Let the Fisking of Tenet’s Book Begin
[Posted by WLS]
In a significant blow (or maybe not) to 60 Minutes and HarperCollins, the NYT managed to make a retail purchase of George Tenet’s book “At The Center of the Storm” which isn’t supposed to hit bookstore shelves until Monday. They have an early story up which focuses, shockingly, on disputes Tenet has with the V.P. and the “neocons” over the intelligence case for the Iraq War.
The 60 Minutes tease and now this NYT story focus first on the source of Tenet’s “Slam Dunk” nickname bestowed upon him by the leftwingnutroots. Tenet claims that his use of the phrase has been taken out of context by the VP and others who have deflected blame for the faulty intelligence to the CIA. Here is his explanation as explained by the NYT reporters:
He gives a detailed account of the episode, which occurred during an Oval Office meeting in December 2002 when the administration was preparing to make public its case for war against Iraq.
During the meeting, the deputy C.I.A. director, John McLaughlin, unveiled a draft of a proposed public presentation that left the group unimpressed. Mr. Tenet recalls that Mr. Bush suggested that they could “add punch” by bringing in lawyers trained to argue cases before a jury.
“I told the president that strengthening the public presentation was a ‘slam dunk,’ a phrase that was later taken completely out of context,” Mr. Tenet writes. “If I had simply said, ‘I’m sure we can do better,’ I wouldn’t be writing this chapter — or maybe even this book.”
So, in other words, Tenet claims his “slam dunk” comment was nothing more than an assurance to the President that the CIA could re-tool their presentation to make it more persuasive when presented to the public.
I find this less than compelling — it sure sounds like a guy trying to reverse-engineer the situation to make it come out better for himself. Tenet’s primary gripe is that “Slam Dunk” has come to define his career with the CIA, and that the VP and other war advocate have repeatedly referred back to it in their years-long battle with the CIA over where the blame for faulty intelligence should lie.
The reporting on this subject started with Woodward’s book. Of the same meeting, Woodward wrote:
On Dec. 19, 2002, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice asked Tenet and McLaughlin how strong the case was on weapons of mass destruction and what could be said publicly….
Two days later, Tenet and McLaughlin went to the Oval Office. The meeting was for presenting “The Case” on WMD as it might be presented to a jury with Top Secret security clearances. There was great expectation. In addition to the president, Cheney, Rice and White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. attended.
With some fanfare, McLaughlin stepped up to brief with a series of flip charts. This was the rough cut, he indicated, still highly classified and not cleared for public release….
When McLaughlin concluded, there was a look on the president’s face of, What’s this? And then a brief moment of silence.
“Nice try,” Bush said. “I don’t think this is quite — it’s not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from.”
Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop. In terms of marketing, the examples didn’t work, the charts didn’t work, the photos were not gripping, the intercepts were less than compelling.
Bush turned to Tenet. “I’ve been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we’ve got?”
From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw him arms in the air. “It’s a slam-dunk case!” the director of central intelligence said.
Bush pressed. “George, how confident are you?”
Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown University as possible, leaned forward and threw his arms up again. “Don’t worry, it’s a slam dunk!”
It was unusual for Tenet to be so certain. From McLaughlin’s presentation, Card was worried that there might be no “there there,” but Tenet’s double reassurance on the slam dunk was memorable and comforting. Cheney could think of no reason to question Tenet’s assertion. He was, after all, the head of the CIA and would know the most. The president later recalled that McLaughlin’s presentation “wouldn’t have stood the test of time.” But, said Bush, Tenet’s reassurance — “That was very important.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22552-2004Apr18_4.html
This is a pretty straightforward account by Woodward, and it is completely at odds with what Tenet is now saying. Given the way its written, I suspect the primary source for the account was Card, who was reported to have been quite accommodating of Woodward when he was writing the book.
Woodward’s book was excerpted by the WaPo in April 2004. But in 2003, Ronald Kessler had published “The CIA At War”, for which Tenet had given two sitdown interviews, and McLaughlin had given more than one interview.
http://www.amazon.com/CIA-War-Inside-Campaign-Against/dp/0312319339
The “slam dunk” episode isn’t recounted in Kessler’s book, but there is zero animosity by Tenet towards the VP or the White House, and McLaughlin actually praises the VP and his interaction with the CIA in the months leading up to the war. Take this passage, for example, from pg. 316-17:
When Cheney visited the CIA, McLaughlin would escort him into a conference room across the hall from the DCI’s office. There, the Vice President would spend three or four hours at a time with analysts. Besides the weapons of mass destruction issue, Cheney made visits to look into three or four other issues that interested him, such as North Korea and China.
“He came here a lot,” McLaughlin told me. “The characterization Colin Powell gave was exactly right: He loves to dig into things. When he comes, he is polite and respectful. Most of the people I would bring in to talk to him were thankful he was here. We were saying, “Thank you, God, for bringing us someone who is interested.”
More later. WLS
So Cheney is now in your “leftwingnutroots”? Is Attila the Hun still a little to the right?
Oregonian (1d209e) — 4/26/2007 @ 10:37 pmIf you google Tenet and “slam dunk” you’ll find lots of leftwingnutroot sites who refer to him as George “Slam Dunk” Tenet.
So, to the extent that the phrase has been pinned on him as a less than flattering nickname, its been done by the leftwing.
The only point the VP and other war advocates are making in referring back to the episode is that the CIA’s post-hoc attempts to rationalize its failures by claiming it was pressured by policy-makers is at odds with Tenet’s unequivocal expressions of confidence in the CIA’s intelligence analysis — and analysis that Tenet apparently concedes was wrong, but which he continues in his book to defend as the best product that could be fashioned given the limited sourcing available at the time.
wls (859dc4) — 4/26/2007 @ 10:52 pmAttn., Oregonian: you are not still in the Head Start Program here. So no “pat on the head” for you. Yet.
J. Peden (88b4f2) — 4/26/2007 @ 11:12 pmSo “Slam Dunk” wasn’t meant to refer to the actual presence of WMDs –but rather to ability to make a case for the presence of WMDs?
Huh?
Army Lawyer (0de2e7) — 4/27/2007 @ 4:28 amI predict that this shall be AF’s shining hour as a nutjob.
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/27/2007 @ 5:16 amI think when you say ‘re-engineered’ it must be Tenet’s Rube Goldberg machine you’re referring to.
How does this make him, or et al, look any better?
It was a Madison Avenue Ad firm who packaged this
semanticleo (2f60f4) — 4/27/2007 @ 5:55 amdog food and told us it was Bananas Foster. They knew we wouldn’t knowingly eat a substance intended for dogs, so they hyped it.
Did you see the roster that Ad firm has? Impressive. Impressive, ain’t it?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 6:16 am“Clinton did it too”
Good rebuttal.
semanticleo (2f60f4) — 4/27/2007 @ 6:20 amWith the same intelligence. So it’s a bipartisan dog food marketing ad firm, huh?
Brilliant. So when do we get the Bananas Foster?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 6:33 am“when do we get the Bananas Foster?”
Never. Instead we are left with the bitter taste of wormwood resulting from the wrong-headed debacle that is your signature clusterf–k, the Iraq war.
semanticleo (2f60f4) — 4/27/2007 @ 6:48 amHas 60 minutes ever ran a story by someone peddling a book that was positive about Bush or the Administration?
Gabriel (6d7447) — 4/27/2007 @ 7:13 amYou really miss Saddam, don’t you? Don’t worry, Bunky. You may yet get your murderous dictatorship back, if Harry and Nancy have their way.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 7:14 am“You really miss Saddam, don’t you?”
Another, most excellent rebuttal. Is Pablo an alias for Mickey Kaus?
semanticleo (2f60f4) — 4/27/2007 @ 7:19 amHave you read your last 3 posts, semanticleo? Did you have an argument you wanted to offer here? Because this would be the right time to do it.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 7:35 amsemanticleo,
The wormwood analogy is pretty tasteless given the Chernobyl anniversary yesterday. Anyway, if you are going to suffer the bitter taste of wormwood, here you go:
Traditionally, absinthe is poured into a glass over which a specially designed slotted spoon is placed. A sugar cube is then deposited in the bowl of the spoon. Ice-cold water is poured or dripped over the sugar until the drink is diluted 3:1 to 5:1. During this process, the components that are not soluble in water, mainly those from anise, fennel and star anise, come out of solution and cloud the drink; the resulting milky opalescence is called the louche (Fr. ‘opaque’ or ‘shady’, IPA [luʃ]). The addition of water is important, causing the herbs to ‘blossom’ and bringing out many of the flavours originally overpowered by the anise. For most people, a good quality absinthe should not require sugar, but it is added according to taste and will also thicken the mouth-feel of the drink. The major Swiss distillers recommend their absinthes without the addition of sugar.
carlitos (b38ae1) — 4/27/2007 @ 8:06 am“I predict that this shall be AF’s shining hour as a nutjob.”
Huh?
“You really miss Saddam, don’t you?”
AF (d700ef) — 4/27/2007 @ 8:53 amI’ll take your Saddam and raise you a Gulbuddin Rohrabacher, a Rios Montt, one Reza Pahlavi, 2 Pinochets, one Gwangju and an El Mozote!.
You kids are so out of your league it’s getting silly. I haven’t had this much fun since the last time I was in Belgrade arguing with Milosevic supporters; or maybe Moscow in 89 with old Stalinists.
“Russia one country right or wrong!”
Reactionaries are the same the world over.
Clinton was president in 2003?
Moops (8fcb37) — 4/27/2007 @ 10:10 am“Instead we are left with the bitter taste of wormwood resulting from the wrong-headed debacle that is your signature clusterf–k, the Iraq war.”
Only to “Frenchmen” who believe that they can preserve the pleasures of wine, adultery and civilized conversation simply by not resisting.
Do you have children, semanticleo?
nk (49aa3f) — 4/27/2007 @ 10:33 amResisting what nk, only Islamo-fascism or the US variety too?
AF (d700ef) — 4/27/2007 @ 11:05 amAnd resisting intelligently or stupidly? How about flailing around with a baseball bat until you hit yourself in the head?
Think kid. Think.
Mitt Romney on Bin Ladin: “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.”
any takers?
AF (d700ef) — 4/27/2007 @ 11:07 am[…] over George “Slam Dunk” Tenet’s new buck-passing tome. Patterico’s already begun to fisk it and I suspect you’ll hear from Bryan about it sometime before next week is through (the book […]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Lieutenant Colonel unloads on generals for Iraq “debacle” (d4224a) — 4/27/2007 @ 11:14 amAF, why not provide the rest of Mitt Romney’s statement so people can make an informed decision about his position:
DRJ (41a330) — 4/27/2007 @ 11:18 am“AF, why not provide the rest of Mitt Romney’s statement so people can make an informed decision about his position:”
Because I’m just funnin.’
AF (d700ef) — 4/27/2007 @ 12:06 pmBut if Kerry or Gore had said it context wouldn’t have mattered a bit to you, or Fox or Drudge, Bin ladin is the primary focus until you say he isn’t I guess.
You have to actually click the links and read, Moops.
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 12:23 pmMitt Romney is trying to be a Democrat. He’s already taken tons of flack for his statement among Reps and probably sank his campaign.
Note that both Rudy and McCain are pushing “I’ll nuke me if I have to” regarding terrorism.
Everyone knows generally where Osama is (Pakistan). It will take war with Pakistan to get him. Biden floated that trial balloon to his supporters and got shot down.
What will happen? Appeasement, temporizing, surrender, withdrawal, defeat until we lose several cities. Then: annihilation of whole nations in response.
Stupid. Ugly. Preventable. But hey Lefties must have their fantasies about “negotiating real hard.” Why I can smell the “Peace in our time” right now.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 4/27/2007 @ 1:28 pm“Why I can smell the “Peace in our time”
What I want to know is why people like you are so willing to keep appeasing the Saudis: the people who funded Bin Ladin and now fund Al Qaeda in Iraq. And why the defense of the dictators Musharraf and Mubarak? Why are we supporting Sunni Terrorists again?
idiot.
AF (d700ef) — 4/27/2007 @ 3:01 pmSo, now we have the Tenet version of “slam dunk” versus the Andy Card version. Whom do we believe? Here is a novel idea: ask McLaughlin what Tenet said, or see if someone took notes. No, no, no, actually ferreting out the truth would be too messy.
I, for one, do not care if Tenet succeeds or fails in his effort to rehabilitate his reputation. He should have stood up to the VP and Rumsfeld at the time, but he did not. If he, Powell, and Rice had used their influence with President Bush, and opposed the war, it might not have happened. Only Powell had the courage to speak to Bush about the downsides of the war.
Christophercooke (496d7d) — 4/27/2007 @ 3:14 pmLet’s see…the CIA missed the fall of the Soviet Union. The CIA was created to facilitate the Soviet downfall. It missed al Queda and its threats to the US. An orginization that caused the greatest loss of life on US soil.
So, we are suppose to be surprised the CIA missed the WMD’s in Iraq? I propose changing the name of the CIA to the CYA or perhaps the PC-IA.
Jlane91208 (7d58a0) — 4/27/2007 @ 3:34 pmI don’t know why Pelosi went to hold hands with Assad, AF. You?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 5:11 pm“I don’t know why Pelosi went to hold hands with Assad”
It’s called diplomacy. Someone, somewhere needs to do it.
>macaroon>
semanticleo (2f60f4) — 4/27/2007 @ 5:16 pmExcellent rebuttal, semanticleo. That’s like 4 in a row for you, isn’t it?
So what did Pelosi accomplish with Assad, other than delivering a message Israel didn’t send? What’s the outcome?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/27/2007 @ 5:53 pmTenet is Toast,
EricPWJohnson (92aae0) — 4/27/2007 @ 6:23 pmTenet should have submitted his resignation at 0800 on September 12th 2001. He was the direct architect of failure. That Bush did not drop kick him reflects badly on Bush.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And by the way, the immensely obscure rightwing dictators or events you mention are pimples on the a$$ of the world class butchers you leftists hang on your walls and kiss goodnight. Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Ceausescu, Castro, Mengistu, Idi Amin…
It can only be a reflection of your deep seated personal inadequacies that you identify so closely with powerfully murderous monsters. Daddy issues huh?
gm (9e9332) — 4/27/2007 @ 7:45 pm1- ” immensely obscure” to you maybe but not the rest of the world
2- Ceausescu. You mean that guy who palled around with Mother Theresa? [just kidding (but it’s true)]
3- Wait. Let’s see… and you excluded Hitler because he was one of “yours??”
——————–
“So what did Pelosi accomplish with Assad, other than delivering a message Israel didn’t send?”
Read and Learn.
Haaretz, before the Pelosi visit:
Israel seeks to reassure Syria: No summer attack
[Of course you haven’t heard about this have you? It didn’t appear on Fox News or the Drudge Report.]
And Jewish Week, after:
I can respect someone who stands for a principle, even if its one I don’t agree with, but I’m not sure fear is a principle; and that’s all you operate on.
AF (d700ef) — 4/27/2007 @ 8:36 pmAs a matter of fact I did. But apparently, you didn’t hear about this. this. Perhaps because it wasn’t on Daily Kos or NPR.
So, once again, since you decided to tackle the question, what did Pelosi accomplish by playing footsie with a murderer like Assad? Lantos says it was productive? What did it produce, other than a PR victory for Assad?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 4/28/2007 @ 3:20 amTenet is no hero. If he felt this way he should have said so at the time. HOWEVER, he has stated that the President never seriously discussed any other way of dealing with Sadam Hussein other than war and never really questioned the evidence. All the President’s claims otherwise are bullcrap..Is anyone surprised?
Bush spokespeople have denied this say that Tenent was not involve in all the discussions. Ya! that’s right! The head of the CIA was not involved in other discussions by the President! What the hell kind of discussions on these other methods could have taken place without ever having ONCE included Tenent. Perhaps the included Karl Rove,instead?
If you believe that the President really did have such discussions just not with Tenent, then I guess you also believe that Bush is a regular literary lion, as he says, that reads 90 books a year! (still cant put a coherent sentence together for some strange reason, which I am sure is somehow the fault of Bill Clinton!)
Understand one thing if you dont understand anything else. BUSH IS A DAMN LIAR.. he is willing to say anything to cover his sorry butt and he and his cronies took this nation to war based on either total incompetence or deliberate lies! WHAT THE HELL MORE EVIDENCE DO YOU NEED?! Bush was sleeping at the switch when he received a message that OBL was “determined to strike in the US” and he did nothing. Three thousand killed in the worst terrorist attack in history. Oh but that is not his fault, now is it???!!
Now he has gotten us into a war in which tens of thousand have been killed and millions driven from their homes and the radical islamic funamentalists have gained a massive recruiting platform. Ya he really really cares about those poorly equiped troops, doesnt he? (just dont get injured or die folks cause then they dont want to know you!)
Bush is guilty of criminal actions and he is resisting any withdrawal plan because it reflects badly on him , never mind how many more a killed because of him.
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/28/2007 @ 4:49 amInstead of nitpicking the likes of Pelosi we ought to begin immediate impeachment against this lying, ignorant, pompus , arrogant moron who has led our nation down the road to disaster and who is responsible for so much death and destruction that he is one of the worlds greatest killers! Bush and Cheney and Rove think the average American is just an object to be used and manipulated for political ends. The dont belong in Washington. They belong in jail and if you cant see this now than take off the damn glasses wake up before our nation winds up on he junk pile of history!
I am a Vietnam era vet and I am totally ashamed and disgusted with those that are dragging our nation into the dirt and those that enable them!
The Israeli statements contradict one another. They changed over time. Why? Whom do you believe, Pablo, Tom Lantos and (Republican) David Hobson of Bush and Olmert? You do know Lantos’ personal history and voting record, right?
And please don’t tell me who should and shouldn’t have gone to Syria when a Republican house delegation had been there days before Pelosi and Darrelll Issa’s visit followed.
Meanwhile Hastert visted Colombia during Clinton administration negotiations with that country and encouraged their government to ignore Clinton and talk to congress, and then there’s Gingrich’s stements on his trip to China and abuot the middle east.
You parrot statements you want to believe, made by people you want to belive in. And they’re the same people over and over again.
We’re not leaving Iraq. Ever.
AF (d700ef) — 4/28/2007 @ 5:17 amLt. Col. Paul Yingling
AF (d700ef) — 4/28/2007 @ 8:00 amA Failure in Generalship
Pablo, WLS, Jim Rockford and GM:
The few, the proud, the 28 percent.
Doesn’t it ever get old? Digging deep and scrounging around for the last few rounds of verbal ammunition to blindly fire away with. All the while the world closes in on you.
When we finally clean up this dung-heep (AKA the Bush administration), you’ll be most thankful that we are, in fact, broad-minded people. Otherwise we’d just convict you for being collaborators in treason and shovel you out with the rest of the dung.
As it now stands – we’re going to give you credit merely being duped. But would you just shut the hell up and go away? As your ranks continue to shrink, you have even less standing for running those mouths.
So while you’ll apparently never tire of talking – the world is well past the point of listening.
Brent Mack (ca66f3) — 4/28/2007 @ 8:55 amAF, an excellent choice of an excellent article by a particularly brave Army officer. Thank you.
I completely agree with LtCol Yingling’s thesis and analysis. Unfortunately, as Mr Rumsfeld sought to “transform” the military during his tenure I fear that he likely paid little attention to the principles suggested by LtCol Yingling.
As one who served as an Army officer for 25 years, including Viet Nam, I am personally well aware of the principles about which he speaks. After Viet Nam we transformed the military in many respects, including how we selected our officer and non-commissioned officer corps. We even arguably ended up with some pretty fine generals such as Gens Powell and Swartzkopf and perhaps even Gen Franks, though given the strength of Col Yingling’s argument, perhaps I’ll have to rethink that some.
I freely admit that I am not privy to the internal dynamic of military/WH decision-making, however, I can’t help but think that Mr Bush, in his desire not to micromanage the war as Mr Johnson had done, likely bent too far in the other direction in listening to generals who were reluctant to rock the boat by disagreeing with Mr Rumsfeld in particular.
What I find most amazing is that an active duty officer with multiple combat tours has the professional courage to state publicly what many are probably discussing privately. I salute Col Yingling for his efforts.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/28/2007 @ 9:22 amRight, AF. Why believe Olmert about what Olmert said? Bu$hco must have gotten him to set Pelosi up just to make her look bad. That’s an awfully tiny box you’re thinking in there, AF.
We’re not leaving soon. I don’t know about ever. But you say that like it’s a bad thing.
So, I was wondering if you were going to tell me what it was Pelosi accomplished by meeting with Assad. You’ve got 57 flavors of evil imputed into Rumsfeld meeting with Saddam, so tell us about the wonderful things Pelosi did with her handshake. What good did she do?
As for Lt Col Yingling, I’m wondering if you agree with him that the General Corps is the problem. He certainly makes a strong argument. And what do you think of his conclusion?
Pablo (7b1281) — 4/28/2007 @ 10:38 amWe’re not leaving Iraq. Ever.
Precisely.
We’re still in the Balkans, well beyond the promised time frame.
We still have several divisions in central Europe and a small contingent in Japan, 60 plus years after the end of WWII.
We still have more than a division in Korea, 50 plus years after the cease-fire.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/28/2007 @ 10:41 amBrent, have a couple of Midol, buddy.
Pablo (7b1281) — 4/28/2007 @ 10:45 am#40, I neglected to mention Gen Petraeus, who by all accounts, and from what I’ve seen so far, is cut from the cloth envisioned by LtCol Yingling. He certainly wrote the latest book on counter insurgency operations that he is attemption to put into practice in central Iraq today. Unfortunately I’m not yet aware of his education and language abilities. He is certainly not reluctant to recognize past failures and to speak forthrightly about current events.
I do look forward to reading Mr Tenet’s book. I suspect he has an interesting perspective on intelligence gathering and action in the last decade or so and particularly in the lead up to the war.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 4/28/2007 @ 10:47 amA recent director of the CIA, who has received criticism from all sides for various reasons, writes a book.
It may be very interesting, maybe even include things of value.
But, how is one to decide what is truth or fiction? Information or disinformation? Inaccurate recall or purposeful distortion?
Who will leak CIA or NSA documents to prove him right/wrong? Who will print/broadcast the leaked documents? How much will be candid admission of error, even understandable miscalculation, rather than self-serving blameshifting?
If I have time and opportunity, I’ll read it 20 years from now and compare it to other accounts and declassified papers.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/28/2007 @ 11:49 amAF- We’re not leaving ever
Pablo-We’re not leaving soon.
AF- We’re not leaving ever
Harry- Precisely
“I neglected to mention Gen Petraeus, who by all accounts, and from what I’ve seen so far, is cut from the cloth envisioned by LtCol Yingling. ”
No evidence of that so far this time around.
“The hour is late, but not too late to prepare for the challenges of the Long War.”
I don’t have to agree with everything the man says. I only brought it up because if I said anything said you’d accuse me of treason.
It is too late for Iraq.
“Why believe Olmert about what Olmert said? ”
AF (d700ef) — 4/28/2007 @ 12:01 pmPrecisely, when we have the words of others who were there.
So let’s examine who has what reasons to say what they did.
You’d choose one source who supported your assumptions over 20 who didn’t. That’s the difference between you and me.
“I’ll read it 20 years from now and compare it to other accounts and declassified papers”
There are plenty of books and declassied papers out already. Why don’t you read them and report back to us. Most of them don’t get mentioned here.
AF (d700ef) — 4/28/2007 @ 12:03 pmAF-
I left you a note on the “Memo to 2008” thread.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 4/28/2007 @ 12:09 pmSure, AF. One is the Prime Minister of Israel who is in charge of Israeli diplomacy. That’s his reason. The other is on a quest to wrest diplomatic relevance from the President for herself. That’s her reason.
Your point? And are you going to tell us what exactly Pelosi accomplished?
Pablo (7b1281) — 4/28/2007 @ 1:02 pmCue three links, a huge block quote, and lots of smarmy “i already told you, read the links”…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/28/2007 @ 2:21 pm“The other is on a quest to wrest diplomatic relevance from the President for herself.”
“Cue three links, a huge block quote, and lots of smarmy “i already told you, read the links”…
Not this time; the links are already there, above.
AF (d700ef) — 4/28/2007 @ 2:32 pmBut I still want to know what it is you have against empiricism and data?
Guess Faux News and Drudge didn’t bother to link it: Pelosi met with Assad and now the Iraq war is over. In other news not covered by Faux and Drudge Pelosi convinced Bin Laden to renounce terrorism and Michael Jordan to suit up for the playoffs.
And on the plane ride home? She cured cancer.
Sweetie (a8c3bd) — 4/28/2007 @ 3:25 pmThe lack thereof.
Why don’t you want to address Pelosi’s effectiveness or Yingling’s conclusions?
Bile is not data.
Pablo (7b1281) — 4/28/2007 @ 6:23 pm1 out of three, though I did predict this to be his shining hours for nuttery, so I consider myself validated…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/28/2007 @ 7:57 pmAnd upon arriving back in the states, she beat up Chuck Norris…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/28/2007 @ 7:58 pmLIES!
Taltos (c99804) — 4/28/2007 @ 9:10 pmOtherwise we’d just convict you for being collaborators in treason and shovel you out with the rest of the dung.
— And this, in a nutshell, is why we have the 2d ammendment.
gm (9e9332) — 4/28/2007 @ 9:35 pmYou mean that guy who palled around with Mother Theresa?
—Yep, a hallmark of an evil socialist. Besmirching a Christian woman who did so much real good for terribly impoverished people in India. You love the poor but hate those who address it with love, its just your fellow citizens you want to put in concentration camps.
gm (9e9332) — 4/28/2007 @ 9:38 pmHere is a letter I received from a woman in Pakistan.. interesting perspective on Tenent..
I havent read Tenet’s book … and nor do i mean to … why?… becoz i dont respect a man who is silent when it matters. Bush is down and out now …and suddenly Tenet finds a voice? He gladly (and silently) took the medal Bush stuck on his chest for ‘meritorious’ service to the USA!
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/29/2007 @ 5:40 amu know i am not a fan of Bush, but i do believe he wants to do wot is best for the USA … and i actually do think that he is has a lot of political savvy but is also very stupid …i agree with him that withdrawing now would be catastrophic from the US point of view IF the US still wants to be a relevant super power… and politics is all about power…
the neocon group (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove etc) who used him are the ones whose role should be brought to book …. or made to pay in some way for their evil machinations…
Maybe Tenet is doing his master a last service and clearing his name and getting him another ‘scapegoat’ in the form of the VP … i say ‘scapegoat’ as the buck stops with the president … period!… Cheney is a man i dont mind seeing impeached… i can barely get myself to listen to him on TV!!….
Tenet’s book reminds me of the hyena’s attacking the lion only when he is down… wotever his motives, Tenet is a dishonourable man in my book … he dishonoured his oath and did the USA a disservice to his country by not correcting the ‘context’ of his ‘slam dunk’ statement when it mattered … but then he may not have got a medal?….:P
No, i will not read his book!
Lt. Col. Paul Yingling very good article you wrote but the real failure is the failure of the civilian adminstration, Bush Co to be honest and truthful with the American people and to try every possible means to avoid war.
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/29/2007 @ 5:47 amBush lied and distorted the evidence for his own pre determined war which he thought would be quick and easy. Those that disagreed were jeered into silence. Well now that the stated reasons for the war have proven false the fruits of this deception and suppression are growing and that is why we face such anti war feelings at home.
If we had had an honest debate with open information, we would not be in this mess today. I blame Bush and Co, the complicit Republicans, the lazy Democrats and the Media.
Now that I think of it Col isnt this, the problem in post 60, the same reason for the Vietnam debacle?
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/29/2007 @ 5:51 amYet another Bush Administration insider revealing more evidence of the incompetence and lies deployed in order to con this country into this wasteful, senseless, unwinnable war.
Way to go, GW!
The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:06 amAn insider who’s motives at changing and/or rewriting history is beyond questioning…
Yes, all hail Tenet!
Though you wouldn’t have believed a single word out of his mouth before, it’s amazing that you take every word as gospel now that he’s bashing bush…
I’m shocked. Really…
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:45 amEvery former Bush Administration member that turns against the Admin is a liar. None of them have told anything truthful. The Bush Administration has been beyond reproach and has never been dishonest to the American people about ANYTHING, let alone the war in Iraq.
The Liberal Avenger (b8c7e2) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:00 am“But I still want to know what it is you have against empiricism and data?
The lack thereof.”
I get complaints when I bavk up my points, and then when I don’t. I link to the WSJ and it gets called BS. I link to defenses of Pelosi by Republicans and it that gets ignored. I link mention the Lantos who’s a pro-Israel hawk and it gets dissed. I link to Gingrich’s record (and it was Chris Wallace who questioned him on it) and no response here. Tenet is trying to cover his own ass just like everyone else, but that’s not to say the book doesn’t add to what we know.
We’re ruled by idiots.
Have a nice day.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 8:23 amLA wrote:
It’s good to see that LA, who was trying to be sarcastic, actually got it right.
Is Mr Tenet claiming that he knew there were no WMD in Iraq, or even that he thought it unlikely there were WMD in Iraq? If that’s the case, why on God’s earth would he stick his neck out for something he thought false, knowing that his support was necessary for the invasion, and that the invasion would answer any questions about WMD, definitively?
And I guess that he never expressed his doubts to his previous boss, either, given that President Clinton thought the WMD were there, and Senatrix Clinton, who could easily have been warned by her estranged husband, voted for the war and made some rather hawkish speeches.
Dana (556f76) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:11 amWait. Let’s see… and you excluded Hitler because he was one of “yours”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hitler was a socialist dictator (National Socialist party) and ally of murderous Jospeph Stalin (see The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact). Mein Kampf was originally published by leftist publishing company.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The CPUSA was adamantly opposed to fascism during the Popular Front period. Although membership in the CPUSA rose to about 75,000[7] by 1938, many members left the party after the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact Nonaggression Pact of 1939. Signing of a pact with Hitler meant that the CPUSA turned the focus of its public activities from anti-fascism to advocating peace, not only opposig military preparations but also condemning those opposed to Hitler. The CPUSA accused Winston Churchill and Roosevelt of provoking aggression against Hitler and denounced the Polish government as fascist after the German and Soviet invasion. In allegiance to the Soviet Union, the party changed this policy again after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. So sudden was this change that CPUSA members of the UAW negotiating on behalf of the union reportedly changed their position from favoring strike action to opposing it in the same negotiating session.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_USA#The_Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact_and_World_War_II_.281939-1945.29
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Definitely one of yours…
He was recast as a ‘right wing’ fascist when he invaded Russia and all you good little commies did an about face and fell right in line. This was brilliant and evil ideological jiu-jitsu. You’ve made a lot of mileage out of this over the last few decades.
I didn’t list him because then one of you lefties would have to spend half an hour typing with one hand describing the taxonomy of marxism and what genus didn’t Hitler fell into. With the other hand you would be massaging your libidinous ideological arousal. I left him out to spare you that humiliation.
If you want to think that Hitler is a hero of conservatives, go ahead. That is probably one of your least dangerous self-delusions.
Absolute power, the opportunity to enslave your fellow man. Orwell’s nightmare vision in 1984 was of a jackboot stamping on the human face forever.
gm (9e9332) — 4/29/2007 @ 9:42 amcharges in the book by Tenent
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON – White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George J. Tenet.
Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to insert “crap” into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration’s willingness to “mischaracterize complex intelligence information.”
WELL if this added to the countless other bits, or bombshells, of information about Bush and his sneaking lying ways, doesnt convince you of the fact that lies were told to get us into this war..NOTHING WILL..
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:02 amAF in answer to your question… The Phenomenon you are dealing with in these posters is called Denial. They placed a lot of hope and fears in George Bush. They have been feeding on the lies and propaganda of the radical right that feeds fear, and intolerance into their lives. Now when these fixed notions are challenged and the foundations crumble they see all that is good and sacred to them under fire and that is why they deny, deny and deny some more and put their faith in trust in the very people who created these boogy men.
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:08 amDANA quit tring to kid us…
Charlie (55cd2b) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:12 amBush invaded for reasons proven false. HE IS RESPONSIBLE for the killing and the disaster that has taken place and you and I both know that if Bill Clinton had done exactly the same thing you and the rest of the Bush loving Republicans would be furious..
gm you’re an idiot.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:14 amBack to business:
I said I have have no interest in defending Tenet. So with that in mind, here’s Michael Scheuer in the Post:
Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don’t Buy It.
I’m far from agreement with Sheuer on a lot of things, but he spreads the blame around: from Papa Bush to Clinton to George W.
I’m sure you won’t like it since Scheuer is obviously a comsymp picko hippie, but still…
And Chuck speaks of denial…
Irony is fun!
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:14 amActually you should love Michael Scheuer:
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:33 amYou should love this guy.
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 11:59 amGood answer Mike…
Right up there with the US military sniper (marine, i think) who, when asked if he felt anything when he shot someone, answered “Recoil, ma’am…”
Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/29/2007 @ 12:34 pmYou haven’t backed up your claim, which is the subject of my open question.
Well, that settles everything.
And thanks for the other irrelevant information. When do you think we started being ruled by idiots? I’m surprised that you’re just noticing this.
Pablo (7b1281) — 4/29/2007 @ 12:44 pmScott, does that mean you’ll read what Scheuer wrote in today’s paper?
AF (d700ef) — 4/29/2007 @ 12:45 pmAnyone catch what this former Bush administration, Morgan Reynolds has to say?
http://videogoogle.com/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 4/29/2007 @ 3:43 pmFor some reason, it won’t play, so, if you really want to know a stunning expose’, google up “Morgan Reynolds video 911” You’ll be shocked.
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 4/29/2007 @ 3:45 pmCharlie wrote:
Thing is, Charlie, Bill Clinton did do the same thing. In December of 1998, he ordered a four day bombing campaign, to somewhat limited effect, because the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out and he believed that Iraq still had banned weapons. And when it came time for his lovely wife to vote on the authorization to use force, the former President, a man who got everything the intelligence community produced up until twenty months earlier, didn’t warn her, “Dearest, you shouldn’t vote for this one; it’s a set-up.”
Charles, everyone believed it. Even the nations which opposed going to war to do anything about it still thought that Iraq had banned weapons.
Dana (556f76) — 4/29/2007 @ 5:51 pmThe CIA didn’t. The weapons inspectors didn’t. Other countries’ intelligence didn’t.
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 4/29/2007 @ 7:01 pmgm: #67,
“Hitler was a socialist dictator (National Socialist party) and ally of murderous Jospeph Stalin (see The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact). Mein Kampf was originally published by leftist publishing company.”
Since you like Wikipedia so much, take a quick peek at the entry for “Nazi Party” – its first modifier is “far-right”.
You mention Hitler’s alliance with Stalin, citing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. You fail to mention the following lines:
“Stalin expressed in the speech [regarding the Pact] an expectation that the war would be the best opportunity to weaken both the Western nations and Nazi Germany, and make Germany suitable for “Sovietization”.
You also fail to mention the Yalta Conference, where Stalin met with Churchill and Roosevelt to discuss the post-war division of Germany.
Great friends, those two.
Retard.
Leviticus (68eff1) — 4/30/2007 @ 8:18 amMore anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, blu?
Fritz (3c5a22) — 4/30/2007 @ 8:32 am#46, I don’t have to agree with everything the man says. I only brought it up because if I said anything said you’d accuse me of treason.
It is too late for Iraq.
AF, I wouldn’t accuse you of treason, I’d simply suggest that we disagree. So, we just disagree. Sen Lieberman also disagrees.
Sen Lieberman: Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.
In following General Petraeus’ path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.
The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.
Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.
Harry Arthur (5af33b) — 4/30/2007 @ 9:11 amFritz, how in God’s name did you get anti-Semiticsm out of that. You are probably one that thinks Zionism and Judaism are the same thing too. More confusion on your part, Fritz.
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 4/30/2007 @ 9:27 amI know you, blu, and I know that all your conspiracy theories come down to the power of the Jews. Except, of course, you don’t say Jews, you say Israeli Lobby, which actually is more or less the same thing, no matter how much you attempt to deny it.
When Israel is destroyed, and you celebrate, it’s Jews who are going to die.
Fritz (3c5a22) — 4/30/2007 @ 9:37 am“In December of 1998, he ordered a four day bombing campaign, to somewhat limited effect, because the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out and he believed that Iraq still had banned weapons. ”
They weren’t forced, the inspectors were removed in preparation for the strike
This one’s kind of fun:
more here
But Bluberry, enough with the Inside Job delusions. These people are bad enough without having to resort to fantasy. Just ask Fritz why he’s so big on people who defend the Saudis. That’ll be enough.
AF (d700ef) — 4/30/2007 @ 10:37 amHow many jews are there in Saudi Arabia Fritz?
And how many in Iran?
Better yet, how many synagogues are there in Tehran?
How many Kosher butcher shops?
AF: blu and I have the luxury of disagreeing on principle. Our leaders, those who are entrusted with defense policy and foreign relations, must always keep their eye on prudence.
Fritz (3c5a22) — 4/30/2007 @ 11:53 am“keep their eye on prudence.”[sic]
Who’s Prudence?
It’s the responsibility of all citizens in a democracy Fritz never to trust their leaders. The obsequious and linguistically challenged pomposity you mistake for moral seriousness makes you more annoying than bluebell. Like the old German woman near the end of the war whose response to doubters was to tell them not to worry.”When the time comes, The Fuhrer will gas us too.”
Try answering my questions.
AF (d700ef) — 4/30/2007 @ 2:03 pmBush is guilty of criminal actions and he is resisting any withdrawal plan because it reflects badly on him , never mind how many more a killed because of him.
Bush has ruined mid east policy, ruined us in the eyes of the world and destroyed millions of lives because he wanted to go to war to line the pocket of his buddies, period. Jail is too good for him…
Joyce
Joyce Lahna (273e95) — 4/30/2007 @ 2:58 pmWe’re up to millions now? Did the lancet do another study?
Taltos (c99804) — 4/30/2007 @ 4:11 pmFritz, I won’t try to explain anything to you, because you distort it in your mind, and then through your keyboard onto the commentary thread.
For anyone that really wants to see the many US intelligence officials, including many military intelligence officials, and administration officials past, (as well as many many other credible people) that see what I see on the so called “911-conspiracy” I’ll give you the link, but I cannot give you the live link, because the post won’t post. It disappears. Yes really! I do not know why. So, you’ll have to type it into your search engine, after I present it here, spread out, to prevent the post from going off into cyber-space. It is:
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 4/30/2007 @ 4:56 pmwww . patriots question 911 . com /
I’m sitting in my apartment, wearing my Michael Moore t-shirt, reading the foreign press over the internet, listening to Air America, with copies of the Village Voice, Mother Jones, The New Republic, and The Nation near at hand, and I’m wondering: How much worse can this fascist state get?
By the way, prudence, according to some, at least, is the premier political virtue.
Canius (d9dba9) — 4/30/2007 @ 5:14 pmSo, Canius, did you find the site I suggested?
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 4/30/2007 @ 5:52 pmAnything Howard Zinn is part of, let me tell you, sign me up!
Or this beauty:
.
The no-planes theory is a good one as well.
In any case, truth isn’t usually understood as a being furthered by an argument from authority. So what if a bunch of retired classicists, religious studies, professors, and a guy who does a lot of adjunct work in the Seattle area have a crazy conspiracy theory? Why haven’t any of these “experts”, like the one fellow who is actually a structural engineer, published papers in peer-reviewed academic journals? Is because those journals are all controlled by the CIA?
Did you see that piece of highway in Oakland that collapsed after the gasoline truck exploded? Oakland is in a earthquake prone area, it’s freeways are heavily reinforced (especially after the nonsense of the last big quake). Must of been that pesky CIA with their controlled demolitions again.
Canius (d9dba9) — 4/30/2007 @ 8:09 pmMany people do not know that the term “Nazi” means “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” and that members of the horrid group did not call themselves Nazis, but called themselves socialists. They also did not use the F-word as a self-description.
Even the swastika itself was used to represent S-lettering for “socialism” under the National Socialist German Workers Party.
Swastika pictures http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg and Pledge of Allegiance pictures
http://rexcurry.net/pledge-allegiance-pledge-allegiance.jpg expose shocking secrets about connections to American history.
The “Nazi salute” is more accurately called the “American salute” as it was created and popularized by national socialists in the USA where its use was mandated by law in government schools for three decades before, and through, the creation of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It was the early gesture of the Pledge of Allegiance. http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
The original pledge was anti libertarian and began with a military salute that then stretched out toward the flag. In actual use, the second part of the gesture was performed with a straight arm and palm down by children casually performing the forced ritual chanting. Due to the way that both gestures were used sequentially in the pledge, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute via the USA’s Pledge Of Allegiance. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
The Pledge’s early salute caused quite a Fuhrer/furor. The dogma behind the Pledge was the same dogma that led to the socialist Wholecaust (of which the Holocaust was a part): 62 million slaughtered under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 49 million under the Peoples’ Republic of China; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. It was the worst slaughter of humanity ever.
There were beatings and lynchings against people who refused the straight-arm salute in robotic chanting of the Pledge in government schools in the USA.
The USA originated Nazism, Nazi salutes, flag fetishism, robotic group-chanting to flags, and the modern swastika symbol as S symbolism for “socialism,” all shown in the research of the symbologist Dr. Rex Curry.
Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, its use was altered to alphabetic symbolism in modern times. The bizarre acts in the USA began as early as 1875 and continued through the creation of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (German Nazis or NSGWP).
http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html
American socialists (e.g. Edward Bellamy and Francis Bellamy teamed with the Theosophical Society and Freemasons) bear some blame for the notorious swastika http://rexcurry.net/swastika3clear.jpg Swastikas became overlapping S-letters for “socialism,” all shown in the research of the noted symbologist. The same symbol was used by the Theosophical Society during the time when the Bellamys, Freemasons and the Theosophical Society worked together. They also originated and helped to spread the stiff arm salute via the Pledge of Allegiance at their meetings.
As German socialism’s notorious flag symbol, the swastika was deliberately turned 45 degrees to the horizontal and always oriented in the S-direction. Similar alphabetic symbolism is still visible as Volkswagen logos. http://rexcurry.net/swastika-audi-logo.JPG
The USA is still the worst example in the world of bizarre laws that require collective robotic chanting to a national flag in government schools (socialist schools) every day for 12 years. It has changed generations of Americans from libertarians to authoritarians. The government bamboozled individuals into believing that collective robotic chanting in government schools is a beautiful expression of freedom. Frightening photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html
Tinny Ray (4a64c9) — 5/1/2007 @ 4:36 amCanius,
Actually, the Scholars for 911 Truth has fractured into two now, because someone came in, claiming that wild theory, of lasers, which only undermines the rest of the massive body of evidence, which is rightfully sound, and there is plenty that has solid reasoning concluding that the government theory is actually the one without credible science behind it. There are even 911 Commision folks claiming that they couldn’t do their job sufficiently, because too much was being withheld from them.
The Oakland bridge collapse is from WEAKENED steel.
The towers collapse is from MELTED steel. That has been concluded by physicists, and engineers. Explosives experts after having studied, in depth, the results, state that there is no doubt that explosives were used.
If you go to the bottom of that site (again, I’ll state, I cannot provide a live link, since it disappears) planes did hit the towers. That wwww . patriots question 911 . com/ you will find an assortment of video documentaries, all of which, you will find rivetting. You will see that the film footage provided, was actually shown on television during that time period, showing that explosives were going off in the building, as people were running away from the site, exclaiming just that.
But that point is only one of dozens that point out the oddities on that day. There is still no solid explanation for the NORAD operating systems to have stopped working. Not once, but…as many times as each plane hit. Wouldn’t you think that after the first plane hit, even if they made an error, the rest of the planes would have been prevented from following through on the hits? There is so much more. You will see that the 911 truth movement is growing into large portions of our population now, for good reason.
How about just hearing the video of Morgan Reynolds on the patriotsquestion911 site? He was the chief economics official in GWB’s administration. Yes, really! He’s on our side now, acknowledging it was truly an act with our own government’s complicity in it.
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 5/1/2007 @ 10:18 amBlu, you DO realize that at a mere 400° steel loses a huge amount of it’s strength, right?
And I want to meet these “explosives experts” and count the number of fingers they have. And ask how a nearly 100% perfect controlled implosion was planned, staged, had charges planted, and was carried out in only a couple of hours…
Scott Jacobs (feb2f7) — 5/1/2007 @ 11:31 amScott, yes, I realize that, but the pulverized dust that became of the towers was completely contrary to the government story. Also, there has been thermite found in the debris, which is used in explosives.
Scott, there is a Conservative Republican that has worked to debunk the 911 “conspiracists”, and he, having an interest in explosives personally himself, researched the hell out of it. His conclusions are in this documentary. I’ll give you three addresses, so if you watch it in three increments, you hopefully won’t get an information overload. I’ll post it in three different posts. Most web sites have a limit as to how many live links it will allow in one post, so…the first one, I’ll start in on, in the next post.
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 5/2/2007 @ 10:08 amI guarantee you will be riveted.
Part one:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043&q=9%2F11+mysteries
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 5/2/2007 @ 10:11 amPart 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-999558027849894376&q=9%2F11+mysteries
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 5/2/2007 @ 10:12 amPart 3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162851149755261569
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 5/2/2007 @ 10:16 amScott, let me know what you think, after you watch it. I’d love to hear your thoughts.
blubonnet (8d9f79) — 5/2/2007 @ 10:17 am