by the news networks. (BartCop)


We also know Bush, the corporations and the oil companies were itching to find someway to get into Iraq (before 9-11) for the huge oil reserves, and to create a base for future oil rip-offs in the region...ann all of BushCo knew what was written in a 1997 book,(by, Zbigniew Brzezinski) that there had to be a "direct attack on the US in the nature of the attack on Pearl Harbor attack", in order for the American people to accept (as it turns out) an illegal invasion of Iraq.

BushCo had to ignore 9-11 being an imminent threat, to get his war with Iraq and he did...as it's now being proven.

(We know that 9-11 is the major part of their of their campaign strategy against John Kerry, as well as wanting to exploit being in NYC for the GOP convention).

So now that he's been blown out of the water, will Bush have to stop using 9-11, 100 times in every fund raiser and campaign speech?

:nuke:

[Sparkle]

1. Bush* wants it both ways.

He wants to campaign on 9/11 and his "steady" leadership but he doesn't want to take responsibility for it happening.

[revcarol]

2. I thought you were going to say"keep Bush from going

on one of his extended vacations..."

He is the laziest man. Now it has become obvious that he cut brush and flew around for photo-ops while 9/11 was imminent and he ignored it.

[Zinfandel]

3. He did indeed and perhaps now more people will recognize this...