Bush Incompetence Theory

[BeFree]

We've seen it time and again: ""Bush was incompetent... that explains everything"".

It explains why he ignored the warnings, sat there for minutes even as he knew America was under attack, never found the Anthrax killer, accidentally passed the Patriot Act, screwed up and started a war in Afghanistan, imagined WMD in Iraq and accidentally started another war there, and somehow bumbled through two stolen elections, all the while Cheney, well, Cheney is a problem for the BIT's, eh?

Incompetence or sheer evil? I figure evil. What about you?

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

2. Thanks for the spell check

A competent thief is a thief who gets away with the theft.

[SDuderstadt]

3. And a Zero Incompetence Theorist is...

someone who gets away with total bullshit.

Like I said before, you should probably call it a night.

[deconstruct911]

4. It's not all his fault

the cia had a hard time finding the phone# for the fbi.

[BeFree]

5. Ahhh, a bit of humor

Thanks for that... keep it coming.

[deconstruct911]

6. There is more!

The pentagon.... Well computers don't communicate and it will take years to fix!

[BeFree]

7. Well, who could imagine? n/t

[BeFree]

8. Cheney

Bush was so incompetent that Cheney had to be there when the 9/11 Commission asked Bush questions.

And somehow we, the people, are too incompetent to read their testimony.

[SDuderstadt]

9. You also cannot read Clinton or...

Gore's testimony, either. There's a good reason for it.

[BeFree]

10. Why?

What reason is there for us not being allowed to read it all?

[SDuderstadt]

11. Dude....

do I really have to answer this for you???

What questions do you think the sitting president and vice-president were asked? What questions do you think the immediate past president and vice-president were asked? Do you think the Commission had some secret way of keeping al Qaeda from reading the report or reading the transcripts of sessions that were not executive???

One of the reasons you are not taken seriously here and I show such disdain for you is because you have such a poor grasp of how our system of government works.

[greyl]

12. Oliver Stone, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, and Al Franken disagree with you.

That's weird, eh? Why are the only people who still believe G. W. Bush was competent at all are lunatic right-wing 20 percenters and the 9/11 Truth Industry? Follow the money!

"With record low approval ratings and intense criticism for his handling of the Iraq war, Hurricane Katrina and the economy, the word most used to label George W. Bush's presidency will be "incompetent," historians say.

"Right now there is not a lot of good will among historians. Most see him as a combination of many negative factors," said Julian Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School.

"He is seen as incompetent in terms of how he handled domestic and foreign policy. He is seen as pushing for an agenda to the right of the nation and doing so through executive power that ignored the popular will," he added."
http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-06/politics/bush.legacy_1_approval-ratings-foreign-policy-george-w-bush

“The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth; as I said more than a year ago, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq. And knowing now the full measure of the Bush Administration’s duplicity and incompetence, I doubt there are many members of Congress who would give them the authority they abused so badly. I know I would not.” - Senator John Kerry

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco offered her strongest condemnation yet of President Bush on Wednesday, assailing him as incompetent and declaring that the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief.

"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.'' - Nancy Pelosi

www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/05/20/MNGK36OR7L1.DTL#ixzz0yWsstocA

"A strong case could be made that Bush is the standout incompetent among the failures; but that's not the case made here. Rather, our interest here lies in trying to understand what has made for such gross incompetence in the Bush administration. If we can keep these issues more in the forefront of our minds in the next election, we might be able to avoid the next Bush before he (or she) gets to the primaries. And that would be a very good thing."
www.progressiveliving.org/politics/why_bush_is_incompetent.htm

All that said, the issue of G.W.'s incompetence is irrelevant to evidence of 9/11 being an inside job.

Stop trying to change the subject.

[BeFree]

13. Wow

Wait, you forgot the personal attack.

Yes, it is conventional wisdom that it can all be laid at the feet of incompetence. Point taken.

But if the records ever get released, the historians, I feel, will be singing a different tune. I feel that they were the biggest criminals this country ever endured.

It would be bad PC for a politician to say so, however.

[SDuderstadt]

14. "Yes, it is conventional wisdom that it can all be laid at the feet of incompetence"

Another stupid strawman from you. Please point to a single person here who has made that argument.

[greyl]

15. I sense you're nearing an admittal that your claims are based on feelings and not evidence. nt

[BeFree]

16. Both

The accomplishments of Bushco to overcome all reason, and the law, is evidence that they planned it all along.

Surely you are not saying they were totally incompetent? So where is the degree, or line drawn? Some percentage maybe? I'd say about 10% incompetent.

[SDuderstadt]

17. "The accomplishments of Bushco to overcome all reason, and the law, is evidence that they planned...

it all along"

WTF? First of all, what does that sentence even mean? More importantly, once you explain to us what you actually meant, how is that "evidence that they planned it all along"?

It's a good thing you're not a prosecutor, dude, because your conviction rate would be close to zero and the few convictions you'd manage to obtain through luck would most certainly be reversed upon appeal.

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here, dude.

[greyl]

18. The issue of G.W.'s incompetence is irrelevant to evidence of 9/11 being an inside job.

Stop trying to change the subject.

"The accomplishments of Bushco to overcome all reason, and the law"

Do you really believe the Bush admin overcame all reason and the law? Explain.
Then try to share some evidence.

[BeFree]

19. Ok

Read the OP again. It lays out the case that incompetence is the shield which protects Bush from answering questions about his complicity in not just 9/11.

Bush overcame reason. "The constitution is just a damn piece of paper". Reasonable people who looked at the WMD situation were overcome when they reasoned that no WMD existed. Clear Skies overcame the reason for anti-air pollution. There are many such cases.

An example of overcoming the law is the outing of Plame. Nearly everyone here agrees that Bush broke the law numerous times.

[SDuderstadt]

23. "Reasonable people who looked at the WMD situation were overcome when they reasoned that no WMD...

existed"

Dude, you realize that sentence makes absolutely no sense, right?

[greyl]

45. Again, incompetence is irrelevant to evidence of 9/11 being an inside job.

If you had evidence that the Bush admin orchestrated 9/11, then it would stand to reason that the Bush admin was competent at orchestrating 9/11.
But, you don't.

[BeFree]

50. Sure I do

You don't because you don't want too, I guess.

They were very competent at organizing 9/11 and blaming it on a strawman. They got you too believe. Are you telling me that you believe the incompetent bush when he says "no one could ever imagine planes being used"? It was a lie.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude...

you don't know what a strawman is.

A strawman argument is when you take your opponent's argument, reword to say something your opponent never said, then argue with the reworded argument. Kinda like what you do day in and day out.

This post is a great example.

[greyl]

53. Let's have it then, don't keep it to yourself. Evidence is your friend.

(when you have it to share, that is)

Btw, Condi was the one who delivered that bullshit quote, not Bush.

[BeFree]

61. Heh

This is why no one takes you seriously.

First you deny any evidence exists that goes against your belief, and then one of the main story lines of the bushco "don't look at me" MO, the "no one ever imagined" bullshit line you cast off on a subordinate as if it was just a simple mistake and nothing more than incompetence.

You present a sad case with your "it doesn't mean anything" bullshit.

Of course, I figure, you don't want to be taken seriously, that way you can claim incompetence, because it is evident that your dancing is rooted in incompetence theory.

[SDuderstadt]

63. "First you deny that any evidence exists that goes against your belief"

Dude, your strawman arguments are largely the root of the problem. Can you point to anywhere Greyl has done such a thing? You have been challenged repeatedly to provide evidence of your goofy claims and you almost nearly always (and comically) fold.

But it's your tendency to dishonestly reframe what your opponent has said until it isn't even recognizable, that accounts for the derision and outright disdain you encounter here (not to mention your barrage of false accusations and various smears).

Do we need to kick your "honest discussions - ten steps" OP for your consideration once more?

[deconstruct911]

77. Wrong

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6h2CyldX6c

Tell us the first thing you heard.

[greyl]

79. No, you're wrong and here's proof.

I thought everyone knew this? Strange that someone touting themselves as a knower of secrets about 9/11 would be so ignorant of the plain and common facts. Almost looks like the 9/11 Truth Industry is trying to distract from authentic question about the Bush admin failures.

RICE: Let me address this question because it has been on the table.

I think that concern about what I might have known or we might have known was provoked by some statements that I made in a press conference. I was in a press conference to try and describe the August 6 memo, which I've talked about here in my opening remarks and which I talked about with you in the private session.

And I said, at one point, that this was a historical memo, that it was -- it was not based on new threat information. And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile."

www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/rice.transcript/

May 15, 2002:

The White House admits the existence of the August 6 PDB. The New York Post headlines the news: "Bush Knew." The next day, Condoleeza Rice proclaims that "no one could have imagined" planes would be used as weapons. She says the warnings to Bush related only to "traditional hijackings," not kamikaze attacks.

www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20040527222832444

However, there are growing demands for an independent investigation. The intelligence services have already been heavily criticised for failing to act on a series of clues that might have led them to the hijackers.

Sources quoted by the Washington Post and ABC TV said that at least two names listed in a July 2001 FBI memo about an Arizona flight school had been identified by the CIA as having links to al-Qaeda. But the memo was not acted on or distributed to outside agencies.

And, while administration officials have said repeatedly that intelligence analysts never imagined that terrorists would use planes in a suicide attack, a 1999 report for the National Intelligence Council warned that fanatics loyal to bin Laden might try to hijack a jetliner and fly it into the Pentagon.

The memo received by Bush on 6 August contained unconfirmed information passed on by British intelligence in 1998 revealing that al-Qaeda operatives had discussed hijacking a plane to negotiate the release of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, the Muslim cleric imprisoned in America for his part in a plot to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993.

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/19/terrorism.september11

[BeFree]

84. Very nice greyl... you earlier asked me....

greyl Response to Reply #50
53. Let's have it then, don't keep it to yourself. Evidence is your friend.
(when you have it to share, that is)
Btw, Condi was the one who delivered that bullshit quote, not Bush..





Thanks for the research. Condi was the first one to spew that bullshit.

Now, you have links to where Condi was refuted by bushco? That someone did imagine?

Some advice: It will be easier to find links to where bushco backed up Condi.

I look forward to your sharing with us.

[deconstruct911]

86. Agreed

The point is they all said it.

Who needs to be all cute about it and claim who said it first? Who cares? It makes no difference at all. With that kind of claim it's not about backing anyone up! You either predicted it or not. The Bush crew all said they didn't. Huge lie!

They all said it to back up the incompetence BS.

Why someone would use DU to defend Bush is beyond me.

[greyl]

99. Follow my lead, and post evidence to back up your claim.

Otherwise, you disqualify yourself from aiding productive discussion.

[noise]

21. Do you know why Bush acted as he did?

Card's explanation was BS. Bush's explanation made no sense.

Have you no doubt about Bush's conduct? Are you really content with the evasive answers and secrecy?

[greyl]

35. You guys are the ones claiming to know. Possibilites are not facts.

Thing is, there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that the 9/11 Truth Industry was created by Bushco in order to distract from the fact that 9/11 happened during their tenure.
Does that give anyone enough justification to "know" The 9/11 Truth Industry is a black op?

[noise]

41. I don't claim to know

I guess I'm out of line for not accepting the noncoherent account?

[greyl]

49. Oh, right, you think 9/11 'might' have been an inside job.

You think there's a slight possibility that Bush knew the fake attacks and controlled demolitions were going to happen while he was at the elementary school.

[noise]

51. I think Bush and Card acted strangely

and have never explained their conduct. It appears you are using the (tried and true) one size fits all talking point in order to dismiss all questions about 9/11.

[greyl]

54. Acting strange can mean any number of things. You think it means 1 thing. nt

[noise]

55. I don't know what they were doing

Am I suspicious? Yes. How could one not be? I never heard a reasonable explanation for their conduct.

[greyl]

56. Do you have a reasonable explanation to offer? nt

[noise]

58. I don't n/t

[greyl]

59. Now you do:

When in Danger, Humans are Like a Deer in Headlights
By Dr Greg Mulhauser
New research shows that humans, like many other complex animals, freeze when encountering a threat. Heart rates slow and body sway decreases, in an ancestral reaction which has long helped animals to avoid being noticed by a potential predator.

The defensive, protective reaction of automatically freezing when encountering a threat has long helped animals to avoid being noticed by a potential predator. A new study published in the journal Psychophysiology finds that human beings react much the same way in response to pictures suggesting a threat.

According to the publisher’s press release about the study:

Forty-eight male volunteers stood barefoot on a stabilometric platform, to measure balance and body sway, and viewed twenty-four pictures from three different categories. They were: pleasant (sports), neutral (objects), and unpleasant (injured or mutilated humans). Posturographic and electrocardiographic recordings were collected. The author found a significant reduction in body sway along with increased muscle stiffness following the unpleasant/mutilation block of pictures compared to the neutral pictures. The number of heartbeats per minute was also lower after viewing the mutilation pictures than after looking at the others. “This pattern resembles the ‘freezing’ and ‘fear bradycardia’ seen in many species when confronted with threatening stimuli, mediated by neural circuits that promote defensive survival,” author Eliane Volchan explains.

http://counsellingresource.com/features/2005/06/09/headlights/

Why Surprises Temporarily Blind Us
ScienceDaily (Mar. 14, 2010)
Reading this story requires you to willfully pay attention to the sentences and to tune out nearby conversations, the radio and other distractions. But if a fire alarm sounded, your attention would be involuntarily snatched away from the story to the blaring sound.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311091615.htm

How The Brain Handles Surprise, Good And Bad
ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2007)
Whether it's a mugger or a friend who jumps out of the bushes, you're still surprised. But your response--to flee or to hug--must be very different.

Now, researchers have begun to distinguish the circuitry in the brain's emotion center that processes surprise from the circuitry that processes the aversive or reward "valence" of a stimulus. C. Daniel Salzman and colleagues published their findings in the journal Neuron.

"Animals and humans learn to approach and acquire pleasant stimuli and to avoid or defend against aversive ones," wrote the researchers. "However, both pleasant and aversive stimuli can elicit arousal and attention, and their salience or intensity increases when they occur by surprise. Thus, adaptive behavior may require that neural circuits compute both stimulus valence--or value--and intensity."

The researchers concentrated their study on the amygdala, known to be the brain center that processes the emotional substance of sensory input and helps shape behavioral response to that input.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070919121557.htm

[BeFree]

62. Thank you

You have just described the Bushco Incompetence Theorists to a T.

BITs freeze in the headlights and deny anything contrary to what the Bushco OCT claims.

This line tells the tale of the BITs:
“This pattern resembles the ‘freezing’ and ‘fear bradycardia’ seen in many species when confronted with threatening stimuli,"

[SDuderstadt]

64. And, again, you dishonestly claim that debunkers...

deny anything contrary to "what the Bushco OCT claims". Dude, you purposely try to confuse the issue by conflating the consensus view of the events of 9/11 with this mythical "Bushco OCT".

Your smears aren't working, dude.

[deconstruct911]

72. Michael Moore

is a no planer (pentagon)....

[noise]

20. There is no such thing as corruption

That is the flaw of your argument. All US officials act in good faith at all times.

[BeFree]

22. Yes, I must remember

I must be assimilated.

[SDuderstadt]

25. Yes...

you and noise are "the resistance".

[noise]

27. I didn't realize questioning authority

was so out of line. I hope you realize that all this time later we still have no clearer answer in regard to Card and Bush at the school.

[SDuderstadt]

29. Another stupid strawman...

no one here is saying that questioning authority is out of line.

As far as Bush and Card are concerned, what do you propose we do???

[noise]

31. Stop badgering people

who recognize the bizarre conduct of Card and Bush.

[SDuderstadt]

32. Jesus, here we go again...

No one is "badgering" you. Calling you on your stupid strawman arguments isn't "badgering" you.

Do you understand how debate works?

[noise]

36. Strawman?

Debate? You are ridiculing people who dare to question their government. People who believe in transparency and accountability.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Wrong...

I am chiding people who leap to conclusions without sufficient facts.

As I said before, I am not about to ruin a good Labor Day weekend.

By the way, your post is yet another strawman, unless you can prove I have done any of those things or I am trying to. You need to quit smearing my motivation. Seriously.

[noise]

43. So it's ok to question the conduct of Bush and Card? n/t

[SDuderstadt]

46. YES!

You are trying to invent my side of this debate.

Basic rules of debate call for you to listen to what I have actually said, then respond to what I have actually said.

Think you can follow that?

[noise]

34. Card to Bush:

A 2nd plane hit the WTC. The nation is under attack.

Typical 9/11 forum argument:

Of course Bush didn't want any more detail. Who would? What else could Card possibly say? Card was rambling at that point--11 words! Get to the point!! Bush needed time to reflect on the intricate details provided by Card.

Irrefutable argument IMO.

[SDuderstadt]

37. How do you know Card knew any more detail at that point??

Even NPR was reporting the first strike to be an accident. Once the 2nd plane hit, it blew that theory right out of the water.

Now, it's clear that Bush should have swung into action, but from the look on his face, I believe he was scared shitless and had no fuckinh idea what to do.

[BeFree]

39. Bush later, claimed

That was a terrible pilot. Re: when he saw the first plane hit. But there was no free video of the first plane at the time!?!?

I was watching TV that morning and saw the whole thing. There was no video of the first plane for many hours. But Bush saw it? How? Oh, that's right, incompetent.

[SDuderstadt]

42. Dude...

I KNEW this would go over your head.

I was driving down the road the other day and I saw a car crash. Does that mean I saw the cars strike each other? No, it means I saw the aftermath. I even remarked, based upon what I saw that at least one of them had to be a horrible driver. You can't just put the worst possible construction on someone's words, then argue that's what they meant.

Typical "truther" bullshit.

[BeFree]

48. Indeed

Bush did claim that he saw the video of the first plane hit and he said he thought it was a terrible pilot. If he had only seen the video much later, like the rest of us, why would he say "terrible pilot"? He saw it, and IIRC, he even told reporters at the school he saw it.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Prove that, dude...

ever heard of synecdoche?

[SDuderstadt]

24. "All US officials act in good faith at all times"

Another stupid strawman.

Please point to anyone who has actually made that argument.

[noise]

26. It's self evident

I really hope you are not suggesting that my statement is not true.

[SDuderstadt]

28. If it's "self-evident"....

then point to anyone here who has made this argument.

I don't know of anyone who believes or claims that governments act in good faith all the time.

Stupid post.

[noise]

30. Are you suggesting US officials are capable of corrupt conduct?

John Farmer will not be pleased.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Another stupid strawman...

Farmer has never said that US officials are not capable of corrupt conduct and neither am I.

With all due respect, I am not going to let you and BeFree ruin a good Labor Day weekend.

Please play among yourselves.

[noise]

38. Literally no

But your overwrought indignation ensures the reader understands how out of line a citizen must be to question any government official in relation to 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Look...

let's get something straight. My "overwrought indignation" is to you putting words in my mouth and pretending you know my state of mind.

I'm done.

[greyl]

47. Who do you feel was the most competent US President?

Who do you feel was the least competent?

[LARED]

60. Truther Incompetent Theory

Definition of INCOMPETENT
1: not legally qualified
2: inadequate to or unsuitable for a particular purpose
3: lacking the qualities needed for effective action


Hummm

1: Does not apply to this argument

2: The particular purpose of a truther is to unearth the truth about "9/11 was an inside job". I would classify truthers as FAILED, so incompetent seems to apply.

3: Need I comment?

[BeFree]

65. Comment?

Why comment and destroy your case even further?

Bushco slinks away with the money leaving a trail of death and destruction and your negative focus is on common citizens?

I see where you stand. No need to comment further.

[LARED]

66. Perhaps you could comment and let me know

why truthers are not incompetent.

But of course it is far easier to change the subject.

[BeFree]

68. Truthers?

I don't focus on truthers. That's your focus. I focus on Bush.

Truthers didn't allow the alleged hijackers to roam the country. Bush did.

Truthers didn't sit there while America was under attack. Bush did.

Forget the truthers, why you let them drive yall batshit crazy is just not fathomable.

But here you are drooling over the truthers again. Rabid is what comes to mind.

[SDuderstadt]

69. "alleged hijackers"

This is what we're "rabid" about, dude.

Are you back to claiming the evidence "leans both ways" as to whether airlines were hijacked on 9/11 and used to attack us?

[LARED]

70. Right now the competence of truthers is the issue

You are a truther. If Bush allowed the alleged hijackers to roam the country. Why have truther be so incompetent in their desire to get this "truth" out to the public?

[BeFree]

73. You are babbling again.

LARED wrote:
"Why have truther be so incompetent in their desire to get this "truth" out to the public"

[SDuderstadt]

74. I believe you beat us to it...

DUDe.

[LARED]

75. I think most would figure out my mistake and

not believe it to be babbling. Let me fix it for you so you can answer the question?

"Why have truthers been so incompetent in their desire to get this "truth" out to the public?

[BeFree]

78. Your opinion only

Against the onslaught of bushco and the media, and the underhanded control of the discussions with the 9/11 Commission, too, the truth has come out.

I guess you are so brazen as to call the 9/11 families incompetent? After all they went through? After all the haggling with bushco and all the bullshit they had to put up with? Is there not one shred of bullshit you guys won't spin up to make it look like this should have been a piece of cake?

All you guys do is scream incompetence. It is your whole argument.

[greyl]

81. Who do you feel was the most competent US President?

Who was the least competent?

[LARED]

82. Can't you just answer the question?

Why have truthers been so incompetent to get 9/11 "truth" out to the public?

If not incompetence, then what is stopping the truth from getting out and the guilty held accountable?

[BeFree]

83. Really?

Lared asks:
"what is stopping the truth from getting out "

I am stunned. But then, this idea lared seem to have that this is some sort of open book, everything is on the table, and no secrets have been withheld, is exactly what the OCTers have falsely argued all along.

To see such a question asked by anyone who has been here this long is simply stunning.

Think, Lared, besides you and others here, who has worked hard to keep the truth from coming out?

[LARED]

94. Wow, you have vested me with powers far beyond my meager

abilities.

Think, Lared, besides you and others here, who has worked hard to keep the truth from coming out?


How have I worked hard to keep the truth from coming out?

[LARED]

95. Can't you just answer the question? nt

[BeFree]

98. I apologize

No one here has really done anything to keep the truth from coming out.

My false accusation is withdrawn.

[deconstruct911]

101. The DA office. nt

[LARED]

102. The DA's Office is suppressing the truth?

Reslly? Whst DA, and how do you know this?

[deconstruct911]

103. "and the guilty held accountable?"

Emad A. Salem is an FBI informant, who was a key witness in the trial of Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad, and Wali Khan Amin Shah, convicted in the World Trade Center Bombing of February 26, 1993.

Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!



It is in fact the D.A. office responsible for that task of accountability. Hopefully this sheds some light on why they are unwilling.

[BeFree]

67. As a reference point for you to ponder and comment?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9073608&mesg_id=9073814

Bush should be indicted.

[LARED]

71. Ok, what does that have to do with Truthers being incompetent? nt

[William Seger]

76. The confession

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pLvmDhbVoo

[greyl]

80. Heheh, yep.

That argument cuts it to the quick, severs the CTs at the knees, before they even get into the starting gate; "Why would anyone plan such an unnecessarily complicated and risky hoax?"

I'm really beginning to think that's the only reply debunkers should use.

[Ohio Joe]

85. So... You propose bush was competent?

hahahahahahahaha, too funny.

"We've seen it time and again: ""Bush was incompetent... that explains everything""."

Where have you seen that? I've never seen it anywhere.

"It explains why he ignored the warnings"

I might agree with that. Though there were... what... 70 investigations going on?

"sat there for minutes even as he knew America was under attack"

OMG... minutes... OMG.

"never found the Anthrax killer"

The dud offed himself.

"accidentally passed the Patriot Act"

Accidentally? Never heard anyone say that before.

"screwed up and started a war in Afghanistan"

Yet another one I've never heard anyone ever say.

"imagined WMD in Iraq and accidentally started another war there"

Everyone I know says he lied about WMD's in Iraq, still more non-sense I've never heard anyone ever say before.

"and somehow bumbled through two stolen elections"

Bumbled? Where do you see this stuff? I would ask you to cite it but I am aware that you never do so.

"all the while Cheney, well, Cheney is a problem for the BIT's, eh?"

Well... considering I have never seen anyone anywhere make the claims in your "bit", I can't even hazard a guess as to what you mean.

"Incompetence or sheer evil? I figure evil. What about you?"

bush was/is an incompetent boob. I also think he was/is an evil fucker, guilty of many crimes. I would love to see what bush did to make you think he was competent though. Please, go ahead and defend his competence, this should be amusing.

[BeFree]

87. My Gawd, Joe

If you can't recognize satire, what can you comprehend?

The piece was half satire!!!

Ok, answering your ... "I would love to see..."

They planned to steal our money, start wars, divide the country, violate the constitution and kill people. Bushco succeeded in those plans. Is success a measure of competency, or not?

That is my question to you, since you'd "love to see".
Why do I not expect an honest answer?

Is success a measure of competency, or not?

[Ohio Joe]

88. No, it is not

Success and competency are two different things and while they can go together neither is required for the other to be true.

[BeFree]

89. But we do agree they were a success?

A success for them, and a failure for us.

[Ohio Joe]

90. I would agree they succeeded in doing those things

I would also agree most of them were planned (I don't think dividing the country was, I think they believed the people would stay behind them as they did right after 9/11). I suspect we would dis-agree on when and why they were planned.

Do you still feel bush was competent? If so, please point out something other then succeeding at these things that would show it because even in doing these things, they were done poorly.

[BeFree]

91. "...they were done poorly"

Maybe they need your help the next time so they can do it 'richly'?

Richly may not be the right word. What word would you use?

They stole more money than anybody, re: Halliburton, Blackwater, Banks, $4 a gallon gas, et al, and you think they "were done poorly"?

Please, I'd love to see how you might think that.

[Ohio Joe]

92. So you are sticking with bush is competent?

and as per the way you usually operate, nothing to back it up, just insinuations that who you are talking to is a repug.

Again, success and competence are not the same thing, if you are going to keep claiming they are, offer some proof of that... oh wait, you don't do proof.

To answer your question (you know, that thing you never do), yes they were done poorly, if they had been done well we would not have taken control of both houses and the presidency.

[BeFree]

93. Yes, competent thieves, crooks, murderers

Incompetent thieves, crooks and murderers are in jail.

Is that answer good enough for you?

[Ohio Joe]

96. Not really

Because they were never prosecuted does not make them competent. They were fortunate in that they had people making insane claims about what they did that made a nice cover for their real crimes.

[BeFree]

97. wow

Your spin is making me want to puke.

You actually think they got away because of others making a nice cover for them?

""they had people making insane claims about what they did that made a nice cover""

PS: Y'know, it does weirdly go right back to the OP. You have made my case. BIT. Thanks.

[Ohio Joe]

106. heh, talk about spin

Once again BeFree offers nothing to support claims yet he still claims victory, too funny.

[BeFree]

108. well

You wrote "..they had people making insane claims about what they did that made a nice cover"

I'd say that the people making claims that bush had no involvement are the ones who made the nice cover.

Which is what BITs do.

[Ohio Joe]

109. Nice try

First you made silly claims and called it your "BIT... that was blown away so you said your "BIT" was satire, now you claim it is people who say bush had no involvement in... what exactly? Come on, nail this shit down and stick to it or admit you are just talking out your ass... though I think that is clear at least.

[BeFree]

110. Two sides, simply put, just for you, Joe

One side claims that those who are going against the conventional media driven wisdom of the OCT, are allowing the criminals to go free.

And the other side claims that those who follow the conventional media driven wisdom of the OCT are allowing the criminal bushco to go free.




It is one hell of a spin to suggest that those who most oppose bushco are those most responsible for bushco freely walking away. Such a spin is, indeed, goofy bullshit.

[Ohio Joe]

115. hahahahaha, what a load

You try to push off that bush was competent but you oppose him? hahahahahahahaha

Plus you try to claim that only those who buy into 9/11 CT bullshit oppose bush?

And of course... Still waiting for something to back up your claim in the OP... but we all know how that will end.

[LARED]

100. Fatal flaw in 'Bush Incompetence Theory'

Speaking for myself (although I believe many from the reality based community would agree) Bush is clearly an incompetent President and it is clearly beyond his capabilities to pull off 9/11 and keep it a secret.

The flaw is this theory is I also believe as do many from the reality based community that NO ONE is capable of pulling off 9/11 as an inside job and keep it a secret.

[Ghost in the Machine]

104. I think the biggest problem is people thinking Incurious George was in charge...

Bush was just a figurehead and puppet, just like Reagan was. Incurious George didn't plan anything, and, in my opinion, was pretty much out of the loop.

It was, again just in my opinion, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz who planned the attacks. The PNAC crew. Having both been Sec Defs, Cheney and Rummy both had access to the then classified document about "Operation Northwoods". When one reads about Operation Northwoods and then looks at events of 9-11, some of the similarities are just too coincidental to be coincidence. All we have, though, is circumstantial evidence.

Your opinions or beliefs may differ, but that's what makes the world go 'round....

Peace

[rschop]

105. RE:Bush is clearly an incompetent and it is clearly beyond his capabilities to pull off 9/11

From prior post: "Bush is clearly an incompetent President and it is clearly beyond his capabilities to pull off 9/11 and keep it a secret."

There is now a overwhelming amount of evidence to show that on August 24, 2001, Bush was told by the Director of the CIA that Moussaoui, who the MPLS FBI thought was an al Qaeda terrorist attempting to get training on a B747 simulator, had been arrested, and that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands.

But even after knowing this horrific information, the top managers at the CIA and FBI HQ had ordered FBI HQ agents they had subjugated to shut down all investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US, even while knowing that this action would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Since theses orders had come from the very top of the CIA and the FBI, and Bush was aware of the same information that the CIA had and appeared after having this information to have done nothing to make sure this attack did not take place, it seems clear that these actions by top CIA and FBI HQ managers to shut down any investigation of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US had to have been sanctioned and approved by Bush himself.

It turns out even a complete incompetent President can do nothing while pretending he does not know what is going on, and it also turns out that this information has not been kept secret but now is found in the reports from the investigations of 9/11 that are now in the public domain, although because this information is not in one report it took much time and effort over a period of years to put this information back together again in one place, in order to see the complete picture.

See my Journal for the details on this.

[BeFree]

107. Thanks rs

There was a time when I thought there was nothing else new that would come out regarding 9/11.

Then I saw your writings and facts. Very good work.

[greyl]

111. "I thought there was nothing else new that would come out regarding 9/11"

False confidence in your command of the facts.
You just learned 2 days ago that it was only a few minutes(not over 30) before people widely knew the 1st plane crashed into the WTC.

edit: added "widely", as in it was all over TV and radio.

[zappaman]

112. yes

befree just learned when the news broke

[Make7]

113. Technically that is not something new.

There seems to be significant gaps in his knowledge regarding 9/11 of long establish facts. Personally I think for the amount of time he spends in the 'September 11' forum, he should be much better informed than he appears to be based on his posts.
 

[greyl]

114. Correct, but

that's what I was trying to get at. ;)
Just because BeFree thinks something is new, doesn't mean it is. It's only new to him.
Thinks he knows everything, but doesn't. Can lead to violating "1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. due to privately overstating knowledge of the facts.

[rschop]

117. RE: Thanks Be Free

Thanks BeFree.

It turns out much information has been made available since the 9/11 Commission report. I completed a very detailed time line using almost all US official government documents. Much of this information actually came out in 2006, the DOJ IG report in May 2006, State of Denial in 2006, by Bob Woodward, and Looming Tower in August 2006, by Lawrence Wright.

The “State of Denial” account of the meeting between Rice and Tenet is the only account of this meeting, since the 9/11 Commission had hidden this information from the American public. But when Rice first denied this meeting and then admitted this meeting had taken place I used this information in my time line, since it had been coroberated by a government source.

The account of Ali Soufan in the Looming Tower is also an account which at first looks not like a US official government document, but I found out that the information in this article and book on Soufan had been given to Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, Soufan’s assistant on the Cole bombing investigation, and vetted by John Miller information officer at the FBI, so it is as close as is possible to an official FBI account of 9/11 from the FBI point of view.

What is amazing is that almost all of the information in Looming Tower is left out of the DOJ IG report, including almost all mention of FBI Agent Soufan himself, which tells you something about the integrity and honesty of some of the government reports. It was not as if they were wrong, in most cases they were right but they just left out information at critical points in order to hide what had been a massive criminally conspiracy first to hide the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names of the people who were at that meeting, Mihdhar and Hazmi and Bin Attash, from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, but what is even more horrific then to shut down all criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists who were found to be inside of the US.

When the CIA and FBI HQ shut down these investigations they clearly knew about a huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US, and knew that thousands of Americans were going to be murdered in these al Qaeda attacks that could have been prevented had they just left these investigations in place.

While almost all of this information is now in the public domain, the main stream media, for whatever reason has not only over looked this information, and has claimed that they are unaware of this information, but have also thrown a blanket of secrecy over almost all aspects of this information. Perhaps one reason might be the rise of the so called Truthers and their claim that demolitions were planted in these building, a claim for which I have never been able to find even the slightest bit of proof anywhere. The main stream media does not want to be associated with totally unsupported theories, for fear of being associated with the people supporting these theories. But the news organizations, like the New York Times, the Washington Post appear to be claiming that they just are just too lazy or stupid to find this information that is right in official US government documents that they can now freely get right off of the internet.

For example: The following information is now available off of the internet:

See “Changes to staff statement #10 from the CIA, 4/04/2004” a statment this is now avalible and was given to the 9/11 Commission in April 4, 2004.

“Records available to the Commission establish that appropriate FBI CT officials were briefed about the KL (Kuala Lumpur) operation as it was in progress. In addition, according a Commission staff Statement, the Director of the FBI was also briefed at the time of the KL operation was in progress. “

Page 181 of the 9/11 Commission report

From Robert Mueller:

"The hijackers also left no paper trail. In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – in the U.S. or in Afghanistan – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11th plot. The hijackers had no computers, no laptops, and no storage media of any kind. They used hundreds of different pay phones and cell phones, often with prepaid calling cards that are extremely difficult to trace. And they made sure that all the money sent to them to fund their attacks was wired in small amounts to avoid detection.

In short, the terrorists managed to exploit loopholes and vulnerabilities in our systems, to stay out of sight, and not let anyone know what they were up to beyond a very closed circle. The investigation allowed us to see where we as a nation needed to close gaps in our security. And it gave us clear and definitive proof that Al Qaeda was behind the strikes."

But The paper trial could be found, in fact, right in the daily briefing papers of FBI Director Louis Freeh for January 4, 2000. This listed the passport of Khalid al Mihdhar, his full name, and the fact that he was traveling to Kuala Lumpur with other long time al Qaeda terrorists named Nawaf, and Salem, thought to be Nawaf's younger brother to take part in an important al Qaeda planning meeting. It turns out this is where both the planning for the Cole bombing and the planning for the attacks on 9/11 took place.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, Freeh had been given this information by the NSA in December 1999, and again by the CIA in January 2000, see page 181 the 9/11 Commission report and pages 238-239 of the DOJ IG report.

But, according to the account of Ali Soufan, in the July 10, 2006 article in the New Yorker, by Lawrence Wright, material given to Wright by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and vetted by FBI information officer John Miller, when the lead investigator on the Cole bombing, FBI Special Agent Ali Soufan, asked FBI Director Freeh in November 2000, to make an official request to the CIA and George Tenet to find out if the CIA had any information on any al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January 2000, or on Walid Bin Attash, thought to be the mastermind of the Cole bombing, Soufan was told that the CIA had none of this information.

FBI Director Louis Freeh had gotten this very information from the CIA himself in January 2000, and by hiding this information not only had criminally obstructed his own FBI criminal investigation into the Cole bombing and the deaths of 17 US sailors in order to hide the information that came out of the Kuala Lumpur meetings from the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing but had allowed the terrorists who were at that Kuala Lumpur meeting, and had actually planned the Cole bombing, to remain hidden and take part in the attacks on 9/11. These al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi were all on American 77 that hit the Pentagon.

All of this information is now available today right directly off of the internet from official US government source and webs sites. So the big question is why has main stream news media, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, the SF Chronicle (IMHO) continued to hide this horrific information from the American people, when millions of people must have seen the New Yorker article and many thousands must also have read the 9/11 Commission report, and perhaps many people had read the DOJ IG report, and surely the 9/11 Commission read the CIA modifications to their staff statement #10, so now they all now know that their 9/11 Commission report is nothing but a total and complete fraud!

Not only was the 9/11 Commission report a total fraud, but as clearly demonstrated above, the information you get from main stream media is perhaps an even bigger and even more perverse fraud.

See my Journal for even more details on all of this!

[zappaman]

116. kick

you ever gonna back up your claim?