Bush Lied Before 9-11, During 9-11, and After 9-11.

[Octafish]

Before: CIA briefing memo exposes Bush lies on 9/11.

During: Fox News Goes Easy on Bush's 'My Pet Goat' Moment.

After: Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11.

Lying is not the same as "making a mistake." Lying is an intentional act to deceive.

Why anyone would trust the guy on anything he says after he lied America into war is beyond my understanding.

[SDuderstadt]

1. "why anyone would trust the guy on anything he says after he...

lied America into war is beyond my understanding"

Seems to me you're setting up a false issue here. Are you suggesting that anyone here "trusts" Bush? For example, would one have to "trust Bush" to reject goofy "9/11 was an inside job" theories?

[Octafish]

2. Bush lied about 9-11. Thus, Bush is unworthy of trust in regards to the attacks of 9-11.

It should be readily apparent that Bush should not be trusted in regards to September 11, the run-up to war on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the investigation of the attacks of September 11.

One important piece of history worth remembering is Bush wanted the war criminal Henry Kissinger to head the 9-11 Commission. An honest investigation would be headed by a person with a record of honesty.

You are the one who raised the idea of "goofy '9/11 was an inside job' theories," sduderstadt. I find that an odd thing to say: Going by the record, his "administration" amounts to nothing more than a series of treasons and corruptions.

[SDuderstadt]

3. Dude...

answer this question: is it possible to not trust Bush, yet still reject goofy "9/11 was an inside job" theories? Hint: yes.

You conveniently gloss over the numerous requests I have made for actual evidence that Bush either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen. In true conspiracist style, since you are unable to provide any concrete evidence of your goofy claims, you go into backhanded smear mode. You act insulted that anyone would dare question your goofy theories and immediately insinuate that any questioning must be motivated solely by some sort of sub rosa love of Bush. It's getting really old.

We're approaching nine years since the attacks. Are you guys close to even one major piece of evidence or can we look forward to you guys finally admitting you've got to be one of the most inept group of investigators ever? For example, what difference does it make that Bush wanted Kissinger to chair the Commission? Can you point to anything I have ever said which rests on "trusting" Bush? Take your time.

[rschop]

19. re:evidence that Bush either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen.

re: You conveniently gloss over the numerous requests I have made for actual evidence that Bush either planned or allowed 9/11 to happen.

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 these 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 single report in one place, it took much time and effort over a period of years to put this information back together again in one place, in order to be able to see the complete picture.

What is the proof of this:

#1. Tenet admitted that he knew about Moussaoui on August 23, 2001 to the 9/11 Commission.

#2. Tenet is accompanied with Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, tells Rice and Clarke, in an extremely urgent meeting at the White House, on July 10, 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorists are about to attack targets inside of the US, and this attack will kill thousands of Americans. Rice tells Tenet to give the same information to Ashcroft and Rumsfeld which he does on July 17, 2001. Ashcroft is so terrified of being on a hijacked aircraft he immediately quits flying on commercial aircraft for all AJ business. When CBS news reports this Ashcroft issues a press release that AJ Ashcroft quit flying on commercial aircraft due to some unspecified threat from the FBI, but neither AJ Ashcroft nor the FBI tell the American people a huge al Qaeda attack is about to take place that will kill thousands of Americans, and this attack is likely going to involve large commercial aircraft hijacked by the al Qaeda terrorists. It is inconceivable that Rice does not tell Bush this information since she has many conversation per day with Bush and even flies out to Crawford for the entire month of August to be with Bush.

#3. While Tenet, Blee and Black are telling Rice and Clarke, about this attack, they are denying former CIA officer, Tom Wilshire, who is now Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, permission on July 13, and July 23, 2001 to give the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting, and the fact that both Mihdhar and Hazmi who had been at that meeting planning the Cole bombing, to the FBI criminal investigators in New York City, FBI Agent Ali Soufan and his assistant FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, who are investigating the Cole bombing. The CIA and even many FBI HQ managers know by this time that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash, and know that these al Qaeda terrorists are also connected to the attack on the east Africa embassies which killed over 200 people. Wilshire in his July 23, 2001 email, back to Blee, Black and Tenet, indicates that Mihdhar will be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack. Wilshire had also sent email back to his CTC manangers on July 5, 2001 indicating that the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting were connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been getting since April 2001.

#4. On August 21, 2001 Margaret Gillespie, a FBI agent working at the CIA Bin Laden unit finds out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and on August 22, 2001 gives this information to Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi. Wilshire immediately knows these terrorists are inside of the US in order to take part in the massive attack that will kill thousands, but both Corsi and Wilshire keep this information secret and do everything they can to keep this investigation way from Bongardt and his team for fear he will know that they, the CIA and even the FBI HQ had been hiding, in a massive criminal conspiracy, the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. They are afraid if Bongardt uncovers this information, many people at the CIA and FBI HQ will end up in prison for years for criminal obstruction of a on gong FBI criminal investigation.

#5. Gillespie on August 23, 2001 forces the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, which goes throughout the CIA, including CIA mangers Blee, Black and Tenet, to the State Department and even to the FBI, but this information is kept secret from Bongardt and his team, the only team set up that could have stopped these attacks. So on August 23, Blee, Black, and Tenet know that Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that will kill thousands of Americans. On August 24, 2001 Tenet has a 6 hour meeting with Bush in Crawford Texas, after he has all of this information. It is inconceivable that Tenet does not give this information to both Bush and Rice, particularly in light of July 10, 2001 meeting and the August 6, 2001 briefing papers.

#6. At the April 14, 2001 9/11 Commission public hearings, 9/11 Commissioner Roemer ask Tenet, if Tenet knew about this attack, knew it would kill thousands of Americans, what did he tell Bush in August? Tenet says he never told Bush since Bush was in Crawford and his was in Washington DC. Roemer then asks Tenet, why did he not pick up the phone and tell Bush over the telephone, (after all the telephone and been invented over a 100 years earlier)? Tenet says he cannot explain why he did not pick up the phone and call Bush and tell him this horrific information, and says he cannot go beyond this (completely lame and moronic) examination. Bill Harlow after Tenet's testimony says publically that Tenet lied and had flown down to Crawford on August 17, and had seen Bush in Washington DC on August 31, 2001, but fails (for some reason, unknown at the time) to mention the meeting Tenet had in Crawford on August 24, 2001, (after Tenet knew about Moussoaui, Mihdhar and Hazmi). It is further odd that no one at the White House that was watching this on CSPAN failed to call the 9/11 Commission and alert them that Tenet had just told a lie (a real whopper in fact).

See my Journal for the details on this.

[rschop]

30. K&R

[BeFree]

54. And some back up to the story

In the 9/11 commission report were statements to the effect that the problem you, rschop, have outlined was recognized to be true.

Indeed, I remember bushco yammering later about how they were going to fix the problem of the CIA and FBI not working together pre 9/11.

So.... not only am I sure you have compiled a true and accurate account, even the 9/11 commission and bushco both affirm the story.

Great work. Important stuff. Unburnable.

[rschop]

83. re: Thanks BeFree

[Octafish]

43. You never cease to disappoint, sduderstadt.

You still have failed to show where I've posted something that wasn't true. Now you bring up me as a person who smears or attacks people who "dare question your goofy theories and immediately insinuate that any questioning must be motivated solely by some sort of sub rosa love of Bush." Really? Show me where I do that. Were it true, I'd be happy to apologize.

[SDuderstadt]

44. Your "who, me?" tactic isn't working, dude...

and, I have repeatedly shown you examples of your smears. You simply pretend they don't exist.

You do realize that calling you on your goofy bullshit isn't the same thing "defending Bush", right? Your games are getting really tiring, dude.

[Octafish]

48. Just because you say something, doesn't make it so, sduderstadt.

You have yet to show me where I posted something that wasn't true.

[SDuderstadt]

50. Dude...

I have done so repeatedly. Your game-playing is rather silly.

[Octafish]

53. You know, sduderstadt, it's really creepy when you call me 'Dude' like that all the time.

[SDuderstadt]

55. Not anywhere near as creepy as your...

goofy bullshit, dude.

"Waaaaahhhh! sduderstadt is calling me 'dude'. Waaaahhhh!".

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

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

[LARED]

4. CT'er creed --- "Bush is god"

Why do CT'er imply that becasue Bush is untrustworthy the 9/11 narrative is somehow tainted? Bush does not control the media, nor does he control congress, nor does he control the folks that did the investigation into the attacks, just to name a few places we get 9/11 information.

So unless Bush can actually control institutions outside of his oversight as President, CT'er have some explaining to do.

[BeFree]

5. Heh

The bush administration was very competent in controlling the media, the investigation, and a majority of congress.

Rewriting history won't fly around here.

[zappaman]

6. Heh

not to mention controlling the thousands who were in on it.

[BeFree]

7. Thousands?

You have evidence there were thousands in on it?

But it only took 19 in your scenario?

[LARED]

9. Try to stay focused

Only the truther version of 9/11 needs a coverup of thousands to keep it a secret.

[BeFree]

11. You have the evidence?

Or you are just theorizing?

Oh, BTW, it's no secret. Lots of people know about it.

So, what facts have you got?

[LARED]

13. What are you babbling about? nt

[BeFree]

16. You made a claim

Now back it up. You are always demanding backup, so now you get to backup your claims.

It's only fair, right?

[LARED]

31. what claim are you expecting me to back up. nt

[zappaman]

17. yes it took only 19 hijackers

for my scenario.
of course, there were others helping, but how many does it take for your scenario?
you know, to plan, get all the right agencies involved, the media, foreign governments, etc?

[BeFree]

20. Others?!?!?!

Here, in the US? You read rschops' articles, and these people have been tried and convicted without torture?

Or are you saying that you only know a small part of what happened?

This should be great to hear the whole, complete OCT story finally.

Take your time. Be complete now. You wouldn't want to do something you bitch at other people for doing, would you?

[greyl]

22. Yes, others. Don't forget all the Internet posters

who, according to the 9/11 Truth Industry, are participating in a cover-up and keeping 'the truth' from coming out.

edit: clarity

[BeFree]

25. What I figured, Cop out.

Not even gonna try, are you? After almost 9 years the story and the main players have been shown to have lied and cheated and stolen and, outted CIA agents.

I can see why you are reticent to make a real effort.

Bush has managed to keep the truth from coming out and he hopes it all just goes away.

Or, have I got that wrong?

Has Bush actually been an open book and worked hard keeping 'the truth' coming out?

Well, what say you? Am I wrong, and Bush is the 'truther', or am I right that Bush is obstructing?

[greyl]

27. Jees, I said "don't forget" and you already forgot.

I wasn't attempting to field your question entirely, I was just helping you with your count.

[zappaman]

24. others

like me.
and the rest of the gang.
come see us at Barnes and Noble, that's where we meet.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x291416

[CJCRANE]

61. Some one hired them...

so that makes 20. Who hired them?

All it takes is for the guy who hired them to be a double agent, then both the truthers and OCTers are correct (but only seeing one side of the story).

[LARED]

8. Is this a submittal for the Ironic Post of the Week contest?

Rewriting history. Hah

You mean controlling the media like this example.

[rschop]

29. re: Bush did not control Congress?

Bush did control the Congress, and in fact made sure that 5 Republican and 5 Democrats were on the 9/11 Commission. Since it required 6 people on the 9/11 Commission to get a subpoena, the CIA, FBI HQ and the administration could refuse to provide documents, and even witnesses and the 9/11 Commission with the 5 Republicans would make sure no effort was made to force these agencies to provide these documents.

Since a vast amount of information has come out on 9/11 since the release of the 9/11 Commission report, that implicates the CIA, the FBI HQ and even to Bush administration, in the attacks on 9/11, and none of this has ended up in the newspapers, it looks like there is a concerted effort at the main stream media to hide this information, information which now can actually be found in official US government documents and is all now in the public domain.

Let me make an analogy. You are indicated for murder. But you are so powerful that you makes sure that 5 of the possible 10 jurors are your best friends, and that it will take at least 6 jurors to get any subpoena. You further say that you will not testify in public, or under oath, and that no record can be made of what you say, and that you will only testify if your coconspirators also testifies with you, at the very same time.

How fair this that? But what is even more horrific, this did not involve one murder, but almost 3000 murders.

[LARED]

32. So you think if congress had provided for

6 Democrats and 4 Republicans the truth (as you see it) would have come out?

You do realize Congress created the 9/11 commission. Bush just signed it. So Bush controlling congress might be a little imaginative.

[rschop]

35. RE: So Bush controlling congress might be a little imaginative.

Bush was the head of the Republican party and the Republicans were in control of Congress, so Bush was in complete control of Congress.

Furthermore when the information first started filtering out that Bush knew much more than he was letting on and the horrific information that the intelligence agencies had known about Mihdhar and Hazmi for almost 21 months and did nothing to stop them or this attack, the big push to have a 9/11 Commission investigate the attacks on 9/11 and see why the US intelligence agencies had allowed these attacks to take place, gained momentum.

But the tiny amount of money allocated to this Commission, $3 million dollars, and the makeup of the 9/11 Commission make clear that this Commission was going to be nothing more than a white wash of the people, including people at the very highest levels of the US government, who had intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place. Again and again information was blocked by the CIA, the FBI and even the Bush administration from going to the 9/11 Commission.

Why has new information come out only in 2006, that apparently was never given to the 9/11 Commission or if it was was carefully hidden from the American people. For example Tom Wilshire's email of July 23, 2001, that requested he be given permission to transfer to the FBI Cole bombing investigators the information that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at Kuala Lumpur and even more horrific that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda terrorist attack, an attack he knew would take place inside of the US on August 22, 2001 when Mihdhar and Hazmi were found inside of the US.

Can anyone explain why the 9/11 Commission stated, in fact their main conclusion, that they just could never figure out why the CIA had not connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, when it is clear the July 5, 2001 email and the July 23, 2001 email from Tom Wilshire back to Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet proves that the CIA had connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the warning of this huge attack, and the August 24, 2001 meeting between Tenet and Bush in Crawford, Texas, had connected Tenet and this horrific information to Bush and Rice.

[LARED]

36. You live in a fantasy world

Bush was the head of the Republican party and the Republicans were in control of Congress, so Bush was in complete control of Congress.

Really? So Congress does whatever the President tells them to do? Democrats on the intelligence committee, and the dozens of other committees that oversee federal departments having to do with the investigation and security of the US were compliant in covering up this hideous crime against America. Really? Do you even have a clue how idiotic that sounds.

Furthermore when the information first started filtering out that Bush knew much more than he was letting on and the horrific information that the intelligence agencies had known about Mihdhar and Hazmi for almost 21 months and did nothing to stop them or this attack, the big push to have a 9/11 Commission investigate the attacks on 9/11 and see why the US intelligence agencies had allowed these attacks to take place, gained momentum.

You are actually claiming the intelligence agencies knew of this attack and did nothing? You are claiming they allowed the attacks to take place. Really? I assume you are aware there is zero evidence this is true. In fact everything I have ever read or watched regarding intelligence foreknowledge indicates they knew something was up, but had little in the way of specifics. If you are claiming this you need to provide proof they had specific foreknowledge.

I can hardly wait.

[rschop]

39. re: You are actually claiming the intelligence agencies knew of this attack and did nothing?

From prior posts:

"Furthermore when the information first started filtering out that Bush knew much more than he was letting on and the horrific information that the intelligence agencies had known about Mihdhar and Hazmi for almost 21 months and did nothing to stop them or this attack, the big push to have a 9/11 Commission investigate the attacks on 9/11 and see why the US intelligence agencies had allowed these attacks to take place, gained momentum."


"You are actually claiming the intelligence agencies knew of this attack and did nothing? You are claiming they allowed the attacks to take place. Really? I assume you are aware there is zero evidence this is true. In fact everything I have ever read or watched regarding intelligence foreknowledge indicates they knew something was up, but had little in the way of specifics. If you are claiming this you need to provide proof they had specific foreknowledge."

I can hardly wait."

No I am not claiming that they did nothing, it is much worse than that. They first criminally with held material information from the FBI investigation into the Cole bombing. Then they shut down or blocked all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, even when they knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was going to take place inside of the US.

But it is even far worse than that, when they shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Midhar and Hazmi, the CIA and FBI HQ knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Here is the proof from the DOJ IG report and documents entered into the Moussaoui trial:

On July 5 2001, (from DOJ IG report) former CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit and at this time Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit at the FBI, Tom Wilshire sent email back to his CTC managers, Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC, over the Bin Laden unit and George Tenet, Director of the CIA. indicating that the people who were at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting were connected to the massive warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been receiving since April 2001. SEE DOJ IG report, July 5, 2001.

In July 13, 2001 in email back to his CTC mangers, Richard Blee, Cofer Black, and George Tenet, he requested permission to transfer the information he had on the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI. See Defense Exhibit #939 “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases /... /

In his July 23, 2001, email, also in DE 939, back again to his CTC mangers Wilshire clearly stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part on the next big al Qaeda operation. He also asked why no one had responded to his July 13, 2001 request to transfer the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. See “Substitution for the testimony of John”. It is clear that the higher level managers at the CIA were deliberately blocking Wilshire from giving the information about the Kuala Lumpur meeting to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, including the fact that the CIA had a photograph of Walid Bin Attash at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 meeting planning the Cole bombing with Midhar and Hazmi who were also photographed at that same meeting.


In July 2001 when the CIA was clearly aware that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US, they clearly had forbidden Tom Wilshire twice from turning over the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, they very information that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11.

Wilshire was forbidden from turning over this information at the almost the exact same time that Blee, Black and Tenet were holding an extremely urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clarke on July 10, 2001 indicating that a huge al Qaeda attacks was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. One week later Blee, Black and Tenet gave this same information to both John Ashcroft, head of the DOJ and the FBI and Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Ashcroft immediately quits flying commercial aircraft for AJ business, clearly not wanting to be on any aircraft hijacked by al Qaeda terrorists, but even though he quits flying on commercial aircraft he never alerts the American public to this horrific damager.

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire sent his email to his CTC managers indicating Mihdhar would take part in the next big al Qaeda attack, both Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi were told by FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie, a FBI agent at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were found to be inside of the US. See DE 939, “Substitution for the testimony of John”, August 22, 2001.

It is clear that both Wilshire and Corsi knew immediately that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, an attack that both the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001. Yet they keep this information secret from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators even though they know Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing.

In spite of this, the CIA and FBI HQ forced the investigation of Mihdhar away from Bongardt by urgently requesting the head of the FBI intelligence unit in New York, Craig Donnachie, to start an intelligence investigation of Mihdhar. When they did this, they all knew that the CIA had been hiding from the FBI criminal investigators, the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur. This photograph clearly connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the actual planning of the Cole bombing. By doing this Bongardt had no real clear evidence that would connect Mihdhar and Hazmi to the planning of the Cole bombing, evidence that would have allowed him to start a criminal investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. When Corsi shuts down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, she knew that the CIA had been hiding this photograph of Bongardt and his team, she indicates that she is aware of this horrific information on page 302 of the DOJ IG report.

On August 23, 2001 Gillespie forced the CIA Bin laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi, an alert that went right up the chain of command at the CIA including Blee, Black and Tenet, the State Department and even the FBI even though it was still kept secret from Bongardt and his team. So on August 23, 2001, the entire CIA and FBI hierarchy knew what Wilshire was aware of, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

On August 28, 2001 FBI Agent Steve Bongardt found out about that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US when FBI supervisor at the New York office, John Liguori, Craig Donnachie’s boss, accidentally send Corsi's EC to him. When Bongardt called Corsi and demanded that the investigation and search for Mihdhar be given to him and his team, Corsi told him that since the information on Mihdhar and Hazmi had come from the NSA and the NSA had caveats on this information that required written permission from them before it could be sent to FBI criminal investigators, he was forbidden to have any part in any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. She also told him that he had to destroy any and all information that he had on Midhar and Hazmi including her EC.

But from Defense Exhibit DE #681, found on the Moussaoui court web site, in email on August 29, 2001, from Dina Corsi to John Liguori (the FBI manager at the New York FBI field office), Dina Corsi says:

"John (Liguori),

” I think I may have caused some unnecessary confusion with this issue. The EC on al-Mihdhar I sent to Craig (Donnachie), via email marking it as a DRAFT so that he could read it before he went on vacation. There is material in the EC which has not been approved and which is not cleared for criminal investigators (meaning the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Cole bombing). Steve and Rod, (this is Rod Middleton, her boss) and I spoke with him, (FBI Agent Steve Bongardt) and tried to explain why this case had to stay on the intel side of the house.”

But Defense Evidence #448, on the same web site, is the actual NSA release that Dina Corsi received from the NSA, and shows that this release had already been approved on August 27, 2001, and sent to Corsi at 8:05 AM on the morning of August 28, 2001. This release had actually been approved by the NSA in just a few hours after being submitted on August 27, 2001, two days before she tells Liguori and Bongardt, that Bongardt cannot have this information because she (Corsi) had not yet gotten a written release from the NSA when in fact she had two days earlier!

This release clearly stated that Corsi was approved to send the NSA information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the names Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi, who were attending this important al Qaeda planning meeting, to the “FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing in New York City”, FBI Steve Bongardt and his team. When Corsi tells Liguori and Bongardt that this information had not yet been approved and is not cleared for criminal investigators, it is clear she is lying to them in a desperate attempt to prevent Bongardt from starting any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

After being told he could not take part in the investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, Bongardt asked Corsi to get a ruling from the NSLU, to see if he could take part in the investigation of Mihdhar, since he knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a horrific al Qaeda attack that would kill many Americans. Bongardt could not see any connection to any FISA warrant when the NSA had obtained this information and felt that the NSA and NSLU would readily approve this information going to him and his team.

But Corsi told him on August 29, 2001 that she had consulted NSLU attorneys, (Sherry Sabol) and that they had ruled he could not be part of any investigation and search for Mihdhar.

From evidence item #682 also on the same site.

Email from Dina Corsi to Steve Bongardt 8/29 7:44 AM

Steve,

Rod (Rod Middleton Corsi's boss) and I spoke with National Security Law Unit (NSLU) in order to confirm that our recommendations were accurate. And get answers to the questions you posed. They responded as follows:

"Al-Mihdhar should be opened as a FFI. If Mihdhar is located the interview must be conducted by an intel agent criminal agent CAN NOT be present at the interview. The case is entirely based on intel. If at such time information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to procedures."

Email, Steve back to Corsi, 08/29 8:38 AM

Dina- where is "the wall" defined? Isn't it dealing with FISA information"? I think everyone is still confusing this issue. I know we discussed this issue ad nasuseum but "the wall" concept grew out of the fear that FISA would be obtained as opposed to a Title III. Whatever has happened to this - someday someone will die - the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain "problems". Let’s hope the National security unit will stand behind their decisions when some day Americans will die...

Email, Corsi back to Steve, Aug 29, 2001 9:27 AM

Steve, I do know how you feel about this. I don't think you understand that we at FBIHQ are all frustrated with this issue. I don’t know what to tell you. I don't know how many other ways I can explain this to you. These are the rules. NSLU does not make them up and neither does UBLU.

This was almost exactly 2 weeks before the attacks on 9/11 and still plenty of time that Bongardt could have had to stop the attacks that took place on 9/11, had he been allowed to continue his investigation of Mihdhar..

But it is now clear that FBI Agent Bongardt was right. From page 538, footnote 81 in the 9/11 Commission’s own report we learn that Corsi had actually fabricated Attorney Sherry Sabol’s ruling. According to testimony she gave to DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, Attorney Sabol stated that she had in fact, had ruled that Bongardt could be part of any investigation of Mihdhar since the NSA information was not connected to any FISA warrant.

Sabol even told Corsi, if Corsi was still confused about this issue she (Corsi) could go herself to the NSA herself and get a release from the NSA caveats. So it is clear that Corsi withheld the fact from Attorney Sabol that she had already obtained a release from the NSA on August 27, 2001, one day earlier!

But Corsi also knew full well that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing attacks and had even taken part in the east Africa bombings. So there was already plenty of evidence “ indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime”. So it is clear that there was absolutely no valid reason for Corsi, who had been closely working with Wilshire, to shut down FBI Agent Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, since withholding NSA information from FBI criminal investigators only applied to information that had no connection to a crime. The NSA caveat also said if there was imminent danger to people or property the caveat preventing transfer of NSA information to FBI criminal investigators, no longer was applicable, and since Corsi and Wilshire and Rod Middleton were all aware of this huge al Qaeda attack about to take place inside of the US, the NSA caveat never legitimately applied to the information about Kuala Lumpur.

It is clear that Wilshire had been ordered by his CTC managers at the CIA to keep all of the information from Kuala Lumpur from ever going to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing.

But, since both Corsi, Middleton and Wilshire had criminally obstructed his investigation of the Cole bombing numerous times, and they all knew if Bongardt continued with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and then obtained the photographs of Mihdhar and Hazmi along with the photograph of Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur planning the Cole bombing, he would have immediately known that the June 11, 2001 meeting set up in New York City had been a CIA sting on the FBI and his team, and that the CIA had been hiding this information all along.

It is now also clear that this huge criminal conspiracy first to withhold information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting from the FBI Cole investigators and then to finally shut down Bongardt’s criminal investigation of Mihdhar went way beyond either Corsi and Wilshire.

What is even more horrific is that the CIA sent Middleton the photograph of Walid Bin Attash on August 30, 2001, so now he has the photographic proof that Mihdhar and Hama had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing. He had been on the phone with Corsi when Corsi had called Bongardt to shut down his investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, he had been at the meeting with Sherry Sabol, when Sabol told Corsi that Bongardt could investigator Mihdhar and Hazmi and knew Corsi had fabricated Sabol’s ruling. He even knew by shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that thousands of Americans would perish in the huge al Qaeda attack he was aware of. He was actually the FBI manger who had written up the EC on the terrorist threat to the US from a al Qaeda attack by Bin Laden in April 2001. In spite of this information Middleton never calls Bongardt back to allow him to start the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi.

When Bongardt investigation was shut down, Corsi's EC went to the FBI intelligence unit to start an investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi. But Corsi had marked her EC "ROUTINE", meaning it should have the lowest priority, in spite of the fact she knew as did, Middleton, the CIA, and even the FBI HQ managers, that Midhar and Hazmi were inside of the US to take part in an imminent terrorist attack. Even Bongardt remarked to Corsi, as she was shutting down his investigation: "Why do you think they are in the US? Do you think that are going to "FUCKING" Disney land. "

Since it was marked ROUTINE it was given to one of the least experienced FBI agents at the New York office, Robert Fuller. On September 5, even after looking through the FBI data base Choicepoint, he had gotten nowhere in his investigation to find Mihdhar or Hazmi, and called Corsi for permission to contact Saudi Arabian Airlines to get Mihdhar's credit card number since the FBI knew that Mihdhar and re-entered the US on July 4, 2001 on this airline. But Corsi refused to give him persimmon to do this in spite of the fact he had told her he had gotten nowhere in his investigation even after going through the information in the Choicepoint data base. So what possible conceivable reason would Corsi have to prevent Fuller from asking Saudi Arabian Airlines for Mihdhar’s credit card number, when she knows this will doom Fullers investigation for Mihdhar, there seems in no logical explanation for this other than one!

It appears that not only did they let it happen it seems clear that they "did everything possible to MAKE SURE IT WOULD HAPPEN"!

The following lists the many additional reasons this criminal conspiracy went way beyond either Corsi, Middleton or Wilshire.

First it is clear that Tenet, Black and Blee had forbidden Wilshire twice from giving the information on the Kuala Lumpur meeting attended by Mihdhar and Hazmi, and Bin Attash to the FBI criminal investigators, when at the almost the exact same time they were having an urgent meeting in the White House with Rice and Clark, on July 10, 2001, describing a huge al Qaeda attack just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

Second, Tenet's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004 indicated he was clearly hiding his meetings in August 2001 with the President of the United States from the American public.

At this hearing, 9/11 Commissioner Tim Roemer asked the question: "If you, (George Tenet), knew that the al Qaeda terrorists were about to mount a huge attack inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not tell the President in August?"

Tenet answered that he was in Washington DC and the President was in Crawford Texas, and that is “why he had not told the President”.

Then Roemer asked why did he not pick up the telephone and call the President and give him this horrific information.

Tenet in answer said he had not called the President in August but just could not go beyond this as an explanation. He simply could offer no possible explanation at all of why he had not called the President of the United States and given him this horrific information, and main stream media seemed unusually uncurious about this.

But Bill Harlow, the CIA spokesman came out after Tenet’s testimony and said Tenet had misspoken, which is CIA speak for lied. Harlow said that Tenet had flown down to Crawford on August 17, and had seen the President in Washington on August 31, and six more times in September before the attacks on 9/11. So it is clear that he had plenty of opportunity to tell the President of the United States about this huge al Qaeda attack.

We now know he had also flown down to Crawford in order to have an urgent meeting with the President on August 24, 2001. This is just after Tenet learned on August 23, that Moussaoui had been arrested after the FBI thought he was a terrorist learning to fly a 747 and had also learned on August 23, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US preparing to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that he knew would kill thousands of Americans, when FBI Agent Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue a worldwide alert for Mihdhar and Hazmi.

So just what did George Tenet Director of the CIA, who had all of this horrific information tell the President of the United States of America at these meetings. It seems that after 9 years that we still do not know. But we know he was willing to lie to the American people and to the 9/11 Commission, a major crime of perjury, in order to hide these meetings with the President so he would not be forced to reveal what in fact he had told the President on August 24, 2001.

But isn’t this what psychologists call "consciousness of guilt", something one does only if they have committed a crime!


All of these people not only knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, but almost all of these people were aware that the CIA had received numerous warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands. Many including chief of the Bin Laden unit Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet knew of Wilshire’s emails that clearly identified Mihdhar and Hazmi as al Qaeda terrorists who were going to take part in this attack.

Yet not only did they all keep silent about this huge threat to the people in the US, and did not warn anyone at either the FBI criminal units or the US government, but many must also have known that thousands of Americans were about to perish in these huge al Qaeda attacks that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

The 9/11 Commission stated as one of their most important conclusions that:

"We could not understand why the CIA had never connected Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi to the warnings of a massive al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ were both aware of".

But the email from Wilshire on July 5, 2001 and July 23, 2001, that had connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack, and which were sent to the management of the CIA would have rendered this conclusion somewhat less than accurate. The testimony of Corsi shows that FBI HQ intentionally shut down the investigation of Bongardt even when they knew this would block the only FBI criminal investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi that could have prevented the upcoming al Qaeda attacks that took place on 9/11.

Had this information been brought out at the 9/11 Commission hearings, it would have caused a major problem for the CIA and FBI HQ when the American people found out that our own intelligence agencies had deliberately and intentionally allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

The conclusion that the 9/11 Commission reached that the CIA and FBI were not criminally involved in allowing the attacks on 9/11 was a conclusion the 9/11 Commission had been required to make since their job was to insure that no one was blamed for intentionally allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place.

It is now clear that they in fact intentionally left out critical information that showed the many criminal actions at both the CIA and FBI HQ to deliberately and criminally obstruct the FBI investigation of the Cole bombing. So that no one could be blamed for 9/11, it was considered important that the 9/11 Commission withhold this evidence until long after the 9/11 Commission had reached their final conclusions and wrote their final report.

Since the 9/11 Commission had subpoena power and had access to all of this information that now make up the “Substitution of John” and all of the other interviews, emails and other evidence items that are now part of the DOJ IG report and the record of the Moussaoui trial, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission report reached conclusions that were contrary to the very evidence they were already aware of. One might says this renders the entire effort of the 9/11 Commission a complete fraud. See my Journal for more details on this.

[SDuderstadt]

40. Another "data dump" from rschop...

simple question, dude...if your bombshell is anywhere near remotely true, why isn't anyone of import picking up your story?

[LARED]

41. Wow, you should write a book

Other credible writers and researchers have written about the same events and have managed to come to very different conclusions. It might hsve something to do with fact checking requirements most publishers insist upon, and the requirement that conclusions need to match the facts.

I was going to list all the conclusions you came to that are based on not much more than opinion, but it would take far too long.

So enjoy your fantasy world.

[noise]

58. Like John Farmer?

He admits he doesn't know why the information wasn't shared. Lawrence Wright, James Bamford and Peter Lance weren't able to get any definitive answers.

Interviews with FBI and CIA officials involved in the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar sharing issues are still classified. Why is that?

Why hasn't there been any media interest in the officials who headed BIN LADEN intel units in the lead up to 9/11? Have you ever seen an interview with a member of the FBI UBLU?

[LARED]

59. Thank you.

You are correct, those authors could not find a definitive answer although indicated the most likely reasons were bureaucratic inertia, snafus, and infighting. Answers that do make sense based on the evidence.

Based on the same information you have somehow determined that criminal activity, or worse MIHOP, took place.

They first criminally with held material information from the FBI investigation into the Cole bombing. Then they shut down or blocked all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, even when they knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was going to take place inside of the US.

So what make you special Sherlock?

[rschop]

60. re: So what make you special Sherlock?

I actually spent time a huge amount of time putting the account of 9/11 back together again. It took several years using every single government investigation and report I could find, plus other documents I could confirm as correct, for example, Bob Woodward’s book States of Denial, Lawrence Wright's book Looming Tower, and the documents actually entered into the Moussaoui trial.

Since much of the information had been left out or obscured, I had to build very detailed times lines and then figure out who knew what, when, where did they get this information and did they act like a prudent person would act, once they had this information in order to prevent the attacks on 9/11 or did they intentionally hide the information they had even though they knew it might lead to FBI criminal investigators being unable to prevent the attacks on 9/11.

When documents were in conflict with one another, I had to figure out who or what document was telling the truth. At first this was very hard, but as I worked through the conflicting accounts I found that it became easier to figure out the real account. I used several techniques to do this. I used what is called consistency to figure out which account matched information that was already available in the rest of the account on 9/11. Since as this process went on I got more and more information, it was easier to see what information was consistent with what I already had and what information was not consistent with what was already available.

I also determined which account had the most credible information, and in general it was the account that actually had the most detail instead of the account where no one could remember what was said. I also lined up what people actually said with what government documents showed that they actually knew.

For example, the account of the meeting between FBI Agent Dina Corsi and attorney Sherry Sabol, in the DOJ IG report it said no one could remember what took place that this meeting. Corsi in her email to Liguori and Bongardt says Sabol ruled Bongardt could have nothing to do with any investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. But on page 538 of 9/11 Commission report it says, in testimony given to the DOJ IG investigators on November 7, 2002, Sabol says she told Corsi that Bongardt could take part in any investigation of Midhar since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant. Now we knew when one testifies to DOJ IG investigators this testimony is written down much like any other legal proceeding. The 9/11 Commission report accurately put this written account in the 9/11 Commission report but buried it at the back of the report in the foot notes, which shows that even though they had the correct information, they were deliberately burying this information so no one could go back and see the entire picture. The DOJ IG report actually says no one can remember what went on at this meeting when it is clear that was this testimony was not only written down, but was already part of the final the 9/11 Commission report. Since the 9/11 Commission report came out before the DOJ IG report, it is clear that the DOJ IG inspector could have just read the 9/11 Commission report to know that he was deliberately putting in his report, information that was patently wrong, this in fact is a crime. How stupid does the DOJ IG think the American people are when his account differs from an account that is already in the public domain? Did he think no one would go back to see if parts of his report had been deliberately fabricated and were contrary to information that was already available. HOW GOD DAM DUMB CAN YOU GET!

Another example, in the letter to Liguori, Corsi says that the information about Mihdhar and Hazmi cannot be given to FBI criminal investigators because it has not been approved by the NSA to be sent to these investigators. This is fine except for the fact that the written NSA approval is now available in the Moussaoui trail defense exhibit documents and says that this approval was actually granted on August 27, 2001, two days before Corsi tells Liguori and Bongardt that Bongardt cannot have this information because she does not have the NSA approval.

Corsi then really does herself no favors when she emailed Bongardt on August 29, 2001 and said “If at such time information is developed indicating the existence of a substantial Federal crime, that information will be passed over the wall according to procedures."

But not only did Corsi know, she admits this right on page 302 of the DOJ IG report, but the CIA and FBI HQ also knew, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing, and they also knew that Mihdhar and Hazmi were long time al Qaeda terrorists connected to the east Africa bombings, and that Bin Laden had already been indicted for the east Africa bombings. Since these were horrific and heinous crimes, there was absolutely no legitimate or legal reason Corsi, her boss Rod Middleton, the FBI HQ and the CIA to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi. The DOJ IG report actually came to this same conclusion.

In the end I found much to my surprise that the entire story is actually all there. It just took a huge and long difficult process to put it all back together again, so in the end the American people could see the real and complete account of what actually took place on 9/11, an account that is sadly significantly different then what they got from the 9/11 Commission report and the main stream news media, even other books on 9/11 that had not gone to the time and effort to aggregate all of the known official government accounts of 9/11, even though they were available and in the public domain.

[rschop]

62. K&R

[rschop]

269. re: So what make you special Sherlock? See the link!

From prior post:

"You are correct, those authors could not find a definitive answer although indicated the most likely reasons were bureaucratic inertia, snafus, and infighting. Answers that do make sense based on the evidence.

Based on the same information you have somehow determined that criminal activity, or worse MIHOP, took place.

They first criminally with held material information from the FBI investigation into the Cole bombing. Then they shut down or blocked all FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found to be inside of the US, even when they knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was going to take place inside of the US.


So what make you special Sherlock?"

See the link:

http://www.amazon.com/Prior-Knowledge-9-11-ebook/product-reviews/B0041VYL9K/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

[SDuderstadt]

270. Are your book sales down...

dude?

[rschop]

271. re: Are your book sales down...

No, they are doing quit well, THANK YOU.

But this is the very first time this book is offered as a Kindle book in electronic form.

[rschop]

56. K&R

[zappaman]

37. This is hysterical!

Did it come from THE ONION?

[rschop]

63. re: This is hysterical!, Posted by zappaman

No, this information came from the many US government investigations into the attacks on 9/11.

Most of the information came from the DOJ IG report, which was combined with information from the 9/11 Commission report and the Joint Inquiry report on 9/11 to fill in the missing parts in the DOJ IG report on the account of 9/11.

Then the information found in the book Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright on FBI Agent Ali Soufan, was added as was the account of the meeting between Rice, Clarke, and the CIA managers Tenet, Black and Blee, from Bob Woodward's book “State of Denial”, where they described warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. Finally the information found on the defense exhibits on the Moussaoui trial exhibits web site was also added to complete the information on what had happened on 9/11.

However, having put together all of this very detailed information of the events on 9/11, to try to understand what had taken place prior to the attacks on 9/11 that had allowed these attacks to take place, since in particular that CIA had known about the al Qaeda terrorists, Mihdhar and Hazmi, since January 2000, and even knew when they were discovered inside of the US on August 22, 2001 that they were inside of the US to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, I fail to see what you find so "hysterical" about the murder of almost 3000 Americans.

Maybe you can explain why the murder of almost 3000 of your fellow Americans is so "hysterical" to you.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[Octafish]

42. Same reason the law impeaches testimony from a liar.

If an attorney establishes a witness is a liar on just one point, that witness's entire testimony can be tossed out.

Bush lied about 9-11. Thus, his "narrative" is suspect.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Dude...

are you still peddling that tired old meme that what you call the "OCT" is somehow "Bush's narrative"?

[Octafish]

46. Show me where I called anything the 'OCT.' You can't, but that doesn't stop you from saying it.

Here's the tired old meme: If you say it, sduderstadt, it must be akin to "truthiness" or something.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Then what are you referring to?

Another one of your moving targets?

When are you guys going to blow the lid off this thing?

[Octafish]

49. You accuse me of posting lies and then you don't back up your claim, sduderstadt.

That's what I refer to.

[SDuderstadt]

51. Please show me where I have once accused you of...

"posting lies", dude. Do you understand the difference between something that's merely untrue and a lie?

Your false accusations are really getting tiring.

[LARED]

52. That's fine

We don't need the Bush narrative to understand what happened on 9/11.

[ryan_cats]

38. People seem to think Bush is like this...

This is one of the great Phil Hartman's SNL skits as Regan. Sorry about the 20 second ad.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4174/saturday-night-live-president-reagan-mastermind

I don't think Bush was like this, he wasn't a genius or a man in command like the parodied Reagan; neither was Reagan.

[greyl]

10. Wow, you're really going out on a limb there, Ofish.

Btw, absolutely no part of my understanding of 9/11 comes from Bush.
Straw argument.

[BeFree]

12. So, you don't believe this BS?

"We couldn't imagine"

[greyl]

14. I do not believe it.

Pretty interesting how the only people that do believe it(or act like they do, anyway) are no-planers from the 9/11 Truth Industry. Did you ever notice that?

[BeFree]

15. So

They lied about that. Very good.

And you can name someone from your 'truth industry' strawman, who did believe Condi? Yes?

[greyl]

18. What I mean is, no-planers still can't imagine that

hijackers would crash planes into buildings.

[BeFree]

21. We, unlike bushco, are honest

We can imagine it happening. But not the way the bushco and the media OCT lays it out.

Of course, by now, yall have the complete story that explains everything completely, and answers all the questions? You've had nine years to get it together, is it finalized yet?

[greyl]

23. Who do you feel was the most competent US president?

Who do you feel was the least?

[BeFree]

26. Heh

On the front page, here, is a thread of mine you need to read.

[greyl]

28. Who do you feel was the most competent US president?

Who do feel was the least?

[Octafish]

33. Where did I mention your understanding of 9/11?

No where is this about you. Would that be a "straw argument," too?

What my post is about is the fact there aren't that many threads these days that talk about what we do know.

This one is to shine light on Bush the Liar, specifically: CIA briefing memo exposes Bush lies on 9/11.

How it may concern you: What do you know, or not know, about that?

[SDuderstadt]

34. So, what is...

your point, dude?

Maybe if you wrote less cryptically, you wouldn't have to explain yourself so much.

[MrMickeysMom]

57. Indeed. Why would they?

Because all the hold-overs of the mad world have to have a village idiot to carry their water, is my guess.

Dangerous War Criminal, that man. He needs to go to jail after Cheney get's his new heart from the ninth circle of Hell.

[Octafish]

66. Why should we take the word of a mass murderer? Because he's a Bush?

He's descended from warmongers.



What gets me are the people who think he's believable on questions of 9-11, when he is so more than willing to murder, torture and penure millions.

That doesn't just stink. That says something.

[SDuderstadt]

67. Why don't you point to some of those people...

dude?

I don't think you'll find many, if any at all, here.

Another one of your stupid red herrings.

[Octafish]

68. You got a guilty conscience, sduderstadt? Is that why you crap on my every thread and post?

Where did I mention you?

So, what did I want to know from you?

What, exactly, have you added to the discussion?

Have you added anything?

That's whay I always ask how your journal's coming, sduderstadt.

You see, I really want to know what you think about. From what I've read on DU, it's not much I'm interested in, supporting the Warren Commission and the 9-11 Commission, but I can always hope.

Funny: I thought you were in Sanctimonious Mode.

[SDuderstadt]

69. I asked you to point to any of those people...

here, dude. As usual, you can't. Just more of your backhanded smears. Witness your asking me whether I have a "guilty conscience".

For the record, calling you on your goofy bullshit, isn't "defending" either the Warren Commission Report nor the 9/11 Commission Report. Of course, these are just more of your backhanded smears.

And, no, I have no interest in writing a journal. You might as well quit wasting your time asking me.

I think you're just sore because I keep asking you questions you can't answer. Like, how did the bullet hit Connally in the back where it did without going through JFK first? It's not my fault you can't answer it, dude.

[Octafish]

70. Instead of sideshow, why don't you ask about the Bush -- bin Laden connection?

Better yet, why don't you write about it?

It's worth the effort.

It is the heart of the matter.

Not me.

Not you.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Why won't (or can't) you answer a...

simple question, dude?

Hint: because it demonstrates precisely how you've been wasting your time for almost fifty years. It's pretty clear that your record isn't any better on 9/11.

[Octafish]

72. Sideshow. The question is Bush Lies. Like the Genoa G-8 Summit Missile Defense in July 2001

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

That is the question, sduderstadt.

Not me.

Not you.

[greyl]

73. Right, former business partners would NEVER want to kill each other. nt

[SDuderstadt]

74. You don't have a single shred of evidence that...

Bush was ever business partners with Osama bin Laden, dude.

For example, the link you provide is from an article that doesn't offer a single shred of corroboration for any of the claims of the author. It's just him saying, "well, this is so". And you buy it uncritically. That's one of the reasons I am so critical of you, because of your extremely poor research skills. From what I can tell, you develop your conclusion first, then go looking selectively (and only) for "evidence" that appears to confirm your belief. Another name for that is confirmation bias.

The only time I have encountered research skills nearly as poor is when I had a running argument going with a RWer and, no kidding, he forwarded me a letter to the editor as supposed "proof" of his goofy claims. Maybe you ought to spend some time researching standards of evidence before you embarrass yourself further.

And, the question I won't quit asking: How did the bullet hit Connally in the back where it did WITHOUT hitting JFK first? It's a simple question. Why can't you answer it?

Maybe you should consider taking up another hobby or something.

[Octafish]

75. Other than the court documents that show Bush - bin Laden connections,, you mean?

James R. Bath was named "business manager" for the bin Laden family.



James R. Bath also served with George W Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, as shown below, where both are grounded for failing to take a physical.



My "hobby" is my own business. Why you should make it yours is anybody's guess, right?

[SDuderstadt]

76. Another example of your poor research skills, dude...

You understand that bin Laden has a very large family, right? As a matter of fact, do you see the reference to Salem bin Laden? How do you get Osama bin Laden out of that? Of course, by referring to Osama as "Bush's former business partner", you make it sound like a much closer connection than you can actually support with the facts.

This is as silly as claiming that George H.W. Bush was "meeting with bin Laden's brother" on the morning of 9/11, when the reality is that both Bush and this particular bin Laden both happened to attend the same meeting as hundreds of other people. I once was eating lunch in the same restaurant as the late actor Ron Silver. Does that mean I was "having lunch with Ron Silver"?

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

In other words, your claim rests upon you twisting and distorting the actual facts to make something that never happened appear as if it did. Which is why I don't take you seriously, dude. Don't worry, though. I'm sure your little groupies still hang upon your every word.

When you can answer the question I have posed about the JFK assassination (which, BTW, shoots your conspiracy theory all to hell), please let us know. In the meantime, your attempts to change the subject are as comical as ever. Oh, BTW, I'm also still waiting for you to show me precisely where I have ever accused you of lying. I have no doubt you actually believe your goofy bullshit.

[Octafish]

77. The Carlyle Group is another example.

You asked for examples, sduderstadt:

The Carlyle Group

excerpted from the book
The Exception to the Rulers

by Amy Goodman

The feeding frenzy began the morning of 9/11. As my neighbors and coworkers were choking on the debris of the World Trade Center, a windfall awaited a powerful group gathered at the Ritz Carlton hotel in Washington, D.C. The secretive Carlyle Group was holding its annual investors' conference. The private investment company, named for the swank Manhattan hotel where the group was formed in 1987, has tentacles in both the Washington power elite and the Saudi ruling class. In town for the meetings was former President George H. W. Bush, then a senior adviser to Carlyle. He was joined by a cast of characters who have been fixtures in Bush regimes over the years.

There was Reagan's former secretary of defense Frank Carlucci, then head of the Carlyle Group. James Baker III, secretary of state under Bush Sr. - better known as the choreographer of Bush Jr.'s theft of the 2000 election - was also there in his capacity as Carlyle's senior counsel. But it wasn't just Bush's inner circle gathering that day. They were joined by a man by the name of Shafiq bin Laden, brother of Osama bin Laden. It wasn't the first time a bin Laden had worked with Washington's power elite, and this particular bin Laden was a longtime friend and benefactor of the Bush clan. Bush Sr. left the meetings early, but the rest of the men were just finishing breakfast when Shafiq's brother's plot culminated in airplanes slamming into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

A bizarre coincidence? No, the meeting was just business as usual for the Bushes, whose family fortunes have been greased by Saudi oil money for decades. That helps explain why, when the United States grounded all aircraft on that terrible day, one exception was made: Top White House officials authorized planes to pick up 140 Saudis, including two dozen members of the bin Laden family, from ten cities and spirit them back to Saudi Arabia. Dale Watson, the former head of counterterrorism at the FBI, conceded in Vanity Fair that the departing Saudis "were not subject to serious interviews or interrogations. "

SNIP...

The Bush family has had a long and mutually profitable connection with the corrupt Saudi oil dictatorship. Prince Bandar, Saudi ambassador to the United States, has been an honored guest both at the Bush I summer home in Kennebunkport, Maine, and at Bush II's getaway in Crawford, Texas (hence his nickname, "Bandar Bush"). Bandar expressed his gratitude to Bush I by donating $1 million to the Bush Presidential Library in Texas. And Bandar's prodding prompted Saudi King Fahd to send another $1 million to Barbara Bush's campaign against illiteracy.

Saudi Prince al-Walid contributed half a million petrodollars to help launch the George Herbert Walker Bush Scholarship Fund at Phillips Academy, the alma mater of both Bush presidents. The depth of these connections was highlighted when the former president visited the Saudis to "discuss U.S.-Saudi business relations" with Crown Prince Abdullah during his son's 2000 presidential campaign.

And then there is the bin Laden problem. The bin Laden family, a key Carlyle investor, stood to make millions of dollars from the war on terror-a war that has as its chief villain a member of their own family. The bin Ladens withdrew from the Carlyle Group in late October 200 1, but it's not just the bin Laden family proper that was problematic for the Bushes. It turns out that Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, had made charitable contributions that may have helped finance two of the 9/11 hijackers.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Bush_Gang/CarlyleGroup_TETTR.html

So, when are you going to answer my question? What have you added to our understanding of Bush, his connections to the bin Ladens, and how he lied about 9-11?

[OnTheOtherHand]

78. well, in this case...

SDuderstadt's contribution was to point out that you haven't actually supported your representation that Osama bin Laden was W.'s "former business partner."

I guess it stands to reason that you might not register that as a "contribution." But it also stands to reason that others might.

[Octafish]

79. BCCI also ties bin Ladens to Bushes

Thanks for reminding me:

Deals for Dubya

Bush’s family ties to shady bank BCCI help explain his “success” in the oil biz

by Bob Fitrakis

Trying to make sense of George W. Bush’s days in the oil business and his bizarre Harken Energy stock transactions? Well, if you dig deep enough, you’ll find a core group of people surrounding the notorious Bank of Credit and Commerce International (aka Bank of Crooks and Criminals International).

BCCI was, among other nefarious things, the bank of choice for al Qaeda, the CIA, Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega. This spooky collection of opium warlords, Arab sheiks, Pakistani financiers and organized crime perpetrated perhaps the greatest banking fraud in world history. BCCI’s global criminal conspiracy was aided by connections to Washington insiders like the Bush family, former secretary of defense and CIA co-founder Clark Clifford, Senator Orrin Hatch and President Jimmy Carter.

Award-winning journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin document Dubya’s ties to al Qaeda’s favorite bank in their authoritative tome, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire.

Truell, a Wall Street Journal reporter, and Gurwin, who broke the infamous Banco Ambrosiano scandal in the early 1980s, point out that both Bush political brothers Jeb and Dubya had close links to BCCI. Jeb socialized with Abdur Sakhia, BCCI’s Miami branch manager and later the bank’s top U.S. official. Jeb’s real estate company, Bush Klein Realty, managed the Grove Island complex of luxury condominiums where Sakhia lived. BCCI financed various real estate deals at the complex.

But, as Truell and Gurwin note, “George W. Bush had even closer ties to the BCCI network.” In order to understand Bush’s bogus Horatio Alger claims of being a struggling West Texas oilman who struck it rich and the later Harken stock shenanigans now in question, people need to look beneath the mythology and political spin.

CONTINUED...

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20051226225205/http://www.columbusalive.com/2002/20020829/082902/08290208.html

Excellent resource on Bath:

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20071016224253/http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/EntityDisplay.php?Entity=BathJR

BTW: Where are your contributions, OnTheOtherHand, besides pointing out what you think sduderstadt means?

[SDuderstadt]

81. Dude...

your specific claim was that Osama bin Laden was Bush's "former business partner". Nothing you have provided establishes that.

Why don't you simply admit you were wrong about that, rather than continue to comically attempt to move the goalposts?

[Octafish]

86. Jim Hatfield's article: 'Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?'

In it, the late author asks a rhetorical question to point out the past business dealings between the Bush and bin Laden families. For this thread, the most important part of the article, published a few days before Hatfield's "suicide," is the curious fact Bush feared aerial attack from Osama bin Laden at the G-8 summit in Genoa in July 2001.

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

By James Hatfield

Editor's note: In light of last week's horrific events and the Bush administration's reaction to them, we are reprising the following from the last column Jim Hatfield wrote for Online Journal prior to his tragic death on July 18:

July 3, 2001—There may be fireworks in Genoa, Italy, this month, too.

A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.

German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.

According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.

CONTINUED...

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html

That supports my contention that "Bush Lied about 9-11," the subject of this thread.

Maybe you should read more before you start pounding your keyboard, sduderstadt.

[OnTheOtherHand]

82. (ducks goalposts)

I think you've made my point nicely.

[Octafish]

85. Obtuse, much?

What is your point? That Bush is a liar? If not, start your own post with sduderstadt or be clear in what you say.

[OnTheOtherHand]

114. ROFL

You don't see my point, and you're calling me obtuse?

:shrug:

[Octafish]

117. You point being what?

Please add something to the discussion, which involves "Bush Lied."

Oh yeah, almost forgot: Aren't you the guy who wrote the article "proving" Bush really won Ohio in 2004?

[OnTheOtherHand]

126. we're trying to add a factual correction

And since it's your thread, if you want to derail it by challenging anything I've written about Ohio 2004 -- addressing specifics, of course -- by all means bring it on. In fact, consider this a double-dog dare.

Otherwise, I accept your concession. Thanks.

[Octafish]

131. Tell me, are all the accolades in the world really worth the price?

Regarding the thread: Tell me what's wrong with it or start your own.

[OnTheOtherHand]

141. the failure to offer the factual correction?

Also, the lack of interest in following through on your own new topic? (Maybe it's petty, but I like it when people who insinuate some sort of disagreement with me actually have something to say about it.) And, I'll add since you ask, the lack of an apparent point to enumerating Bush's lies?

I have no idea what to start a thread in this forum about. I don't understand why the vast majority of the threads here are ever started. Woody Box at least has something he wants to talk about, even if it seems to be pretty much what he wanted to talk about a few years ago. The "Yay Us, Boo You!" stuff doesn't do much for me regardless of the value of "Us" and "You."

[Octafish]

146. Cheers. Applause. Reward.

Go for it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

161. what's that, an ad hominem fortune cookie?

OK, hey, great approach. :hi:

[Octafish]

162. Sorry, no.

It was a commentary on our times. You know, what matters in the hearts of leaders.

[deconstruct911]

279. You can't talk about the BCCI here

after all it ties into Jimmy Carter

[Octafish]

280. Yep. Through Jackson Stephens. And through him to Bill Clinton and both Bushes.

It's interesting what connections people make when it comes to money.

But regarding BCCI, it's banking Capitalism's-Invisible-Army style.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Your claim was that Osama bin Laden was...

"Bush's former business partner". Can you show me specifically where anything you have provided establishes that?

[Octafish]

84. Constantly misrepresenting what I said is an interesting tactic, sduderstadt.

It shows what kind of person you are.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Read your post # 72, dude...

You're so funny when you try to walk your goofy claims back.

[Octafish]

88. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You've still failed to add any thing to the subject: 'Bush Lied.'

I'll save you and readers the trouble of having to go up to Post 86:

Jim Hatfield's article: 'Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?'

In it, the late author asks a rhetorical question to point out the past business dealings between the Bush and bin Laden families. For this thread, the most important part of the article, published a few days before Hatfield's "suicide," is the curious fact Bush feared aerial attack from Osama bin Laden at the G-8 summit in Genoa in July 2001.

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?

By James Hatfield

Editor's note: In light of last week's horrific events and the Bush administration's reaction to them, we are reprising the following from the last column Jim Hatfield wrote for Online Journal prior to his tragic death on July 18:

July 3, 2001—There may be fireworks in Genoa, Italy, this month, too.

A plot by Saudi master terrorist, Osama bin Laden, to assassinate Dubya during the July 20 economic summit of world leaders, was uncovered after dozens of suspected Islamic militants linked to bin Laden's international terror network were arrested in Frankfurt, Germany, and Milan, Italy, in April.

German intelligence services have stated that bin Laden is covertly financing neo-Nazi skinhead groups throughout Europe to launch another terrorist attack at a high-profile American target—his first since the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen last October.

According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.

CONTINUED...

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/Hatfield-R-091901/hatfield-r-091901.html

That supports my contention that "Bush Lied about 9-11," the subject of this thread.

Maybe you should read more before you start pounding your keyboard, sduderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

89. So, are you now acknowledging that Osama bin Laden was NOT...

W's business partner?

Why don't you go on the record here?

[Octafish]

90. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. The article mentioned bin Laden family investment in HARKEN Energy.

George W Bush used that HARKEN money as his political springboard. It's funny how you never mention that, sduderstadt.

Oh, don't worry. Here's a refresher course:

Know your BFEE: How Smirko Got Rich

[SDuderstadt]

91. Dude...

the issue was your claim that Osama bin Laden was W's business partner. Are you retracting that claim?

Here's some unsolicited advice. Maybe if you wouldn't make stupid claims you can't back up and/or wrote more clearly, you wouldn't catch so much flak from me and others.

[Octafish]

92. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You've still failed to add any thing to the subject: 'Bush Lied.'

Flak from you? Wow. That really hurts.

My claim was BUSH LIED and I've backed that up. You, OTOH, are yet to provide anything in the way of evidence to support that contention. You have repeated the false allegation that I said something that I did not, but that's SOP for you.

So, please add to that discussion "Bush Lied," otherwise knock off your self-righteous spammer act. It's old.

[SDuderstadt]

93. Dude...

it's pretty simple. Are you retracting your claim that Osama bin Laden is W's former partner? Your attempt to walk your claim back and pretend you never made it has become comical. It's made even more hysterical by the fact that when I called you on it, you never once said, "wait, that's not what I am saying or meant", you immediately went into your "everything but the kitchen sink" mode to defend something you are now trying to deny you ever claimed, much to the amusement of many here.

As I have suggested before, maybe it's time for you to consider a new hobby. I would suggest one that does not require a great deal of thinking or writing skills.

[Octafish]

94. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have failed to add a single thing to the subject.

Demand all you want. I have nothing to retract.

As for hobbies: Why don't you add to what we know about "Bush Lied"? That's the subject.

[SDuderstadt]

95. So...

you are standing by your claim that Osama bin Laden was W's business partner, yes? I just want to get that on the record.

[Octafish]

96. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have failed to add a single thing to the thread.

I stand by what I've posted.

You, sduderstadt, are the one saying I "claim that Osama bin Laden was W's business partner."

So, what have you added to this thread about "Bush Lies"? Nothing.

[SDuderstadt]

97. Dude...

read post # 72, then try to tell me how you didn't make the claim. I'll admit that you are a poor writer, but it's comical watching you try to deny you made the claim.

Irrespective of that, why don't you clarify precisely where you stand, since's it's nearly impossible to get a straight answer out of you?

Here's your big chance, dude. I'm sure that you recognized earlier the stupidity of your claim, so you try to run away from it. Now, why don't you make your actual position clear? OThat way we'll have your answer on the record so you can be confronted with your actual words when you try to bluster your way out of your goofy claims.

So, Octafish. Was Osama bin Laden W's former business partner or not? It's a simple yes or no question, dude. And, if you claim it to be true, could you please provide proof of your claim?

Of course, your other option would be to admit you simply don't know, as so often is the case with your goofy bullshit.

[Octafish]

99. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. The article mentioned bin Laden family investment in HARKEN Energy.

And I wrote what I wrote.

Why don't you devote some of your talents to telling us about Bush's lies, sduderstadt?

[SDuderstadt]

160. Why don't you try posting...

accurately, dude?

[Octafish]

183. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply No. 163.

Talk is cheap. Back it up with some facts, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

186. Why can't you answer the question, dude...

this is the typical Octafish two-step where you try to get the heat off you by creating some sort of false fealty test.

You made a false claim. If it isn't, kindly provide some concrete evidence that "Osama bin Laden was W's business partner. Plain and simple.

[Octafish]

189. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. I have provided evidence, sources, articles and links.

Read the thread. You'll see evidence from HARKEN Energy days to the Carlyle Group.

You'll also see, while the post is littered with your spam and demands, what's missing is anything in the form of information on the subject from you.

[SDuderstadt]

191. Dude...

How does that prove that "Osama bin Laden was W's business partner"? Hint: it doesn't.

Why can't you simply admit that?

[Octafish]

194. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply No. 163 shows your contribution to putting Bush behind bars.

Zero.

[SDuderstadt]

196. Dude...

False claim. Evidence? Retraction? More games from you???

[Octafish]

200. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. It doesn't change a thing.

You say you are all in favor of charging Bush and yet, when asked to show where you have actually provided evidence for that worthy goal, it turns out to be just your word. And without sources, articles, links, your word is not worth that much.

Details at Reply Number 163.

[SDuderstadt]

206. Tap...tap...tap...

false claim....evidence...retraction.

Your dodge is failing, dude.

[Octafish]

220. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. The only thing failing is your ability to shut me up.

The point of this is to demonstrate Bush Lies. Here's an example of a man who accused Bush of pre-knowledge of 9-11 who died BEFORE 9-11:

Bush Accuser Dies Of Drug Overdose

Why you don't want people to think about Bush Lies is your business. That must be why you don't supply any sources, or links, or any thing that backs up your contentions.

[SDuderstadt]

224. I don't want you to "shut up", dude.

I simply want you to answer the very simple question I posed.

You were tapdancing when I left and you're still tapdancing when I return.

Don't you get tired of tapdancing?

[Octafish]

227. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Return all you want, too. You still haven't added anything of use.

Reply Number 163 shows what you're made of, dude.

If you want to learn about the Bush-bin Laden connections, try:

Fall of the House of Bush

(Description of author Craig Unger's book describes...)

Why Dick Cheney—neither an evangelical nor a neocon—stood out as the one single inscrutable figure who was vital to shaping the destiny of the Bush 41 administration. While the neocons dreamed of “democratizing” the entire Arab world, Cheney’s goal was to expand the powers of the executive branch. Unger explains how the vice president, with little fanfare, carried out what amounted to an executive coup. He shows how Cheney blew past the complex system of checks and balances designed to protect the electorate, how he effectively disabled the entire national security apparatus of the United States, and how he replaced it with a parallel national security apparatus—essentially a disinformation pipeline—that expressed the wished for reality of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neocons.

[SDuderstadt]

228. And you still haven't answered the question I asked

Why is that so hard?

[Octafish]

230. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. The thread is not about what you want.

You start your own thread if you want. This one is about Bush Lies and 9-11.

Here's another thing you might want people to know about:

Who blocked FBI Agent Harry Samit's investigation of Moussaoui and why?

Now THAT's the kind of post that adds to the discussion.

[SDuderstadt]

232. What about the false claim you made, dude?

If you want people to know the "truth", wouldn't it stand to reason you'd practice it yourself? Why is it do hard to get the truth from a "truther"?

[Octafish]

234. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Use 'truther' as a perjorative, too, all you want.

It shows what you are.

As for the topic:

The Bush-Bin Laden Connection

Feds Looked Into G.W. Bush-Bin Laden Connection In '92.

Part One -- Bush Said Friend's Arbusto Investment Was His Own, Not Saudi Money. Friend "Declined To Comment For The Record."

(Houston Chronicle. June 4, 1992) "Federal authorities are investigating the activities of a Houston businessman -- a past investor in companies controlled by a son of President Bush -- who has been accused of illegally representing Saudi interests in the United States.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network -- known as FinCEN -- and the FBI are reviewing accusations that entrepreneur James R. Bath guided money to Houston from Saudi investors who wanted to influence U.S. policy under the Reagan and Bush administrations, sources close to the investigations say.

FinCEN, a division of the U.S. Department of Treasury, investigates money laundering. Special agents and analysts from various law enforcement agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service and the U.S. Customs Service, are assigned to work with the FinCEN staff.

The federal review stems in part from court documents obtained through litigation by Bill White, a former real estate business associate of Bath.

White contends the documents indicate that the Saudis were using Bath and their huge financial resources to influence U.S. policy. Such representation by Bath would require that he be registered as a foreign agent with the U.S. Department of Justice.

CONTINUED...

http://www.meta-religion.com/Secret_societies/Conspiracies/George_Bush/bush-bin_laden_connection.htm

Reply 163 shows what you peddle, sduderstadt. And it isn't anything to help put Bush behind bars.

[SDuderstadt]

237. Guinness just called...

they believe you just broke the record for the world's longest tapdance. I think they're right.

Now, let me educate you about irony quotation marks. They're used to point out something that unknowingly contradicts itself. It's a little mild to be a "perjorative" (sic). And, "truthers" are what members of the "9/11 truth movement" call themselves. Maybe you should take it up with them.

And post 163 was in response to your incessant bleating that I hadn't demonstrated my anti-Bush credentials. Then, rather than let it die a quiet death, you "researched" me for a day, then proclaimed I hadn't done enough to have Bush indicted, prosecuted and convicted, which may have been the most audacious example of "moving the goalposts" I have ever seen. Guinness wants to talk to you about that too.

Are you suggesting that one cannot be anti-Bush, yet call you on your egregious false claims? BTW, you now appear to have gone back to defending that false claim which, most recently, you appear to have denied you had ever made. I'm sure you can understand why people might be confused by your erratic conduct.

Now, in the event that you've gone back to trying to defend your false claim that "Osama bin Laden was W's former business partner", I trust you understand how showing that members of bin Laden's rather large family have invested in any of Bush's failed ventures does not prove your claim, right? Or, if I have to educate you on that fine point also, let me know. I'll do what I can.

[Octafish]

238. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still are nothing but talk -- you have added nothing.

As for "moving the goalposts" and "false claim" and whatever else you accuse me of: You should know.

Here's what the post is about:

[SDuderstadt]

241. Point to...

anywhere I have moved the goalposts or to any false claim I have made.

Why don't you simply retract your false claim, rather than dig a deeper hole?

[Octafish]

242. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Remember: Mark Lombardi linked Bush & bin Laden before 9-11.

An accomplished visual and conceptual artist, Mark Lombardi is remembered for creating incredibly detailed social network diagrams that serve to illustrate the links between Bush, bin Laden and their cronies and contacts. In one famous example, Lombardi’s giant drawings show how George W Bush is directly linked to James R Bath who is directly linked to Osama bin Laden.

Here’s an example of Mr. Lombardi’s brilliant work:



A detail:



Strange, but true: His career was starting to take off when, on the evening of March 22, 2000 Mark Lombardi was found hanged in his loft. The authorities ruled his death a suicide.

For those interested in learning more, here are a couple of links:

http://www.nyfa.org/nyfa_quarterly.asp?type=2&qid=4&id=108&fid=6&sid=16

http://www.wburg.com/0202/arts/lombardi.html

http://www.flashpointmag.com/cplombard.htm

sduderstadt: Please pass the word around on Mark Lombardi and his work. By spreading the truth, you’ll help raise awareness of why Bush belongs behind bars.

[SDuderstadt]

245. Dude...

look at your "evidence" a bit more closely. The chart shows that Osama bin Laden is linked to his father, Sheikh bin Laden (what a surprise). Sheikh bin Laden is linked to James Bath. Finally, Bath is linked to W. You just basically disproved your own claim because if "Osama bin Laden was W's former business partner", the chart would show a direct link between the two. Duh.

Thanks for providing your own refutation. When can we expect a retraction rather than you just furiously grasping for straws?

[Octafish]

250. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You are exposed as one who never posts evidence against Bush.

Instead, you Spam all up and down posts about Bush's lies. Exposed: 163. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to post anything in support of your contention.

[SDuderstadt]

252. More of your tapdancing bullshit, dude...

I don't think anyone with the power and/or the inclination to indict Bush comes here to look for evidence. For whatever it's worth, I posted several times as to what crimes I thought he should be indicted for.

You can do all the "you don't hate Bush enough tapdancing you want, but it won't make your false claim go away. Thanks again for refuting your own claim. Do you think you've dug enough holes and painted yourself into enough corners?

[Octafish]

261. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You have yet to add anything to this thread or anywhere I've seen.

And that's using the GOOGLE: sduderstadt + bush + 9-11.

No offense, it's just the truth: There's no thread or post I can find where you supply anything that sheds light on Bush criminality, corruption or treason. Not a single one. Zero.

[zappaman]

98. wait a second...

Osama Bin Laden and George W. Bush were business partners?
Huh?

[Octafish]

100. Looks like their families made money together, doesn't it?

Thank you for contributing.

[zappaman]

101. are you saying they were business partners?

Please clarify

[Octafish]

103. Tag team.

Read.

[SDuderstadt]

177. Why don't you simply answer the question...

rather than retreat into a SLAD-like obfuscation?

[Octafish]

178. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Rather be like SLAD than Sweet Pea.

Sure you remember that fellow.

[SDuderstadt]

180. Yeah...

he was a RW infiltrator. What that has to do with what we're discussing is apparently known only to you. At least he was more articulate than SLAD, but, essentially, everyone is more articulate than SLAD.

In the meantime, you can overdeploy your "spam" deflection all you want, but you still have not answered a very simple question put to you.

Aren't you fearful of disappointing all your little groupies?

[Octafish]

184. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply No. 163 makes clear who talks the talk.

And who walks the walk.

[SDuderstadt]

187. More Octafish diversion...

the issue is your false claim, dude. Can you prove it or not?

[Octafish]

190. Spam all you want, suderstadt. Your game is obvious.

Demand all you want, too. It doesn't change the fact you have still failed to provide anything to the topic.

[SDuderstadt]

193. Dude...

you made a false claim. You've been called on it. You keep flailing around trying to make it about anything but your false claim.

It isn't working.

[Octafish]

197. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to add to the subject.

No matter how much you howl, you keep on with the same old, same old.

And you still have yet to show where you have added ANYTHING to what we know about Bush and his treasons, corruptions and crimes -- NOT EVEN ONE THING, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

199. All you have to do is answer a simple question, dude

or, are you conceding that your claim that "Osama bin Laden was W's business partner" is false?

Whenever we want to find you, all we have to do is listen for the tap...tap...tap...of your furious tapdancing. It's quite comical.

[Octafish]

202. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. It shows you're really interested in something other than Bush Lied.

What that is, is anyone's guess, right?

[SDuderstadt]

207. I've said repeatedly...

I'm interested in your false claim.

Seems you've painted yourself into a corner in front of all your little groupies. Oddly, none of them are rising to your defense. Probably because they recognize a sinking ship when they see one. Meanwhile, you're still rearranging the deck chairs.

[Octafish]

209. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You're my biggest 'Little Groupie.'

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gjr6QvNeMBA/R1RB5ux9c4I/AAAAAAAAAy0/CFfqg-rdFss/s320/Bush+duh.jpg

My own personal minder dude.

[SDuderstadt]

213. Is that a picture of your idol...

dude? Or, is that another one of your backhanded smears?

You also need to look up the definition of "groupie". A "groupie" is a fan. I'm not a fan of your inaccuracy.


Tap...Tap...Tap.

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

231. Deleted message

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

[Octafish]

235. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You've added nothing to what we know re: Bush-bin Laden connection.

THE GW BUSH--OSAMA BIN LADIN CONNECTION

James R. Bath, friend and neighbor of George W. Bush, was used as a cash funnel from Osama bin Laden's rich father, Sheikh bin Laden, to set George W. Bush up in business, according to reputable sources from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. The connection between GW Bush, the bin Laden family, and the Bank Commerce Credit International (BCCI) is well documented. The excerpts from the books and news articles are supplemented by the links at the bottom of the page to the cash flow charts of the bin Laden-backed BCCI money which was funneled into the Bush family in return for favors. Just click on the links at the bottom of the page to see the flow charts and use the back and forward keys on the screen to return to this page where you can then access the next flow chart link.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/bush_laden.htm

[SDuderstadt]

239. Dude...

does this now mean that you're back to defending that false claim that "Osama bin Laden was W's former business partner" which, for a while, you appeared to deny that you had ever made?

Pay close attention, this gets a little tricky. Sheikh bin Laden is NOT Osama bin Laden, dude. If I accused you of being a bank robber and you challenged me to prove my claim, would you accept any evidence I offered that your father had been a bank robber.

This is what I mean about your poor "research skills", much like your mentor, SLAD. Like her, you post some snippet of factual information, then conflate it until it's barely recognizable. And, like her, you fly into a gizzy, emitting serial posts that, essentially, repeat the same exact point ad nauseum.

I do, however, recognize your entertainment value.

[Octafish]

243. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Bush was afraid of bin Laden at the Genoa G8 summit.

Here's what this thread's about, from CNN July 2001:

Genoa braces for G8 summit

EXCERPT...

Italy's Defence Minister, Antonio Martino, told CNN: "Genoa is not the best place to organise such a meeting because it is very hard to defend key sites and the concern of the government is that some violent elements may join the protesters and cause problems."

The official G8 Summit Web site said it was not so much violence by the demonstrators that they feared most, but "the possibility of a terrorist attack."

The head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service has warned of a plot by terrorist Osama bin Laden to assassinate George W. Bush at the summit and the U.S. President may be staying at U.S. Camp Darby military base in Livorno or offshore on the American aircraft carrier, USS Enterprise to avoid any terrorist risk.

CONTINUED...

sduderstadt, please spread the word: Bush was afraid of bin Laden and airplanes before 9-11. That's why he slept onboard the American destroyer. It was equipped to shoot down threatening aircraft. If more Americans knew that, Bush'd be a lot closer to getting behind bars.

PS: Rather have seemslikeadream for my mentor. She is a liberal, progressive, positive Democrat. Remember: your chum Sweet Pea was exposed as a right-wing turd.

[SDuderstadt]

246. Umm...

sweetpea wasn't my "chum", dude. Nice try at guilt by association, though.

I'm not sure what the claim that "Bush was afraid of bin Laden" has to do with your false claim that "Osama bin Laden was Bush's former business partner", though. You know, the false claim you just disproved in one of your other posts?

[Octafish]

251. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply 163 exposes you have yet to post anything anti-Bush.

Here's why I asked you for a journal: 163. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to post anything in support of your contention.

[SDuderstadt]

253. Excuse me, dude...

How is calling for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush not "anti-Bush"?

And, for the last time, I'm not interested in writing a journal.

[Octafish]

257. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You saying something is not like you're doing anything.

You made out like your posts contained information detrimental to Bush. They did not.

[SDuderstadt]

260. Dude...

What I said was I had publicly called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of W. Forgive me if I didn't think I needed to lay out a case at a place that came about as a result of Bush's "selection".

You keep trying to make this about me rather than your false claim. It's not working.

[Octafish]

262. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You have yet to post anything detrimental to Bush.

Here's an example of what you could put in a journal, dude:

"The Mafia, CIA and George Bush" by Pete Brewton

That's why I recommend you start a journal. A journal would make it easy to see your contributions to what we know about Bush and his crimes, corruptions and treasons.

[SDuderstadt]

278. You can try to distract all you want...

dude. I'm more like the anti-groupie, especially when it comes to you. As I said before, it doesn't take links to take apart your goofy bullshit with Logic and hard questions you cannot answer.

BTW, since you keep gratuitously including a picture of W, as if to imply I am somehow linked to him, is the picture below one of your hero?:



Se how that works, dude? I'll knock it off when you knock it off and want to debate facts.

[MrMickeysMom]

137. Hey, is he lighting a FART in that picture?

:rofl:

[Octafish]

145. Certainly looks like it, but Bush is just looking for WMDs in a skit he did for broadcast journos.

A slide showed Mr Bush in the Oval office, leaning to look under a piece of furniture. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be here somewhere," he told the audience, drawing applause.



"No WMDs here. Nope. None over here. Nope. Maybe there's some under here. Heh heh heh."

Meanwhile, more than 4,600 Americans -- and uncounted hundreds of thousands more Iraqis and Afghanis-- have died for a lie that made Bush and his cronies filthy rich. Here's what Poppy's little warmonger actually said on Feb. 14, 2007: "Money Trumps Peace... Sometimes"

Edit: Added a couple of countries and fixed Smirko's quote.

[MrMickeysMom]

148. The whole family stinks on ice...

All the way from that Alastair Crowley saga (secretly Barbara Bush's biological father, who seeded her in a Satanic frenzy) to the awful Bush involvement in the Savings and Loan debacle of the 80's (signs of things to come).

Not forgetting Pappa Bush's CIA involvement and long commitment to Prescott Bush's Nazi machine (it doesn't seem to matter who the Nazi war machine is anymore).

"Now, watch me hit this one" was about as disgusting a display about "W"'s inability to distinguish right from wrong.

Meanwhile, anything that resembled the Roman Empire has come to a roaring burn.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Dude...

the only "spam" here (despite your complaints) is being created by you and your steadfast refusal to answer straightforward questions. We keep try to get the truth from you and all we get is the infamous "Octafish two-step".

In the first place, the "article" you cited provides only the author's assertions with no sourcing or corroboration whatsoever. Secondly, even if every word is absolutely true, that doesn't prove that W and OSAMA bin Laden were ever "business partners". No one is denying that the bin Laden family invested in Harden, but that doesn't make even the family "business partners", let alone Osama.

Now, I'm certain you want to save face with all your little groupies. You can do so by either providing concrete evidence that Osama and W were "business partners" or, more likely, withdrawing your goofy bullshit claim.

[Octafish]

104. Spam all you want, sduderstadt.

You have spent much time putting me down.
You have spent zero time putting down Bush.

Repeat:

You have spent much time putting me down.
You have spent zero time putting down Bush.

[SDuderstadt]

105. Dude...

I have called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush repeatedly, so quit trying to change the subject.

The issue here is your false claim that Osama bin Laden and W were "business partners". Either prove it or retract it. No more "Octafish two-step", please.

[Octafish]

106. Spam all you want, sduderstadt.

I posted I stand behind what I wrote and write.

How's your journal coming? Not that I won't take you at your word, I'd just like to see where you call "for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush repeatedly."

[IScreamSundays]

107. Yeah, I have been around here 10 years now.

Have yet to see "dude" go against any "official conspiracy theory" proffered by ANY administration or, if you will, the PTB.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Which means what, exactly?

I happen to prefer an evidence based world. Provide some evidence for your goofy CT bullshit and you might win some supporters.

[IScreamSundays]

110. come on now, "goofy"

Get another adjective. That one is tired and worn out. And BTW you have been presented with posts upon posts of evidence. You always run away when you can't site the NIST or 911 Commission Report. Or when you site them you are lambasted by a truth seeker. Old and tired dude.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Really?

Then you should be able to direct me to one of my posts where I "sited" (sic) either the 9/11 Commission Report or the NIST Report as sole evidence of anything.

And, I'll remind you that referring to a claim or post as goofy, is far different than calling another member goofy.

Just what evidence, specifically, do you think "truthers" have provided??

[IScreamSundays]

118. It has all been laid out in this forum for many years.

I am not going to do a search. But if you want to debunk my statement feel free. You are a contributer. Surely you can find a number of statements to back up your claim. Leave them in this thread for all to see. Finally, your continued support of not just 9-11 OCT. but every other OCT, shows your true colors. You are as transparent as Casper.

[SDuderstadt]

166. Do you understand what actually constitutes evidence?

Do you think you can dismiss other viewpoints by simply disparaging them as the OCT?

The OCT, as you call it, has far more evidence than goofy "9/11 was an inside job" CT bullshit. Why can't you guys recruit any real opinion leaders to your cause?

[Octafish]

113. Have you seen this, IScreamSundays?

This article provides names, events, dates, places, and more that helps us better understand the criminality and treasons of Bush and his cronies:

Texas Connections

Submitted by The Dubya Report on Wed, 11/14/2001 - 00:00
in 2001

Senator Phil Gramm has lent his imprimatur to two notable initiatives in connection with the September 11 terrorist attacks. Last year as chairman of the Senate Banking committee, Gramm stopped a Clinton administration proposal that would have made it easier for investigators to follow the flow of terrorist money; and last week he apparently nearly prevented $20 billion in disaster aid to New York City from being included in an emergency appropriation bill. Meanwhile the Wall Street Journal reported that the Osama bin Laden's family was among the investors in one or more funds operated by The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC merchant bank that has George Bush Sr. on its payroll, and of which W. himself was a director from 1990 to 1994.

New York Senators Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton met with George W. Bush on the afternoon of Thursday, September 13. Bush's support for their request for $20 billion in disaster relief for New York City has been widely reported. The understanding was that the $20 billion would be made available through an emergency supplemental-appropriations measure. The measure was drafted by the Office of Management and Budget, and called for a total of $40 billion -- half for military preparedness, and half for "disaster-recovery activities and assistance" for New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. At around 8:00 PM, an aide to Senator Clinton checked with her on the Senate floor, and was told "It's falling apart. We've got to go talk to Daschle right now."

Somehow a second version of the bill had emerged from OMB, calling for only $20 billion. After that was spent, an additional $20 billion could be appropriated, "in a subsequent Act of Congress attendant to a specific emergency request proposed by the President." Congressman Jerry Nadler told New York magazine "It's clear to me that Gramm and Nickles tried to take out the earmark." Schumer and Clinton were meeting with Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other Democratic congressional leaders when they learned that Senators Gramm and Nickles were in Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's office. Rather than join them, Schumer elected to phone Bush chief of staff Andrew Card, while Clinton called members of congress enlisting support. In Hastert's office, Gramm and Nickles, who have nothing to do with appropriations, were arguing against the bill. An unidentified source told New York magazine, "Gramm just doesn't want to spend any money. And Nickles ... he's just anti-New York. He was saying that Oklahoma City didn't get anything like this amount after the bombing there." A $40 billion appropriations measure eventually passed both houses unanimously.

But if Gramm doesn't want the government to spend any money, even for disaster aid to NYC, he apparently doesn't want law enforcement or treasury agencies to be able to track how criminals and terrorists spend (or hide) theirs, either. Even in the aftermath of the attacks Gramm was unrepentant about his opposition to cracking down on money laundering and tax evasion. "The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them," he is reported to have said. Observers have pointed out that members of the banking industry are among Gramm's political patrons, perhaps explaining his steadfast opposition to making bank transactions any less opaque. Gramm's position was essentially mirrored by the Bush administration, prior to September 11, when they withdrew from international talks aimed at developing a treaty to help clean up money laundering. 13 days after the terrorist attack, the administration reversed its position, freezing assets of Osama bin Laden and his associates. They also threatened to bar from U.S. financial markets any nation or bank that did not cooperate with investigators -- key elements of the Clinton administration proposal that Gramm torpedoed.

On September 27 the Wall Street Journal reported that the bin Laden family had invested at least $2 million in a fund operated by The Carlyle Group. An unidentified "foreign financier" told the Journal that the total investment was likely to be much larger. The Carlyle Group is a merchant bank specializing in buyouts of aerospace and defense companies. (A merchant bank is a bank that deals mostly in long term corporate loans and underwriting, often with an emphasis on international finance.) The Carlyle Group has high-level connections to the Republican party: George Bush Sr. is a paid spokesman, former Secretary of State (and head of Bush campaign post-election operations) James Baker is senior counselor, and former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci is the group's chairman. According to the Journal, all three have traveled to Saudi Arabia in recent years to meet with the bin Laden family.

CONTINUED...

http://www.thedubyareport.com/txconnect.html

Phil Gramm's corruption has brought much suffering upon America:

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Thank you for giving a damn about it all.

[IScreamSundays]

119. I have read almost all of your posts over the years.

You are one of my favorites.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Dude...

then where is your proof that Osama bin Laden was W's "business partner"?

And I will gladly link you to.several posts in which I explicitly called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush AND Cheney. What do I get in return? Will you either provide proof of your goofy Osama bin Laden claim or retract it?

Constantly hearing that I'm really not liberal because I reject goofy conspiracist bullshit is getting really tiring.

[Octafish]

111. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You've still added nothing to the thread.

Go ahead and call me a "Goofy conspiracist" all day long, sduderstadt, it still doesn't change the fact you have yet to post even one thing about "Bush Lied" on this thread.

[OnTheOtherHand]

115. don't you worry that...

...someone might wonder why you refuse to answer a simple question?

Look, if you want to disclaim responsibility for what Hatfield wrote, you could do that, and it would save a lot of time. Is there some reason why that would be a bad thing?

[Octafish]

116. Tag team.

I don't put words in your mouth. It's not a favor, it just wouldn't be right.

[OnTheOtherHand]

127. I'm just looking for a stance other than "neener neener"

Oh well.

[Octafish]

204. Keep reading, then.

Best of luck to you.

[SDuderstadt]

120. Man, you just did it again...

Don't you get tired of making false accusations? I have never, ever called you a "goofy conspiracist". If you still claim I have, kindly show me where I actually did that.

[Octafish]

121. Spam all you want, suderstadt. They're your words.

"Constantly hearing that I'm really not liberal because I reject goofy conspiracist bullshit is getting really tiring."

So, where did I say you're not "really" liberal?

[SDuderstadt]

122. Do you understand the difference between calling something...

"goofy conspiracist bullshit" and calling someone a "goofy conspiracist"? Hint: "goofy" and "conspiracist" both are modifiers for "bullshit".

Serious question: do you have some sort of cognitive impairment we should take into account?

[Octafish]

123. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You are yet to add anything on 'Bush Lied' to this thread.

You have made a great show of your command of debatering.

[SDuderstadt]

124. That's because you refuse to answer...

a simple question, dude.

Apparently, you think the rules only apply to one side. Where's the proof Osama bin Laden was W's business partner?

[Octafish]

132. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. If you don't like what I post, refute it with some evidence.

Until then, read the thread. Going by what you post, you'll learn.

[SDuderstadt]

133. I already did, dude...

you made the claim that Osama bin Laden was W's "business partner". I have repeatedly and successfully pointed out that your "evidence" does not prove your goofy claim. You can solve your dilemma by either providing evidence of it or withdrawing it altogether.

[Octafish]

140. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You word is not evidence.

No offense.

[SDuderstadt]

149. Dude...

I have pointed out that you cannot prove your claim. Are you really asking me to prove that Osama bin Laden was NOT W's "business partner"? Are you really trying to shift the burden of proof yet one more time?

[Octafish]

153. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. This post is about 'Bush Lied.'

You have yet to add anything to the subject. You won't even provide a link to where you call "for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush repeatedly," which is why I look forward to your journal.

[SDuderstadt]

159. Be careful what you ask for, dude...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=272707#275575

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-20-09 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #123
130. Please show me where I called anyone a name, dude...
And I believe openly calling for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of W would qualify as criticizing the "Bush Crime Family", dude

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=272707#275578

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Fri Nov-20-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #122
132. Do a fucking search and you'll see numerous posts where...
I've openly called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of W, dude. This stupid "you don't criticize Bush enough so you must be a stealth Bush supporter" is really tiring. Not to mention another one of your backhanded smears. Thanks for poisoning the well, dude.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=261899#261900

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-18-09 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Absolute bullshit...
I have repeatedly called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush and Cheney. So much for your little underhanded "guilt by association ploy.
BuddyBoy (469 posts) Wed Aug-19-09 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #1

12. That's interesting. For what crime(s)? n/t

Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Wed Aug-19-09 06:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Torture, violations of FISA law, including warrantless wiretaps,...
the war in Iraq. That doesn't mean ''911 was an inside job!'', dude...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=262069#262310

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Fri Aug-21-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #120
121. And YOU would take it wrong...
I DETEST Bush and Cheney. I think they deserve scorn (not to mention indictment, prosecution and conviction) for their actions before, during and after 9/11. I don't have a problem with people who question their accounts at all.

What I do have a problem with is people who advance ridiculous theories and, when challenged for evidence, immediately start questioning my motivation, insinuating I am a Bush supporter or that I "support the OCT". I'm all for reasoned debate, even with those I disagree with.

Do I show derision for "truthers"? Absolutely. But it's motivated by scorn for the outlandish theories without a shred of truth, by the outrageous tactics they use towards anyone who doesn't but their bullshit and I am especially puzzled as to why the more sober of the "truthers" don't do more to challenge the fringe that marginalizes their movement.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=256964#257387

SDuderstadt (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-19-09 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. Excuse me, but what is a "facist"?
Edited on Sun Jul-19-09 02:12 PM by SDuderstadt
Someone who makes faces? I think you mean "fascist".

With all due respect, your "reasoning" process is backwards. Instead of looking at the evidence and working forward to conclusions, you decide that, since the Bush admin was guilty (of whatever), all evidence must point in that direction.

I, on the other hand, think we need to pursue indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush/Cheney for their actions after 9/11. When you develop actual evidence of either LIHOP or MIHOP, I'll gladly sign on.

In the meantime, the really funny thing is you want a "new investigation by credible people who have full powers of government investigation at their disposal to get to the bottom of what really occured". The irony, of course, is that would be the, um, government. In the meantime, do you know anything at all about Richard Ben-Veniste, Bob Kerrey, Jamie Gorelick, Lee Hamilton or Tim Roemer? BTW, you don't interview a "principle", you interview a "principal".

Let me know when you find a:

That's just what I could find with only a few minutes of searching, dude. Maybe you should bookmark it so you don't keep asking me stupid questions.

[Octafish]

163. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to post anything in support of your contention.

Neither do you post a single iota of evidence in support of what you say frequently:

And I believe openly calling for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of W would qualify as criticizing the "Bush Crime Family", dude... -- S Duderstadt

The thing is: Saying something doesn't make it so. It's just your words -- what sduderstadt wrote.

I visited each thread you so kindly found, waded through each of your posts, including scores of tedious "prove its", and found that you have still failed to provide any evidence to support your contention. In hundreds of replies, you posted five links and I visited each.

Two links, neither of which has anything to do with demonstrating how much you want to see Bush on trial:

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3747920

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html


The third links to a 9-11 professional grade debunker site:

http://www.911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html


The fourth and fifth went to the same military site:

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44199


All your sources went to sites having nothing to do with the treasons, corruptions and criminality of George Walker Bush. Thus, while you may say it, you have still failed to show anything that would help bring "the indictment, prosecution and conviction of W" about.

Not even one link.

Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

164. Listen, dude...

First of all, those are just the first several that I found. I didn't make it a evening long exercise.

Secondly, now you're moving the goalposts again. You didn't ask for examples of things where it would help "bring the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush". You challenged me to show you where I had, in fact, called for such a thing and I provided it. In fact, here are your exact words:

You won't even provide a link to where you call "for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush repeatedly

I know that chaps your ass because it derails your insinuation that I somehow support Bush. And, further, you keep ducking the requests I and others have made asking you to prove your goofy claim that "Osama bin Laden was W's business partner". And, although I am sure you have forgotten it (and probably wish it would die a quiet death), you have yet to show one instance where I have ever accused you of posting lies.

You might want to do something about your Bush Derangement Syndrome. Sorry to embarrass you in front of your little groupies, dude.

[Octafish]

167. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You saying something is not evidence.

Isn't that the goal? Getting people aware about Bush, his cronies and the Have-Mores they serve?

As for my "Bush Derangement Syndrome": Call me sick all day long, I don't care. I'm here to get people aware about Bush and what his policies have done, are doing, and will do to us as citizens, as a country and to our planet. In the present thread, the idea is demonstrate how "Bush Lied."

[OnTheOtherHand]

169. "I'm here to get people aware about Bush and what his policies have done..."

You're posting on the September 11 forum of Democratic Underground in order to get people aware about Bush?!

There's something really basic here that you may be missing: pretty much everyone who posts on this forum already knows that Bush lied. We don't always agree on specifically what Bush lied about, but your general premise isn't exactly a hard sell. Anyone who really needs to hear that message probably has never read any of your posts.

If you really stop to reflect on that, it may help you to put your quarrels with other DUers into perspective. You seem to think that true progressives should be helping you to get out the word about Bush -- but as far as I can see, you aren't getting out the word about Bush, so there isn't anything to help you with. About the only thing left is fact-checking.

[Octafish]

170. Maybe you know everything. I don't. So I come here to learn. Hope others do, too.

Fact check away.

[OnTheOtherHand]

171. well, I do that too

I like serious discussions of serious issues. I was and am genuinely disappointed that you don't seem to be open to a serious discussion of the 2004 election.

As for this thread, I think it's ridiculous that you haven't offered a straightforward substantive response to SDuderstadt's substantive critique, but again, I have no trouble with the premise that Bush lied.

[immune]

211. "SDuderstadt's substantive critique,"

I must've missed something.

[OnTheOtherHand]

217. why, yes, yes, you did

(rubs eyes)

[immune]

222. (rubs eyes)

Don't take it so hard, there's no need for tears. I'm okay with it. :hug:

[SDuderstadt]

173. Why do you post things without...

fact-checking them? Don't you consider it important to be accurate?

[Octafish]

210. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. The question is Bush Lies.

Here's what's got your attention:

Bush afraid of bin Laden aerial attack at the Genoa G-8 Summit Missile Defense in July 2001

Perhaps if you weren't so busy demanding stuff I didn't say and got busy reading, you'd learn why it's worth knowing about the Bush-bin Laden connections.

PS: I'd ask Jim Hatfield, the author of "Fortunate Son," some follow-up questions, but he's dead. If your eyes are too tired to read his book, you can hear him detail his sources and methods in this interview with Amy Goodman. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

214. So...

are you know claiming you didn't claim that "bin Laden was W's business partner"?

What's really odd about that is you not only blew through an opportunity to deny you claimed it immediately after I pointed it out. More importantly, you DEFENDED it for dozens of posts. Now, you're trying to deny you said it.

I think you've painted yourself into one too many corners, dude.

[Octafish]

223. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply Number 163 documents what you got -- zero.

Despite all your Spam, you still have added NOTHING -- here or on any other thread -- to highlight the crimes, let alone help hasten the day George W Bush and his warmonger cronies face justice.

Read this and learn something:

Lying -- a Bush Family Value

After reading it, you might want to use what you learn to spread the word about Bush and lying.

[SDuderstadt]

225. No, actually...

I'd like a straightforward answer to the question you keep dodging, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

172. Yet, all you've managed to do is to focus...

attention upon yourself and your utter inability to offer proof of one of your more absurd allegations...that Osama bin Laden was W's "former business partner" and, therein, lies your most basic problem, like your apparent heroine, SLAD.

When you get caught in a monumentally stupid statement, you're far too stubborn to simply admit that you are wrong or made a mistake. Instead, you immediately launch into a protracted and profoundly silly defense of whatever you got wrong, again, much like your idol, SLAD. I don't think hardly anyone will ever forget the time she said "back peddle" when she meant "backpedaled", then spent most of the day stupidly insisting that was what she meant to say.

Maybe you should consider hiring a ghost writer or, at least, a writing coach.

[OnTheOtherHand]

174. you mean she meant "backpedaled," right?

That would make more sense.

[SDuderstadt]

176. Yep...

I thought I caught it. The Android system uses a maddening error-catching routine designed to offset typing errors on an overly crowded touch-sensitive screen.

[OnTheOtherHand]

216. that's comforting, in a way

I have a simple flip-phone, on which I occasionally peck out Gmail messages on the number pad. For a few hundred dollars a year, I could take things to the next level -- but the next level seems a little clunky still.

I wanted to get a smartphone, but of course AT&T says that for the protection of their customers, they won't provide service to a smartphone without a data plan. The salesman said, 'I think you'll find that other providers have the same policy.' I, being a bitter coot, thought to myself, "Great concept for their next ad campaign: 'AT&T -- no greedier than Verizon!'"

[SDuderstadt]

185. Dude...

you can bob and weave all you want, but my contention is that you cannot prove your claim that "Osama bin Laden was W's business partner". You've been tapdancing through various threads trying to confuse everyone as to what my contention is, when I have stated it clearly.

If you can't or won't answer the question, why not simply say so?

[Octafish]

236. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. It doesn't change the fact FBI HQ ignored hijack warnings.

Here's what you might contribute, had you wanted to contribute, information Washington FBI knew OBL was a threat BEFORE 9-11.

Agent Faults FBI on 9/11

The man who caught Zacarias Moussaoui testifies that higher-ups blocked his efforts to determine whether there was a larger plot.

by Richard A. Serrano
Published on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times

EXCERPT...

Samit wanted to seek a criminal search warrant, and later one from a special intelligence court. But officials at the FBI headquarters refused to let him, because they did not believe he had enough evidence to prove Moussaoui was anything but a wealthy man who had come to this country to follow his dream of becoming a pilot.

He said that as Washington kept telling him there was "no urgency and no threat," his FBI superiors sent him on "wild goose chases."

For a while, Samit said, they did not even believe Moussaoui was the same person whom French intelligence sources had identified as a Muslim extremist. Samit said that FBI headquarters wanted him and his fellow agents to spend days poring through Paris phone books to make sure they had the right Moussaoui.

Samit said that when he asked permission to place an Arabic-speaking federal officer as a plant inside Moussaoui's cell to find out what Moussaoui was up to, Washington said no.

And he said that when he prepared a lengthy memo about Moussaoui for Federal Aviation Administration officials, Washington deleted key sections, including a part connecting Moussaoui with Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0321-11.htm

Demand all you want, sduderstadt. All you do is detract from the truth; you don't change it.

[SDuderstadt]

240. So, dude...

making a false claim doesn't "detract from the truth"?

Really?

[Octafish]

244. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You are EXPOSED in Reply Number 163.

Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

247. I am "exposed" in post # 63???

For what? Showing that I had repeatedly and publicly called for the indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush, a stance you "doubted" I had taken, only to be embarrassed by shown to be utterly wrong?

Ouch.

[Octafish]

248. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply 163 exposes you.

You can claim whatever you want. You are exposed by the record -- the links you provided in Reply 159. Be careful what you ask for, dude... -- have nothing to do with the "indictment, prosecution and conviction of Bush." Nothing. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

254. You've got to be kidding, dude...

Those are my exact words. Maybe they mean something different on yoir planet.

[Octafish]

258. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply 163 shows your contribution: ZERO.

If you had a journal, it'd be easy to see. I took the trouble of looking up the posts you cited. And it's there in black and white: You post zero detrimental to Bush. 163. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to post anything in support of your contention.

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

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

[immune]

125. I've been watching the action on this thread all day

and I've got to admit, there are some pretty clever dudes around here. Not too smart though.

Anybody who's spent any time at all on various political forums over the past nine years will almost immediately recognize the same techniques being used, right down to the same exact talking points and barbed insults that are intended to shut down serious debate about hinky 911 intel without adding one thing of value to the discussion. I have watched this phenomenon on literally every board I have participated on with a high membership since 911, and that's been many more than a few. Matter of fact, most of the posters I've encountered here and elsewhere who stay busy derailing threads, repeatedly demanding proof, putting others on the defensive and disparaging their comments are perfectly interchangeable with one another. And for the most part, they're boring.

Challenges are good for forcing one to clarify and sometimes even revise his own positions and conclusions .... but what's happening around here obviously isn't merely an effort to become more informed or respectfully challenge another poster's "wrongheadedness", the baiting sticks out like a sore thumb. Dunno, Were it me, I'd probably try to be a little less obvious and obnoxious about it.

Reading this thread is like sitting in a boiler room hearing the exact same phone pitch echoing from a dozen cubicles over and over and over while straining to hear one original and useful word.

[SDuderstadt]

128. Oh, please...

everything you say easily applies to "truthers"...and I'd love for you to show one instance of any of us trying to "shut down" debate.

Get serious.

[immune]

129. "I'd love for you to show one instance"

prove it ... prove it .... prove it ..... prove it

You don't need me prove it, your own words do a much better job of that than I could ever do.

[SDuderstadt]

130. In other words...

you can't prove it. Wouldn't that be easier to admit?

The "truther's lament: "how can you expect me to debate if you keep asking me for proof all the time?".

[Octafish]

135. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Why do you call DUers "Truther"?

The context in which you use the term makes it sound derogatory. Before your head explodes, please know I know you would never call a DUer a derogatory term, but you do make it sound like a person who searches for the truth is someone odd.

OTOH, I think a person who searches for truth to be noble, because she or he is interested in learning. Some use their knowledge to help others or to make the world a better place.

I may not agree with all or even most of what "Truthers" post. I do know they are people interested in learning. Like me, they are fighting their own ignorance. Those who want to remain in ignorance I call Republicans.

[SDuderstadt]

151. "Those who want to remain in ignorance I call Republicans."

So, what would you call those who summarily reject the NIST, FEMA and ASCE reports based upon their own personal incredulity?

BTW, don't you think you've worn out the spam thing??

[MrMickeysMom]

147. Yes, yes.... do!

:popcorn:

[immune]

150. Yes, yes do .... what?

Prove my opinions? Prove my experiences?

[MrMickeysMom]

154. heck no, immune....

I'm waiting for all those other people who say, "prove it" to "prove it"!

Those dudes abide! slide over and share the popcorn.... :popcorn: :popcorn:

[immune]

156. I'll bring the beer

or soda

or maybe coffee would be a better choice, it could be a long wait.

Sorry if I jumped to a conclusion ... certain people have been stepping on my last nerve.

[MrMickeysMom]

157. As I like to say...

"You'll have that" around here.

:hi:

[immune]

158. Cool

Now if "around here" was closer to "around here" we'd be in business. :toast:

[immune]

255. "You'll have that" around here.

BTW, I did finally figure out what you meant by that. We had been talking about popcorn and beer and my mind was focused on that. Still sounds good. :toast:

[Make7]

134. Is this thread an homage to SLAD? ( n/t )

[AZCat]

138. It does have a certain similarity.

I wonder where she ended up?

[Octafish]

139. Every thread I start is an homage to seemslikeadream.

The same with every post.



seemslikeadream fought the good fight against the Bush crime family, their cronies and sycophants and the Satanic elite they serve.

Why do you ask?

[MrMickeysMom]

143. Good!

Here's to SLaD!

:toast:

[SDuderstadt]

165. "Every thread I start is an homage to seemslikeadream"

I should have known. The same confused, disjointed writing. The same goofy, hyperbolic bullshit.

I'm still cracking up about the "Satanic elite they serve". Sounds like something SLAD would write.

[Octafish]

168. Better than anything you've ever written.

Besides, if I put in all the work needed to make it letter perfect, I wouldn't have time to cover as much territory as needs to be covered. Here are a few examples of a series on the Bush Family Evil Empire, a term to describe a multi-generational line of corruption:

Henry Paulson, Banker to the BFEE

Know your BFEE: Cultkeepers

Know your BFEE: It wasn’t Obama who Looted the Treasury and Banks. It was Bush and his Cronies.

Know your BFEE: John McCain, Dim Knight Errant of the War Party

Know your BFEE: Goldmine Sacked or The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One

Know your BFEE: Phil Gramm, the Meyer Lansky of the War Party, Set-Up the Biggest Bank Heist Ever.

Know your BFEE: The Corrupt Bastards Club… with Lipstick

Know your BFEE: Olympic Games Show Who’s Best Friends Forever with Authoritarians and Dictators

Know your BFEE: 1984 Death of Outstanding Congressional Staffer Buried Poppy-Moon Relationship

Know your BFEE: Forget Rev. Wright! It’s Bush and His Cronies Who Owe an Apology for Rev. Moon!

seemslikeadream contributed on DU to what we know about the Bush crime family and more.

What have you ever done on DU, sduderstadt, besides point out my shortcomings?

[SDuderstadt]

175. It's hardly a matter of "getting it letter perfect", dude.

You make howlingly blatant errors of fact and, when challenged on them, fly into a tizzy and defend your errors ad nauseum. In fact, you just did it again. Myself and others have given you ample opportunity to either prove that "Osama bin Laden was W's former business partner" and, instead, all you've managed to do is dig yourself a bigger hole.

In this thread, you offer not one, but ten SLAD-style broadsides, which, of course, is precisely what she would do when caught in an egregious error, rather than simply admit when she was flat-out wrong about something.

The good news is there's still time to redeem yourself in front of your little groupies, but I'm not holding out much hope for that, especially since it entails actually caring about facts and developing a simple sense of humility when shown to be dead wrong about something.

[Octafish]

179. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You are yet to add anything on 'Bush Lied' to this thread.

Nor have you added anything, on DU anyway, to make us better understand what it is We the People are up against.

[SDuderstadt]

181. I'm pointing out your lack of regard for actual facts...

dude. Do you really want to argue that's somehow not important?

[Octafish]

182. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Reply No. 163 makes things crystal clear.

And, while you have posted all over this thread, you have still failed to provide anything that increases our understanding of Bush's lies -- or your contention to see him imprisoned, etc.

[SDuderstadt]

188. The issue is your false claim, dude....

despite all your tapdancing.

[Octafish]

192. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have added NOTHING.

Nothing.

[SDuderstadt]

195. And you still haven't answered the question, dude...

It isn't about what I have or haven't "added".

You made a false claim. Man up.

[Octafish]

198. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Odd how it obsesses you, my little minder groupie.

Real men don't go around minding other men's business.

[SDuderstadt]

201. Real men don't go around making false claims on...

PUBLIC discussion boards, then start squealing and tapdancing when they got caught at it.

[Octafish]

203. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Squeal all you want, too. You still've added ZERO..

Nothing, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

205. Tap...tap...tap...

Do you really think you're doing anything except drawing attention to your false claim?

[Octafish]

208. Spam all you want, suderstadt. Words. Words. Words.

You try to get mine ignored. No problem. I understand.

[SDuderstadt]

215. More tapdancing...

[Octafish]

218. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. It doesn't change the fact you have nothing to add. NOTHING.

Same goes for when the subject is "Bush Lies." When you find a moment, you might learn a lot about the subject here:

Journalism & the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer

[SDuderstadt]

226. Why don't you use...

YOUR "mighty wurlitzer" to answer the simple question I asked you?

Trying to get a straight answer from you is like watching a politician flee a group of reporters.

Maybe you should give tapdancing lessons.

[Octafish]

229. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. I'd prefer that you add, like FBI agent Samit's testimony.

Stuff like this, an article about FBI Special Agent Harry Samit, the federal official who finally arrested Moussaioui, the "20th hijacker." Moussaoui was the guy who told his flight instructor he wasn't interested in "take-offs and landings" -- just in learning to turn 747s and using the GPS, several weeks before 9-11.

Agent who arrested Moussaoui blasts FBI

Defense questioning brings out fact that headquarters wasn’t interested

EXCERPT...

Memo predicted aircraft hijacking

Under cross-examination by defense attorney Edward MacMahon, Samit acknowledged that he predicted in an Aug. 18, 2001, memo that Moussaoui was a radical Islamic terrorist in a criminal conspiracy to hijack aircraft. Moussaoui ended up pleading guilty to two specific counts that Samit had explicitly predicted in his Aug. 18 memo.

Despite Samit’s urgent pleadings, FBI headquarters refused to open a criminal investigation and refused Samit’s entreaties to obtain a search warrant.

“You needed people in Washington to help you out?” MacMahon asked.

SNIP...

He confirmed under questioning that he had attributed FBI inaction to “obstructionism, criminal negligence and careerism” in an earlier report.

One FBI supervisor in Washington told Samit that he was getting unnecessarily “spun up” about his concerns over Moussaoui.

CONTINUED...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11923151

When a person reads that article, they'll have a better understanding of what the FBI, and thus the federal government, knew about bin Laden's plans to strike -- before 9-11.

[SDuderstadt]

233. False claim.

Prove it. Retract it.

Make up your mind, dude.

[Octafish]

249. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Why don't you talk about Bush and his crimes?

Because you don't: 163. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. You still have yet to post anything in support of your contention.

[SDuderstadt]

256. False claim...

you refuted it yourself. Prove it. Retract it.

Foaming at the mouth proves nothing, dude.

[Octafish]

259. Spam all you want, sduderstadt. Bush lied about bin Laden threat before 9-11.

This is the kind of news about Bush more people should know. If you had a journal, sduderstadt, you could put this in and spread the news: Bush was aware bin Laden was a threat to attack by hijacked airliners in July, 2001.

Missiles to protect summit leaders

Missiles to protect summit leaders

Special report: globalisation
Rory Carroll in Rome
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 July 2001 02.42 BST

Italy has installed a missile defence system at Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G8 summit, fuelling hysteria about looming violence.

A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned in the latest security measure against perceived threats from terrorists and protesters.

Unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of state from the group of seven leading industrialised nations and Russia.

Colonel Alberto Battaglini, of the ministry of defence, said the precaution was not exces sive. "The measure, which was planned by the previous government, may seem open to criticism, but in reality it is merely to act as a deterrent against any aerial incursion during the summit.

SNIP...

The millionaire terrorist, Osama bin Laden, has been linked to an alleged plot to assassinate the US president, George Bush.

CONTINUED...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/jul/11/globalisation.rorycarroll

Bush knew bin Laden. And he knew bin Laden was a threat from aerial attack. This will be in my journal.

[MrMickeysMom]

136. There's logic in my simplicity about this...

People who steal office such as this spoiled rich and mean little frat boy did, were perfect to be placed into office just to do what they were told, which is what he did BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER 9/11.

The conspiracy over what really happened to the WTTs does not depend so much on a the "W" master mind who is a "liar at will". He did the bidding and was frankly too stupid to know or even CARE if someone else was manufacturing the truth.

Let's not forget, this smelly little egg who was given a "Gentleman's C" at Harvard (legacy fucks get a "C" just by enrolling) exhibited no moral compass, and so would follow anyone's lie.

It took some power-hitters like Cheney to really complete the lie, don't you think?

[immune]

142. Power hitters like Cheney

Absolutely.

[Octafish]

152. On the Old DU, there was a post: 'You Don't Steal Elections to Do Good Things.'

Whenever "We the People" are left in the dark by our own government, it leaves policy open to question. My take is there exists a secret government that continues on no matter who is pretzeldent. In the case of our day and age, Mr. Continuity-Of-Government is Richard Bruce Cheney. On 9-11, Democrats weren't invited to board choppers to the secure, undisclosed location.

Remember that thread from the Old DU, MrMickeysMom? On it, were chronicled the events in Florida. One DUer, I recall, posted her impressions of Boise and James Baker III in front of the camera. While Boise looked cooler and calmly focused on the subject at hand, Baker not only looked like he was angry, his face was tinged with fear. Pressure must get to different people, differently.

The Bush-Saudi Connection

By Michelle Mairesse

EXCERPT...

Bush Junior once served as an executive with Caterair, one of hundreds of companies Carlyle has bought and sold over the past 15 years, but he removed the record of this period from his resume.

In 1986, Bush Junior, to date a flop as a businessman, joined Harken Energy Corporation as a director and was awarded 212,000 shares of stock and other plums.

In 1987, Khalid bin Mahfouz arranged for BCCI investor Abdullah Bakhsh to purchase 17% of Harken. A Harken official acknowledged that Bush’s White House connections had everything to do with the appointment. Somehow, the inexperienced, obscure firm was awarded a prime drilling contract by Bahrain, and Harken’s stock price soared.

In June 1990, Bush Junior sold his Harken stock for a juicy $848,000, enabling him to pay off the loan he had assumed on buying shares in the Texas Rangers. Never mind that the Harken stock promptly tanked when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, for Abdullah Bakhsh, a major Harken shareholder and an investor in BCCI, who had purchased 17% of Harken Energy in 1987, got his money’s worth. By 1990, Bakhsh’s representative on Harken’s board, Talet Othman, began attending Middle East policy discussions with President Bush Senior.

Now that Bush Junior occupies the White House, Bush Senior receives frequent CIA briefings (his prerogative as a former president). "In July 2001, Bush personally contacted Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to ‘clarify’ his son's Middle East policies. Also during the summer of 2001, Bush forwarded his son a North Korea policy plan penned by ‘Asia expert’ and former ambassador to Korea, Donald Gregg. Gregg is a 31-year CIA veteran and the elder Bush's former national security adviser whose expertise involved participation in the Vietnam-era Phoenix Program (death squads), Air America heroin smuggling, ‘pacification’ efforts in El Salvador and Guatemala, the ‘October Surprise,’ and the Iran-Contra operation (for which Gregg received a Bush pardon in 1992)." (20)

CONTINUED...

http://www.hermes-press.com/BushSaud.htm

Thank you, MrMickeysMom! Forest and Trees: You make it easy to see both.

[MrMickeysMom]

155. ...

You don't need a weather man to see which way the wind blows (BD)

Ya velcome!

[Octafish]

264. 'You don't steal elections to do good things in office.'

Sorry -- That was the complete line. And how true it is and how tragic for our country and planet it was.

[MrMickeysMom]

265. That's got to be the best line to relate to the Bush years...

That, and Jessie Jackson's, "Stay out the bushes!"

:rofl:

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

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

[Octafish]

221. It's in their DNA.

Know your BFEE: Spawn of Wall Street and the Third Reich

PS: A hearty welcome to DU, Chang Huin. 我愛您的樣式。

[defendandprotect]

263. +1000% ....

[Octafish]

266. ''All right, you've covered your ass.'' -- George W Bush to CIA briefer, Aug. 2001.

From WaPo's review of Suskind's book:

Tenet and his loyalists also settle a few scores with the White House here. The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled "Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US." Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: "All right. You've covered your ass, now." Three months later, with bin Laden holed up in the Afghan mountain redoubt of Tora Bora, the CIA official managing the Afghanistan campaign, Henry A. Crumpton (now the State Department's counterterrorism chief), brought a detailed map to Bush and Cheney. White House accounts have long insisted that Bush had every reason to believe that Pakistan's army and pro-U.S. Afghan militias had bin Laden cornered and that there was no reason to commit large numbers of U.S. troops to get him. But Crumpton's message in the Oval Office, as told through Suskind, was blunt: The surrogate forces were "definitely not" up to the job, and "we're going to lose our prey if we're not careful."

SOURCE: The Shadow War, In a Surprising New Light

Thanks for giving a damn, defendandprotect. You always have and I know you always will.

[zappaman]

267. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Bush has lied, does lie and will lie again.
Therefore, he planned 9/11.
Great logic, Blofish.

[Octafish]

268. That's par for you, zappaman, which is to say you've added nothing, yet again.

Nothing.

[zappaman]

272. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

I have quite a ways to go to reach your record of futility.
:rofl:

[Octafish]

273. Read and learn, zappaman.

Here's background on how terrorists and intelligence agencies moved money around the planet, funding all manner of corruption and murder:

The BCCI-CIA Connection

Bonus lesson for you:

Don't spam like mini-Dude all the time or you will continue your perfect record for contributing nothing worth reading.

[SDuderstadt]

275. I know it really sucks to...

have your life's work be for naught, but at some point you're going to have to take responsibility for your own failures and quit trying to blame everyone else, dude.

[Octafish]

276. Project much, sduderstadt?

Let me know when you actually contribute something to help put the members of the Bush crime family behind bars. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

277. Let me know...

when you've solved the JFK assassination, dude.

[grasswire]

281. what the hell is your problem?

I can't imagine any American waging this kind of stupid verbal war against someone who is seeking the truth about the tragedy of 9/11.

Why would any American oppose such an investigation and belittle the investigator(s)?

[SDuderstadt]

282. Dude...

I can't imagine anyone believing goofy CT bullshit.

Calling goofy CT bullshit "truth" isn't real impressive. I guess we're even.

[grasswire]

283. you're not as smart as you think you are

Encouraging the broad and probing search for truth is quite a different thing from believing everything that searchers might posit or find. There's a word for people who want to cover things over and stifle inquiry.

[zappaman]

284. the word is...?

the BIRD?
no, the bird is the word!

A-well-a everybody's heard about the bird
B-b-b-bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a bird, bird, bird, well the bird is the word
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a don't you know about the bird?
Well, everybody knows that the bird is the word!
A-well-a bird, bird, b-bird's the word
A-well-a...

[grasswire]

286. the word is "collaborateur"

Something decent folks and patriots would repudiate with every fiber of their being. Stifling open inquiry = accepting blood on your own hands.

[zappaman]

288. Stifling open inquiry?

Who is stifling you?
Is anyone preventing you from posting on here?

[SDuderstadt]

289. Could you please explain how...

"open inquiry" is being "stifled"?

[SDuderstadt]

285. How is asking for proof...

covering anything up and stifling inquiry? Sounds to me like you want a one-sided "debate".

[grasswire]

287. you are actively working to intimidate those who inquire.

It's thuggery.

[SDuderstadt]

290. Oh, bullshit...

if you or any other "truther" is intimidated by being asked for proof of goofy CT bullshit, then let me suggest debate is not your strong suit, so you resort to calling people who disagree with you on the facts "collaborators".

It's truly comical.

[grasswire]

291. who said I am a "truther"?

I don't even know the ramifications of that word as you use it.

I have not stated any facts, so how could you agree or disagree with me on facts?

I simply know a bully when I see one, and will stand against a bully every time I encounter one.

[SDuderstadt]

292. Well, good for you...

in the meantime, could you please explain precisely how asking for proof of goofy CT bullshit is "bullying"? If you're so concerned about the "truth", wouldn't it follow that you'd ask for proof, too?

Or, are you "just asking questions"?

[grasswire]

293. no, I'm not going to play your game

I'm done with you.

[SDuderstadt]

294. Well...

good for you again. I note you just stopped by for a hit-and-run to accuse me of "bullying" and "thuggery", but scatter when pressed for proof.

Typical.

[MrMickeysMom]

274. "Blofish" ?

Oooohhhh.... Elevens !!!

[rschop]

296. RE What Bush knew prior to 9/11

On August 24, 2001 Director of the CIA George Tenet had a 6 hour meeting with President Bush at Crawford Texas.

But the White House web site actually described this meeting when a reporter asked Bush on August 25, 2001 why he was cutting brush on his ranch at his Crawford ranch, when it seemed he should be back in Washington DC actually working on the business of the US. Bush said he was working, that just the day before, August 24, 2001, he had a 6 hour meeting with Tenet and Myers, the new Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff.

By the time of this meeting Tenet was already aware of the following information.

That Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US, and that they were here in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands.

That this attack would involve hijacking a number of large US airliners, and slamming these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the Capital building

That attack would most likely take place sometime in the early part of September.

So how did the Director of the CIA come by this horrific information

From DE 939, evidence entered into the Moussaoui trial, email sent July 23, 2001 by Tom Wilshire, former Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit to Richard Blee, head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Wilshire's direct supervisor at the CIA, and Cofer Black, head of the CIA and Blee’s supervisor, indicated that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack. At this time Wilshire was Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit. The DOJ IG report says that on July 5, 2001 Wilshire had also connected Mihdhar and Hazmi to the warnings the CIA had been receiving about this attack and sent this information via email to his CTC managers Blee, Black, information that cleanly again, went right to Tenet.

On August 22, 2001 both FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and Deputy Chief of the ITOS unit are told by Margaret Gillespie that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are now inside of the US. On August 23, 2001 the CIA Bin Laden unit released an alert to the rest of the CIA, the State department and the FBI. Since this alert would have gone to Blee on August 22 or 23,2001, since Blee was the Chief of the CIA Bin laden unit and he reported directly to Cofer Black. Since Blee was close to Cofer Black, head of the CIA CTC unit, and Black reported directly to Tenet, it is impossible to believe this information on Mihdhar and Hazmi did not go right up the chain of command immediately.

According to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA was notified on June 12, 2001 that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had recruited a number of al Qaeda terrorists and was sending them into the US to link up with a number of other al Qaeda terrorists already inside of the US in the summer of 2001, to carry out a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack, the attack that the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

The CIA knew that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had helped finance the original attack on the World Trade Center Towers in 1993, and that he was behind the Bojinka plot. Philippine intelligence had given the details of the Bojinka plot to the CIA, when they found the plans on Abdel Harkim Murad’s computer after the apartment in the Philippines caught file while Ramzi Yousef was building bombs with Murad. The first part of this plot was to blow up aircraft going to the US, the second part was to hijack multiple large aircraft in the US and fly these into major buildings in the US, including the World Trade Center Towers, the Capitol Building, the Pentagon and CIA Headquarters. (9/11 Commission report, Mainstream news media reports).

After the attacks on 9/11, Cofer Black stated that indeed the CIA had gotten the information that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was sending a number of terrorists into the US to link up with other al Qaeda terrorists that were already in the US, in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack the CIA had been warned about. But Cofer Black said that this information had gone to the Rendition unit and had gotten stove piped or pigeon holed in this unit. But the Rendition unit was in the CIA CTC section of the CIA the unit that was run by Cofer Black himself. We find out from the article in the Harpers magazine, that the person who was in charge of the Rendition unit was Richard Blee, who also ran the CIA Bin Laden unit, Alex station. About one month after Blee’s Rendition unit is told Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is sending al Qaeda terrorists into the US, Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet contact Condoleezza Rice at the White House as they are literally racing in a car to the White House to set up an urgent meeting on July 10, 2001, to discuss the CIA information that the US was just about to be attacked by the al Qaeda terrorists, in an attack that would kill thousands of Americans. This demonstrates the closeness between Blee, Black and Tenet, that would have meant the information on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would not have been stove piped in the Rendition unit but would gone right up the chain of command to Tenet almost immediately.

So how did the CIA know the timing of the attack.

The web site al-Quds al-‘Arabi, was a web site in London run by a self described good friend of Usama Bin Laden. This site posted the now famous al Qaeda Fatwa on February 23, 1998. This Fatwa stated:

Al-Quds al-’Arabi on February 23, 1998.
“To kill Americans and their Allies, both civil and military, is an individual duty of every Muslim, who is able, in any country where this is possible... By God’s leave, we call on every Muslim who believes in God and hopes for reward to obey God’s command to kill Americans and plunder their possessions wherever he finds them and whenever he can.”

Three weeks before the attacks on 9/11 took place this web site posted a statement by Usama Bin Laden that he was just about to stage a horrific al Qaeda attack inside of the US. Katie Couric reported this less than one hour after the South Tower collapsed. So they knew the approximate timing of the attack.

The timing of the Ahmad Shah Massoud murder, the leader of the Northern Alliance, on September 9th by the al Qaeda terrorist would have told the CIA that this attack would take place in just a few days after this murder. The CIA knew that the al Qaeda attack on the US was intended to get the US to respond with an attack to Afghanistan, an attack who's impact would be blunted if Ahmad Shah Massoud was killed before this US attack on Afghanistan took place.

So what did Tenet tell Bush on August 24, 2001. Well we don’t know because it has never been revealed what Tenet told Bush. When Tenet said he had not spoken to Bush in August that shut down the questions from the 9/11 Commissioners on this subject even though everyone at that April 14, 2004 public hearing including the commissioners knew Tenet was lying. Why the 9/11 Commission let Tenet get way with out and out obvious lying had never been explained, but this is one more bit of evidence proving that the 9/11 Commission was a complete farce, that by now almost everyone with even half a brain is aware of.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

297. Bush and Blair were planning the Iraq war long before 9/11