Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pres Bush you're under arrest

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 05:53 AM
Original message
Pres Bush you're under arrest
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. listening now, thanks for the link
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. One more video
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Amazing isn't it that this doesn't cause an outrage
whats happened to our people, I wonder.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:18 AM
Response to Original message
2. Absolutely everything done by administration is for political purposes: win
elections, gain complete control by any/all means, reward large donors including large corporation and punish everyone opposed to any of its policies/actions. See, that wasn't too hard. Moreover, the faithful true-believers care not a whit what is done to accomplish the mission, no matter the cost in treasuty, deaths, maimings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chelaque liberal Donating Member (981 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
4. I can't get video. What is this about?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Building 7 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
focusfan Donating Member (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 06:53 AM
Response to Original message
5. Just exactly what I thought happened
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ArmchairMeme Donating Member (390 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
7. The Truth will out
It is helpful to know the names of the corporate offices involved here. Especially the Enron case files that were destroyed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-31-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. I agree with you
The Truth will out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nicknameless Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 06:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. There's audio about #7 being "pulled" at this link:
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/FDNY.htm

In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.

This admission appeared in a PBS documentary originally aired in Sept. of 2002 entitled "America Rebuilds". Mr Silverstein's comments came after FEMA and the Society of Civil Engineers conducted an extensive and costly investigation into the curious collapse of WTC 7. The study specifically concluded that the building had collapsed as a result of the inferno within, sparked, apparently, by debris falling from the crumbling North Tower.

In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
http://www.infowars.com/audio/PullIt.mp3 Thanks to Sir Dave 'tmo' Soule for transfering this from the video to an MP3 file. "America Rebuilds", PBS Home Video, ISBN 0-7806-4006-3, is available from http://shop.pbs.org/products/AREB901/.>

<snip>


Sorry if this has been posted before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
focusfan Donating Member (884 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-01-06 04:52 PM
Response to Original message
11. i sent it to everyone in my address book
:nuke: i bet nobody in my family believes this
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-08-06 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. Hoping to hear....
that real soon!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-12-06 05:03 PM
Response to Original message
13. From your mouth...
to John Conyers ears!?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-17-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. and a ...
kick for good measure!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-23-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
15. I'd love...
to see his reaction to that OP statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-25-06 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
16. a possibly antagonistic question...
hey boloboffin, make7, william seger, greyl, lared, mervinferd, vincent_vega_lives, et few al...do you feel that the Bush administration "lied their way into a war in the Middle East", or do you hold steadfast the official story here as well...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 05:02 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Just what are you suggesting?
An excerpt from Bush's 2003 State of the Union speech:

Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, even while inspectors were in his country. Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons -- not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities.

Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations, and for the opinion of the world. The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct -- were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq's regime is disarming. It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see, and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened.

The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents, and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary; he is deceiving. From intelligence sources we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses.

Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say. Intelligence sources indicate that Saddam Hussein has ordered that scientists who cooperate with U.N. inspectors in disarming Iraq will be killed, along with their families.

Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate, or attack.

With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country -- your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation.

The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's legal -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempt to hide those weapons from inspectors, and its links to terrorist groups.

We will consult. But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Tonight I have a message for the men and women who will keep the peace, members of the American Armed Forces: Many of you are assembling in or near the Middle East, and some crucial hours may lay ahead. In those hours, the success of our cause will depend on you. Your training has prepared you. Your honor will guide you. You believe in America, and America believes in you.

Sending Americans into battle is the most profound decision a President can make. The technologies of war have changed; the risks and suffering of war have not. For the brave Americans who bear the risk, no victory is free from sorrow. This nation fights reluctantly, because we know the cost and we dread the days of mourning that always come.

We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means -- sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military -- and we will prevail.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

Are you suggesting that not all of that was true?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. I think you know what I'm suggesting...
Who are you people?


In any event, with regard to the SOTU and more significantly to speeches and comments that were less vetted and less carefully worded, this sampling is of the type that put words and data to my underlying sense that we were being bullshitted...

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030718.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0302/S00061.htm
http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~richard/reflect/lies.html
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqlies.html

Where do you stand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. RE: Where do I stand?
I thought I already answered that. Do I need to parse the SOTU excerpt that I just posted and highlight all of the fallacious arguments and inaccuracies? That portion of the speech essentially amounted to a sales pitch for war.

I believe it has already been adequately documented that there was pre-war manipulation of the intelligence data by members of the Administration. (e.g. this Frontline report.) Whether Bush was aware of this, or completely oblivious, is not entirely clear. Personally I find it almost impossible to believe that he wasn't aware of it to at least some extent, although it is doubtful that he would have known about everything that was being done.


To conclude, I am going to take the liberty of quoting part of your response to vincent_vega_lives from below.

elias7 wrote:
I just find it unsettling that a select few find their way into every provocative debate with the same old smackdowns, almost as if assigned to quash official story questioning.

I couldn't disagree more - I come up with new smackdowns quite often. :)

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 07:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. fair enough
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 10:56 AM
Response to Reply #16
20. Yes it is antagonistic as it displays an underlying theme to this
forum. If you don't believe in MIHOP you must be a fundie right wing Bush supporter.

That said, knowing the poor state of intelligence collecting, processing and analyzing, and the fact that the PREVIOUS administration said the SAME exact things about Iraq as the Current administration, and the only difference was that the CURRENT president undertook a foolish and inept course of action, that of Regime change in a fractioned and tribal 'nation', based on faulty assumptions, and not lies.

If anything they all lied to themselves 'cause I truly believed they though there would be WMD in Iraq and that we would be showered with 'Rose petals" instead of IEDs.

But this is the 9-11 forum right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias7 Donating Member (913 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 12:01 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Perhaps that is an underlying theme,
just as if you are MIHOP, you must be a nutcase LW conspiracy theorist loving Bush hater. I subscribe to neither. I just find it unsettling that a select few find their way into every provocative debate with the same old smackdowns, almost as if assigned to quash official story questioning.

That said, one could legitimately argue that the current president undertook a foolish and inept course of action, though one could also LEGITIMATELY question what faulty assumptions were being made. Was it the WMD and being welcomed as liberator assumptions, or was it other things, like pax americana, in which case 9-11 was a fortunate stepping stone towards impelling action.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vincent_vega_lives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
19. Tired and stale
Must we go over the same pointless arguements again and again?

You know, WTC 7 wasn't demolished by explosives, but even if Silverstine did have 7 demolished that day by some miraculous hasty explosive effort, I'm not sure why that would indicate any sinister government involvement in the attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-26-06 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
24. needs more ...
exposure!
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:48 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC