Al Queada eating children?

Dude, stop. You're being contrary just for the sake of being contrary.

 

No I'm not. To Markvid, he measures the value of posts on how many friends they win. Maybe he attends the annual conventions and has a network of chums in the "real world." If so, more power to them. I don't post for that reason. I don't actually post just to piss people off...some of that is reactive just because I've made the post. Do I care? No, not any more than I'm seeking just to start shit. Zeke, as an example, thinks anyone who has a mind-set similar to Sean Hannity is a kook. Agree wit a Hannity or any other conservative pundit, they have a legitimate audience of likeminded people.

Oh, and I guess that makes me a Hannity parasite. Not really. I'm not on his A list of buddies. We don't play golf at annual meetings.

 

What's the point in posting to start a shitstorm? Just because it amuses you?

It's sad, really.

 

I'm responding to the self-righteous, condescending stuff of markvid. I guess I could ignore it. Would that make me a better person?

(LMAO...I just got on to one of my kids for not ignoring another one)

 

What always amazes me is how the left simply refuses to believe anything bad about Al Aqaeda but reflexively believes the most awful lies made up about Bush. A significant portion of the left now believes Bush either knew about 9/11 or even had something to do with it.

But the group that TOOK CREDIT for the attacks? No, the left won't believe anything bad about them. Why? Because to admit that Al Qaeda is evil would make Bush look better.

 

That is not just an absurd statement but is going to be a statement I'm calling you out on.

Prove it. What is the source?

 

Got some time? Enjoy.

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

 

OK, Pastor, just like you don't pay a lot in taxes, I'll call you out on this one too.....here is one quick source from a leading lefty professor and former journalist and I could find you 100's others like it if you wish but I'll spare you that embarrassment. There is no doubt a large portion of the left believe George W. Bush knew about 9/11 prior to it or at least that he had enough knowledge of it that he could have stopped it.

The Bush 9/11 Scandal for Dummies
Counter Punch
BERNARD WEINER

June 1, 2002

Don't know about you, but all this who-knew-what-when pre-9/11 stuff is mighty confusing. So once again, I head to that all-purpose reference series for some comprehensible answers.

Q. I've heard all these reports about the government knowing weeks and months in advance of 9/11 that airliners were going to be hijacked and flown into buildings, and yet the Bush Administration apparently did nothing and denied they did anything wrong. They claimed the fault lay in the intelligence agencies "not connecting the dots," or that it was the "FBI culture" that failed. Can you explain?

A. Most of the "it's-the-fault-of-the-system" spin is designed to deflect attention from the real situation. Bush and his spokesmen may well be correct in saying they had no idea as to the specifics -- they may not have known the exact details of the attacks -- but it is more and more apparent that they knew a great deal more than they're letting on, including the possible targets.

Q. You're not just going leave that hanging out there, are you? Just bash Bush with no evidence to back it up?

A. There's no need to bash anybody. There is more than enough documentation to establish that the Bush Administration was fully aware that a major attack was coming from Al-Qaeda, by air, aimed at symbolic structures on the U.S. mainland, and that among mentioned targets were the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Congress, Statue of Liberty. (According to Richard Clarke, the White House's National Coordinator for Anti-Terrorism, the intelligence community was convinced ten weeks before 9/11 that an Al-Qaeda attack on U.S. soil was imminent.)

Q. If they knew in advance that the, or at least an, attack was coming, why did the Bush Administration do nothing to prepare the country in advance: get photos of suspected terrorists out to airlines, have fighter jets put on emergency-standby status or even in the air as deterents, get word out to the border police to stop these "watch-list" terrorists, put surface-to-air missiles around the White House and Pentagon, etc.?

A. The explanation preferred by the government is to admit, eight months late, to absolute and horrendous incompetence, up and down the line (although Bush&Co., surprise!, prefer to focus the blame lower down, letting the FBI be the fall guy). But let's try an alternate explanation. Think about it for a moment. If their key goal was to mobilize the country behind the Bush Administration, get their political/business agenda through, have a reason to move unliterally around the globe, and defang the Democrats and other critics at home -- what better way to do all that than to have Bush be the take-charge leader after a diabolic "sneak attack"?

 

If only they had known...oh, wait.

 

Zag, I am sorry that you don't comprehend my comments on taxes. Truly. And what you post, which is one person's opinion, doesn't mean a whole lot. I asked for proof that a significant portion of the left believes this.

So, I'm provided with a few comments.

Again, the way you prove this is with polls. See, here I am giving you a hint as to how to demonstrate this.

"In a poll of liberal democrats, 70% believe Bush knew about 9/11 before it happened." See, something like that would work. A couple of message board and web posts do not count for squat.

 

You wanted proof, Jgmac, just gave you more proof.

Do I need to sit here and post column after column and editorial after editorial from the left on this subject or will just concede that you stuck your foot in your mouth again and rather than be a man and just admit you are wrong, you are going to dig in and try and sound all educated by going round and round and posting a whole lot of hot air?

You are wrong on taxes......http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/GovernmentFinancesTable.htm

You are wrong on this........http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/008721.php

That is 45 percent of the American population as a whole and given that a Rassmussen Poll found that Republicans at about an 86 percent clip do not believe Bush was responsible for the attacks, well, you do the math on the percentage of Democrats that do. It has to be more than 60 percent, even taking into account independents.


Maybe some day you'll stop being that snot-nosed brat who THINKS he knows everything and take some time to learn how much you don't know.

 

I think you have me confused with Pastor.