Hans Blix: 'U.S. Has Learned'

[maplesyrup]

Blix: 'U.S. has learned'

"President Bush said that the world was better off without Sadaam, and I would agree with that. But I don't think it's safer," Blix said in an interview with The Tyee. "On the contrary, if one of the aims of the invasion of Iraq was to put a stop sign to terrorism, that has singularly failed, because the Iraq affair has been breeding terrorists, not stopping them,"

According the 2004 Amnesty International annual report, there are 154 armed groups operating in the world, up from 132 just two years ago.

More than one-third of those groups are Muslim extremist organizations and the war on terror is bolstering their numbers. Amnesty reports that "humiliation" at the hands of the Christian West is the primary cause for the increase.

The number of terrorist attacks since 9/11 has also jumped to more than 4,400 from 2,300 two years before the World Trade Centre attacks.

This runs contrary to Bush's claims that the world is safer place without Sadaam Hussein.

Hans Blix is one guy whom I respect in this whole sordid mess over in Iraq. He said there were no WMD and there were none. People would do well to listen to what he has to say as he has an excellent track record. And I like his optimism as well.

[Boondoggle]

Scott Ritter totally ripped apart the case for war in Iraq before it started too. The mainstream media pundits said he was out of the loop, but it's funny how he got so much right, and the government got so much wrong.

http://www.sass.caltech.edu/events/ritter.shtml

Then there's Denis Halliday (former head of the U.N.'s humanitarian program in Iraq) who resigned over the sanctions calling them genocidal. In less than two years his successor, Hans von Sponeck, resigned for the same reason.

A good documentary about the first war and the mess that followed is Hidden Wars of Desert Storm, which can be found on edonkey. The second war is just a new chapter in a long story.

Both Ritter and Halliday spoke at the House of Commons before the war:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/37/1/FAIT...Tnt87(9564).htm

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear maplesyrup,

I recently bought "Disarming Iraq" by Hans Blix. In this book, Hans states that he is happy Saddam is gone, but suspects the inspections were allowed by the US/UK only to provide time for a military build up, and the invasion was going to happen regardless.

Blix debunked most every claim the US had regarding weapons violations, including the Iraqi possession of 'a cluster bomb' and an 'aerial drone', but he still felt the removal of Saddam was a good result. One of the few, mind you.

[Chloe]

In my opinion, I'm glad Sadaam is out of power. However it was foolish for anyone to think that by removing Sadaam it would resolve issues of terrorism. I've noticed that the terrorist in Iraq operate either independently or under the leadership of America's new most wanted man. The same thing goes for Osama. Removing him won't remove the problem but will only allow some new person to come into the scene and continue his work.

Terrorism is deeply rooted in the mindset, whether the US caused it or not, which they didn't. This kind of terrorism has always existed. The idea that its our way or no way is the mentality that Iraqi terrorists have. They kill because they believe they are pleasing their God and doing their people a service.

No, the world is not safer by any means, but it certainly more aware of what people who live under terrorism must deal with. If you can give Bush credit for anything its for making us less naive about our world. I know a couple of people who had know idea about the Jihad (Sorry if i spelt it wrong) or what fundamentalist muslims believe about Christianity, Jews or western society in general. Bascially what I'm saying is that the world, although its not safe its more aware, and that saying something.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Chloe,

Bascially what I'm saying is that the world, although its not safe its more aware, and that saying something.

In some ways, I agree with you, and other ways, not. The Bush Administration has repeated lied about the motivations of the 'terrorists', such as "They hate Freedom and Democracy", and "It's not our actions they hate, but who we are". This does not serve to enlighten, but to brainwash.

I am afraid the US may have doomed itself with it's actions. Almost every child being born in Iraq today (and elsewhere) is going to grow up hate the US, for it's actions, and not what it once used to represent.

[Tawasakm]

Chloe.

The idea that its our way or no way is the mentality that Iraqi terrorists have.

This reminds me of Bush's famous, "You're either with us or against us." Exactly the same philosophy.

If you can give Bush credit for anything its for making us less naive about our world.

Given the amount of political spin you should be looking far more broadly for information.

Sadly, it was the attacks on the World Trade Centre which so destroyed the naivety of many - Bush had nothing to do with its loss.

[MapleBear]

Chloe.

The idea that its our way or no way is the mentality that Iraqi terrorists have.

This reminds me of Bush's famous, "You're either with us or against us." Exactly the same philosophy.

If you can give Bush credit for anything its for making us less naive about our world.

Given the amount of political spin you should be looking far more broadly for information.

Sadly, it was the attacks on the World Trade Centre which so destroyed the naivety of many - Bush had nothing to do with its loss.

"Sadly, it was the attacks on the World Trade Centre which so destroyed the naivety of many - Bush had nothing to do with its loss."

He looked awfully guilty to me. More important, he acted guilty. He had a motive and a means, and he profited very handsomely.

[Tawasakm]

MapleBear,

He looked awfully guilty to me. More important, he acted guilty. He had a motive and a means, and he profited very handsomely

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.

[KrustyKidd]

Blix debunked most every claim the US had regarding weapons violations, including the Iraqi possession of 'a cluster bomb' and an 'aerial drone', but he still felt the removal of Saddam was a good result. One of the few, mind you.

Yes, I also forked over the twenty nine bucks to read his tale. Boring to say the least and hardly the Bob Woodward eye opener I was hoping for. This guy is part lawyer I am sure as he commits to zilch. Not to say Saddam did or did not have WMDs. Only that nothing was found up to the date of printing. he does say that facilities were kept secret, that he could not confirm there were no WMDs and also that he could not verify that Iraq had them or had none. In light of the obvious desire to retain knowlege, facilities, equipment, ability and resources to have and manufacture these hidious things in the future and given Saddams reluctence to show all, is it any wonder that people may err on the side of safety?

The prospect of Saddam stalling inspectors for years playing as Blix siaid "catch as catch can' is ridiculous. Sooner or later the pressure to lift sanctions would have given forth the fruit of same and back to the sarin mode.

As for reasons of provable violations of the ceasefire, one only has to count the amount of Kuwaities repatrated, money repaid, environmental damage fixed and the human rights accords he never lived up to as required in UNSC res 660.

Oh, BTW, I'm glad he's not in power anymore.

[MapleBear]

MapleBear,

He looked awfully guilty to me. More important, he acted guilty. He had a motive and a means, and he profited very handsomely

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.

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.

[Tawasakm]

MapleBear:

He had the motive and the means, and his actions on 9/11 are the actions of a guilty man.

That still seems an extraordinary take to me. The MOTIVE to allow a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre?

Yes, I think Bush helped the terrorists.

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]

MapleBear:

He had the motive and the means, and his actions on 9/11 are the actions of a guilty man.

That still seems an extraordinary take to me. The MOTIVE to allow a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre?

Yes, I think Bush helped the terrorists.

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:

That still seems an extraordinary take to me. The MOTIVE to allow a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre?

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.

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.

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.

[Tawasakm]

MapleBear,

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?

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

Of course he had a motive(s). Bush was an extremely unpopular president. Many people believed he hadn't even been fairly elected.

That does not indicate culpability in the terrorist attacks.

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.

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.

Many people have commented that they must have written the Patriot Act in advance, just waiting for an "opportunity" to ram it through.

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?

[MapleBear]

MapleBear,

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?

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

Of course he had a motive(s). Bush was an extremely unpopular president. Many people believed he hadn't even been fairly elected.

That does not indicate culpability in the terrorist attacks.

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.

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.

Many people have commented that they must have written the Patriot Act in advance, just waiting for an "opportunity" to ram it through.

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?

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.

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:

I've also addressed it on other threads, on other forums. I think I discuss it on my Jail4Bush site, too.

Of course he had a motive(s). Bush was an extremely unpopular president. Many people believed he hadn't even been fairly elected.

That does not indicate culpability in the terrorist attacks.

Yes, it does. By itself, it isn't worth a conviction, but it is evidence.

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.

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.

Many people have commented that they must have written the Patriot Act in advance, just waiting for an "opportunity" to ram it through.

Who are these "Many people"? Please let me know who they are and provide me with a link to their arguments.

I can't possibly name all of them. Try Google; it's been widely discussed on many forums.

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.

It's just one more piece of evidence in a seemingly endless series of evidence.

You are making the standard argument that he has mishandled things.

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.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

That still seems an extraordinary take to me. The MOTIVE to allow a terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre?

I would not even suggest such a conspiracy, however, I will say yes, Bush would have had motive.

If I may refer to a post I made earlier,

Here's an interesting quote, one which may come to pass...It is from "The Commanders" by Bob Woodward, 1991. Page 39. (Not sure if it was released in August, lol) A conversation between outgoing Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, William J. Crowe, and incoming Chairman, Gen. Colin Powell.

QUOTE 

"I've been thinking," Crowe said, "it takes two things to be a great President and I ought to tell you because you may be President some day."

"No, no," Powell said insistently, dismissing the reference to his political prospects--a subject of endless forecasting in the media.

"Yes, you may, and I want to tell you," Crowe said. "First, to be a great President, you have to have a war.  All great Presidents have had their wars."

Laughing, Powell acknowledged the truth of the statement.

"Two, you have to find a war where you are attacked."

Powell nodded in agreement.

He needed a war, one in which the USA was attacked, and Bush used the opportunity to go into Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.

[Tawasakm]

He needed a war, one in which the USA was attacked, and Bush used the opportunity to go into Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia.

That still does not indicate culpability. If I need some dental work and I'm short of cash it doesn't mean I'll rob a bank. The fact that the neo-conservatives had a pre-existing agenda which they used the attacks to push only indicated that they took advantage of the situation - not that they created the situation.

MapleBear

It's just one more piece of evidence in a seemingly endless series of evidence.

It is, at best, circumstantial evidence. The way you are looking at everything is only on interpretation and, seemingly, lacks hard evidence. Knock me about with it - if you have it.

I've also addressed it on other threads, on other forums. I think I discuss it on my Jail4Bush site, too.

The link I provided was to a discussion on THIS forum. I was attempting to avoid duplication. Did you read it or do you want me to quote some of the relevant parts for you? Saves you the trouble of having to read it.

I can't possibly name all of them. Try Google; it's been widely discussed on many forums.

I will when I get time. Since you brought them up, though, as part of your argument the least you could do is provide links to some of those you feel make the best argument.

[caesar]

I don't believe in the theory that Bush is connected in the attack on the /WTC but I do think there is a case that he was made aware of the possibility of an attack on the USA and did nothing to stop it. We are now aware that many of the perpetrators were under scrutiny by USA authorities; why were their visas not cancelled and ask them to leave the country if they did not have an 100% reason to be in the country. They were not landed immigrants; just there on student visas etc. Why did they try to point to Canada as a vehicle for them entering the USA?????

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

That still does not indicate culpability

You specifically asked for motive, not culpability. As far as motive goes, one must work backwards.

Iraq would likely not have been invaded if it were not for 9/11.

The impetus for armed action was based on 'direct or perceived threat' to the US.

The US gov't, specifically GW Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice and Cheney, receive 'carte blanche' from the American Public to attack anyone based on what threat they can perceive.

[Tawasakm]

Theloniusfleabag (you'll have to explain that name to me sometime),

You specifically asked for motive, not culpability.

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.

[MapleBear]

Theloniusfleabag (you'll have to explain that name to me sometime),

You specifically asked for motive, not culpability.

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.

[Tawasakm]

MapleBear,

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

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.

And they act guilty.

They acted like they were unprepared. That is not the same as being guilty.

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.

Still not reasonable to suppose they would take the risk considering the MASSIVE amount of scrutiny which would follow such an attack.

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.

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.

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.

If you can't prove it then don't assert it as fact but as opinion.

[Tawasakm]

Actually I'll quote some of it. I was hoping to avoid duplication but I somehow think you won't read it. This is from Krusty Kidd:

Posted: Jul 29 2004, 11:56 AM 

BTW, I wish one right-winger would justify Bush sitting in an elementary school like an dumb a** instead of taking charge?

Hi, welcome!

Not a Bush Bot but can probably add some light. See, Bush has aides and people all over himk thatdo their individual jobs. He has pilots waiting here and there, bodyguards, advisors, communications guys, the guy that carrries the 'foot ball', the guy that has his schedule, the guys that decide where he is to go in case this goes wrong and whatever else.

On that day, scince nobody knew exactly what was going on, where was he to go? Would you have preffered him to run out of the classroom and take charge by .............doing what? And doing that what where? Even nonw we know there was no clear place to go. Sure, while his guys figured out as much as they could, they got Airforce Once wound up and took the most powerful man in the free world (the guy with the nuclear football) to what his security people figured would be the safest place they could get him to in the shortest amount of time - remote airspace.

While they were getting their act together, what was he to do? Whip them? Whip the kids? Wring his hands and go 'Oh me, oh my?' No, he showedf remarkable steel and did what any good president wourld, carry on with the task at hand until it was time to act, then he allowed his people to do their jobs. I would expect that of every senior statesman.

To think that he should have flown to NYC or Washington is laughable, in time of war, when there is enemy activity and an unknown numer of them at work you do not take you most importent player and throw him in harms way unessesarily. Once you can access the threat and the action to be taken you can act, until then, you protect.

This is a further post of his from the same thread (Posted: Jul 30 2004, 01:23 AM)

This is where you fail to see what the situation is. Where would the President go to get properly briefed while in a school Ceasar? The washroom? Principals office? Remember, nobody except OBL knew what was going on so there was no place to get 'properly briefed' as there was no briefing to give as the situation was unfolding.

When this came up, his aides I am sure were on the situation trying to find out whatever could be found out. Bush, while waiting for them to get it down into intelligence that could be passed onto him did what he was supposed to have done, carry on like he was supposed to. Not freak out like you would have him.

I would assume that like the PM, Bush has a team of between ten to twsenty security agents guarding him. With the school already swept As well, his higher security people were probably at that time trying to figure out where they would best place Bush to safeguard him. During those minutes I am sure that the helecopter or whatever would have been started, as well as Air Force One would have been readied as well. 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.

During this time, with no briefing to get, no place to go, as the school was safer than any unknown place, what and where would you place the most powerful man in the free world? And other than carrying on with what he was doing at the time, what would you have him do?

Hope that makes things easier for you. Incidentally don't make the mistake of thinking that KK and I come from the same side of the political fence - because we don't. This is simply a rational argument which I find compelling.

[MapleBear]

MapleBear,

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

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.

And they act guilty.

They acted like they were unprepared. That is not the same as being guilty.

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.

Still not reasonable to suppose they would take the risk considering the MASSIVE amount of scrutiny which would follow such an attack.

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.

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.

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.

If you can't prove it then don't assert it as fact but as opinion.

They acted like they were unprepared. That is not the same as being guilty.

Unprepared = Surprised, and those people were not surprised.

Still not reasonable to suppose they would take the risk considering the MASSIVE amount of scrutiny which would follow such an attack.

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?

That first paragraph, again, is pure conjecture without benefit of evidence.

Have you been ignoring my posts? There's a mountain of evidence!

If you can't prove it then don't assert it as fact but as opinion.

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.

[Tawasakm]

MapleBear,

Have you been ignoring my posts? There's a mountain of evidence!

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.

[MapleBear]

MapleBear,

Have you been ignoring my posts? There's a mountain of evidence!

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.