Ahh, altho' Bush and his family has quite a bit of questionable connections with some rich Saudis, I think you're going to have to do just as much to prove any connection with 9-11 and other related activities as well, dude. Those are pretty serious charges there, even the one about 'letting 9-11 happen'. Again, where is exhibit A, B, and C please? And no, Micheal Moore hasn't provided proof either, just some very good questions to ask in his flick, and that is as far as it goes.
Actually I think Michael Moore got part of it right, but he left out quite a bit of stuff. I have to go to work in two minutes so I won't write a detailed post right now, but I've looked into this quite a bit and found that:
1) Bush has had his businesses financed by wealthy Saudis since the beginning of his career, including the bin Laden family.
2) Bush ignored the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11, including failing to listen to outgoing Clinton advisors who tried to hand their information off to Bush advisors, failing to take the bipartisan Hart-Rudman report seriously until after 9/11, and failing to ignore countless memos of which the famous August 6th one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." seriously. He didn't even keep up Clinton's level of anti-terrorist efforts.
3) He gave $42 million to the Taliban in May 2001.
4) Bush did not immediately go after Afghanistan when we knew that bin Laden was responsible and that bin Laden was in Afghanistan.
5) Even though most of the hijackers were Saudis, Bush refused to do anything against the Saudis. To this day, the Saudis have offered amnesty to al Qaeda terrorists and have refused to let the U.S. go after them in their own country. Saudi Arabia provides most of the funding for al Qaeda as well, all the way up to some of the princes and government officials.
6) Bush abandoned the fight in Afghanistan and left it to the Afghan warlords and the Pakistanis to go after bin Laden and other al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives. This is inexcusable to give up the fight against our enemies so he can make money off of Iraq.
7) Iraq was an unnecessary war, and a distraction from our real enemy. Many of our soldiers have died there for the Bush administration's greed, and even the bin Laden family has profitted from the war in Iraq.
Bush clearly has connections to bad people, and gives them special favor for it. If I were president on September 2001, I would have attacked both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Mister P: you make some excellent points. I keep getting this nagging feeling that the 1991 Gulf War, which started this whole Iraq quagmire, was started cause it was all about The Bush Family's (and other oligarch's) oil interests, and how dare Saddam Hussein threaten those interests. I hope I'm wrong, but that thought just keeps popping in my head.
If I were president on September 2001, I would have attacked both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
No, you wouldn’t, because Congress wouldn’t have allowed such insanity, which would put us at war with most of the rest of the world. I'm talking literal war against Russia, China, most of the Middle East, and much of Europe.
(Simon and Garfunkle, the theme song to the movie, The Graduate. 196x)
I'm with Radar. Those weren't really debates.
Even if they were, would a genuine debate be a true measure of a leader's capability? So what if someone had a quick wit and a sharp tongue. Is that a measure of a good leader? Is a good leader someone who can cram for a debate and look good and sound good for 90 minutes?
No, you wouldn’t, because Congress wouldn’t have allowed such insanity, which would put us at war with most of the rest of the world. I'm talking literal war against Russia, China, most of the Middle East, and much of Europe.
Congress voted to go to war against Afghanistan even though the Bush administration tried to blame Saddam Hussein so they could invade Iraq, so you may have a point. However, Saudi Arabia was certainly a silent partner in the 9/11 attacks. The majority of the attackers are Saudis, bin Laden is a Saudi, and al Qaeda gets a lot of money from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is just as repressive as the Taliban.
If the American public knew what our so-called ally was really like, and how high in their government the ties to al Qaeda are (hint: a whole lot more than Iraq ever was), they would be demanding we attack Saudi Arabia, even if it raised our gas prices.
quote:would a genuine debate be a true measure of a leader's capability? So what if someone had a quick wit and a sharp tongue. Is that a measure of a good leader? Is a good leader someone who can cram for a debate and look good and sound good for 90 minutes?
Agreed, Geek. Also, did anyone notice that Geo. Bush praised his wife on the last question which was about wives and daughters and Kerry side stepped it and said nothing about his wife and talked about his mother? Why couldn't he just say one good thing about his wife?
Well, he did say he "married up" but that's really about her money, not her. I think Bush was the one who "married up" because Laura is a regular American with values.
This is not to say that Mrs. Heinz-Kerry doesn't have values, but that I really know nothing about her and wonder why they don't play her up more? She seems bright, intelligent, etc. but not really warm, like Laura. They just seem different and Laura is someone I can relate to.
I wouldn't say Kerry exactly "side stepped" the question. The question was about "strong women" not specifically wives and daughters.
This is from the debate transcript:
quote: And my daughters and my wife are people who just are filled with that sense of what's right, what's wrong.
They also kick me around. They keep me honest. They don't let me get away with anything. I can sometimes take myself too seriously. They surely don't let me do that.
And I'm blessed, as I think the president is blessed, as I said last time. I've watched him with the first lady, who I admire a great deal, and his daughters. He's a great father. And I think we're both very lucky.
If the American public knew what our so-called ally was really like, and how high in their government the ties to al Qaeda are (hint: a whole lot more than Iraq ever was), they would be demanding we attack Saudi Arabia, even if it raised our gas prices.
quote:Originally posted by oldiesman:
I keep getting this nagging feeling that the 1991 Gulf War, which started this whole Iraq quagmire, was started cause it was all about The Bush Family's (and other oligarch's) oil interests, and how dare Saddam Hussein threaten those interests. I hope I'm wrong, but that thought just keeps popping in my head.
In 1990, Iraq accused the UAE (United Arab Emirates)and Kuwait of overproduction of oil. The U.S. participated with international coalition forces ("international coalition forces" - a familiar phrase? Anybody remember the names of many involved in the coalition other than the U.S.?) against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War (1991). Daddy Bush went to war with Iraq in behalf his family's long standing business associates, the Saudi Arabian leadership oil interests.
This present war is just an extension and repetition of the Persian Gulf War. Why else would we attack a country with almost zero ties to terrorism on behalf of a country from which most of the 9/11 terorists came? It's not enough to say that Bush is stupid and made a mistake. There are REAL reasons why Bush has American kids killed and has put your children's children into great debt and dangerously weakened our military position - other than all the now obviously phoney reasons.
Since the Gulf War the UAE has expanded its international contacts and diplomatic relations. A dispute erupted with Saudi Arabia in 1999 over relations with Iran, a traditional enemy. Why do I get the feeling that Iran is next on Chief Little Bush's list? Well, at least there is supposedly a legitimate concern over WMDs there - but again - in behalf of Saudi Arabia?
At least Kerry has no direct conflict of interest.
If Bush was KILLING THEM ALL (spoken by a general from another war that also went on for too long because of stupid political reasons for no good reason with no good result), in certain respects I would have more respect for him.
But he is fighting in behalf of terrorist interests, not killing them all - but protecting the worst of them.
Red Skelton was one of America's most ardent supporters and enthusiasts. Most people know him as "that funny clown on TV" right up through the 1970's. Few know him for what he really was - a man whose whole life revolved around the freedoms he knew.
Many years ago, Red penned the following commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it's good for all of us to take a minute and remember his words.
I
me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge
dedicate all of my worldly goods without self-pity.
Allegiance
my love and my devotion.
To the flag
(of the)
our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Whenever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts "freedom is everybody's job".
United
that means that we have all come together.
States of America
individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love of country.
and to the Republic for Which It Stands
Republic ... a state in which sovereign powers is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people, and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
One Nation
One ... so blessed by God.
Indivisible
incapable of being divided.
With Liberty
which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation
And Justice
the principles or qualities of dealing with others.
For All
for all ... which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
Red Skelton -- "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance - 'under God.' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That is a prayer," and it was eliminated from schools too?"
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
6
9
15
Popular Days
Oct 3
43
Oct 1
24
Oct 4
13
Oct 2
13
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 7 posts
waterbuffalo 6 posts
Mister P-Mosh 9 posts
dmiller 15 posts
Popular Days
Oct 3 2004
43 posts
Oct 1 2004
24 posts
Oct 4 2004
13 posts
Oct 2 2004
13 posts
Mister P-Mosh
Actually I think Michael Moore got part of it right, but he left out quite a bit of stuff. I have to go to work in two minutes so I won't write a detailed post right now, but I've looked into this quite a bit and found that:
1) Bush has had his businesses financed by wealthy Saudis since the beginning of his career, including the bin Laden family.
2) Bush ignored the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11, including failing to listen to outgoing Clinton advisors who tried to hand their information off to Bush advisors, failing to take the bipartisan Hart-Rudman report seriously until after 9/11, and failing to ignore countless memos of which the famous August 6th one titled "Bin Laden determined to strike U.S." seriously. He didn't even keep up Clinton's level of anti-terrorist efforts.
3) He gave $42 million to the Taliban in May 2001.
4) Bush did not immediately go after Afghanistan when we knew that bin Laden was responsible and that bin Laden was in Afghanistan.
5) Even though most of the hijackers were Saudis, Bush refused to do anything against the Saudis. To this day, the Saudis have offered amnesty to al Qaeda terrorists and have refused to let the U.S. go after them in their own country. Saudi Arabia provides most of the funding for al Qaeda as well, all the way up to some of the princes and government officials.
6) Bush abandoned the fight in Afghanistan and left it to the Afghan warlords and the Pakistanis to go after bin Laden and other al Qaeda and Taliban fugitives. This is inexcusable to give up the fight against our enemies so he can make money off of Iraq.
7) Iraq was an unnecessary war, and a distraction from our real enemy. Many of our soldiers have died there for the Bush administration's greed, and even the bin Laden family has profitted from the war in Iraq.
Bush clearly has connections to bad people, and gives them special favor for it. If I were president on September 2001, I would have attacked both Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Mister P: you make some excellent points. I keep getting this nagging feeling that the 1991 Gulf War, which started this whole Iraq quagmire, was started cause it was all about The Bush Family's (and other oligarch's) oil interests, and how dare Saddam Hussein threaten those interests. I hope I'm wrong, but that thought just keeps popping in my head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
...I doubt it. I agree with Mosh.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Research Geek
"Goin' to the candidates' debate.
Laugh about it, shout about it,
when you have to choose...
No matter which you choose, you lose!"
(Simon and Garfunkle, the theme song to the movie, The Graduate. 196x)
I'm with Radar. Those weren't really debates.
Even if they were, would a genuine debate be a true measure of a leader's capability? So what if someone had a quick wit and a sharp tongue. Is that a measure of a good leader? Is a good leader someone who can cram for a debate and look good and sound good for 90 minutes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Congress voted to go to war against Afghanistan even though the Bush administration tried to blame Saddam Hussein so they could invade Iraq, so you may have a point. However, Saudi Arabia was certainly a silent partner in the 9/11 attacks. The majority of the attackers are Saudis, bin Laden is a Saudi, and al Qaeda gets a lot of money from Saudi Arabia. The Saudi government is just as repressive as the Taliban.
If the American public knew what our so-called ally was really like, and how high in their government the ties to al Qaeda are (hint: a whole lot more than Iraq ever was), they would be demanding we attack Saudi Arabia, even if it raised our gas prices.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Agreed, Geek. Also, did anyone notice that Geo. Bush praised his wife on the last question which was about wives and daughters and Kerry side stepped it and said nothing about his wife and talked about his mother? Why couldn't he just say one good thing about his wife?
Well, he did say he "married up" but that's really about her money, not her. I think Bush was the one who "married up" because Laura is a regular American with values.
This is not to say that Mrs. Heinz-Kerry doesn't have values, but that I really know nothing about her and wonder why they don't play her up more? She seems bright, intelligent, etc. but not really warm, like Laura. They just seem different and Laura is someone I can relate to.
Edited by waterbuffaloLink to comment
Share on other sites
Pirate1974
I wouldn't say Kerry exactly "side stepped" the question. The question was about "strong women" not specifically wives and daughters.
This is from the debate transcript:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Right, Pirate. It was more about him than about her or them.
Most people, at least, I am more interested in what his wife as First Lady would bring to the table, not really what his children are about.
Speaking for myself
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex70sHouston
When dealing with the Middle East I think we need to follow two Americans from the past.
One General in Nam said KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT.
A little of this and they wouldn't mess with us.
The next was Teddy Roosavelt. WALK SOFTLY AND CARRY A BIG STICK
They respect those thoughts.
I'm votin for Bush Kerry will give us away to make everyone happy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom
Bush IS giving us away.
At least Kerry has no direct conflict of interest.
If Bush was KILLING THEM ALL (spoken by a general from another war that also went on for too long because of stupid political reasons for no good reason with no good result), in certain respects I would have more respect for him.
But he is fighting in behalf of terrorist interests, not killing them all - but protecting the worst of them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
boy am i ever confused
and my family is split and they're all so passionate and seem logical to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
Excat- I will be happy to settle your confusion. Just vote for my guy and I will bequeath peace and joy on you for all the rest of your days.
:D-->
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
promises promises
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Red Skelton's
Commentary to the
Pledge of Allegiance
Red Skelton was one of America's most ardent supporters and enthusiasts. Most people know him as "that funny clown on TV" right up through the 1970's. Few know him for what he really was - a man whose whole life revolved around the freedoms he knew.
Many years ago, Red penned the following commentary on the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it's good for all of us to take a minute and remember his words.
I
me, an individual, a committee of one.
Pledge
dedicate all of my worldly goods without self-pity.
Allegiance
my love and my devotion.
To the flag
(of the)
our standard, Old Glory, a symbol of freedom. Whenever she waves, there's respect because your loyalty has given her a dignity that shouts "freedom is everybody's job".
United
that means that we have all come together.
States of America
individual communities that have united into 48 great states. 48 individual communities with pride and dignity and purpose, all divided with imaginary boundaries, yet united to a common purpose, and that's love of country.
and to the Republic for Which It Stands
Republic ... a state in which sovereign powers is invested in representatives chosen by the people to govern. And government is the people, and it's from the people to the leaders, not from the leaders to the people.
One Nation
One ... so blessed by God.
Indivisible
incapable of being divided.
With Liberty
which is freedom, the right of power to live one's own life, without threats, fear, or some sort of retaliation
And Justice
the principles or qualities of dealing with others.
For All
for all ... which means, boys and girls, it's as much your country as it is mine.
Red Skelton -- "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country, and two words have been added to the Pledge of Allegiance - 'under God.' Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said, "That is a prayer," and it was eliminated from schools too?"
.
i vote for Red Skelton
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Song --- Thank you for that!
:)-->
I heard that once on Paul Harvey, thought it was great.
I second your nomination/vote:
Red Skelton for President
Hector Heathclip for VP.
The world would be a saner place, with those two at the helm.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
"The world would be a saner place, with those two at the helm."
Mabe Jackie Gleason? That would be quite a bus driver, pool player!!!~~~ oh my !!! Norton is a call to abundance also~~~
and eddie M " Hey Norton ... Wanna **** me in the %%% lol honey mooners
Edited by oneyedjackswild1 psLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Paul Harvey is Howard Stern !!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
..."Hector Heathclip for VP."
what about the companion seagull?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
I want Bill Cosby for prez
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.