MapleBear

Hugo wrote... Because it IS relevant. Bush obviously can't sprout wings, and if he did, it wouldn't necessarily be an evil thing. (Maybe he'd do us a favor and fly into a mountain.) But Bush has already begun persecuting certain groups of people, and his persecution will almost certainly become more severe if and when he consolidates his power still more. Right - because Hitler had the power Bush hasn't yet acquired. Moreover, I wouldn't be quick to claim that Bush hasn't eliminated any opponents. We'll probably never know the truth about Paul Wellstone, and what the Hell's going on in Venezuela? I "allege" that Bush is powerful enough to persecute many people, including U.S. citizens, and even make a few disappear, but he is NOT yet as powerful as Hitler was. Be serious, do you really think Bush could assassinate Michael Moore and survive the blowback? I mean, if no on could prove Bush was behind it, he might survive it, but he would still be the target of massive blame and rage. Cite a source to prove that Bush is consolidating power??? Sheez, do you live in a cave?! HELLO - The Republicans control Congress and the Supreme Court. There are concerns about an apparent CIA purge. Have you heard of voting machines? I could go on and on and on, but you clearly need to do your homework. Spend a couple weeks studying current weeks, then come back and tackle this thread again. Thank you for making my point! George W. Bush doesn't have dictatorial powers. Therefore, he's just an extraordinarily powerful (and evil) Christian kook. Given the damage he's already caused, how bad would it be if Bush was even more powerful? What if Bush became a genuine dictator? It's a very simple and appropriate question. Let's make it an easy multiple choice question, just for you. If George W. Bush was a dictator... 1) He never would have invaded Iraq. 2) He probably would have also attacked Iran, Syria, North Korea and Venezuela by now and killed hundreds of American anti-Bush activists. 3) There would be no difference. Right - and Hitler had the power to do that. Bush lives in a different world. The numbers are somewhat irrelevant. If you murder 100,000 civilians, is it OK just because Hitler murdered millions? Morever, Bush has a military arsenal that could make Hitler look like a frat boy if Bush gets the world war he seems to be courting. Right, the ongoing torture and atrocities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and secret detention centers are all just random occurrences. Uh huh. Yes, I know - which leads us to the question: Do you think George W. Bush is capable of similar atrocities if he acquires sufficient power? Excuse me, I ran for office myself in 2004, and there was no election. Democracy is dead. No they did not; John Kerry was a total pussy and therefore a perfect representative of the Vichy Democrats. Bush didn't have that power as soon as he stole office. Bush passed the Patriot Act, and he's trying to expand it. Tell that to protesters who have been roughed up by police officers and travelers who have tangled with Homeland Security. So how many Americans do you think Bush will kill if he ever gets Hitler's power? I think your lack of comprehension skills (or refusal to recognize what I actually wrote) is a gross insult to members of this forum. Baloney. I think it was wrong of Hitler to murder people, and I also think Bush should be charged as a war criminal for treason and murder. I believe in accountability for all. I'm simply wondering how many more people Bush might kill if he acquires more power. Again, let me make it simple for you: Could George W. Bush conceivably become more powerful?: 1) Yes 2) No Let me give you a hint: The answer is YES. IF Bush does become more powerful, could he conceivably become more dangerous?: 1) Yes 2) No Correction: It does no good when people like you and Blackdog can't shoot my arguments down without ignoring half of what I wrote.

What do you say to Muslims who think Americans are the 'spiritual enemy'? Or are they justified because they're non-Christian? Maybe our troops should start going around and chop some heads off in the name of Jesus Christ! And the countries that sell contracts to our oil companies to drill overseas... Were we holding a gun to their head? Sounds like Muslim governments sold their people out! Then the UN steals from them! Are you talking about the French or the UN as a collective whole? You gotta have the "bling, bling" to get any respect these days!! Are you talking about the Democrats who pumped millions and millions of dollars into a dying campaign & message that no one heard? (Hollywood got the message) Oil in which the world uses, but holds the U.S. accountable for taking the lid off. So what if the Bush family made a deal a hundred years ago with the Saudi's! Still does not justify terrorism. Maybe the princes should have shared the wealth with their fellow citizens. How so? I just think it's common decency to support the men & women over there, regardless of one's opinion about our government and handling of the situation. I know many who are or have already served over there who are against the war, but had a job to do, and just sucked it up like a man and woman! It's the sad, self serving people like yourself why nobody listens to you and why the media would not report on your 'rally'! BigDookie6 wrote... Why, I could say many things! Here are a few examples: 1) Gee, you remind me so much of America's Christian kooks! 2) Why don't you join your fellow citizens who hate America for more practical reasons? 3) Why should I waste my time with you when there are so many innocent civilians being killed, not all of them religious kooks? No, they're justified because we invaded their countries. Maybe our troops should get out of Iraq and come home so they can answer your stupid questions. Are you talking about countries with corrupt governments that don't represent their people? Are you talking about U.S. puppet governments, like Saddam Hussein? What goes around comes around. I think it's common decency to support the victims. I support the rape victim, you the rapist. Right, murdering people - it's more than a job!

I disagree with lots of people, but I don't characterize all of them as evil. I characterize most Seattle liberals as "stupid," for example. I've argued all those points on this forum, other forums, my websites, etc. This thread tackles the question of EVIL. It may be ambigious for you, but it was hardly ambiguous for the millions who were killed by Hitler. Nor is it ambiguous for Iraqis who have been murdered or tortured by Team Exxon.

If you are saying that there's absolutely no grounding for this speculation whatsoever why even make it? The fact that you said it at all said that, not only has it crossed your mind, it's actually struck you as a possibility. You think it's plausible that George Bush wants to exterminate native Americans and Jews. What is your evidence? I don't seriously consider an idea without evidence. If you do, then that speaks volumes about your lack of intellecutal integrity, and about the value of your posts, doesn't it? When they put a bullet in the head of Michael Moore, or Noam Chomsky, or any of the other very outspoken Bush critics, get back to me. Until then your argument doesn't hold water. Hitler's first move (before he even got into office, in fact) was to discredit, demonize and physically attack his political opponents. Bush doesn't even seem to realise that Moore exists, for all his public statements reveal, let alone be running some sort of smear campaign against him or having him roughed up by government goons. I further want some evidence that the Republican Party is a personal tool of George W. Bush. Prove to me that the GOP is akin to the Nazi Party and is devoted to doing Bush's every whim. Most Bush critics believe it's the other way around, the GOP calls the shots, and Bush is just a puppet. Oh, boy. I hope you have a single shred of evidence for that. You don't, of course. What's next? George Bush is planning to take over the world with alien UFOs kept in secret at Area 51 after he finishes controlling the minds of the American people with nanobots in flu shots? Prove it. No, you can't do that. You're comparing Bush to Hitler. Hitler did not permit any kind of dilution of his power. After he got the Chancellorship he made sure he broke German business to his will. You're saying that Bush has done the exact opposite. I don't see how that makes a comparison between them very realistic, to be honest. Here's an analogy. "Jerry Seinfeld is just like Bill Cosby. Seinfeld's white. Cosby's black. Don't you see the similarities already?" I think you've been reading the Inquirer too much. NO, NO, NO! Sheez, don't you people have any comprehension skills? Nowhere did I say Bush wants to exterminate Jews or Native Americans. I very clearly said that IF he wanted to exterminate them, he'd have a much tougher fight than Hitler did. Nazi Germany was a WHITE, very homogenous nation with weak democratic principles. The U.S. is a very DIVERSE nation with very STRONG democratic principles. Apparently, you don't read posts very carefully, either. Again, Bush doesn't yet have the power to do many of the things Hitler did. Nevertheless, the Republicans have been waging a very vicious war against their critics and enemies - real or imagined - since Bush first stole office. Bush can't afford to attack Michael Moore; after all, the man's a celebrity, and Bush doesn't need any more bad publicity. He would only make his movies more popular. Even Bush isn't that stupid. There are moderate Republicans who oppose some of Bush's warped agendas. But how many times have they actually taken a stand? How many times have they taken a stand and WON? Bush almost always gets his way. Well, it's interesting that you're now resorting to such lame propaganda techniques. So what's next for YOU - computer chips in Muslims' brains? Again, you're getting wrapped up in your tortured logic. It's really VERY SIMPLE. Adolph Hitler was a very powerful German ruler. He was a dictator. George Bush may not be a dictator yet - but he's undeniably consolidating power. He may never be a true dictator, but the Republicans have far too much power, and Bush probably has more power than any president in U.S. history. Part of the problem is you're too hung up on the word "dictator." Bush doesn't have to be a true dictator to be like Hitler. He merely has to be very powerful, very evil and very dangerous. Mission accomplished. I think you ran out of intelligent arguments before you even started.

Sorry, you lost me in your philosophical romp through neverland. I suspect you lost yourself, too. Adolph Hitler was more than an abstraction. He was a real person. He was undeniably evil - by any definition a sane person would apply to the word - and he was an undeniable menace. George W. Bush is also real. He's not a nice guy. Anyone who calls Bush a compassionate conservative (now THERE'S an abstraction for you) is a fool. And those weapons of mass destruction Bush has jurisdiction over are the most real things of all.

No, I said IF. Let's see... The Republicans control Congress. They pretty much control the Supreme Court, and it looks like they're now gunning for the CIA. The term "corporate media" speaks for itself. Tom Daschle is gone (not that I was a big fan), and we all know what happened to Paul Wellstone (or do we?). You made my point in spectacular fashion. And he would have lost if he hadn't pulled the right strings. Moreover, it's entirely possible that Kerry is actually a member of the Bush team, so to speak. He certainly ran a very curious campaign. Baloney. Which dilutes power more - representing nearly 300 million citizens or whoring for a few hundred corporations? But I did. And thanks, once again, for offering such a brilliant support of my post.

Many people insist that George Bush isn't as evil as Adolph Hitler, but how do they know? How do you measure evil? In fact, we don't know what Bush is capable of. He's obviously an extremely evil individual, in relative terms. He's willing to sell his own country out to corporate greed and kill tens of thousands of foreign citizens in his mad quest for power. Bush has even made torture a military policy. However, Bush has only invaded three nations, whereas Hitler conquered most of Western Europe and invaded Russia, to the east. Bush hasn't implemented a policy of genocide - not against his own citizens, at least. But Bush hasn't yet acquired Hitler's power. He's working on it, but he isn' yet a true dictator. Even if he was, it would be hard to exterminate America's Jews, African Americans or Native Americans because 1) we still have a strong democratic tradition, and 2) we are a very diverse nation. Attack America's Native Americans, and Bush will only enrage other minorities - and many whites as well. Even if Bush isn't as evil as Hitler, he's far more dangerous. America's military arsenal is simply too vast. Let's hope we never find out how evil Bush really is. EDIT: Here's a link to an official source that proves I'm not the only person who thinks George W. Bush is evil: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Ge...G=Google+Search It's one of the biggest websites on the Internet, and it features nearly 18,000 references for websites that match the terms "George W. Bush" and "Adolph Hitler." You could spend many days exploring it. Also, I put together a simple rating system to help people understand the concept of evil: 1 - Nice person who cares about others; someone you would want for a friend 2 - Individual who's indifferent to others' suffering 3 - Individual who likes to inflict suffering on others (e.g. many public school principals) 4 - Individual who commits, oversee or support murder for personal, political or corporate gain (many corporate executives and U.S. public officials) 5 - People who commit or promote murder because they enjoy it Adolph Hitler was obviously in the last group. George W. Bush easily qualifies for #4, though I believe the sadism he has demonstrated (e.g. Karla Fay Tucker, torture as a U.S. military policy, etc.) indicate that he rates a 5. To further put it in perspective, compare the following two groups of people: GROUP 1 Adolph Hitler Pol Pot Saddam Hussein GROUP 2 Mother Theresa Princess Di Mr. Rogers I call the people in Group 1 "evil." Even if you don't believe evil exists, you should be able to see the difference between the people in the two groups. When I refer to evil, I'm referring to that difference. Feel free to substitute your own word for evil. If you can't think of an appropriate word, then you can use "evil" in this thread. You may want to write it as "evil*" to indicate that you're just using the word evil to refer to that elusive difference between Adolph Hitler and Mr. Rogers. This should finally put an end to the argument that my original question is moot because evil doesn't exist.

I'll take a punt here and guess that nobody has blown up your house. Theres no reason for you to lose your objectivity. I can understand your empathy for those that endure loss but to lose your objectivity is to lose a part of your vision. Thats as true of Iraq, or any other nation, as it is of the US. There will be men in the militia who are sick and twisted and like killing. Broadly speaking armies do what they are ordered to do. Your problems still reside with the Government. Hows that achieve anything? Why not organise rallies, networks, lobby groups whatever to directly influence the government. The troops, I say again, are not responsible for US foreign policy so where is the logic in what you are suggesting? Thats irrelevant. I was explaining why the general public would not regard some individual murderer and a soldier to be the same. Since alot of people erroneously believe in the link between Al Quaeda (which I can never remember how to spell) and Iraq then they will believe they are doing EXACTLY that (excepting the Haliburton part - on which I won't comment). A large portion of the coalition forces will be genuinely trying to do their job - which they perceive as beneficial to the US and to Iraq - even if they are, arguably, mistaken. I don't think that can be discounted. In addition to which not all of the death and damage can be laid completely at the door of the coalition. You seem to me almost to be looking at this from one side only. I DO NOT support the foreign policy of the US government and Bush but I do support the troops that are in there and I don't agree that I've been 'been cowed into trumpeting obediently, "I support the troops!"'. I say people whose homes have been destroyed have a right to fight back, therefore I've lost my objectivity? No, I'll stick to my guns on this one. Anyone who wants to know how strongly I feel about it should come blow up my house. There are norms, and there's Team Exxon. There are lots of twisted people in America, jingoistic rednecks who have been raised on propaganda and believe Muslims are America's spiritual enemy. People who have been raised on corporate greed and see nothing wrong with gunning foreign citizens down for oil. We didn't have an army of corporate mercenaries during World War II, nor was torture military policy. Our new privatized military is sick. The ultimate blame lies with the people who elect that government and with the corporations that control that government. But the military also plays a role - it carries out the government's orders, right or wrong, and I do not support wrong. I can do better than that. I've been a whistle-blower for years. I've even run for public office. Unfortunately, it's nearly impossible to accomplish anything in a nation as corrupt and apathetic as the U.S. What good are rallies when the media won't even report on them? Network with whom - the corrupt Democratic or Green Party? The corrupt Libertarian Party? My corrupt union? I don't care what the "sheeple" think. They've proven themselves incapable of operating a functional democracy. Of course, atrocities have been committed by both sides. But WE STARTED IT. Terrorism wouldn't be rampant in Iraq if we hadn't illegally invaded the nation for oil. Moreover, I don't have a lot of control over what Iraqis and other foreign nationals do. Theoretically, I DO have some control over U.S. troops. As a voter, as a participating member of what's supposed to be a democracy, I have a right and a duty to exert some influence over the military. Saying "I support the troops" ultimately plays into George Bush's hands. That's exactly what Republicans - and corporations - want people to say. They want us to jump on the bandwagon, even if we're only surrendering to peer pressure or fuzzy thinking. I do not support the troops in Iraq. They are committing murder and treason on a scale that's hard to comprehend.

The situations aren't exactly analagous. Theres been alot of work by now in developing a response to this kind of threat (biological and nuclear). People would know how to respond to a known and well analysed threat. The problem that was highlighted by the 9/11 attack was lack of preparation for that kind of attack. Which may still well be the case. The President has other lines of communication and intelligence. They don't necessarily work the same way. I doubt you knew what was happening when watching tellie either. Bear in mind the intelligence being fed to him can't constitute a live feed - it needs to be a summation of real information. Again the information he receives can't be a live feed. It needs to be sorted before it gets to him not by him. As to Bush's inactivity you don't know that he wasn't told, "We don't have intel yet we'll let you know when we do." or some such thing. Bush may have just known how long it would take them to get things put together and to get ready. In addition I don't want you to think that I am arguing this position as the truth of what happened. I was offering it as a reasonable alternative explanation to your conspiracy theory. He may also have been incompetent, in shock, thinking things through while reading to the kids. Or too scared to move. Hard to say. These explanations are as, or more, viable then your conspiracy theory. They are conjecture. The lines of conjecture (pro and con) that existed in this thread prior to your posting certainly aligned with the actual facts more easily. Yours is the only theory that involves a large presupposition lacking any evidence - that Bush participated in the 9/11 attacks. There is merit in alot of what you are saying but the evidence doesn't support the ultimate direction you are taking - that Bush participated in the terrorist attacks. I will stop responding to you in this and all other threads on the topic of "Bush as 9/11 terrorist" until you come up with real proof. For what its worth I agree with you concerning some of your points (as I have detailed elsewhere) but I feel that we are moving outside the realms of 'reasoned debate' and I am afraid we'll just end up creating an endless series of posts which are largely meaningless. If you can come up with REAL evidence (not conjecture) linking Bush to participation in the 9/11 attacks I will join in again. I've offered evidence - and lots of it. Logic can be a powerful tool, especially when the enemy is up to his eyeballs in guilt and corruption.

I don't find the Lancet study hard to believe. We've got thousands of trigger happy troops in Iraq, and we've hit the Iraqis with countless missiles, bombs and small arms fire. The real toll would also include deaths from war-related problems, like hunger, disease, etc. What about all those depleted uranium shells we've left lying around? Even people killed by terrorists can be tacked on to our tally. True, they weren't directly killed by U.S. forces, but we did destablize Iraq, knowing full well what destabilization can result in. (Remember Cambodia?) Moreover, is it possible that some of those terrorists are actually U.S. or Israeli agents posing as terrorists? I believe I read that about a quarter million people evacuated Fallujah. It sounds like we butchered many hundreds, if not thousands of civiclians during the fighting, and some people who got caught up in the exodus might have fallen prey to U.S. forces, terrorists, bandits, whatever. It's not a pretty picture. Organizations like the Red Cross certainly paint a different picture than the White House - and there's no question who I trust; the Jessica Lynch story was brought to us by the White House, not the Red Cross. It's no secret why the Pentagon told Iraqis to stop counting their dead.

There's a limit to "good intentions." If someone blows my house up, killing my family, I'm not going to feel much happier if they tell me they only had the best intentions. Moreover, many troops do not have good intentions. I can't possibly guess what percentage, but I suspect it could easily be over ten percent. Let's face, there are a lot of sick, twisted people in America - bigots, nationalists, jingoists, religious kooks - and many of them wind up in the military. And I'm just talking about UNIFORMED personnel. If you include the army of corporate mercenaries we've shipped to Iraq - classic dogs of war - the situation is even more horrendous. And since Americans don't have a clue about voting, one way to take it up with the government is to not support its troops. That's the perception, but it isn't necessarily true. Many join because they need the money. Some join because they like to kill. Bring'em on! I generally support anyone who's fighting to avenge the death of a loved one or the destruction of their home or anyone who's fighting to liberate their country from Haliburton.

Like Pavlovian poodles, even liberals have been cowed into trumpeting obediently, "I support the troops!" To their credit, many of them question WHY they should support the troops. Unfortunately, few have enough brain power to really figure it out. Let's list some possible reasons for supporting U.S. military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan: 1. They're American. Using this logic, if an American tourist murders someone in Barcelona, I should support him just because he's American. No thanks. 2. They're liberating Iraq. Uh, no. They're liberating Iraqis of their lives. 3. They're protecting America. Actually, they're putting America in far greater danger. 4. They're protecting our civil liberties. In fact, George Bush is frantically attacking the troops' civil liberties while they're away in Iraq. 5. It's the patriotic thing to do. There's nothing patriot about stupidity. In fact, it's the P word that really pushes me over the edge. Discussion of PATRIOTISM in connection with Iraq trivializes the whole affair. We've launched an illegal war, probably killing over 100,000 civilians, losing allies right and left while recruiting more terrorists, encouraging Iran and other nations to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, costing us tens of billions of dollars, letting sadistic torturers further drag us through the mud, and on and ond... and this mess has something to do with PATRIOTISM? No two wars are the same. Philosophically speaking, no war may be good, but America's involvement in World War II was a helluva lot nobler than its sleazy rape of Iraq. If our standards have fallen so low that we regard murder, torture and rape as patriotic, then we are one sick nation. I do not support the troops. I support Iraqi patriots. They have far more in common with the Minutemen who entered the history books at Lexington and Concord than do the heavily armored forces who fight for Team Exxon.

The two jobs (firefighter and president) are not analagous. Nor are those two situations analagous. When the fire bell rang your Dad knew what was going on and what to do about it - as he had many times before. The President did not know exactly what was going on - nobody did. Nor was it a situation he'd responded to many times before. Aside from that the two could be viewed as micro and macroscopic examples and therefore incompatible. Anyway I really should just shut up and let KK have his say. Thankyou for following the link to read the thread however. Amen! My father did his job, and Bush didn't. It's comforting to know that if we ever come under nuclear or biological attack, our commander in chief will sit on his butt and read a children's story unless he knows EXACTLY what's going on. Reality Check: The best way to FIND OUT what's going on is to join in on a conversation about it. I was riding a bus to work when I first learned about the terrorist attacks. I watched the carnage on a miniature TV. I was riveted to the screen; it was obviously a disaster of epic proportions. Bush would have been ahead if he had at least done that - watched the attack unfold so he had SOME CLUE about what was happening, rather than say, "That must have been one bad pilot." What a stupid comment. The proof's in the pudding: Would people who approve of Bush's conduct on 9/11 recommend that he whip out that goat story again if we come under nuclear or biological attack one day? Remember - one minute could make all the difference between life and death.

How about joining his AIDES, who should have been in communication with the White House and the Pentagon? If they had been doing their job, they would have been relaying a steady stream of information to Bush...thus interrupting his story. Therefore, the decent thing for Bush to do was DROP the damn book and join the party. But he didn't. He jus sat there. On his ass. No one suggests Bush should have "freaked out." He should have done his job. Even if in the impossible event that there was truly nothing he could do, he should have at least PRETENDED to care. After all, he knew he was being recorded on video. "All in place just waiting for the security guys to figure out where they would take Bush. This I would imagine would take a few minutes at least what with assessment of airspace and travel time and all, not to mention the verifgying that there were in fact no other aircraft en route to where they would be going." The skies must have been clear, as I understand Air Force One wasn't even escorted by fighter jets for a while. Yes, I'm sure there was a credible threat to Bush. Frankly, I would have handed him over to the terrorists, but that's another story. Heat of confusion??? Did you watch the video?! Even Bush's aides didn't look terribly concerned. Andrew Card walked over to Bush and whispered in his ear two or three times. Some confusion. No, I'd have Bush join in on a discussion with his aides, so he can keep abreast of events as they happen, not hear about them second hand seven minutes later. No, not in the middle of the tarmac like a sitting duck - in the school, until he was ready to move to another location. Use some COMMON SENSE, people!

I have not been ignoring your posts. You 'evidence' does not indicate that George Bush participated in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. The evidence you are using indicated mishandling of intelligence, falsifying of some intelligence, use of a tragedy to push pre-existing agendas, and possible misconduct by George Bush. Not one shred of it provided any kind of real evidence that George Bush was involved in the planning or execution of the terrorist attacks. Until you learn the difference between conjecture and real evidence I refuse to debate further with you. I'd suggest you take your own advice. I just checked out Krusty Kidd's lame defense of George Bush. What a crock! Forget evidence, he doesn't even use logic. And he apparently doesn't even know what state Bush ran and hid in; it was NEBRASKA, not NORTH DAKOTA. Moreover, my charges that Bush is guilty of treason and dereliction of duty would stand even if he didn't conspire with terrorists. Only a traitor wouldl abandon ship without even ensuring that the chain of command covered for him. Only a traitor would exploit a tragedy like 9/11 for corporate gain. Is George W. Bush a traitor who conspired with terrorists, or just a traitor who followed them like a hyena? There's abundant evidence to indicate the former, especially if one uses a little logic when examining it.

Allow me to give this thread a decent burial, starting with this comment: That's an example of the LIES the White House and Pentagon concocted in the wake of 9/11! Sheez, use some common sense... You're in a foreign country where you're planning on carrying out the biggest terrorist attack in world history the next morning. You speak with a heavy accent and thus stick out like a sore thumb. You're also a devout Muslim; in fact, you're planning on meeting your maker, rather than survive the attack. So what do you do? Go out to a strip bar and get drunk! Yeah, do everything you can to call attention to yourself. The media even said the terrorists left their ID behind! This story is as preposterous as the claim that Bush didn't know where he was flying to on September 11. (Hint: He ran and hid in Nebraska, not NORTH DAKOTA.) I mean, how hard is it for Bush to ask, "Where are we going?" Jesus use some simple logic, folks. As for Bush's 9/11 classroom stunts, there are on excuses - zero, none, nada, zip. Yet right-wingers were quick to make up some excuses. As far as I know, these are the most prominent: 1. He didn't want to scare the kids. This zinger sprouted right after 9/11. To put it in perspective, my father was a volunteer firefighter. When the fire alarm rang, he jumped up and ran out the door, even if we were in the middle of dinner. He didn't worry about scaring the kids. So what's more important, a fire in a town with a population of 4,000 or an attack on the World Trade Center? But there's a second argument against this right-wing excuse: Bush didn't have to scare the kids in the first place! He didn't have to JUMP UP. He didn't have to tell them America was under attack. All he had to do was say, "Boys and girls, as you know, the President is a very busy person. Unfortunately, I've been summoned to attend to an important matter. But I enjoyed my visit, and I hope to return some day to finish that story about the pet goat!" No, saying the COMMANDER IN CHIEF sat on his butt because he didn't want to scare the kids is STUPID. 2. HE COULDN'T HAVE DONE ANYTHING. This excuse was manufactured more recently; I think I first heard it after Fahrenheit 9/11 hit the screens. Again, this is STUPID, because Bush would have to know what was going on before he could know that he couldn't do anything. How the Hell did he know how many airliners had been hijacked? How did he know if a general or foreign leader might have tried to contacted him for advice? To put it in perspective, imagine that Russia launches a salvo of nuclear missiles at us. Bush is informed that the missiles will strike in about two hours - and the Pentagon fears one or two of them may hit their targets. Should the COMMANDER IN CHIEF throw up his arms, say "There's nothing I can do!" then run off and hide in Nebraska? Again: COMMON SENSE. Oops - I just recalled a third argument... 3. George W. Bush's life was in danger! OK, if that's true, then why did he pause for a photo op before he fled to Nebraska? And what happened to the chain of command? If Bush was too vulnerable to act as commander in chief, somone should have replaced him - and it was Bush's responsiblity to make sure that happened. Yet the military was apparently on holiday. COMMON SENSE. There's another thing about Mr. Goat Story that I find interesting. Republicans insist there was nothing wrong with Bush's behavior that day. Many actually brand him a hero. So why not promote it? When Bush ran for re-election, why didn't we see posters depicting him reading a story about a pet goat? Why didn't Republican campaign headquarters regale voters with stories of Bush's historic retreat to Nebraska? If there's nothing to be ashamed of, why hide it? The simple, unavoidable truth is that George W. Bush is perhaps the biggest traitor in American history. His conduct on 9/11 was so bizarre, so incomprehensible, many people would never believe it if it had not been recorded on video. And, once again - why did Republicans howl with outrage when Michael Moore showed a clip from that video in his movie, Fahrenheit 9/11? What is there to be ashamed of - the fact that the President of the United States looked like he had been sniffing airplane glue?

Look these things can all be explained in different ways. They can mostly be explained by the administration taking advantage of the tragic events of 9/11 to promote their own agenda. They don't want that investigated because of the lack of a real link between actions and reactions. Its not hard to imagine someone in the Bush camp had been dreaming of the way he'd like things arranged so he could act the way he wanted. Or several people. Hence the speed of the Patriot Act. There were those who had already put alot of thought into such an act. They don't have to have been abetting terrorists to have been thinking of it. And so on and so forth. What your argument boils down to is conjecture. You are producing real actions as evidence but then you are attributing motive without evidence to those actions. The motives you are attributing, moreover, presuppose other actions (that Bush was involved in the terrorist attacks) again without evidence. They acted like they were unprepared. That is not the same as being guilty. Still not reasonable to suppose they would take the risk considering the MASSIVE amount of scrutiny which would follow such an attack. That first paragraph, again, is pure conjecture without benefit of evidence. As to the second paragraph I encourage you, again, to read that discussion on this forum. Krusty Kidd made some excellent arguments as to why the President staid put. Even if you accept that he shouldn't have stayed put there it still no evidence that it was part of a conspiracy. Again here is the link. If you can't prove it then don't assert it as fact but as opinion. Unprepared = Surprised, and those people were not surprised. Massive scrutiny??? Look at all the scrutiny that's been applied to some of the biggest crooks in American history - Microsoft, Enron, Dick Cheney, George W. Bush. The 9/11 investigation was a total farce. Remember when Bush and Cheney finally showed up to testify - with all sorts of conditions? Have you been ignoring my posts? There's a mountain of evidence! I just did. It's my opinion that Bill Gates and Dick Cheney are crooks, too. In fact, most members of Congress are crooks - but will it ever be proved in court? Not likely.

You are correct. I should have checked over my post. I meant to ask for something more concrete. Let me say this then; the attriubution of motive is tenuous. There is a strong case that he had a motive to use the incidence of the attacks to further his own agenda but not that he had a motive to orchestrate the attacks. It is difficult for me to imagine that he would not have been caught out and there would have been hell to pay. I will also add that the attribution of motive is not a strong argument in favour of his participation in those attacks. I'm asking for some hard evidence to back up what I find to be an extraordinary claim. The argument is isn't limited to MOTIVE. There are several other important elements: 1. Bush's actions (or inactions) on 9/11 2. The wacko stories the White House and Pentagon cooked up in the wake of 9/11, early omens of the Jessica Lynch adventure 3. The speed with which certain things fell into place after 9/11 - like the Patriot Act 4. Bush's apparent fear of a thorough 9/11 investigation The Republicans had a motive - not just a motive but a POWERFUL motive. They had the means. They benefitted from the terrorist attacks. And they act guilty. One argument that drives me up a wall is "But the Republicans could never kill U.S. citizens!" That's absurd. They could and they have. Look at the way they've treated our troops in Iraq. Look at how they treat minorities, workers, prisoners and on and on. These people are thugs. Democrats are capable of murder, too. If you focus on Bush's actions on 9/11 alone and apply a little logic, I don't see how anyone could not contemplate his complicity. So if this was a grand conspiracy, why hasn't anyone blown the whistle? First, it would have involved a relatively small number of people, for obvious reasons. In fact, that could help explain Bush's bizarre behavior on 9/11. If they could have shared their plot with hundreds, they migiht have got some good advice. My hunch is that a very small group of kooks cooked up a plot, similar to the morons that botched the invasion of Iraq so badly. They wanted Bush to be visible on 9/11, and they wanted to give him an excuse to not take charge as commander in chief. They also wanted to make sure he didn't look frightened on the video. My hunch is that they overdid it and Bush overplayed his role. Not only did he not look frightened - he looked like he didn't give a damn. There's no possible excuse for that jackass not getting up off his butt and leaping into action. My specialty is the "Education Mafia" - my term for the corporate takeover of public education. This is a conspiracy of truly staggering proportions, with scandal upon scandal across the United States, along with Canada, the UK and Australia. Think about teacher bashing, high-stakes tests and corrupt school officials who bear an eerie resemblance to CEO's. So how many people have blown the whistle on the Education Mafia? Virtually none - not even Ralph Nader. Come to think of it, just ONE individual blew the lid off during the war in Vietnam War by releasing the Pentagon Papers, and the initial Watergate expose was similarly the work of one or a few individuals (e.g. "Deepthroat"). George W. Bush is guilty. I can't prove it, but no one can prove he's innocent, either, and the evidence against him continues to pile up.

Thats been adressed in another thread - one of those about Farenheit 9/11. Look for answers there. I've edited this post to add a link to that discussion: Farenheit 9/11 Discussion That does not indicate culpability in the terrorist attacks. His reactions to the attack (even taking advantage of them to advance his own agenda) are not evidence that he contributed to them. I don't personally agree with many of his reactions but I cannot see the link you are trying to establish. Who are these "Many people"? Please let me know who they are and provide me with a link to their arguments. Even if it was written up as a contingency, or just in hopes of a chance to use it, that still does not forge the link that you are aiming for since it does not indicate, in any way, that Bush participated in the terrorist attacks. You are making the standard argument that he has mishandled things. I don't see you making a case for him as an actual deliberate perpetrator of those attacks. The links you are trying to establish are tenuous at best. How about some evidence? Everything I wrote is evidence. It may not be sufficient to win a conviction in a jury trial, but it certainly lays a powerful foundation. If someone is murdered, which groups of people do you think detectives are going to look at?... a) People who had a motive People who had no motive a) People who had the means People who weren't able to commit the crime a) People who suddenly deposited $100,000 in their bank accounts People whose finances appear to be unchanged It really isn't hard to figure out. I've also addressed it on other threads, on other forums. I think I discuss it on my Jail4Bush site, too. Yes, it does. By itself, it isn't worth a conviction, but it is evidence. His reactions to the attack (even taking advantage of them to advance his own agenda) are not evidence that he contributed to them. I don't personally agree with many of his reactions but I cannot see the link you are trying to establish. There's a big difference between taking an advantage of a terrorist attack (the vulture model) and acting astonishingly prepared (the hyena at night model). Bush wasn't prepared to defend his country, but he was certainly prepared to exploit it. I can't possibly name all of them. Try Google; it's been widely discussed on many forums. It's just one more piece of evidence in a seemingly endless series of evidence. No, I'm arguing that Bush has mishandled things on purpose - at least in some cases. There's no denying his stupidity and incompetence, but you have to remember that he has handlers. Many of Bush's blunders undoubtedly happen for a reason.

That still seems an extraordinary take to me. The MOTIVE to allow a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre? OK so I guess I didn't misunderstand you in your previous post after all. You have made your position plain. Now can you back it up with actual evidence? Its hard to take your position seriously without a reasoned argument backed up by research. I am more then happy to listen. MapleBear: Of course he had a motive(s). Bush was an extremely unpopular president. Many people believed he hadn't even been fairly elected. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 boosted his popularity, stifled criticism, gave him leverage for attacking civil liberties, gave him an excuse to wage war and on and on. And remember what Bush did after he came out of hiding in Nebraska? He whored for corporations on a scale that was simply breathtaking. No one can deny that 9/11 was one of the best things that ever happened to U.S. corporations. It's on video. Bush was filmed sitting on his butt in an elementary school in Florida. As commander in chief, he should have taken charge of the military. Why didn't he? Right-wingers offer the most stupid excuses, though these appear to be the most prominent: 1. He didn't want to scare the children. 2. There was nothing he could do. Obviously, those are both to stupid to even consider. In fact, there is not excuse. That video is more than a curiosity; it indicts Bush. But there's still more evidence - mountains of it. Consider the cock-and-bull stories the Pentagon and White House manufactured in the wake of 9/11. Consider their frantic efforts to hide evidence and stifle an honest investigation. Consider the speed with which they promoted their agenda. Many people have commented that they must have written the Patriot Act in advance, just waiting for an "opportunity" to ram it through. Bush is guilty of treason on a scale so vast most U.S. citizens can't even comprehend it.

You aren't serisouly suggesting that George Bush orchestrated, or participated in, the terrorist attacks of 9/11 are you? Plenty have argued that he mishandled the situation before and after but you seem to be suggesting something else entirely. If that was not what you meant then please clarify your position. If that IS what you meant please provide some proof so I can understand where you are coming from on this. If Bush simply IGNORED the attacks, he did so on a grand scale - an almost unbelievable scale. How many advance warnings did he received? He had the motive and the means, and his actions on 9/11 are the actions of a guilty man. He apparently ordered the military to stand down. How else can you explain its almost total inaction? Yes, I think Bush helped the terrorists. I think he's a murderer. Actually, he would be a murderer and a traitor even if 9/11 had never happened, but that's another story.

I've read many assurances that foreign nationals don't hate Americans; they just hate George W. Bush. I think this is a big mistake. Nearly half the voters chose Bush in 2000 and 2004, and those who voted for someone else are hardly innocent; what kind of resistance have they mounted? It's no secret that many Americans are disgusted with themselves or each other, with liberals and conservatives blasting each other mercilessly. Frankly, I've come to despise both sides. The Seattle liberals who rally behind the Vichy Democrats are unbelievably apathetic and stupid, and I really don't think things are much different in other cities. Americans need to clean up their act. There's nothing cool about apathy and stupidity.

I agree with the author of this articvle. it is time for some serious bloood-letting at the Democratic party headquarters. It is time to move on from the Clintonites - they were fine in a different era, but the world has passed them by. Frankly, I thought Kerry was an operative from the very beginning. Howard Dean should have represented the Vichy Democrats. Kerry ran an amazingly gutless campaign, but I was most amazed at the speed with which he surrendered. I think any Americans who plot a 2008 victory with the Democrats are fools. They need to focus on local political offices, third parties and fixing the Democratic Party before they try to use it in battle again.

I doubt that China is going to wait for George Bush to nail it with hyper-missiles or other space-based weapons. They have plans of their own.

I think Colin Powell is a phony. I had him pegged years ago when he publicly suupported the late John Stanford. This is really a very interesting story. I worked for the Seattle School District, which was and remains frighteningly corrupt. I was becoming a whistle blower just about the time Seattle's business interests recruited John Stanford to serve as the district's superintendnet. Stanford's real mission was to spearhead a corporate takeover of our schools. Stanford was a tremendously charismatic retired general and African American who was toasted by corporate America, even as he wrecked school after school. You can read more about his bizarre adventures on my John Stanford website; I think it's at www.johnstanford.org Anyway, one interesting thing is that billionaire Craig McCaw was grooming Stanford for a position as Secretary of Education, while presidential candidate Al Gore wrote the foreword to a really bizarre (and really bad) book Stanford wrote. I believe that even Bush would have appointed Stanford, who claimed to be apolitical. Think about it - Stanford was a token black (an Uncle Tom), like Bush's pick, Rod Paige. He was also one of Colin Powell's friends and a retired GENERAL. When Stanford was dying of leukemia, he was publicly supported by Powell and the Clintons, none of who had a clue about the enormous damage Stanford rained on Seattle. Anyway, I was disgusted that Powell would support a man with Stanford's criminal background. It was clear that Powell didn't have a clue about education and really didn't care. Colin Powell cared about Colin Powell. I suspect that Powell's role in Bush's administration was to play the role of a moderate, calming people who feared Bush's cabinet was too right wing. Now that Bush has a "mandate," he said "Screw it" and is replacing this phony moderate with a real chickenhawk, Condoleeza Rice. I have no use for either one.