(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Wednesday, September 13, 2006


Blogger joe said...


Would that be the Clinton that fought tooth and nail against the republican controlled congress to implement anti-terror legislation while the republicans screamed about "wag the dog" and clinton's obsession with terrorism?

Is it the Clinton that pushed for this legislation after continual rebukes by the republicans in his efforts to combat the growing threat of terrorism?

There's this from CNN "Starting in 1998, for example, Clinton gave the CIA a green light to use whatever covert means were necessary to gather information on Osama bin Laden and his followers, and to disrupt and preempt any planned terrorist activities against the United States.

As part of that effort, the CIA, under Clinton, trained and equipped some 60 commandos from Pakistan to enter Afghanistan and capture bin Laden. The operation collapsed when Pakistan experienced a military coup and a new government took over.

In 1998, Clinton also signed a secret agreement with Uzbekistan to begin joint covert operations against Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. U.S. Special Forces have been training there ever since, which is why the Pentagon was immediately able to use Uzbekistan as a staging area for forays into Afghanistan.

Clinton targeted bin Laden even before he moved to Afghanistan. In 1996, his administration brokered an agreement with the government of Sudan to arrest the terrorist leader and turn him over to Saudi Arabia. For 10 weeks, Clinton tried to persuade the Saudis to accept the offer. They refused. With no cooperation from the Saudis, the deal fell apart. "

No, my guess is it's the Clinton who managed to somehow continue to effectively lead this country while under attack by republicans for an extra-marital affair which had nothing to do with his job. If only GW had been as adept at leadership or successful at anything with the support of nearly the entire world after September 11th 2001. Sadly it appears that Clinton, despite all the attacks from republicans and constant blocking of his policies, managed to do a pretty good job of running this country. Bush on the other hand, with total government control by the republicans, the support of the entire world after 9-11 (and before iraq) has proven himself inept at leadership, disasterous at foriegn policy, a complete failure at preserving the constitution, and most likely criminally negligent in the Katrina disaster and aftermath of 9-11.

That's before we go into the war crimes like torturing detainees,or domestic crimes like illegally spying on American Citizens.

yeah clinton sure screwed things up for us eh?

2:31 PM  
Blogger Senor said...

Fortunately we have a president who leads with conviction. Pres. Bush doesn't depend on polls to tell him which decision will be 'popular', as Clinton did. Real leaders lead.

As for 'illegally spying on Americans' you know very well that only calls to or from suspected terrorists overseas are montitored. They are not monitoring domestic phone calls to your Aunt Alice and you know that.

3:51 PM  
Blogger joe said...

Willful ignorance and fundamentalist ideology, yeah that sounds like conviction to me too.

The president, and every other public official is, as an elected representative, is supposed to represent the people, not doing whatever you want and saying you have a "mandate" or "Political Capital". unpopular descisions are often necessary, but trashing the constitution and breaking the law is not one of them, unless you are a fascist, in which case that's exactly what you'd do.

Yes Domestic spying is the only thing I have a problem with and You know that, it doesnt take a fisa warrant to spy overseas, it only requires a fisa warrant if you spy on americans, as bush has been caught spying domestically without warrants he is breaking the law.

Just how much do they pay you anyway? nobody is this delusional.

1:29 AM  
Blogger joe said...

speaking of delusional...

sorry for the change of subject, but I just noticed it and thought i'd bring it up.

I went back over to Popular Mechanics - Debunking 9/11 Myths becuase I wanted to quote that ridiculous bit about the photo switching for the "pod" theory. As it turns out, PM has changed quite a bit of the article including the bit about the pod and while they still use the same false data ie: a picture that doesnt show any pod, the paragraph is rewritten to minimize that fact, and I almost missed it. Which is odd since I was looking for it.

(I dont think the pod theory has any relevence or truth to it, I am simply pointing out the dishonesty of the debunking)

The Article opens with a note from the editors, I've parsed this bit:
"Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS"

Unfortunately, the PM article is lacking in one glaring aspect. A relation to any actual known facts about the incident, The article is still nothing more than bald unsourced assertions as to what is fact without even a cursory attempt at providing relevant data, not to mention blatant lies about the ability of NORAD to track aircraft within the continental US. As if any agency could be so incompetent to actually only watch the borders when your job is to track all continental air traffic (space traffic too in our launch windows, but that hardly applies here).
They again display complete ignorance (or deliberately lie) when they say turning off the transponder means having to sift through "4500 identical radar blips" duh, you ignore the planes with transponders active, that limits your search to the 4 planes without transponders, all of which are your targets. Sometimes I have to wonder how anyone is expected to believe these lies when they are so blatantly transparent. Have Americans lost the ability for critical thinking? Seems to me that in the dark ages when I was in high school the end of every chapter included a "critical thinking" component of at least 2 questions. One would think after 4 years of critical thinking excercises some people would retain it.

Of course my main argument with PM's article isnt really the blatant falsehoods and distortions used to muddy the waters, but the complete lack of any demonstrable facts associated with their claims, and their lack of coverage of any of the real troubling aspects of 11.9.2001.

Which all begs the question: Are there any actual mechanics or scientists who still read this magazine? granted I stopped reading it long ago, but how is it possible they are now just a propaganda rag? I rally am dissapointed, oh but hey, they did make their list of contributers a bit prettier, even if they still arent properly sourced or even hyperlinked, though my own research shows most of them could be.

The glaring ommission of one simple fact should upset almost everyone. FACT: No steel structured building has ever collapsed due to fire until the three buildings on 11.9.2001.
Of the Steel structure buildings that have collapsed for any reason, none has ever fallen within its own footprint (unless brought down with demolition charges). This has all been padding, here's the important fact: No falling building has ever or will ever collapse of its own accord and do so at freefall speeds, it breaks several of the fundamental laws of physics, and is impossible without specially shaped and timed demolitions. Though I suppose the faith based community has little regard for things like physics. It would sure help the rest of us if such people would learn a little remedial science.

3:35 PM  
Blogger Senor said...

LOL. So Joe, you buy into the nutty whackjob theories about the CIA bringing down the towers.

Why crash jets into it? Why not just blow it up and blame the muslims? Wouldnt that have been sooo much easier since according to you, the explosives were already in place and waiting.


8:37 PM  
Blogger joe said...

I never said a thing about the CIA, but I know that the guy who bought the towers the month before the incident made a killing on the insurance claims, I know someone placed put options on the airlines involved just days before, and then abandoned them after it was announced in the press.

I dont think 19 guys with box cutters could have done all that, so I am sure there was someone involved who had that capability, it could well have been Mossad, or MI5 for that matter, or even just some unethical rich guys. I dont have any conspiracy theories to offer you, I just have a problem with the distortion and ommision of key facts and the utter lack of decent police work in the investigation by the 9-11 comission. I want to know what DID happen, I dont find it productive to make up stuff, any conspiracy you see in my words is purely your own reaction to my stated facts. As this is the case, I'd think you might want to know what the facts actually are as well. I know I do.

5:35 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home