Thank you sir. You answered my question as to how your mind works.

Try as I might though, I couldn't find the indisputable proof you boasted about, anywhere in your posting.

Not to be a pest, but can you provide a link to the indisputable proof?

Thanks in advance.

Any luck digging up the indisputable proof?

Still waiting here.
Thanks.


:smile2:

"here is indisputable proof of it"

Still waiting. Patiently. For the indisputable proof.
Waiting. Right here.
For the proof.
Waiting.


:confused:

Sparky,

Freethinker doesn't have time to find that indisputable proof right now. He is too busy repairing his tin foil hat. You know those hats have to be in perfect condition to keep the black helicopters from getting you.

Any luck digging up the indisputable proof?

Still waiting here.
Thanks.


:smile2:

Good thing yer able to still smile.
Butt the Irony lies in the simple fact,That FT wants to
urge indisputable proof,when,he himself,seldom IS
Indisputable.He craves Dispute.Always the certain one.
I mean,personally.
He always manages to pick a fight about somethin.

"here is indisputable proof of it"

Still waiting. Patiently. For the indisputable proof.
Waiting. Right here.
For the proof.
Waiting.


:confused:

OK. I just this minute visited this thread, and found your repeated calls "waiting for the proof", dishonestly making it seem as if I were refusing to present the links. But then, dishonesty seems to be your stock in trade, as we will see in a minute.

I will dig up the link. (Even though I have posted them here numerous times previously. Even though I will post them again, and after the work of locating them and posting them, my reward wil lbe that you and your ilk will -- head still firmly implanted in the sand-- will whine, -- "Aww so what, you commie pinko! Who cares that Bush and Cheney were presented intelligence briefs, who cares that they knew the terrorist's specific purpose was to crash airliners into landmarks in the U.S., who cares that Bush and Cheney knew the attacks were imminent, who cares if Bush and Cheney wanted an excuse to wage war! You america hater!"

But first I would like to point out to everyone here that you are a liar.

You quoted me as saying --""here is indisputable proof of it"".

You misrepresented what I said, by editing my post, and by (dishonestly) cutting the words, to attempt to portray me as saying something I did not say. Just so people know what sort of dishonest person you are.

Not to be a pest, but can you provide a link to the indisputable proof?


Cheney and his cronies were presented intelligence briefs (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_(_dick_)_cheney) with specific evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the U.S., (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=training+fly&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go) and that he knew their specific purpose was to drive airliners into some well known, iconic landmark in the U.S., (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a101500oneillwarns#a101500oneillw arns) the Pentagon, and the White House/Capitol dome, that they knew it was going to happen within the near future (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090601rushdiecia#a090601rushdiec ia), in a very narrow time frame, and they sat back and allowed all those people to die, so they would have an excuse to wage war (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0900paxamericana#a0900paxamerica na), all in order to make their oil-rich friends even richer.

There are your links. They are all based on documented facts.

Kindly insert them into your anus. Sideways.

G.W. Bush Administration was alerted by many foreign intelligence services. (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtowarnus)

Bush and Cheney had planned to attack Iraq from day one, when they first took office. They needed an excuse. 9/11 provided that excuse. (http://www.counterpunch.org/dixon05082004.html)

9/11 report from the Joint Intelligence Committee investigation, with a reproduction of the FBI's memo, which details the fact that warnings about Islamic terrorists training at US flight schools went unheeded by the Bush Administration. (http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/phoenix-memo/)

None of the links I have provided in the past 4 posts are based on opinion, assumption or innuendo. They are based on documented fact.

I do not assert that the following link *proves* anything.

But it does provide 3 major points --made within the book *Crossing The Rubicon*-- strongly questioning Dick Cheney's involvement (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/314739.shtml) in 9/11.

The Bush Administration received hard evidence from its top intelligence officials between April and September of 2001 about terrorist intentions to use jetliners as bombs. (http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/48/17356)

FT, you are a fucking Fruit Loop...Period.

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w92/TurdFerguson_album/toucan_sam.jpg

Links to blogs and leftist anti-Bush (and anti-establishment) sites? That is proof?

Come on FT, get real.

I understand that you hate Bush and ALL conservatives. I think you hate just about everyone in a position of power... no matter what their political "philosophy"... with the exception of maybe Chavez and Castro. That's cool by me... I wish you could go join your "comrades" myself, and see what a wonderful life you would have there.

I hope you don't have as much hatred and vitriol in your real life as you express on these forums. If so, I really do feel sorry for you (and everyone around you).

FT, you are a fucking Fruit Loop...Period.

Translation;

"I have nothing in the way of a refutation for the evidence you have presented, so I will simply say, -- Aww so what, you commie pinko! Who cares that Bush and Cheney were presented intelligence briefs, who cares that they knew the terrorist's specific purpose was to crash airliners into landmarks in the U.S., who cares that Bush and Cheney knew the attacks were imminent, who cares if Bush and Cheney wanted an excuse to wage war! You america hater!"

As predicted.

Links to blogs and leftist anti-Bush (and anti-establishment) sites? That is proof?

Come on FT, get real.

None of the first four posts containing the links which Sparky asked for were links to a blog.

The fact that the sites are "leftist" or "anti-Bush" has absolutely nothing to do with the factual evidence they convey.

Here is an example of one of the links, (proving exactly what I said) and the voluminous evidence it points to;

The link --------

....specific evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the U.S. ... (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=training+fly&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go)

On that page --- http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a071001williams#a071001williams

Text from that link ---

July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning that Unusual Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona.

[Source: FBI] Phoenix, Arizona, FBI agent Ken Williams sends a memorandum warning about suspicious activities involving a group of Middle Eastern men taking flight training lessons in Arizona. (note that the FBI is the source. Not a blog. Not a "leftist, Bush hating site) The memo is titled: “Zakaria Mustapha Soubra; IT-OTHER (Islamic Army of the Caucasus),” because it focuses on Zakaria Soubra, a Lebanese flight student in Prescott, Arizona, and his connection with a terror group in Chechnya that has ties to al-Qaeda. It is subtitled: “Osama bin Laden and Al-Muhjiroun supporters attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona.” [Fortune, 5/22/2002; Arizona Republic, 7/24/2003]

Williams’ memo is based on an investigation of Sorba that Williams had begun in 2000 (see April 2000), but he had trouble pursuing because of the low priority the Arizona FBI office gave terror investigations (see April 2000-June 2001). Additionally, Williams had been alerted to suspicions about radical militants and aircraft at least three other times (see October 1996; 1998; November 1999-August 2001). In the memo, Williams does the following:
Names nine other suspect students from Pakistan, India, Kenya, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002] Hijacker Hani Hanjour, attending flight school in Arizona in early 2001 and probably continuing into the summer of 2001 (see Summer 2001), is not one of the students, but, as explained below, it seems two of the students know him. [US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ; Washington Post, 7/25/2003]
Notes that he interviewed some of these students, and heard some of them make hostile comments about the US. Additionally, he noticed that they were suspiciously well informed about security measures at US airports. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]
Notes an increasing, “inordinate number of individuals of investigative interest” taking flight lessons in Arizona. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ]
Suspects that some of the ten people he has investigated are connected to al-Qaeda. [US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] (note that the US Congress is the source. Not a blog. Not a "leftist", "Bush hating" site) One person on the list, Ghassan al Sharbi, will be arrested in Pakistan in March 2002 with al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida (see March 28, 2002). Al Sharbi attended a flight school in Prescott, Arizona. He also apparently attended the training camps in Afghanistan and swore loyalty to bin Laden in the summer of 2001. He apparently knows Hani Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). He also is the roommate of Soubra, the main target of the memo. [Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 521] (note that the 9/11 Commission is the source. Not a blog. Not a "leftist, Bush hating site)
Discovers that one of them was communicating through an intermediary with Abu Zubaida. This apparently is a reference to Hamed al Sulami, who had been telephoning a Saudi imam known to be Zubaida’s spiritual advisor. Al Sulami is an acquaintance of Hanjour in Arizona (see October 1996-Late April 1999). [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 520-521, 529]
Discusses connections between several of the students and a radical group called Al-Muhajiroun. [Mercury News (San Jose), 5/23/2002] This group supported bin Laden, and issued a fatwa, or call to arms, that included airports on a list of acceptable terror targets. [Associated Press, 5/22/2002] Soubra, the main focus of the memo, is a member of Al-Muhajiroun and an outspoken radical. He met with the leader of Al-Muhajiroun in Britain and started an Arizona chapter of the organization. After 9/11, some US officials will suspect that Soubra has ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. He will be held two years, then deported to Lebanon in 2004. [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/2001; Los Angeles Times, 1/24/2003; Arizona Republic, 5/2/2004; Arizona Monthly, 11/2004] Though Williams doesn’t include it in his memo, in the summer of 1998 the leader of Al-Muhajiroun publicized a fax sent by bin Laden to him that listed al-Qaeda’s four objectives in fighting the US. The first objective was “bring down their airliners.” (see Summer 1998). [Los Angeles Times, 10/28/2001]
Warns of a possible “effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to the US to attend civil aviation universities and colleges” [Fortune, 5/22/2002] , so they can later hijack aircraft. [Die Zeit (Hamburg), 10/1/2002]
Recommends that the “FBI should accumulate a listing of civil aviation universities and colleges around the country. FBI field offices with these types of schools in their area should establish appropriate liaison. FBI [headquarters] should discuss this matter with other elements of the US intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix’s suspicions.” [Arizona Republic, 7/24/2003] (The FBI has already done this, but because of poor FBI communications, Williams is not aware of the report.)
Recommends that the FBI ask the State Department to provide visa data on flight school students from Middle Eastern countries, which will facilitate FBI tracking efforts. [New York Times, 5/4/2002]
The memo is addressed to the following FBI Agents:
Dave Frasca, chief of the Radical Fundamentalist Unit (RFU) at FBI headquarters;
Elizabeth Harvey Matson, Mark Connor and Fred Stremmel, Intelligence Operations Specialists in the RFU;
Rod Middleton, acting chief of the Usama bin Laden Unit (UBLU);
Jennifer Maitner, an Intelligence Operations Specialist in the UBLU;
Jack Cloonan, an agent on the New York FBI’s bin Laden unit, the I-49 squad;
Michael S. Butsch, an agent on another New York FBI squad dealing with other Sunni terrorists. [Federal Bureau of Investigation, 7/10/2001 ; US Congress, 7/24/2003, pp. 135 ] (note that the US Congress is the source here. Along with the FBI itself. Not a blog. Not a "leftist", "Bush hating" site)


Note that these are all documented facts, supporting that there was credible evidence of a threat from Arabs with terrorist ties training inside the US to fly airplanes.

That is one example.

The other links provide the same sort of documented facts, substantiating what I wrote. Yet you and the other ostriches will seemingly do anything in your power to ignore and deny these facts.

As predicted, you seem to be steadfastly refusing to examine anything that might shatter your beliefs about what happened on 9/11 and who might have had a hand in it.

Cheney and his cronies were presented intelligence briefs (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_(_dick_)_cheney) with specific evidence of a credible threat from the Saudi pilot trainees somewhere in the U.S., (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=training+fly&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go) and that he knew their specific purpose was to drive airliners into some well known, iconic landmark in the U.S., (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a101500oneillwarns#a101500oneillw arns) the Pentagon, and the White House/Capitol dome, that they knew it was going to happen within the near future (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a090601rushdiecia#a090601rushdiec ia), in a very narrow time frame, and they sat back and allowed all those people to die, so they would have an excuse to wage war (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a0900paxamericana#a0900paxamerica na), all in order to make their oil-rich friends even richer.
Good job FT. I also liked the other links too. Good info.

PS: I'd like to see Sparky actaully debate those websites, after reading them carefully. :)

:::gets pop-corn:::

Wow! Overdose agrees with Freethinker. What a surprise.

I guess we can all grab our hats and go home now, the two deepest and most evenhanded thinkers in Allforums have joined forces.

Both Freethinker and Overdose are overly quick to believe the worst about the Bush administration in particular and Republicans in general. They accept every accusation as fact and refuse to admit that most of what they put forward is simply partisan bs. All we need now is for Dharmabum to join the two of them. That will complete the circle.

Freethinker,

I can accept that you hate your Government and the current President, but I bristle at your angry allegations of my ‘dishonesty’, and ‘lying’.

I posted in a polite and genuinely-interested fashion, requesting clarification. You provided clarification, and alluded to some irrefutable proof. I waited a while, and requested the proof. I waited another few days, and reiterated my request for the proof.
At no time did I cut and paste in a manner that would alter the appearance of your intent.

My posting "here is indisputable proof of it", instead of "there is indisputable proof of it" was an honest mistake. Your calling me a liar and then requesting that I stick the ‘proof’ you provided up my anus sideways was totally uncalled for, and was unusually mean-spirited, sir. Even for you.


All that said, I read carefully each and every article from the links provided.
Each and every one.

Now, before I offer my critique of the ‘proof’ you provided, let’s examine the source of this proof:

From the Cooperative Research website ‘about’ page:
Who creates the content? "Anyone who registers on the website and becomes a member of a timeline project can submit content. Membership is free. Once a user becomes a member, s/he can edit existing event summaries by clicking the edit link that is next to that event (the user must be logged in to see the edit link). In addition to editing existing events, users can also add new ones to the database. Registered users who add content are called “contributors.” Since the project is still beta, and since we do not have enough editors at this time, membership is restricted to a relatively small group of users."
Who edits the content?
"Any qualified individual—an experienced contributor, professional editor, academic, journalist, graduate student, etc.—can become a content editor. Content editors, like all users, are volunteers. They verify the accuracy of entries submitted by contributors. Content editors may reject, approve, or edit and approve, submissions. After approving an entry, the entry is then copy edited."

Who copy edits? "Volunteers."

What is the purpose and significance of this website? "To provide a means for members of civil society to monitor the activities of powerful entities, such as governments, large corporations, and wealthy and influential individuals."

Even the Cooperative Research folks were careful to post a disclaimer about one of the articles you sited:
They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11
By Paul Thompson
DISCLAIMER: The analytical articles published on this website were written and published by “project managers” of certain investigative projects hosted by the Cooperative Research website. Therefore, any views, conclusions, or opinions expressed in this or any other article should not be attributed to Cooperative Research. For questions concerning an article, please contact the author(s) directly.

As far as your other two sources, I personally have no problem with Truth Out.com , but while I wouldn’t categorize it as a leftist-blog, the Memory Hole is certainly a hotbed of anti-Government suspicion and paranoia.

To quote from their ‘about’ page:
“The Memory Hole exists to preserve and spread material that is in danger of being lost, is hard to find, or is not widely known. This includes:
Government files, Corporate memos, Court documents (incl. lawsuits and transcripts),
Police reports and eyewitness statements, Congressional testimony, Reports (governmental and non-governmental), Maps, patents, Web pages, Photographs, video, and sound recordings, News articles, Books (and portions of books)
The emphasis is on material that exposes things that we're not supposed to know (or that we're supposed to forget).”

Real nice.

Bottom line, Freethinker?
You haven’t provided proof that Cheney knew of the 911 attacks before hand, and that he sat back grinning while it all went down, (knowing that his oil-rich friends were about to get richer).

You have provided links that document a litany of mishandled investigations, reports of said investigations being passed from bureaucratic agents of one Government organization to another, and a healthy dose of speculation and spurious allegations.
Offered by gentlemen with an agenda (discrediting the US Government, the President, and his staff).

Were Bush and Cheney provided intelligence reports documenting a credible threat from Al Qaeda, one that involved middle-eastern men training at US flight schools, for some not-so-clearly defined purposes? Yes.

Did Bush and Cheney know for an absolute fact that these middle-eastern men were going to hijack US airliners with box cutters during the latter half of September 2001, and drive those airliners into buildings in New York city and Washington D.C.?

I say no, and you say yes.

I say no, because you’ve provided not one iota of proof, sir.

You say yes, because you want it so badly to be true that it’s become true, for you.

:woohoo:

[QUOTE=Sparky2]Bottom line, Freethinker?
You haven’t provided proof that Cheney knew of the 911 attacks before hand, and that he sat back grinning while it all went down, (knowing that his oil-rich friends were about to get richer).

You have provided links that document a litany of mishandled investigations, reports of said investigations being passed from bureaucratic agents of one Government organization to another, and a healthy dose of speculation and spurious allegations.
Offered by gentlemen with an agenda (discrediting the US Government, the President, and his staff).

Were Bush and Cheney provided intelligence reports documenting a credible threat from Al Qaeda, one that involved middle-eastern men training at US flight schools, for some not-so-clearly defined purposes? Yes.

Did Bush and Cheney know for an absolute fact that these middle-eastern men were going to hijack US airliners with box cutters during the latter half of September 2001, and drive those airliners into buildings in New York city and Washington D.C.?
*******************************
--- Able Danger --- would be that gem in the rough,yer lookin fer.!


And Clinton did everything in his power,even after he left office
to quash that dire report.Clinton and Berger went out of their way
to cover-up the - Able Danger - report.
For obvious reasons.It was Proof Positive that Clinton was
obsessed over his Popularity and not one whit interersted in truly
making America safe.
Probably why Slick Willy laughed like a hyena when first told about
Berger stuffin classified documents in his pants out of a secured
archive.
That's Liberals answer to everything.When they're caught red-handed,
just laugh it off.

Wow! Frogger disagrees with Freethinker. What a surprise.

Frogger and his right-wing ilk are overly quick to disbelieve the worst about the Bush administration in particular and Republicans in general. They accept every lie/excuse/lame rationale as fact and refuse to admit that most of what they put forward is simply partisan bs.

:thumbs:

Fellows,

Please don't make this about Liberals, or about attacking freethinker for his opinions.

I simply asked for some proof of the allegations, some web-based information was offered, and I saw no proof in it.
Period.

I simply asked for some proof of the allegations, some web-based information was offered, and I saw no proof in it.

Translation;

"Even though a great deal of the substantiating evidence came directly from the FBI, from the 9/11 Comission and from the US Congress, I "saw no proof in it", which in other words means--""Aww so what! Who cares that Bush and Cheney were presented intelligence briefs, who cares that they knew the terrorist's specific purpose was to crash airliners into landmarks in the U.S., who cares that Bush and Cheney knew the attacks were imminent, who cares if Bush and Cheney wanted an excuse to wage war!"--

As predicted, 3 out of 3 so far have kept their heads firmly buried in the sand and denied the evidence --documented evidence from dozens of reputable sources including the FBI itself-- that is staring them in the face. Typical.

"...I saw no proof in it."

This seems to be the new Republican Mantra.

:@@:

To quote from their (The Memory Hole) ‘about’ page:
“The Memory Hole exists to preserve and spread material that is in danger of being lost, is hard to find, or is not widely known. This includes:
Government files, Corporate memos, Court documents (incl. lawsuits and transcripts),
Police reports and eyewitness statements, Congressional testimony, Reports (governmental and non-governmental), Maps, patents, Web pages, Photographs, video, and sound recordings, News articles, Books (and portions of books)

Yes, those darned unreliable Government files, Corporate memos, Court documents, Police reports, Congressional testimonies, Governmental reports, videos, Photographs and sound recordings.

:rolleyes:

After all, everyone knows that what evil leftwing liars those damned FBI reports, US Congress minutes, 9/11 Commission findings, videos, photographs and sound recordings are. </sarcasm>

Easier for some to believe that the thousands of pieces of evidence that point to countless discrepancies in the official 9/11 story were all fabrications and lies, than to entertain the possibility that your saintly leaders did something unsavory, I guess.

It's truly a gift, the way you can completely block out anything that contradicts your worldview and the fact of the involvement of highly placed officials in the Bush Administration in 9/11. Talk about cognitive dissonance. You are the fucking poster child.



The emphasis (at the Memory Hole website) is on material that exposes things that we're not supposed to know (or that we're supposed to forget).” Real nice.

Yes.......what evil pinko fiends they are for daring to expose the masses to information we the People were *not supposed to know*.

I'm done with you, you wiillfully blind little toady

You whine incessantly for the links that prove what I said.

I give you the goddamned links. Many of them.

Documented evidence from FBI files, Congressional testimony, court documents, newspaper articles relating sworn testimony, Governmental Commission's findings, News reports and books.

I predict that you will read the links (if you even read more than a dozen words there after you clicked on them, which I doubt) only to then begin screeching --" Lalalalalalala, I can't hear you".

It all goes down as predicted.

You are not worth my time. Or anyone else's.

Wrong, sir.

I spent two hours reading all of the evidence that your links offered.
I gave it a fair shake.

Listen, you seem to forget that I'm not a Republican, nor are all of my views generally 'conservative'.

If it brings you comfort in the grand scheme of things to hang offensive and polarizing labels on other people, then by all means do so.
But leave me out of it, because I won't sit back and allow you to do it to me.

Back to the point, and see if you can hang with me here;

FT crowed that there was undeniable proof that Cheney and company knew of the impending 911 attacks, that he wanted them to happen, and that he (and the rest of the administration) sat back and purposely allowed thousands of innocent people to die, all so they could enter into an illegal war for oil, all to make their oil-rich friends even richer.

I asked for that proof.

What he offered (packaged in a preposterously large body of spurious and partisan speculations) was a handful of thin facts related in some manner to the allegations, but nothing that came even close to 'proving' the outlandish allegations.

I can and will concede; intelligence was offered to the White House, the staff, and to various members of Congress that there was an Al Qaeda plot afoot that involved midde-eastern terrorists training in American flight schools.

And is it a horrible tragedy that they failed to connect the dots in time to have prevented the attacks? Yes.
Was there a miserable failure on the part of the Government and on the part of the US intelligence community that they didn't act in concert, and more aggressively pursue the evidence they had sitting right there in front of their eyes? HELL yes.

But NOBODY has provided a shred of proof that Cheney and company knew about the specific plots, and wanted the terrorist to succeed so that they could start a war and make their rich cronies even richer.

Just admit it;
you want this to be true, and therefore it has become true, for you.

Good job FT. I also liked the other links too. Good info.

PS: I'd like to see Sparky actaully debate those websites, after reading them carefully.

Never hold your breath waiting for a rightwing assclown to actually debate you on the facts, after they have whined about wanting links.

It will not happen. They cannot do it. They simply scan the voluminous evidence, and summarily dump it all into their --"Aww, it's all just a bunch of evil leftist's who hate Bush!!" -- trashbin of willful ignorance.

Forget about the fact that much of the evidence is irrefutable, and is not even being disputed by the very people whose activities it is exposing; for the true rightwing ostrich, if it casts their saintly Rightwing politico in anything less than a heroic light, it just "has to be" a lie.

_________________________________

Good Bushies are unburdened by the truth or adherance to reason. They are free to pursue their policies -- that is, their politics --unclouded by remorse, anguish, second thoughts, private doubt, or relevant personal experience. What splendid Spartans lead us! What Karls! What Dicks!

And I won't rise to your bait, sir.

Casting dispersions on my ability to read and comprehend your evidence, and making allegations that I didn't even bother to read the evidence, is a shabby and hateful tactic on your part.

I've been polite, patient, and more than cordial to you.
Nothing you can do will cause me to lower myself to your level, and to spew hateful and inflammatory remarks your way.

I'm just asking you not to lump me with the 'blindly-obedient neo-cons', OK?
Because that's neither fair, nor is it accurate.

That is all, sir.
Enjoy your Sunday.
I am off to the cinema with my wife.

How about this for an AllForums rule-of-thumb:
If your "source" asks for a donation you should fully expect and readily accept some challenges to its credibility.

Enjoy your Sunday.
I am off to the cinema with my wife.

I highly recommend you go see Sicko. It is a great movie.

Have a great day!

:thumbs:

How about this for an AllForums rule-of-thumb:
If your "source" asks for a donation you should fully expect and readily accept some challenges to its credibility.You mean like this one?

https://www.mediaresearch.org/secure/mediaresearch/welcome.asp :)

Seriously, Brooks, a site that doesn't ask for donations is probably on someone's payroll.

1. You mean like this one?
2. Seriously, Brooks, a site that doesn't ask for donations is probably on someone's payroll.1. Yes.

2. Could be, but only organizations that validate someone's extreme opinions would be llikely to survive on donations alone.
A site that doesn't need donations may be slanted, but the ones that subsist on donations almost certainly are.

How about this for an AllForums rule-of-thumb:
If your "source" asks for a donation you should fully expect and readily accept some challenges to its credibility.

I have no problem with people *challenging the credibility* of sites.

If someone wants to *challenge their credibility*, then motherfucking go for it!.

But it is in no way a "challenge to their credibility* to simply spew --""Aw, them sites are all just blogs and leftist sites and Bush-hating sites! They're making it up!!"

To those ostriches who deny the credibility of the links in question, tell me WHY the FBI reports are to be considered falsified. Tel me WHY you think that the FBI agents were lying, and who the agents were who you think lied about the terrorists training to fly planes. Give me evidence in refutation that proved the FBI reports were false, or that the claims that certain people were given intelligence briefings were not actually given those briefings.

To those who deny the credibility of the links in question, tell me WHY the 9/11 Commission findings are all wrong, and were the work of subversive leftists who 'hate Gee W.' Give me some evidence that backs up such a counter-claim. Tell me who on the 9/11 Commission, appointed by Bush himself, was so filled with hate that they falsified the data contained therein.


To those who deny the credibility of the links in question, tell me WHY the minutes of the Congressional hearings are to be considered unworthy of examination. When you claim --""It's all lies, it's all just a bunch of evil leftwing subversives out to get Bush""--, then give me the evidence in refutation that proved that these evil leftwing subversives edited the minutes of Congress to portray something different than what the websites are reporting that were in the minutes of Congress, or in the reports of the 9/11 Committee.

To those who deny the credibility of the links in question, tell me WHY the writings, the white papers, of the PNAC do not really exist. Papers that in no uncertain terms state the desire of the signatories, including Cheney, to wage a preemptive war on Iraq. Papers that in no uncertain terms state that a catastrophic "New Pearl Harbor" type attack would have to happen to incite the American public into such a war. These papers are distributed all over the internet. Those who deny that these papers say what they say, those who deny that Cheney and Feith and Wolfowitz and the many other members of the Bush administration who SIGNED these papers are --de facto-- asserting that these papers that are presented as PNAC papers are falsified; or that they do not really exist, or they do not say what they say, or that they were never written. Tell me WHY Cheney and Feith and Wolfowitz and Perle and Kristol themsleves freely admit that the papers exist, if you are insinuating that they do not.

Free - I never addressed the content of your post. I'm just making the point that if the website is obscure and one sided and subsists on donations, then people will be appropriately skeptical.

FT,

In your blind anger, and in an uncharacteristically knee-jerk fashion, you have shown your willingness to throw the baby out with the bath water.

I am telling you with all honesty that I read all the documents that your links led me to. And I was looking for the irrefutable evidence that you alluded to. I really was.

I thought to myself, “Listen, George Bush’s has made a mess of things in the execution of this war, and in the winning of the peace. Maybe there is something to be learned from all this anti-Bush/Cheney hate-mongering, and maybe Freethinker really has provided the smoking gun! I owe it to myself to read and study the evidence.”

To your points:

1. I don’t question the credibility of the FBI reports provided, and I don’t consider them falsified. I truly believe that they reported that terrorists were training to fly planes. I think that every key leader in the US Government was given intelligence briefings wherein the terrorist plot to train pilots was likely very clear. But the FBI report details very sketchy information, contained no timelines, and it didn’t detail exactly what the terrorists might be planning to do. Other than to ‘infiltrate our aviation’ community in some fashion.

In other words, somebody dropping the ball and screwing the pooch is NOT the same thing as certain knowledge of the plot to fly airliners into buildings, and sitting back and allowing it to happen.

2. I do not claim that the 9/11 Commission findings are all wrong, and were the work of subversive leftists who 'hate Gee W.' That’s a hateful assumption on your part.

3. I don’t think that the minutes of the Congressional hearings are to be considered unworthy of examination. I just don’t read anything in the Congressional record that leads me to believe that our leaders had certain knowledge of the plot to fly airliners into buildings, and that they sat back and allowed it to happen.

4. I do not deny that the PNAC really exists, but to be honest I have never even heard of them before this day. And now that I have studied their website a bit, I can conclude that their aims are very much contrary to your core values. They strike me as right-wing whackos. But I have seen no white paper or document that states in no uncertain terms the desire of the signatories, including Cheney, to wage a preemptive war on Iraq. One paper written long ago definitely states that a catastrophic "New Pearl Harbor type attack would have to happen to incite the American public into such a war”. But it is a bold and arrogant assumption, and a leap of logic, to infer that this was the fervent hopes and desires of these right-wing goofballs.

Brother, you want for this ‘conspiracy to pull the US into war’ story to be true, and therefore it has become true for you, and for several hundreds of other fellows who feel the way you do.

But you only damage your credibility by calling everybody who doesn’t believe the way you do, ‘right-wing asshats’. It makes you look foolish, and more than a bit unbalanced, in my professional opinion. And it REALLY hurts your credibility when you offer up ‘undeniable proof’ of something that simply turns out to be speculations, assumptions, and incredible stretches of logic.

I asked for you to bring on the beef, and you served up veggie burgers.
Just admit it, and let’s drop the angry façade.
Nobody believes that you are really this hateful and unhinged anyway.
Nobody could be as angry and as negative as you portray yourself to be.

Just admit you screwed up this time, and we can all get past this, ok?
There’s no embarrassment in admitting you were wrong.

Friends?

Once again we hear the conservative mantra... "I see no proof in it..."

Stop being an instigator, DH.

It makes you look like a trouble-making busybody. And a jerk.

I'm not a 'conservative', and nothing I offered Freethinker was anybody's mantra. It was my own thoughts, opinions, and advice, based upon some heartfelt research and contemplation.

If it's convenient for you to pigeon-hole people into convenient, polarizing categories, lets just make it simple;

We are all either hateful jackasses looking to pick a fight, or we are thoughtful, contemplative independent people, each with our own minds and opinions.

Which one are you, young sir?

:)

[QUOTE=Freethinker]I have no problem with people *challenging the credibility* of sites.

If someone wants to *challenge their credibility*, then motherfucking go for it!.

But it is in no way a "challenge to their credibility* to simply spew --""Aw, them sites are all just blogs and leftist sites and Bush-hating sites! They're making it up!!"

To those ostriches who deny the credibility of the links in question, tell me WHY the FBI reports are to be considered falsified. Tel me WHY you think that the FBI agents were lying, and who the agents were who you think lied about the terrorists training to fly planes. Give me evidence in refutation that proved the FBI reports were false, or that the claims that certain people were given intelligence briefings were not actually given those briefings.

To those who deny the credibility of the links in question, tell me WHY the 9/11 Commission findings are all wrong,
*************************************************
That Commission Totally Dismissed - Able Danger - as if it was a mere
afterthought of Mores & Manners.

And - Air America - is an example of Liberal credibility REJECTED by
the populace.I don't care if they got Mark Green { former crossfire
liberal} and also New York Political advocate to run Propaganda.

Stop being an instigator, DH.

It makes you look like a trouble-making instigator.

Who is "DH"?

If you are talking to me, then you are barking up the wrong tree.

I am merely pointing out a pattern I have noticed lately.

Do I not have the right to express myself?

:)

Of course you do, and please, by all mean express yourself.

But do not presume to pigeonhole me into the category of 'conservative', and then dismiss me in such a cavalier and rude fashion.

It makes you look small, narrow-minded, and foolish.
In my opinion.


There's a difference between 'evidence', 'proof', and 'conjecture'.
Agree or disagree?

Matthews is supposed to be a nominally neutral media journalist. Coulter, on the other hand, is an avowed right-wing pundit.

So how does Matthews propose to keep up at least a front of neutrality if he chooses to take an advocacy position vis-a-vis Ms. Coulter?

I give Coulter the same attention I give Huffington. None at all.

Matthews is supposed to be a nominally neutral media journalist. Coulter, on the other hand, is an avowed right-wing pundit.

So how does Matthews propose to keep up at least a front of neutrality if he chooses to take an advocacy position vis-a-vis Ms. Coulter?
*********************************************
Matthews doesn't even for a second,try and keep up appearances
of ANY neutrality.He's a rabid Bush/Cheney HATER.
Anyone with a passing interest in any of his - HARDBALL's - knows
this.He may not be as rabid as Keith the Kook Oberman,but that's
like askin the devil,whose worse... Hitler or Stalin.
And where is it written Matthews HAS to have Nominal neutrality.?
He doesn't and probably never will.

Sometimes you Posters,are as thick as a juicy piece of
raw shoe leather,done up Medium or Pinkish.

He's a rabid Bush/Cheney HATER.
I know this isn't strictly relevant...but who isn't?

It makes you look small, narrow-minded, and foolish.
In my opinion.


What's with all the name calling from you tonight?

You usual smug, condesending, Alberto Gonzales-ish attitude is bad enough.

This makes you look petty, childish and above all hypocritical.
In my opinion.

:thumbs:

There's a difference between 'evidence', 'proof', and 'conjecture'.

Agree or disagree?

[QUOTE=Sparky2]FT,

In your blind anger, and in an uncharacteristically knee-jerk fashion, you have shown your willingness to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Oh Me Oh My...such Prose.
I wonder if yer getting compensation by the word,sentence or
paragraph.Maybe by the page.
Say...you do use a page,I assume.
Maybe a muse mite bee bitter.
Maybe s'not dough.

Once again we hear the conservative mantra... "I see no proof in it..."

A mantra used to give a semblance of reality to the liberal mantra, "I want it to be like that so I will say it is even though I have no facts to back up my contention."

A mantra used to deny any evidence provided is more accurate.

.

FT, your proof is pretty much worthless if any old jackoff can post on the timeline for free. Hell you probably wrote the "proof" LOL

Dharmabum,
There's a difference between 'evidence', 'proof', and 'conjecture'.

Agree or disagree?

Because what I read in all those pages of material was plenty of evidence of Government bureaucracy mishandling the investigations into the Al Qaeda plots, and Government bureaucracy impeding the timely transmission and handling of the crucial though sketchy intelligence.

What I also read in all those pages of material was plenty of armchair quarterbacking and conjecture over what Cheney and Bush might have known, and what their motives might have been.

And I read not one iota of proof regarding Freethinker’s original allegations.

And if you honestly read through all the same material, I am quite sure you would agree with the observations above.

But since you seem to revel in promoting conflict, and enjoy being an instigator and agitator, you will likely not:

a. read the material that Freethinker provided
nor will you
b. admit those simple truths regarding the lack of proof contained therein.


I get it. It's just how you roll, brother.

And I know this is a difficult concept for you, Dharmabum.
It would require you to flex your mental muscles beyond the tired routine of stirring up the shit with the tired rhetoric of ‘liberals versus conservatives’ and ‘atheists versus Christians’.

This would require some independent thought.
It would require you to make a stand, and declare that you have your own mind.
So I won’t challenge you to make that leap right now, young sir.

Anybody else?
I challenge you:

Go into all the links that Freethinker provided.
Read each and every word (as did I) contained therein.
Digest the information, and render your thoughtful and objective opinion:

Did he provide proof that Cheney and Bush knew about the 911 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon beforehand, sat on their hands with smug satisfaction, and allowed it all to happen so that they could enter into an illegal war and make all their oil-rich friends even richer?

Or was it all a matter of conjecture and angry, anti-Government wishful thinking?

:confused:

Cheney and his cronies were presented intelligence briefs (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=richard_(_dick_)_cheney) with specific evidence of a credible threat (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=training+fly&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go) ........

It has been claimed here that I had not proved a single thing that I stated. The above is a direct quote of the first sentence of what I stated.

Here (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a041901multipleops#a041901multipl eops) is an excerpt from what I provided (linked to) in attempting to *prove* --specifically-- that Dick Cheney and others in the Administration were presented intelligence with specific evidence of a credible threat from terrorists.

I challenge anyone here to read the following, and then deny that it does not prove that Dick Cheney and others in the Administration were presented intelligence with specific evidence of a credible threat from terrorists.

(I will place certain portions in red text, for those so completely in denial that they cannot locate the pertinent infomation contained within. It should be noted that if blindness is the problem, even the red text will be of no help.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

April 19-20, 2001: Bush Warned ‘Bin Laden Planning Multiple Operations’


On April 19, 2001, the interagency Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG) chaired by counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke discusses recent reports that al-Qaeda leader Abu Zubaida is planning an attack. The next day, a Senior Executive Intelligence Brief (SEIB) with the title “Bin Laden Planning Multiple Operations” is sent to top White House officials. The New York Times will later report that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were among those who received this warning. Since SEIBs are usually based on previous days’ President Daily Briefings, President Bush probably learned about this report on April 19 (see January 20-September 10, 2001).

[sources listed; New York Times, 4/18/2004; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 255; US District Court of Eastern Virginia, 5/4/2006, pp. 2 ]

Sound more like a general warning than a specific threat. It's not as if, from this reading, one would know where to hang the net.

Agreed, Shilohproject.

And as I've stated earlier, I can concede to the first part of Freethinker's statement below:

Originally Posted by Freethinker
But I do believe that a small cadre of people in the Bush Administration --Cheney being the primary one-- knew, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that a small group of primarily Saudi Arabian muslim extremists were training to fly airliners. Not only do **I believe** it, there is indisputable proof that this info was in the hands of the Government.

And I do believe that they knew this group was intent on hijacking said airliners, (and not only do **I believe** it, there is indisputable proof that this info was in the hands of the Government) driving them into the twin towers, the Pentagon, the White House, and/or the Capital Dome, and that they sat back on their haunches and smiled with satisfaction as it all unfolded.

.... but not the second part. All those links and all those articles provide plenty of evidence that the US leadership was aware that some sort of plot was in the works involving flight training by middle eastern men.

But not one iota of proof that that Bush and Cheney knew of the specific intent of those middle eastern men, let alone that they sat back on their haunches and let it happen. (Allowing thousands to perish on 911, all in order to propel this nation into an illegal war for oil money, etc etc.) It's just not there.

Speculations, inferences, and angry wishful thinking are not proof.
No matter how badly someone wants it to be true.

Speculations, inferences, and angry wishful thinking are not proof.
No matter how badly someone wants it to be true.
That's it in a nutshell.

That's it in a nutshell.

The links I provided show irrefutable proof that Dick Cheney and others in the Administration were presented intelligence briefs containing specific evidence of a credible threat from terrorists.

Not just one or two links, but numerous links, all pointing to the same facts.

Facts that have nothing to do with speculations, inferences, or wishful thinking. Just hard cold facts. Meetings. Briefings. Dates. CIA testimony. The finding of the 9/11 Commission. Specific people attending meetings. Specific intelligence being disseminated. Specific agendas (such as the agenda of the PNAC) being put down in black and white and signed by numerous highly placed politicians in the B*sh Administration, detailing their urgings to political leaders to move militarily against Iraq.

But I am tired of trying to breathe life into a dead horse.

I give up.

I made a factual statement. I provided evidence --voluminous evidence-- that proves what I said happened happened.

I fucking give up.

Keep telling yourselves that all the FBI agents testimony was lies, the 9/11 commission was making it all up, the countless news articles recounting innumerable events involving Cheney, B*sh, Wolfowitz and others were nothing but falsifications, the intelligence briefings never happened and the minutes of Congress were all lies and fabrications. Keep telling yourselves that all of it was concoted out of whole cloth for no other reason than everyone involved "hates B*sh" and is conspiring to bring him down. Keep on believing it. Knock yourself out.

I give up.

I give up.
Good.

You are absolutely right, of course, FT, but as John Dean pointed out in Conservatives without Conscience, there are some people who literally NEED a strong father figure for a leader and they will support anyone they see that way, no matter what. They will ignore, excuse and dither over any evidence you present. You cannot reason with those people and it is a waste of time and energy trying.

Polly wanna a cracker?