Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (79739)	10/4/2006 9:27:01 PM
From: Richnorth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

I remember it differently. For your statement to have merit, there would need to have been collusion among the Clinton and Bush Admins conspiring toward this event, or conspiring to ignore the potential of such an event. Nonsense! There is evidence to suggest that 911 was an out-and-out conspiracy hatched by Bush and his Neocons and Israel. Why bring Clinton in? To help mitigate the culpabality of Bush or what? Don't forget that although Clinton had left behind plans for attacking Al-Qaeda, Bush dismantled them and fired Richard Clarke. Yet you would say Clinton colluded with Bush for 911. It's incredible that you seem not to be up to snuff on this, and you continue to cling steadfastly to your erroneous first impressions. Several warnings were given to Bush by the CIA, the FBI and by his foreign allies including the Egyptian Mubarak. But Bush apparently considered it expedient not to let the American people know of the impending 911 attack, and the ever subservient government-compliant media was either kept in the dark or they knew but obligingly cooperated fully with Bush in maintaining silence. Bush kept quiet about the impending attack because he apparently was party to 911 and he very much wanted it to come as a shocker and outrage to the American public so that they could then be galvanized and manipulated into throwing in their absolute support for his so-called war on terror! For quite a while it looked as if Bush had succeeded in having pulled a fast one! Ah! But the best laid plans of mice and men oft go awry, and this was no less true for Bush and his accomplices. .

To: one_less who wrote (79739)	10/5/2006 12:30:04 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Clintonites clearly warned Bushies about OBL in January 2001, including a comprehensive plan for dealing with Al Qaida which Rice dishonestly denied ever receiving but which has been shown on TV since, so we know she's lying. In Feb 2001, it was finally proven Al Qaida hit the USS Cole. That was not known prior. Bush took no retaliation whatsoever. In early 2001, the FBI was ordered to stop surveillance against Saudis in the US. Ashcroft said to a top agent "Dont tell me anymore about terrorism". Ashcroft didn't want to hear it. Through the first half of 2001, the demoted Richard Clarke desperately tried to get top Bushies to pay attention to the Al Qaida threat. He didn't get a single top Bushie to meet with him after the initial courtesy meeting with Rice. In the summer of 2001, two fire warnigns were given Bush and Rice about imminent attacks INSIDE THE US by AL Qaida, probably using hijackings. They did absolutely nothing. On sept 4th top Bushies finally met about terrorism. The Admiral they put in charge was not even given security clearance at that point. On 9-11, Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech listing the threats to the US. Al Qaida and terrorism were not on her list. So what was on her list? Mainly Iraq.