ABC 9/11 FAIRY TALE "The Path to 9/11"

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11

Americanprogress.org... wow let me go find some nice extreme right wing site to cute and paste anti-Clinton stuff off of.

Really, it would be easier to believe some of that stuff if the source wasn't so biased.
And yes they do a lot of sourcing to ABC, NBC etc, but I can take reports done by any new orginization and spin them the way I want by reading into what they say and only posting the parts that agree with me.

Example

AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

Read the actual document here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

Last paragraph on page one starts: We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a <blacked out> service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "blind Shaykh" Umar Abd alRahman.

So we now know the August 6 breif contained information that dated from 1998, and yet in the 3 years since the 'hijack plane' warning they were never able to find corroborating evidence.

For someone with a screenname that alludes to being a Professor, you don't possess much in the way of reading skills.

See those notes at the end of each paragraph? Those are called 'references'. See, they point to other news sites, some of which are very right-leaning, such as The Wash. Times.

Now, try again, skippy.

Ummm maybe you need to re-read my post, or just this part

And yes they do a lot of sourcing to ABC, NBC etc, but I can take reports done by any new orginization and spin them the way I want by reading into what they say and only posting the parts that agree with me.

See I aknowledged your sources/references and I pointed out that you can take anything and spin it any way you want too.
See watch how it is done:

Democrat leaders backup Bush's WMDs in Iraq claims:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. "
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton

EVERYTHING I just posted is true and factual, did not have to make up one thing. All I did was spin the quotes to fit my view.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11

Americanprogress.org... wow let me go find some nice extreme right wing site to cute and paste anti-Clinton stuff off of.

Really, it would be easier to believe some of that stuff if the source wasn't so biased.
And yes they do a lot of sourcing to ABC, NBC etc, but I can take reports done by any new orginization and spin them the way I want by reading into what they say and only posting the parts that agree with me.

Example

AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

Read the actual document here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

Last paragraph on page one starts: We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a <blacked out> service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "blind Shaykh" Umar Abd alRahman.

So we now know the August 6 breif contained information that dated from 1998, and yet in the 3 years since the 'hijack plane' warning they were never able to find corroborating evidence.

For someone with a screenname that alludes to being a Professor, you don't possess much in the way of reading skills.

See those notes at the end of each paragraph? Those are called 'references'. See, they point to other news sites, some of which are very right-leaning, such as The Wash. Times.

Now, try again, skippy.

Ummm maybe you need to re-read my post, or just this part

And yes they do a lot of sourcing to ABC, NBC etc, but I can take reports done by any new orginization and spin them the way I want by reading into what they say and only posting the parts that agree with me.

See I aknowledged your sources/references and I pointed out that you can take anything and spin it any way you want too.
See watch how it is done:

Democrat leaders backup Bush's WMDs in Iraq claims:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. "
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton

EVERYTHING I just posted is true and factual, did not have to make up one thing. All I did was spin the quotes to fit my view.

You sure did. Republicans still trying to weasel out of responsibility for Iraq war. Ultimately it was their war, because it was their guy Bush who got us into it. Sure, the congress gave him enough rope to hang himself with, but ultimately it was his decision.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: conjur
Took about 3 seconds to copy/paste. What's your excuse for such a pitiful remark as you made above?

I do note you failed to address *anything* in the post I made.


Typical.

That's because you are useless to debate with. You hate bush/Christians/republicans no matter what anyone says. You are just as extreme as the Islamic fascists that want you dead.

Who in the hell could like a despicable self-proclaimed Christian like yourself??

Everything you said in this thread has been nothing but pathetic UNCHRISTIANLIKE TROLLING

Just go away you silly phony wannabe

Nice try on judging me. I may have my problems but at least I dont call our president a "piece of SH*T". The worst I called Conjur was an extermist which anyone can see from his posts on this forum.

Again I ask, who do you think hates George Bush more? Conjur or Islamic Fascists?

 

[BoberFett]

This thread is hilarious. The only person who's made a bit of sense is the one who has been completely ignored.

Liberals and conservatives in the US are all a bunch of assholes who have exactly the government they deserve.

Originally posted by: Aelius
This isn't about the truth or who is less guilty. It's about setting up the Left and Right against each other. They have you so focused on being at each other's throats that you completely miss the entire point.

To this end they have succeded. They managed to polarize Western nations into this supposed Left vs Right.

Instead of blaming each other and flinging mud against the Left or Right you should be looking at the entire group as a whole.

Until you do, you will never be free to judge for yourselves since you are being told what to think. Every day you read a newspaper, watch the news, listen to the radio, read a book or watch a film. I'm not angry, nor do I think you are stupid. Considering what you are being fed 24/7 365 virtually anywhere you are it's little wonder. I pitty you people whom are stuck in this cycle.

That's all.

Originally posted by: Aelius
Not sure how you mean that but this is a form of propaganda. It's just not done by the Right or the Left. It's a team effort.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: conjur
Truth & Consequences: The Bush Administration and September 11

Americanprogress.org... wow let me go find some nice extreme right wing site to cute and paste anti-Clinton stuff off of.

Really, it would be easier to believe some of that stuff if the source wasn't so biased.
And yes they do a lot of sourcing to ABC, NBC etc, but I can take reports done by any new orginization and spin them the way I want by reading into what they say and only posting the parts that agree with me.

Example

AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

Read the actual document here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html

Last paragraph on page one starts: We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a <blacked out> service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "blind Shaykh" Umar Abd alRahman.

So we now know the August 6 breif contained information that dated from 1998, and yet in the 3 years since the 'hijack plane' warning they were never able to find corroborating evidence.

For someone with a screenname that alludes to being a Professor, you don't possess much in the way of reading skills.

See those notes at the end of each paragraph? Those are called 'references'. See, they point to other news sites, some of which are very right-leaning, such as The Wash. Times.

Now, try again, skippy.

Ummm maybe you need to re-read my post, or just this part

And yes they do a lot of sourcing to ABC, NBC etc, but I can take reports done by any new orginization and spin them the way I want by reading into what they say and only posting the parts that agree with me.

See I aknowledged your sources/references and I pointed out that you can take anything and spin it any way you want too.
See watch how it is done:

Democrat leaders backup Bush's WMDs in Iraq claims:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. "
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton

EVERYTHING I just posted is true and factual, did not have to make up one thing. All I did was spin the quotes to fit my view.

And those quotes are easily dismissed as they are from people who did not have access to the same falsified and altered intelligence that was being provided to Bush. All they had access to was the redacted, filtered, scrubbed version. To even begin trying to use those quotes to attack the Dems is disingenuous at best.

Now, why don't you try and actually addres the CONTENT of what I posted instead of attacking the sources? Hmmm? Or is it that beyond your capabilities?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: conjur
And those quotes are easily dismissed as they are from people who did not have access to the same falsified and altered intelligence that was being provided to Bush. All they had access to was the redacted, filtered, scrubbed version. To even begin trying to use those quotes to attack the Dems is disingenuous at best.

Now, why don't you try and actually addres the CONTENT of what I posted instead of attacking the sources? Hmmm? Or is it that beyond your capabilities?

*sigh* I see the ol' "pot meet kettle" routine is in place here.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur
And those quotes are easily dismissed as they are from people who did not have access to the same falsified and altered intelligence that was being provided to Bush. All they had access to was the redacted, filtered, scrubbed version. To even begin trying to use those quotes to attack the Dems is disingenuous at best.

Now, why don't you try and actually addres the CONTENT of what I posted instead of attacking the sources? Hmmm? Or is it that beyond your capabilities?

*sigh* I see the ol' "pot meet kettle" routine is in place here.

Another Limbaught with severe reading comprehension problems. Bolding corrected.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: conjur
And those quotes are easily dismissed as they are from people who did not have access to the same falsified and altered intelligence that was being provided to Bush. All they had access to was the redacted, filtered, scrubbed version. To even begin trying to use those quotes to attack the Dems is disingenuous at best.

Now, why don't you try and actually addres the CONTENT of what I posted instead of attacking the sources? Hmmm? Or is it that beyond your capabilities?

Ok, let me respond to the content of what you posted.

In plain English the content of what you posted is suspect because it is from a source that has a known bias and will therefore read into the information in order to establish whatever pre-determined outcome they are looking for.

AUGUST 2001 - PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration "officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes." Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally "received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane." [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]

Read the actuall document again, no where in it does it say "that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US"

Here is a nice tidbit that I bet you didn't know. "Washington, D.C., 12 April 2004 - President Bush on Saturday, 10 April 2004, became the first sitting president ever to release publicly even a portion of his Daily Brief from the CIA."
During a briefing on May 21, 2002, Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary, characterized the PDB as "the most highly sensitized classified document in the government and yet Bush is the only sitting president to ever release one, must be hiding something.

Oh and look at this GEM, "December 4th, 1998. President Clinton gets a stunning piece of news. In his daily briefing ? what's called a PDB ? the CIA tells him that bin Laden and his cohorts are preparing to attack inside the United States, quote, "perhaps including an aircraft hijacking."
Holy ******, president Clinton got the same exact information 3 years earlier.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript337_full.html

Check out the text December 4, 1998.

SUBJECT: Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks

1. Reporting [-] suggests Bin Ladin and his allies are preparing for attacks in the US, including an aircraft hijacking to obtain the release of Shaykh ?Umar ?Abd al-Rahman, Ramzi Yousef, and Muhammad Sadiq ?Awda. One source quoted a senior member of the Gama?at al-Islamiyya (IG) saying that, as of late October, the IG had completed planning for an operation in the US on behalf of Bin Ladin, but that the operation was on hold.A senior Bin Ladin operative from Saudi Arabia was to visit IG counterparts in the US soon thereafter to discuss options-perhaps including an aircraft hijacking.

I guess the fact that nothing had changed in 3 years should have been a sign for Bush huh?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/pdbnews/911pdb.pdf

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Amused
Well, after all the crap in this thread, no one watched it?

I'll watch it when they release the original, unedited version.

I prefer to watch what the writer made, not what Slick wanted it to be.

same here. I don't need to watch a result of what happens when Slick and his cronies get together and decide to take a steaming pile on the first amendment.

 

[FuzzyBee]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: FuzzyBee

Originally posted by: conjur
And those quotes are easily dismissed as they are from people who did not have access to the same falsified and altered intelligence that was being provided to Bush. All they had access to was the redacted, filtered, scrubbed version. To even begin trying to use those quotes to attack the Dems is disingenuous at best.

Now, why don't you try and actually addres the CONTENT of what I posted instead of attacking the sources? Hmmm? Or is it that beyond your capabilities?

*sigh* I see the ol' "pot meet kettle" routine is in place here.

Another Limbaught with severe reading comprehension problems. Bolding corrected.

Is that really the best you can come up with? Pretty sad, Mr. Pot. Or is that Mr. Kettle?

Speaking of being dismissed: you're dismissed.