Short list of what we know

[BeFree]

Bush knew officially on Aug 6 from CIA briefing

Clarke knew and told admins

Ig NORAD played games that day

Bush sat there like a bump

Cheney was at the WH in charge, said: "Order stands"

Many foreign warnings

Pentagon hit and rummy was nowhere to be found

Much of Senate investigation was redacted

9/11 commission was a whitewash meant to hide complicity

Bushco member company in charge of security at WTC

Two wars were started

Anthrax was a cover screen for stopping investigation

CIA caused investigation of alleged hijackers to be thwarted in summer of 2001

[SDuderstadt]

1. None of which (even if true) remotely proves...

your claim that Bush planned 9/11.

More tap-dancing from you.

Many of your statements/claims are totally false.

[BeFree]

2. You're funny

These are items that are well known facts. You may chose to ignore these facts and have an opinion. But that is all you have, a worn out, no good opinion.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Dude...

a "Bushco" security firm was NOT in charge of security at the WTC on 9/11. You just make stupid fucking claims, then never back them up with anything.

That's why you are regarded dismissively here.

[spooked911]

7. even if you remove that statement

the case is beyond obvious.

Yet you post here day after day after day, refuting EVRYTHING about it being an inside job.

WHY???

You would be the worst fucking detective ever, as you can't seem to piece any clues together. And here the clues have already been put together for you!

[SDuderstadt]

8. "the case is beyond obvious"

Then why is the "truth movement" floundering, dude?

As to "WHY???" I am refuting everything about it being an "inside job", it's because your "evidence" is laughable. You need to educate yourself about standards of evidence.

Simple question, dude. Why can't you seem to field even one credible supporter here?

[davidkc]

30. I don't think it proves it either, but it makes me pretty damn skeptical

And that's what believers get angry about. They get frustrated by not being able to persuade skeptics to fall in line. It's like telling your friend that your house got robbed last night, and seeing your friend start sweating, turn white and act strange. It doesn't prove he robbed you, but makes me say...hmmm.

The facts stated in the OP make me say...hmmm. I smell a rat.

[SDuderstadt]

4. "Cheney was at the WH in charge, said: "Order stands"

What order was that, dude?

[mrarundale]

5. Real List of What We "Know"

Nothing because our information comes from corporate run media which lies about almost everything to protect their own interests and is run by the same entities which control the DC politicians of both parties. Corporate media includes N.PEE.R. which is run by the Corporation for Public (ha!) Broadcasting and last time I checked there were still people on board there who were appointed by the GOP (not that it matters that much).

[spooked911]

6. True

but even by official sources, the official 9/11 story is complete bull.

And no doubt, the media are covering up the much much worse truth.

[deconstruct911]

9. Kroll was in charge of security

We know Kroll is like a private cia. It was not unusual for someone like John O'Neil to join Kroll. Bio warfare experts (anthrax attack...) in the infrastructure. Former FBI experts on the board. Former US attorneys as ceo's.

Kroll's shareholders benefited by far the most from 9/11 in every conceivable way.

I guess the rest was up to the cia to phony up.

[SDuderstadt]

10. Dude...

Are you claiming the Port Authority of New York had no responsibility for security? Further, Kroll is not controlled by "Bushco" as BeFree alleges.

And, by the way, what is so nefarious about former U.S. Attorneys as CEOs?

[deconstruct911]

24. OK that's good

1) I have no clue where this came from and it has NO relevance to any of my posts ever: "Further, Kroll is not controlled by "Bushco" as BeFree alleges."

2) No I'm not claiming the PA had no responsibility.

3) By the way, take a look at some of the cases the southern district attorneys office in New York prosecuted.

[SDuderstadt]

25. "By the way, take a look at some of the cases the southern district attorneys office in New York

prosecuted"

Umm, for what? Could you possibly try being less cryptic?

[BeFree]

11. Yeah Kroll

And who is this Hauer fellow who worked for Kroll?

Why he was a Giuliani man. Hauer was in charge of security of WTC, he hired John O'Neil.

I saw Hauer on TV the summer of 2001. The big hype then was biological attacks.

He was later hired by bushco and placed in the HSS.

A regular bushco member, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

26. "Truther logic"...

everyone was in on it.

[deconstruct911]

29. Hauer was on TV

on 9/11. No explosives, just Bin Laden.

Why was he in a position to give the official story on 9/11? CBS and ABC introduced him as a former director of OEM. Maybe he just knew the buildings really good and talked to John about Bin Laden frequently. Of course they didn't bother to mention that on TV.

[dflprincess]

12. Don't forget PNAC's manifesto and

their call for "a new Pearl Harbor". That's what pushed me down the MIHOP path.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Jesus...

do you really think that if someone was planning "MIHOP", they'd write a "manifesto" and publish it????

[dflprincess]

14. Of course not, it was just a lucky coincidence for them

because sensible people would just never believe the U.S. government would attack it's own citizens just to start a war to further their political and financial goals. The MSM never covered PNAC and I'll bet most Americans have still never heard of it.

As long as the media remains complicit and there are people who believe the U.S. government is pure and good and only has our best interests at heart people like Cheney & Bush can get away with anything.

They got by with an blantant theft of 2000 election - in 1999 who would have thought that could happen.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Have you ever taken a critical thinking class???

Do you honestly think the "perps" would publicly advertise something like this, depend on "coincidence" to keep from being found out ahead of time, then not try to erase their tracks???

This is what makes me crazy about conspiracy theorists. They can rationalize anything.

It's frankly fucking stupid.

P.S. If you ever take a critical thinking class (which I highly recommend), please, please ask the instructor to dwell on "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

[dflprincess]

16. In some ways you prove what I was saying

People just don't believe they'd be so obvious - it's just too ridiculous.

They got by with stealing the election which gave them control of the government. Why would they worry about covering their tracks when they controled the investigation?

[SDuderstadt]

17. They didn't "control" the investigation...

you realize that, don't you?

Again, you're using a post hoc rationalization that, since a conservative think tank believed it would take a catastrophic event to prompt policy they thought necessary, that means that they "planned" 9/11.

If you want people to embrace your goofy theory, you'll have to come up with some concrete evidence they actually planned 9/11 rather than offer up more post hoc rationalizations.

Simple question: Do you think PNAC's paper gave the perps enough detail on how to "pull 9/11 off"?

[dflprincess]

18. No it didn't give them the detail

but as some of those I'd consider the "perps" were involved in the writing the paper, it didn't have to.

Again, if you want to believe it was just a lucky coincidence for them that they got their Pearl Harbor and subsequent war with Iraq go right ahead. I think it was just a tad too convenient.

Bush & Cheney didn't control the investigation? They fought having one at all hard enough and refused to testify under oath or in public. But I'm sure everything was just fine because we know what honest, upstanding citizens the crowd in the Bush White House was.

[SDuderstadt]

19. No, Bush and Cheney did not "control" the investigation...

and neither Gore nor Clinton testified under oath, either. There are actually good reasons for that, but I doubt if you can think of what they are. Do you even understand how the investigation was set-up? Have you read the public law regarding the creation of the 9/11 Commission? If, as you claim, Bush controlled the investigation, why would he oppose it if it was just going to do what he wanted?

Again, please take a critical thinking class and have the instructor dwell on "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". The problem with the view that things couldn't have been a "lucky coincidence" for them or that it was just "too convenient", ignores how impossibly difficult it would have been to pull off MIHOP, which would require far more "coincidences" than the actual event.

Simple question: Do you honestly think "perps" so stupid as to advertise their plot beforehand, wouldn't leave enormous amounts of hard, concrete evidence implicating themselves.

I absolutely despise Bush and Cheney, but that doesn't require that I embrace goofy conspiracy theories that have no real concrete evidence.

[dflprincess]

33. I think a group who can get by with lying us into a war

and can openly admit committing war crimes and still no one in our government even attempts to hold them accountable can get by with anything. And they get by with it because not only do they know they're in charge, but they can depend on the majority of people being like you and always accepting the official story. After all, who in their right mind could possibly think that the government would lie to us about what happened on 9/11 or that even the PNAC crowd could be that arrogant or that evil.

You go right ahead and believe that it was all a lucky coincidence for the Bush & Friends, I just can't buy it.

[Coldpal]

20. IMO, coincidence theorists are naive

I admire Princess for not blindly swallowing coincidence theories.

[SDuderstadt]

21. Who says anyone else "blindly swallows" them?

Do you honestly think either MIHOP or, even, LIHOP wouldn't require far more coincidences to carry off?

I think labeling anyone a "coincidence theorist" is simply a lazy way to have to gather, analyze and evaluate the actual evidence. If, on the other hand, there was actual hard, concrete evidence of MIHOP or LIHOP, I would hardly reject it. The simple fact is that "conspiracy theorists" demand that others embrace their goofy theories on the basis of conjecture, faulty reasoning and abandoning of Logic.

It's been almost nine years already, dude. Is the "9/11 was an inside job" contingent on the verge of a breakthrough?

[Coldpal]

22. Define "breakthrough"

Does "breakthrough" mean convincing you?

[SDuderstadt]

23. No...

Duh.

[LARED]

28. Breakthrough means (to me)

a rational cohesive narrative based on evidence, facts, and logic that tells the story of an inside job.

After nearly 9 years, there nothing even remotely like that provided by any of the 9/11 "skeptics"

[davidkc]

31. Good point, dfl

And it's not like the manifesto said, "we shall destroy the twin towers," as sduder implies.

[SDuderstadt]

32. I'm willing to bet that neither one of you have...

even read it.

As my good friend, Lared, says, "anything is possible, when you don't know what you're talking about". I disagree strongly with the policy aims of PNAC, but that hardly means they planned 9/11. Serious question: do you guys just uncritically buy whatever David Ray Griffin tells you or you read at various conspiracy theory websites?

http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

P.S. please show me where I "implied" that the "manifesto" said, "we shall destroy the twin towers". Better question: why is it so hard to believe we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11?

[LARED]

27. I'm willing to bet you never actually read

the PNAC paper to which you are referring.

[dflprincess]

34. You'd lose

but I will admit it's been a few years since I read it & the computer I had it downloaded on is no more.

[LARED]

35. What I don't don't understand is if you read it , why you called it

"PNAC's manifesto and their call for "a new Pearl Harbor".

It implies nothing of the sort.

[dflprincess]

36. They didn't imply it

they flat out said it would take a "Pearl Harbor like event" to get Americans to go along with their (PNAC's) desire for a war.

[LARED]

37. Based on that comment you should reread the paper as

you're just spouting nonsense.

[BeFree]

38. Can you believe it?

There are actually DUers defending PNAC.

[SDuderstadt]

39. Back up to your old tricks, dude?

We're correcting dishonest statements, not "defending" PNAC.

It does not say what dflprincess claims and I challenge you find that passage she claims. I despised PNAC, but it's not necessary to make up shit they didn't say.

[dflprincess]

40. I can believe it from those who seem to have a personal stake

in believing everything the government tells them and their attempts to squelch any discussion that runs counter to the OTC.

I don't post in this forum that often and I don't necessarily believe every theory I read here - but
I do believe members of the Bush administration were up to their asses in 9/11. I can't prove it - but apparently they can't make their case either as all they can do is point to the 9/11 Commission report (because the government never lies, that whole Tonkin Gulf thing was just a miscommunication)
or they respond with insults and snide remarks.

It comes down to which conspiracy does an individual find more plausible and there will be honest disagreements on that. It's too bad there are those who don't want us to talk about those differences openly. After this little go 'round I'm going to do what I've never done with anyone else on the board & put them on ignore as there is no point in engaging them.

(The document's pages for this are 50 & 51, but the in the PDF they are 62 and 63)

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.

And let's not forget their letter to Clinton, urging "regime" change in Iraq (but I'm probably delusional about that too).

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons....

...We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Clinton didn't give them what they wanted, they found a way for Bush to do it.

[BeFree]

41. Yep

The words are right there but the willfully blind will never see.

As for ignore... it is why sometimes I will quote their words. That way people will understand what goofy BS I am responding to.

It is a problem that certain posters are for the most part better ignored. It would be nice to think everyone on DU was here to at the very least TRY to engage in honest discussions. I try, but am not always successful.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Dude...

It's there for all to see that PNAC did not say what you and dflprincess said, but you have the audacity to babble on about honest discussions.

Then, of course, you go on to smear other members by claiming that anyone who disagrees with you on the facts, must be "defending" PNAC.

Is there any level to which you will not stoop?

[LARED]

43. I fail to see how that selected out of context quote

supports your claim the they flat out said it would take a "Pearl Harbor like event" to get Americans to go along with their (PNAC's) desire for a war.

If one bothers to read further along the paper they actually tell you the goals of this transformation (whether it be slow or a speedy process)

In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow’s U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:


• Global missile defenses. A network against limited strikes, capable of protecting the United States, its allies
and forward-deployed forces, must be constructed. This must be a layered system of land, sea, air and spacebased
components.

• Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas – and the protection of international commerce – defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new international commons” be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the “infosphere” will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.

• Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of
current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process
of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.

Somehow I missed the part about they flat out said it would take a "Pearl Harbor like event" to get Americans to go along with their (PNAC's) desire for a war.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Why, yes...

the ONLY way we could possibly disagree with you is if we were prone to "believing everything the government tells" us and our real intent in engaging in vigorous debate is actually "attempts to squelch any discussion that runs counter to the OTC".

Your funniest comment is below:

I do believe members of the Bush administration were up to their asses in 9/11. I can't prove it - but apparently they can't make their case either as all they can do is point to the 9/11 Commission report (because the government never lies, that whole Tonkin Gulf thing was just a miscommunication)or they respond with insults and snide remarks.

Well, thanks for finally admitting you cannot prove your claim, which is what we've been asking for all along. It's also hysterical how you go on to say that we apparently can't make our case either. Do you realize that you are asking us to prove a negative, as well as trying to shift the burden of proof?

As far as your dismay regarding claimed "insults and snide remarks", maybe if you guys would simply stick to the facts rather than constantly question our motivation, you wouldn't be treated to the disdain you get. I, personally, am tired of hearing that I "just accept the 9/11 CR" or that I "have a stake" in supporting it. If you guys are going to convince people, you're going to need far more than strawman arguments and false dilemmas.

[LARED]

42. Really, DU'ers are defending PNAC? Please point out who is

doing that.

[deconstruct911]

44. It may not suggest

the only way of survival is for a new pearl harbor however it does suggest IF it were to happen they would most certainly be able to take advantage of the future to such an event. Indeed it happened and indeed they took advantage of it to the fullest possibility.

[LARED]

46. That may be true, but you are missing the point

The PNAC document's stated goals and the actions that resulted from 9/11 are not the same.

[LARED]

48. Crickets nt

[Ohio Joe]

49. Don't worry

The same tired argument will be brought up again in another thread soon. It does not seem to matter how many times a given part of the fantasy is proven to be untrue, it just gets brought up again later.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

53. So

Lared is now going to try and rewrite the history of PNAC?

Really?

And why they deleted my other post, I haven't a clue. Guess it struck a nerve?

[LARED]

60. Do you specialize in ironic posts?

Seriously? CT'er's are the one constantly working to rewrite history to suit their claims.

I'm not trying to rewrite PNAC history, I am merely pointing out that if you want to claim the PNAC white paper was a "roadmap" for 9/11 as an inside job, the stated goals and strategy in the document simply do not back that up. And furthermore the actions after 9/11 are not consistent with the strategy and goals of the paper.

What CT'er have is a sentence or two taken out of context to further their BS addiction. This of course is no surprise as that type of "evidence" is all CT'er have ever had.

[BeFree]

64. heh

When did we read the first PNAC? 8 or 9 years ago?

It was written over a dozen years ago?

We all pretty much formed our own opinions on the meaning of PNAC, and we pretty much all saw it as the roadmap for American empire. And that short of a new Pearl Harbor type of event the transformation would be very long.

Well, 9/11 happened and the transformation happened in months, with the support of 90% of the American public and a large part of the rest of the world nodding - "go ahead, America".

That is the history, no rewrite.

As for yall OCTers, I figure yall just say it was one big accident, no one could ever imagine. The OCTer heroine even claimed that.

Nice try Lared, but no one is buying it.

[SDuderstadt]

65. And what, specifically, was...

the "transformation" PNAC was seeking? Serious question: do you deny that we were attacked by al Qaeda on 9/11? Or, do you think we were attacked by PNAC? If you think we were, can you tell us why PNAC would have laid it out in a white paper?

[LARED]

67. I'm glad to see you have this sorted out

Your claim is "the transformation happened in months". Great, so it should be easy to explain what part of the transformation you see, matches the required transformations identified in the PNAC paper?

[LARED]

73. heh

I see you are not up to the challenge.

[LARED]

74. heh crickets nt

[zappaman]

75. give BeFree a break

BUSHCO is on to him and he should probably lie low for awhile.
keep digging, BeFree, you're almost there.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. taking on the moderators now?

You've been here long enough to know that posts are deleted because they violate DU rules. Take responsibility for your own actions.

I don't even know what post you're talking about, but if you don't understand the mods' decision, you might ask in a PM.

[SDuderstadt]

63. No!

BeFree's posts are being deleted because he is getting dangerously close to the truth and the PTB are running scared.

[davidwparker]

51. Here's one. Planes flown by amateurs make u-turns in

the sky and nothing is scrambled.

Payne Steward's plane starts to go off track and gets an escort.

Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit.

At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., took up the chase, accompanied by a KC-135 refueling tanker.

F-16s from Fargo, N.D., later scrambled to intercept the Lear jet , too. At noon Dallas time, the Fargo F-16s reported that the windows of the jet were fogged with ice and there was no evidence anyone was piloting the plane.

At 12:14, the Lear jet began to spiral. It crashed about six minutes later.

10/26/1999
KRTBN Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News: The Dallas Morning News - Texas
Copyright (C) 1999 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News; Source: World Reporter (TM)

[SDuderstadt]

52. Jesus...

this shit again.

http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

[BeFree]

55. True

That furthers the Ig NORAD knowledge.

I'd add that the very unlikely aerial acrobatics by amateur pilots is also well known.

[defendandprotect]

54. United Nations Security Council reps also visited WH and our intelligence agencies in August --

to warn them of threats, especially on information gathered by Russians --

Russians had gone to the UN Security Council because of Bush's "Operation Ignore" --

they were concerned about the lack of response to their information presented to

the White House!

Anthrax and shutting down Congress for months, essentially, is a big clue as to what

was really going on -- and certainly "Muslims" had nothing to do with that --

nor with 9/11 --

[BeFree]

56. Anthrax in congress

Who knows what black ops went into and looked at every computer gathering information from the congress folks files. Better even than tapping their phone lines which bushco did later.

[defendandprotect]

57. Right at that time, imo, telephone calls and mail to Congress had to be shut down!!

I personally was calling and sending written info --

Imagine many others were doing the same!

After the Anthrax, obviously all of Congress was diverted elsewhere -- don't

recall where at the moment -- and ALL of the mail was being radiated and needs

weeks then to dry out!! Even still this year, they were doing that!!

I certainly agree with you about everything being looked at --

We keep asking why Dems keep being so passive -- and I think besides the corporate

money buying them they are highly intimidated by the rw power they know is behind

all of this --

easier to join them than to fight them?

:)

[BeFree]

58. bushco will stop at nothing

they are dangerous snakes who bite for the fun of it.

I wouldn't put anything past them or doubt for one second that they are as evil as they come.

[SDuderstadt]

59. "bushco will stop at nothing"

Yet you have all this info and are still walking around spouting off. Hmmm.

[defendandprotect]

66. Couldn't agree more re Bush Evil Family Empire --

but, sadly, there are many more like them --

Too many willing to be bought -- from Nixon to Clinton --

[SDuderstadt]

62. Better title...

what BeFree thinks he knows, but hasn't bothered to fact-check.

[BeFree]

68. a more apt title?

Short list of things SDud is trying really, really hard to not think about.

And succeeding. No critical thinking there, eh?

Or even an attempt at discussion. Just cussing.

Good show. Keep digging, you're almost there.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Okay, dude...

play it your way. Can you provide evidence of your claims or not? You used the word "know". If you "know" these things, why can't you document them? You DID fact-check, right? Right? Why do you fold when challenged for proof of your goofy claims?

I know you hate being called on your lack of critical thinking, but it should not phase you so much when challenged for proof of your goofy claims. I have already posed several to you. Or, did you answer simply for the opportunity to inject your not-so-clever insult, which I have asked you repeatedly and politely to refrain from? If others call me Sdude, I have no problem with that. That would be Mr. Sdude to you, dude.

So, once more, where is your evidence for your goofy claims, BeFree?

How would you like it if I called you BeFreep? Is that okay?

Quit calling me (S)Dud, dude.

[BeFree]

70. It's ok

You've called me just about everything else.

See, stupid name calling doesn't bother me. I am not a little baby.

[zappaman]

71. forget the name calling

just back up what you "know".
shouldn't be difficult.

[SDuderstadt]

72. Dude...

point to a single name I have ever called you. Take your time.

In the meantime, you have been challenged repeatedly for proof of your goofy claims. Are you going to rise to the challenge, or just throw in the towel like you normally do?

[BeFree]

76. Colin Powell

In front of the UN, Colin Powell laid out the bushco case that WMD were in Iraq.

He totally embarrassed himself and destroyed any credibility he ever had.

He was just another bushco tool and they used him to invade Iraq.

[zappaman]

77. yes

and...?