Does anyone really believe....

NeMont · Jul 16, 2007

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-07 AT 11:31AM (MST)[p]

That the Bush Administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks? And that they did it in order to gain complete control of the government? Like Rosie and WTC 7 being a controlled demo? or Like Keith Ellison, the first Muslim Congress man comparing it to Hitler burning the Reichstag. At some point don't these people dishonor those whom lost their lives and those surviving family members?

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...6&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

I have listened to this type of thing since Sept. of 2001. It amazes me that people actually buy into this type of idiotic behavior. The minute somebody starts with either impeachment talk or that Bush had planned 9/11 they are immediately written of as being a total nutbag.

Any of you out there actually believe in this theory. If you do please explain it to me?

Nemont

huntindude · Jul 16, 2007

It's ludacris, I feel Bush has been a poor excuse for a president but to even imply any government official was involved in or had prior knowledge of the attacks is insane. if you want to blame this administration for something it's easy enough without going to this extent.

kingfish · Jul 16, 2007

Nutbag!!!!

AndymanSavage · Jul 16, 2007

There was a great South Park episode on this.

Andy

TFinalshot · Jul 16, 2007

I do believe that 9/11 happened. Some even say that WE bombed our own pentagon and that really no airplane hit it. I don't believe any of the conspiracy theory?s about 9/11. I do believe Bush did not pay enough attention to terrorism, I do believe Condi was completely out of line to say they never could have imagined planes used as missiles, when it's common knowledge that our government has run predictive models to test just such an occurrence.

In any event, I dont buy into the conspiracy stuff, but to take impeachment off the table also is ridiculous. You cant take options off the table when it comes to checks and balances. Saying that impeachment is off the table is like saying you can break the law because no one will prosecute you, that would be stupid, and worse down right un American, NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW, not even the blowhard GWB. . . .

huntindude · Jul 16, 2007

Executive privilege and pardons will make him and his chronies as close to above the law as you can get.

NeMont · Jul 16, 2007

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-07 AT 02:41PM (MST)[p]T,

Impeachment can be on the table. I never said anyone should take it off however when a nutbag starts talking about impeachment most do not even understand the process. There would have to an obvious "high crime or misdemeanor" that can be proven beyond a resonable doubt.

In addition the democrats do not have enough votes in the Senate to get a guilty verdict.

If WJC committed felony perjury, a fact, and even lost his license to practice law due to said fact and did not get impeached there is no way GWB gets impeached, he may get articles of impeachment passed against him but that isn't enough. Anybody talking impeachment right now is doing soley for political reasons and not serious about following through. It is time for democrats to either put up or shut on impeachment .

"The Constitution gives to the Senate "the sole power to try impeachment." Like the House, the Senate has also adopted rules for its impeachment proceedings. Once the House has approved the articles it requests that the Senate "order the appearance of the accused to answer the charges and demands a conviction and appropriate judgement, and presents the articles of impeachment." The Senators then try the case according to the Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeacment Trials. A conviction requires a 2/3 majority of the Senate to find that the accused official committed reason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The Constitution also prescribes the consequences for an impeachment conviction, including removal from Office and the possible disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office, Trust or Profit under the United States."

Do you believe a 2/3 majority can be reached in the Senate prior to the end of GWB's term in office? If you do then you must have the smoking gun to the crimes committed. The new congress won't be sworn in until Jan. of 09. Even if the Dems take more seats in the senate it will still be nearly impossible to get a 2/3 majority vote to impeach.

Given the reality to the vote count required and the political facts anyone pushing impeachment at this point is a political nutbag.

Nemont

drahthaar · Jul 16, 2007

My neighbor believes that our govt did it to insight war with Iraq. He and his wife are anti-hunting, tree hugging, card carrying Bush haters. He has all these books, videos, you name it about all the conspiracies. It consumes him I think. I hate talking about too much with him because it always deteriorates in political talk, Bush this Bush that, conspiracies, etc. The worst part is he is a structural engineer. He goes into all the usual stuff about how those building could not have fallen without being demoed.
I have looked at both sides and read and read about this, and I still can't believe that explosives could have been planted in those 3 buildings secretly.
I really can't argue about it with him, he has an answer for everything, except one thing. The biggest problem with the 911 conspiracy, is the people problem. It would have taken too many people to be "in on it" for it to fly.
You guys wouldn't believe how ardent he is about this being an inside job. I don't have the time to write all the "proof" he speaks of.

Forthewall · Jul 16, 2007

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-07 AT 03:09PM (MST)[p]Hey Nemont, I hope all goes well in the world Nemont these days.
I keep wondering why you are not chiming in more, instead of letting the B squad lay down their weak game. In any case it's good to see you around brother.

George's adm. planned 9/11, hmmmmm.....Nope!

If the answer to No.1 is no, then No.2 has to be No.

WTC 7 Controlled Demo.........No!

Keith Ellison.....Entitled to an opinion, even if it's erroneous.

Given the vast amounts of warnings, the fact that 9/11 could even occur dishonors those who lost their lives and the surviving family members.

Do I think 9/11 left the door ajar and a eager Bush Adm. kick it wide open to gain extraordinary power in the executive branch............YES!

You and I both enjoy published and credible sources for information. I don't like conspiracy theory websites with the large Black and Red Bold print with offers of new videos.

The problem with 9/11 is...it's like Shrek, it's an onion...with layers, lots and lots of layers. It's hard to get your hands around the subject in an environment where information is still being witheld from public view.

Try this place: www.cooperativeresearch.org

Try this to go directly to pre-9/11 warnings:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Every item has a dated credible quotable published source and from what I can verify this is not a partisan website.

Of course, like everything on the net you need to cross reference to verify the integrity of the articles. I have and so far the ones I have looked into have checked out.

Nemont do me a favor, if my game ever becomes weak please nail me on it right away! Thanks

Chime in more often, these 2nd & 3rd stringers are choking.

Oops forgot about the impeachment thing, your follow-up is spot-on-target! Most don't understand the impeachment process, articles maybe, full-court press...not gonna happen.
Dems are just going to wait for the election.

NeMont · Jul 16, 2007

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-07 AT 03:44PM (MST)[p]I don't chime in because alot of it is just too tiresome. I actually have the same site favorited and have read it fairly extensively.

My problem with the nutbag 9/11 conspiracy theories and guys like Keith Ellison is that they make these allegations get away without being asked for proof. If there were proof then I would lead the charge to remove GWB myself.

Obviously there were warnings and signs and missed chances to know that an attack was coming. They had been at war with us at least since 1993 and we did not understand the threat. It is a cluster and in many cases the prosecution of the response has been a cluster. No argument here.

As for impeachment

The best explanations of this was from a book called "The Genius of Impeachment: The Founder's Cure for Royalism" By John Nichols. He is in favor of articles impeachment against both Cheney and GWB. Not so much to remove either one but to move the balance of power back to congress ie the people. He argues that the High Crimes and Misdomeanor's of GWB and Cheney are well documented. If congress does not move to impeach then all future Administrations (Democrat or Republican) will seize and claim the same powers. In addition he says that if Articles of Impeachment were passed and the Administration comes clean and renounces the power grab and complies with the law, the impeachment process would stop. Basically the this would set the greatest precedent of seperation of powers in our history . My favorite quote from him is that "Impeachment is not a Constitutional crisis it is the cure for a Constitutional crisis. Don't mistake the medicine for the disease". He has more then a few choice words for the leadership in Congress as well.

Now this gets to crux of my frustration, Democrats are gungho to impeach when there is a microphone in their face and then can score political points. Not one of them has the courage to appoint a special prosecutor and/or open vote on impeachment on the floor of the House. Either there have been crimes committed or there has not, it is either bad for the country or it is not. If they feel that what this administration has done rises to the threshold of impeachment then they should be duty bound to move forward. I actually would have more respect for them if they did.

Hence the put up or shut up comment. Either pass articles of impeachment, politics be damned, or shut up and move on but please don't use impeachment as a fake threat.

Nemont

Forthewall · Jul 16, 2007

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-07 AT 05:08PM (MST)[p]Well said Nemont! We have a shared library. Are you sure you're not ready to join me in the middle (I)?

Do you really feel you can identify with either of these parties?

After all (I)'s are just a bunch old school real republicans that want to legalize prostitution and marajuana anyways.

Unlike those other parties we always have room for one more.

Forthewall · Jul 16, 2007

Just one other thing, I kinda have to disagree that "we did not understand the threat". We absolutely understood the threat but it was downplayed at the highest levels, tossed aside classified as the agenda of the previous leadership.

Nice to see Condi has brushed the dust off the notes from the Clinton presidency on the Palestinian/Israeli issue. Funny how that doesn't make the news, seeing as how Clinton was so inept in everything he did.

I'm hungry, think I'll have a burger and some freedom fries.

NeMont · Jul 16, 2007

LAST EDITED ON Jul-16-07 AT 09:23PM (MST)[p]I was using a more collective "we". I don't think the average American truly understood the threat. If WJC had paid more attention while the threat gathered over the 8 years of his presidency then 9/11 may have still happened but we the people would have understood it more.

GWB has in many case defined the enemy but failed to figure out the right way to go about defeating the enemy he defined. Critical political mistake.

I am much more in the middle then what I post. I find some humor or entertainment from the extreme of either position. Most anti war Bush haters are exactly same as their opposition. Neither wish to hear that anything against their position.

I cannot identify with either party. Checked out the Libertarian party just a little too far to the right for me a couple of issues. The democrats just rub me completely wrong then are as beholden to the lunatic left as the Republicans are to the lunatic right.

I ate already by I am going to drink a couple of beers and play a game with my kids.

Nemont

lve2143 · Jul 16, 2007

FortheWall,

YOU GIVE ME THE CREEP'S.

And what I do for a living, It's hard to give me
the Creeps.

If you moved into my little area,
I hope post cards would go out.

Sheezzz,
lrv

RELH · Jul 16, 2007

Irv;
You know I love to butt heads once and awhile with Forthewall, but you have to give the man credit. Anyone who prefers to call them "freedom fries" vs. "french fries" can not be that bad to give anyone the creeps. At lease he does not buy into the liberal jardon of being "politically correct".

RELH