100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Big Lie | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. Well then, yell at congress. Stop crying cover-up just because they wouldn't testify in open court on a National Security issue. The point being. Ready? Why wouldnt Bush/Cheneye testify under oath? They simply refused. They had something to hide . Right, the protection of National Security.  What, you think the knowledge they had of Al Quida and other terrorist events that were related to the attack were something they should have said out loud before we did anything? You think they should have gone before congress and told our enemies all that we know about them? Is that what FDR should have done with his fireside chats? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. Well then, yell at congress. Stop crying cover-up just because they wouldn't testify in open court on a National Security issue. The point being. Ready? Why wouldnt Bush/Cheneye testify under oath? They simply refused. They had something to hide . Right, the protection of National Security. Only an idiot would think that the US government is going to publicly discuss all the details of our defense and the actions/decisions that were made in a public forum so the enemy could do a better job next time. One of the biggest mistakes Obama has made is to tell the world what we are going to do in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. It gives the enemy EXACTLY the information they need to counter our moves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest mistakes Obama has made is to tell the world what we are going to do in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. It gives the enemy EXACTLY the information they need to counter our moves. You don't think they have contingencies prepared for all scenerios? You don't think they have already figured out What Obama's strategy is most likely to be? These people are not stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest mistakes Obama has made is to tell the world what we are going to do in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. It gives the enemy EXACTLY the information they need to counter our moves. You don't think they have contingencies prepared for all scenerios? You don't think they have already figured out What Obama's strategy is most likely to be? These people are not stupid. It is quite different to move your queen because you think this is what your opponent is going to do as opposed to KNOWING it is what they are going to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest mistakes Obama has made is to tell the world what we are going to do in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya. It gives the enemy EXACTLY the information they need to counter our moves. You don't think they have contingencies prepared for all scenerios? You don't think they have already figured out What Obama's strategy is most likely to be? These people are not stupid. No one said they were stupid. The US military knows that keeping them ignorant is a huge advantage. Giving the enemy information about when and where we are going to do anything is the best way to get our troops killed. Look at what Libya did as soon as they learned "There would be no boots on the ground." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look at what Libya did as soon as they learned "There would be no boots on the ground." Tell us. What did they do?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look at what Libya did as soon as they learned "There would be no boots on the ground." Tell us. What did they do? They took advantage of the situation to advance ground troops to retake territory from the rebels... and were very successful. |
|
|
|
|
