wrote:
oh....we were supposed to WIN??? Gee...I had the impression that we were supposed to be behind till we invaded Iran and established that pipeline from the Caspian to insure our oil futures.It's supposed to look bad...how else could the administration get the public to countanance yet another incursion into areas we have NO other business in?
I love this country but we are, on the whole, a batch of mercenary bastards!
I love this country but we are, on the whole, a batch of mercenary bastards!
10 September 2006 00:35:42
wrote:
Well said TL. Add to the mix, Bush, with known and unknown,
co-conspirators. LIED, about most things. Thats right, most things
period. Maybe a $70 million investigation, into Bush, Cheney crimes? What is the odds, all they would find, is a BJ? Time to stop dreaming about Bush/Cheney.
They have done great damage to our country. And most is probably still unknown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
co-conspirators. LIED, about most things. Thats right, most things
period. Maybe a $70 million investigation, into Bush, Cheney crimes? What is the odds, all they would find, is a BJ? Time to stop dreaming about Bush/Cheney.
They have done great damage to our country. And most is probably still unknown.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
10 September 2006 07:14:05
wrote:
Tom,
I see in the news that Bush's Buttbuddy Tony is gonna
"step down". Got to give the Brits credit for at least trying to DO something....more than I can say for us!!
We seem to spend a lot of time flappin our gums and not enough time finding ways to FIRE the pack of idiots who got us involved in this 'no-win' situation!
Preachers and Politicians....believe what they say and you deserve what you get!
I see in the news that Bush's Buttbuddy Tony is gonna
"step down". Got to give the Brits credit for at least trying to DO something....more than I can say for us!!
We seem to spend a lot of time flappin our gums and not enough time finding ways to FIRE the pack of idiots who got us involved in this 'no-win' situation!
Preachers and Politicians....believe what they say and you deserve what you get!
10 September 2006 10:07:33
wrote:
You hit a home run on all the points you made about losing the war on terror. But be prepared to have your patriotism questioned by ditto-heads or even be investigated as a "suspected terrorist." Thank you for pointing out what should have been obvious to everyone.
10 September 2006 16:06:22
clarionvoice wrote:
You have been right on two counts lately. Republicans DO deserve to lose and we lost the war on terror when we lost sight of maintaining the freedoms that seem to so irk the fundmentalist (both in and outside our coutnry). When you called the War on Poverty "awful" you were desperatley wrong. Head Start, Medicare and the other program you sited are in fact what make a Judeo-Chirstian country committed to fairness and separate us from the infidels!
10 September 2006 21:10:01
wrote:
Your best column ever,its most likely you will loose your job and have to go into hideing when the Brownshirts read it.
11 September 2006 03:31:07
wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/
I did not expect these results.
I did not expect these results.
11 September 2006 06:00:16
wrote:
You hit the nail on the head! Why doesn't everyone understand this?
11 September 2006 22:59:29
wrote:
Freedom of speech is a privilege in the United States of American. To write and speak about President Bush without using the word President, is not right. If you all learned from history and you learned about Hitler then you should know ONE reason why we are there. The last I checked, we have been successful in many aspects of the war. I love this country and stand tall in front of those who have served to give us this freedom.
12 September 2006 12:18:28
Susan wrote:
Shawn, I beg to differ. According to the First Amendment of our Bill of Rights, freedom of speech is not simply a privilege, it is our RIGHT, it is the right of all Americans.
12 September 2006 16:26:02
wrote:
What threats do you mean? I honestly do not feel that threatened by the gov.I mean I don't feel like I need to look over my shoulder when I check a book out of the Library,and I don't feel that my cell phone is being monitored or my e-mail either.I do feel more threatened when I go to the store on a weekend in the evening and have to look out for Sobriety Checkpoints.Being pulled over for speeding and have a police dog search my vehicle is another reality I fear also.In otherwords I fear the War on Drugs then the War on Terror! Oh and as far as opening our borders,Does Eurabia and Londonstan sound good to you
12 September 2006 17:21:07
snolte wrote:
Don't go to the store drunk Jim and perhaps then you would not fear sobriety checkpoints.
And the police dogs searching your car? Here's a clue: if you've got pot in your car don't speed.
Problems solved...you can thank me later.
And the police dogs searching your car? Here's a clue: if you've got pot in your car don't speed.
Problems solved...you can thank me later.
12 September 2006 22:52:28
Lucente wrote:
McNasty,
You are right in that the United States has become an imperial power. And imperialism is the enemy of freedom.
tjl
You are right in that the United States has become an imperial power. And imperialism is the enemy of freedom.
tjl
12 September 2006 23:49:11
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
I agree that Bush lied. In fact, in his speech Monday night, he admitted there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq. And we already know there were no weapons of mass destruction. He has run out of reasons for the war.
However, I disagree with your insinuation that the Clinton investigation was about oral sex. Bill Clinton committed numerous felonies and should be in prison right now rather than jetting around the world on the public dime.
tjl
I agree that Bush lied. In fact, in his speech Monday night, he admitted there was no connection between al-Qaida and Iraq. And we already know there were no weapons of mass destruction. He has run out of reasons for the war.
However, I disagree with your insinuation that the Clinton investigation was about oral sex. Bill Clinton committed numerous felonies and should be in prison right now rather than jetting around the world on the public dime.
tjl
12 September 2006 23:52:00
Lucente wrote:
Ray,
Well said. I guess our opportunity to fire the scoundrels happens in November.
-tjl
Well said. I guess our opportunity to fire the scoundrels happens in November.
-tjl
12 September 2006 23:53:15
Lucente wrote:
Jane,
Thank you for your comments. Most appreciated. People can question my patriotism all they want. I am confident in my love for my country (though not always my government).
-tjl
Thank you for your comments. Most appreciated. People can question my patriotism all they want. I am confident in my love for my country (though not always my government).
-tjl
12 September 2006 23:55:14
Lucente wrote:
Clarionvoice,
Thank you for your comments.
I am curious. Is it a Christian thing to steal money from one person and give to another? That is what the government does when it funds these failed programs. Charity is best left to, well, charities and churches and other philanthropic organizations. There is no charity when the giving is at the point of a gun, regardless of how noble the cause is.
-tjl-
Thank you for your comments.
I am curious. Is it a Christian thing to steal money from one person and give to another? That is what the government does when it funds these failed programs. Charity is best left to, well, charities and churches and other philanthropic organizations. There is no charity when the giving is at the point of a gun, regardless of how noble the cause is.
-tjl-
12 September 2006 23:57:49
Lucente wrote:
Doug,
If we knew the answer to that, we could probably solve the problem!
Thank you
-tjl-
If we knew the answer to that, we could probably solve the problem!
Thank you
-tjl-
12 September 2006 23:59:59
Lucente wrote:
Shawn,
You are sorely misguided if you think Freedom of Speech is a privilege. Freedom of speech is a natural, God-given right. And the day we can no longer say what we wish to say is the day we take up arms and overthrow the government.
Besides, I did use the title "president" on first reference as is commonly accepted in journalism when refering to the president.
And it appears to me that you stand crouching behind those of us who have fought and won these freedoms that we have. And there is no greater defense of our freedoms than the exercise of them.
The war on terror in Afghanistan was a just war. The war in Iraq is a moral atrocity and makes me ashamed. And the so-called war on terror is nothing but a gimmick for the government to maintain ever tighter controls on our lives.
If we can't see that, then our freedoms are lost already. I pray people like you, are in the minority. I, for one, am not afraid of the bogeyman that Bush claims is going to destroy the American way of life when the only people actively working to destroy our freedoms are those in the Bush administration.
-tjl-
You are sorely misguided if you think Freedom of Speech is a privilege. Freedom of speech is a natural, God-given right. And the day we can no longer say what we wish to say is the day we take up arms and overthrow the government.
Besides, I did use the title "president" on first reference as is commonly accepted in journalism when refering to the president.
And it appears to me that you stand crouching behind those of us who have fought and won these freedoms that we have. And there is no greater defense of our freedoms than the exercise of them.
The war on terror in Afghanistan was a just war. The war in Iraq is a moral atrocity and makes me ashamed. And the so-called war on terror is nothing but a gimmick for the government to maintain ever tighter controls on our lives.
If we can't see that, then our freedoms are lost already. I pray people like you, are in the minority. I, for one, am not afraid of the bogeyman that Bush claims is going to destroy the American way of life when the only people actively working to destroy our freedoms are those in the Bush administration.
-tjl-
13 September 2006 00:06:01
Lucente wrote:
Jim,
Your point is valid about the war on drugs, another fake war that is merely an excuse to infringe on our rights and another war in which victory is impossible.
However, if you can't see the same problems with the war on terror, and if your view is in the majority, I weep for the future of our freedoms.
-tjl-
Your point is valid about the war on drugs, another fake war that is merely an excuse to infringe on our rights and another war in which victory is impossible.
However, if you can't see the same problems with the war on terror, and if your view is in the majority, I weep for the future of our freedoms.
-tjl-
13 September 2006 00:26:17
wrote:
Tom,I agree about the war in Iraq,its a war for all the wrong reasons.But I have a son whos in Iraq and he's been to Afghanistan,so he's been in the real war and the fake war and the last thing I need is papers like the NYT blabbing legitmate classified operations such as the Swift program,it makes it harder for soldiers like my son to do their jobs
and this is for snolte
Scott,I don't drink,ever! and as far as pot in my car,well a good stoner such as yourself knows that you keep your stash at home near your bible with a loaded weapon and a copy of the Constitution...*wink*
and this is for snolte
Scott,I don't drink,ever! and as far as pot in my car,well a good stoner such as yourself knows that you keep your stash at home near your bible with a loaded weapon and a copy of the Constitution...*wink*
13 September 2006 17:38:07
Lucente wrote:
Jim,
Every program revealed by the NYT were rightfully exposed. They were all unconstitutional attacks on the liberties of law-abiding Americans and not a single program had anything to do with our military's ability to wage war. I am a soldier and I was in Iraq and I applaud the revelations by the NYT of these anti-American programs.
-tjl-
Every program revealed by the NYT were rightfully exposed. They were all unconstitutional attacks on the liberties of law-abiding Americans and not a single program had anything to do with our military's ability to wage war. I am a soldier and I was in Iraq and I applaud the revelations by the NYT of these anti-American programs.
-tjl-
13 September 2006 19:27:49
wrote:
Tom,
I know the investigation was not for Monica. But that is what we got for the buck. Second, I was
pointing out the fact that (R) investigated everything then, nothing now. I am not a big Clinton fan, and if he committed
crimes he should have went to prison. What crime? I never heard of them. Bush Sr and his posse, should be there also. Some are back in Bush admin) I quess my point was, where are all the (R) that were so upset with the dishonesty of Clinton White House?
Seems honest and lawful, just not important anymore.
I know the investigation was not for Monica. But that is what we got for the buck. Second, I was
pointing out the fact that (R) investigated everything then, nothing now. I am not a big Clinton fan, and if he committed
crimes he should have went to prison. What crime? I never heard of them. Bush Sr and his posse, should be there also. Some are back in Bush admin) I quess my point was, where are all the (R) that were so upset with the dishonesty of Clinton White House?
Seems honest and lawful, just not important anymore.
14 September 2006 11:04:11
wrote:
Tom,
So-called war on terror.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/13/there_is_no_war_on_terror.php
So-called war on terror.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/09/13/there_is_no_war_on_terror.php
14 September 2006 14:18:05
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
Perjury and obstruction of justice. He lost his law license because of it. The investigation of Clinton was warranted. I am not sure what crime Bush Sr. committed. Bush Jr.'s multitude of unconstitutional behavior should be checked, but the Congress is complicit in that behavior.
-tjl-
Perjury and obstruction of justice. He lost his law license because of it. The investigation of Clinton was warranted. I am not sure what crime Bush Sr. committed. Bush Jr.'s multitude of unconstitutional behavior should be checked, but the Congress is complicit in that behavior.
-tjl-
14 September 2006 15:40:09
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
Excellent article. I may post that as an actual post.
Thanks
-tjl-
Excellent article. I may post that as an actual post.
Thanks
-tjl-
14 September 2006 15:40:33
wrote:
Perjury? Obstruction? Perjury was not true. Politcs pure and simple. The question, in question was. Did you have sexual relations with miss Monica? Clinton ask for definition. Quess what was not on the list? Thats right bj. And both of these charges came from civil suit.
Ken Star found nothing.
Clinton investigation was a witch hunt IMO. What they investigated for, was not there.
Bush Sr? October surprise to Iran/Contra. Take your pick. I blame Clinton, and whitewasher Lee Hamilton for dropping Iran/Contra.
Or maybe we dont get W.
Speaking of crimes, Lima News not interested?
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1181.shtml
Ken Star found nothing.
Clinton investigation was a witch hunt IMO. What they investigated for, was not there.
Bush Sr? October surprise to Iran/Contra. Take your pick. I blame Clinton, and whitewasher Lee Hamilton for dropping Iran/Contra.
Or maybe we dont get W.
Speaking of crimes, Lima News not interested?
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1181.shtml
14 September 2006 16:44:58
wrote:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-clintonjonesperjury.html
If Clinton committed crimes, he should have to account. $50 mil
investigation, and thats all there
was? I just think we should find out what Bush/Cheney cabal have done. Maybe every person in DC,
needs to go. Whats the odds of the books not being cooked? But I think Bush has committed some very serious crimes. And so does he.
If Clinton committed crimes, he should have to account. $50 mil
investigation, and thats all there
was? I just think we should find out what Bush/Cheney cabal have done. Maybe every person in DC,
needs to go. Whats the odds of the books not being cooked? But I think Bush has committed some very serious crimes. And so does he.
15 September 2006 00:24:19
Lucente wrote:
Hmm,
The Arkansas and U.S. supreme courts thought the allegations were credible enough that Clinton can no longer practice law.
As far as Iran-Contra, no real laws were broken, only a political law created by the Congress that they knew Reagan would violate. And it was an unjust law. The Contras deserved military and humanitarian aid, but the Democrats were trying to cover for President Carter whose ineptidude lost Nicaragua to the Sandinastas.
I agree that W should be held accountable for his constitutional lapses, though.
-tjl-
The Arkansas and U.S. supreme courts thought the allegations were credible enough that Clinton can no longer practice law.
As far as Iran-Contra, no real laws were broken, only a political law created by the Congress that they knew Reagan would violate. And it was an unjust law. The Contras deserved military and humanitarian aid, but the Democrats were trying to cover for President Carter whose ineptidude lost Nicaragua to the Sandinastas.
I agree that W should be held accountable for his constitutional lapses, though.
-tjl-
15 September 2006 15:52:14
wrote:
Importing drugs, weapons to hezbolah, Iran, death in central America, but no laws broken?
I didnt say Clinton was not guilty,
of charges. They were sex related,
BS. Politics, not crime. If there is something, he should be in prison. I think if they, could have found, and proved or framed him they would have. If the Dems where wrong they where wrong. I am not defending any of them. Clintons
charges was BS. And he did pay as you said. Now there is nothing the President can do,will be held against him. Different standards by a mile.
I didnt say Clinton was not guilty,
of charges. They were sex related,
BS. Politics, not crime. If there is something, he should be in prison. I think if they, could have found, and proved or framed him they would have. If the Dems where wrong they where wrong. I am not defending any of them. Clintons
charges was BS. And he did pay as you said. Now there is nothing the President can do,will be held against him. Different standards by a mile.
15 September 2006 18:15:11
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
We will never agree on this. Still, I am always amazed when someone tries to defend Bill Clinton's lawlessness. Perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offense and losing a law license he would never use again anyway is hardly paying. And the fine was paid by supporters, not him.
I am also amazed whenever anyone tries brushing it off as a BJ. That is simply ludicrous. Let's forget that he engaged in oral sex in a federal office with someone who works for him. That is enough to get anyone fired. After all, our legal tradition says sex between boss and employee or student and teacher is never consensual. Your argument that it was just a BJ is similar to saying that Alphonse Capone was just a tax evader. You prosecute criminals based on what you can prove. Clinton was a smart criminal and covered his tracks in Whitewater (with witnesses willing to go to prison instead of ratting him out, which I find simply amazing). Nor could the two accusations of rape be proved (though I have no trouble believing they were true). So you prosecute with what you can prove and the proof was there for perjury, suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Let's not forget, he settled in the Paula Jones case because he knew he was guilty and he was going to lose.
As far as Iran Contra goes, no American laws were broken, the Contras got much-needed support to overthrow a dictator without one American life being lost and hostages in the Middle East were freed. On top of that, I have serious doubts that Reagan or Bush even knew it occurred. Besides, Congress was baiting Reagan by forbidding aide to the Contras.
Finally, Iran Contra was truly about politics as it pertained to events that occured in the political arena. Clinton's crimes were personal and had nothing to do with accomplishing a political ideology. It is easy to argue whether Iran Contra was right or wrong. There can be no argument that Clinton's crimes were right.
-tjl-
We will never agree on this. Still, I am always amazed when someone tries to defend Bill Clinton's lawlessness. Perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice are serious offense and losing a law license he would never use again anyway is hardly paying. And the fine was paid by supporters, not him.
I am also amazed whenever anyone tries brushing it off as a BJ. That is simply ludicrous. Let's forget that he engaged in oral sex in a federal office with someone who works for him. That is enough to get anyone fired. After all, our legal tradition says sex between boss and employee or student and teacher is never consensual. Your argument that it was just a BJ is similar to saying that Alphonse Capone was just a tax evader. You prosecute criminals based on what you can prove. Clinton was a smart criminal and covered his tracks in Whitewater (with witnesses willing to go to prison instead of ratting him out, which I find simply amazing). Nor could the two accusations of rape be proved (though I have no trouble believing they were true). So you prosecute with what you can prove and the proof was there for perjury, suborning perjury and obstructing justice. Let's not forget, he settled in the Paula Jones case because he knew he was guilty and he was going to lose.
As far as Iran Contra goes, no American laws were broken, the Contras got much-needed support to overthrow a dictator without one American life being lost and hostages in the Middle East were freed. On top of that, I have serious doubts that Reagan or Bush even knew it occurred. Besides, Congress was baiting Reagan by forbidding aide to the Contras.
Finally, Iran Contra was truly about politics as it pertained to events that occured in the political arena. Clinton's crimes were personal and had nothing to do with accomplishing a political ideology. It is easy to argue whether Iran Contra was right or wrong. There can be no argument that Clinton's crimes were right.
-tjl-
16 September 2006 14:56:32
wrote:
I said Clinton was guilty. What more do you want? No Laws were broken in Iran/Contra? This is simply not true! Reagan and Bush did not know? C'mon Tom, honestly?
You are ignoring a lot of facts, to justify your points. You like to pick what laws should be enforced,and which to break?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Affair
You are ignoring a lot of facts, to justify your points. You like to pick what laws should be enforced,and which to break?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Affair
17 September 2006 11:13:20
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
Wow, we really are rehashing old ground here. Perhaps next we should move on to Watergate!
I will revise my statement concerning laws. Yes, some laws were broken in the aftermath of the Iran Contra affair when some administration officials lied to the Congress or shredded documents.
However, the main issue, the selling of arms to Iran (who was at war with Iraq at the time) and giving the profits to the Contras, is a murky constitutional area that has to do with how much freedom the executive branch has in conducting foreign affairs.
And I truly don't believe Reagan, at least, knew what was going on. I think it was that way by design. Reagan was a big picture guy. He set out his philosophy and agenda and let his underlings do all the work. That doesn't absolve him, it was just how he ran his White House. I believe the Tower Commission said as much. Bush may have known. The Tower Commission could find no evidence, but Reagan apparently said Bush knew.
Ultimately, does it matter? Was it wrong to sell arms to Iran and help the Contras? I don't think so. Congress passed those laws in an attempt to stop the president. It was a power play between Congress and the White House and was, essentially, not a real law.
That is a big difference from violate the rights of others (as Clinton did to Paula Jones) and convincing others to lie under oath (as Clinton did with Lewinsky) and to lie under oath as Clinton himself did.
At least in Iran Contra, the only real laws broken were in the coverup and Reagan and Bush did nothing of the sort. And Reagan even went on TV and admitted that this stuff happened. Clinton continued to deny it all along.
Finally, yes I do believe that we have an obligation not to obey unjust laws. I beleive in jury nullification, that juries have an obligation not only to determine guilt, but to judge the law itself. Juries should acquit people convicted of unjust laws.
-tjl-
Wow, we really are rehashing old ground here. Perhaps next we should move on to Watergate!
I will revise my statement concerning laws. Yes, some laws were broken in the aftermath of the Iran Contra affair when some administration officials lied to the Congress or shredded documents.
However, the main issue, the selling of arms to Iran (who was at war with Iraq at the time) and giving the profits to the Contras, is a murky constitutional area that has to do with how much freedom the executive branch has in conducting foreign affairs.
And I truly don't believe Reagan, at least, knew what was going on. I think it was that way by design. Reagan was a big picture guy. He set out his philosophy and agenda and let his underlings do all the work. That doesn't absolve him, it was just how he ran his White House. I believe the Tower Commission said as much. Bush may have known. The Tower Commission could find no evidence, but Reagan apparently said Bush knew.
Ultimately, does it matter? Was it wrong to sell arms to Iran and help the Contras? I don't think so. Congress passed those laws in an attempt to stop the president. It was a power play between Congress and the White House and was, essentially, not a real law.
That is a big difference from violate the rights of others (as Clinton did to Paula Jones) and convincing others to lie under oath (as Clinton did with Lewinsky) and to lie under oath as Clinton himself did.
At least in Iran Contra, the only real laws broken were in the coverup and Reagan and Bush did nothing of the sort. And Reagan even went on TV and admitted that this stuff happened. Clinton continued to deny it all along.
Finally, yes I do believe that we have an obligation not to obey unjust laws. I beleive in jury nullification, that juries have an obligation not only to determine guilt, but to judge the law itself. Juries should acquit people convicted of unjust laws.
-tjl-
17 September 2006 15:19:59
wrote:
How about Halliburton charged
with selling Nuke Tech to Iran.
Old news?
Just politics selling weapons to Iraq and Iran? Israel and Hezbollah? Killings in Central America? Drug smuggling? All legal?
Got to use the same standards Tom.
Cant blow off facts just becuse it
dosent jive with your position.
with selling Nuke Tech to Iran.
Old news?
Just politics selling weapons to Iraq and Iran? Israel and Hezbollah? Killings in Central America? Drug smuggling? All legal?
Got to use the same standards Tom.
Cant blow off facts just becuse it
dosent jive with your position.
18 September 2006 10:28:22
wrote:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story34.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3122chalabi_ghorbanifar.html
Agree to disagree.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story34.html
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3122chalabi_ghorbanifar.html
Agree to disagree.
18 September 2006 10:40:33
wrote:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/clinton.html
I must have imagined these things.
Nuff on this, I quess.
I must have imagined these things.
Nuff on this, I quess.
18 September 2006 12:39:18
wrote:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/crack.html
Just my imagination running away with me?
Just my imagination running away with me?
19 September 2006 10:09:54
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
We will never agree on this issue, obviously. However, I am not "blowing off facts" because they don't agree with my position.
I still don't understand how one can't see the difference between Clinton's crimes and those levied against Reagan/Bush. The Iran/Contra affair stems from political difference and policy issues. The average American could not commit such "crimes." Additionally, there is dispute as to whether any laws were broken (except of course the actions of subordinates who tried to cover up what happened).
Iran/Contra was a political activity. Perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice are not open to interpretation and are real laws that anyone can break.
-tjl-
We will never agree on this issue, obviously. However, I am not "blowing off facts" because they don't agree with my position.
I still don't understand how one can't see the difference between Clinton's crimes and those levied against Reagan/Bush. The Iran/Contra affair stems from political difference and policy issues. The average American could not commit such "crimes." Additionally, there is dispute as to whether any laws were broken (except of course the actions of subordinates who tried to cover up what happened).
Iran/Contra was a political activity. Perjury, suborning perjury and obstruction of justice are not open to interpretation and are real laws that anyone can break.
-tjl-
19 September 2006 13:28:27
wrote:
http://www.bartcop.com/0216pary.htm
I have to laugh at ya Tom, not being 100% honest about SEX, (yes I know it was in a court room) Is that different than lieing to Congress?
It is worse than all they did in
Iran/Contra? You are not being honest. What about all the convictions? Dead? Dope? Laws?
Oh well have a good one. Double standards? Hope eveyone is naive,
or ignorant to the facts helps your case.
I have to laugh at ya Tom, not being 100% honest about SEX, (yes I know it was in a court room) Is that different than lieing to Congress?
It is worse than all they did in
Iran/Contra? You are not being honest. What about all the convictions? Dead? Dope? Laws?
Oh well have a good one. Double standards? Hope eveyone is naive,
or ignorant to the facts helps your case.
19 September 2006 18:56:40
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
You are blinded by your own partisanship. Reagan never lied to Congress. Bush never lied to Congress. The drug accusations have largely been refuted. At the very least, they cannot be proved nor can any such thing be linked to Reagan. Let's compare apples to apples hear. Reagan broke no laws. Clinton did. It is very simple. Did members of Reagan's administration break laws? Yes. Did members of Clinton's administration break laws? Yes. Has members of probably every administration of the last 150 years break laws? Most likely.
Supplying arms to the Contras was consistent with the U.S. Cold War policy of containing communism, a policy established by Democrats.
You are the one lying to yourself if you think Clinton's lawbreaking is about sex (other than the two credible rape accusations and the sexual harassment case that he lost). Perjury, suborning perjury and obstructing justice are serious crimes, each carrying a sentence of 10 years in prison. It is irrelevant why you lie to a grand jury. His crimes are compounded because he was the nation's chief law-enforcement officer.
Final analysis: Reagan - Innocent. Clinton - Guilty. No amount of conspiracy-theory or partisan Web sites is going to change those facts.
-tjl-
You are blinded by your own partisanship. Reagan never lied to Congress. Bush never lied to Congress. The drug accusations have largely been refuted. At the very least, they cannot be proved nor can any such thing be linked to Reagan. Let's compare apples to apples hear. Reagan broke no laws. Clinton did. It is very simple. Did members of Reagan's administration break laws? Yes. Did members of Clinton's administration break laws? Yes. Has members of probably every administration of the last 150 years break laws? Most likely.
Supplying arms to the Contras was consistent with the U.S. Cold War policy of containing communism, a policy established by Democrats.
You are the one lying to yourself if you think Clinton's lawbreaking is about sex (other than the two credible rape accusations and the sexual harassment case that he lost). Perjury, suborning perjury and obstructing justice are serious crimes, each carrying a sentence of 10 years in prison. It is irrelevant why you lie to a grand jury. His crimes are compounded because he was the nation's chief law-enforcement officer.
Final analysis: Reagan - Innocent. Clinton - Guilty. No amount of conspiracy-theory or partisan Web sites is going to change those facts.
-tjl-
19 September 2006 19:04:38
wrote:
BS! Never lied? Been refuted? I am not defending Clinton. God only knows what he has done. It is you defending Reagan and Bush. With a blind eye to the facts. But we will agree to disagree.
And move along.
http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092006.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/bush18.htm
And move along.
http://www.csun.edu/CommunicationStudies/ben/news/cia/
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092006.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/chap_28.htm
http://www.the7thfire.com/bush18.htm
20 September 2006 21:26:44
Lucente wrote:
I thought we were moving on?
Point remains, I can prove Clinton broke the law. You can only speculate that Reagan did so.
-tjl-
Point remains, I can prove Clinton broke the law. You can only speculate that Reagan did so.
-tjl-
24 September 2006 22:24:20
Susan wrote:
Is anyone actually bothering to read all these links??? Damn, I lost interest after the first one........
25 September 2006 00:32:58
wrote:
Does the FACT, that Clinton, has never been convicted of any crime,
in any court room, ever? Mean anything?
Susan, dont read, if it is of no interest, its not that complicated.
in any court room, ever? Mean anything?
Susan, dont read, if it is of no interest, its not that complicated.
26 September 2006 09:17:02
wrote:
Speculate?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/lost7.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Reagan_War_Crimes.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3122chalabi_ghorbanifar.html
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/time.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/091800a.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/lost7.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Reagan_War_Crimes.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/crimes.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3122chalabi_ghorbanifar.html
http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/time.html
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2000/091800a.html
26 September 2006 09:44:49
Lucente wrote:
Does the fact that Nixon was never convicted of any crime in any court room, ever? Mean anything?
Yes, it is called politics. Clinton, did, however, lose his law license and was fined $900,000. Does that mean anything? I thought you weren't defending Clinton? Guess your partisanship is showing. You so hate the Republicans and so Love the Democrats that you are willing to believe crazy consipiracy theories about 9-11 but you won't accept the basic facts of Clinton's felonies.
Yes, it is called politics. Clinton, did, however, lose his law license and was fined $900,000. Does that mean anything? I thought you weren't defending Clinton? Guess your partisanship is showing. You so hate the Republicans and so Love the Democrats that you are willing to believe crazy consipiracy theories about 9-11 but you won't accept the basic facts of Clinton's felonies.
26 September 2006 13:57:36
wrote:
Im not defending Clinton. I just dont think what He did, was a big deal. And if not for witch hunt,
there would not have been those.
But to say that no laws were broken in Iran/Contra is a lie.
To act like Reagan and Bush Sr did not break the law is "Politics"
or very naive.
http://www.geraldplessner.com/articles/article.cgi?doc=20060925182653
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml
9/11 theories? What theory? The only thing I have said is, I dont buy the unofficial "offical" story about 9/11. And you do?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060926_the_great_9_2f11_cover.htm
http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm
No it is your hate of Clinton, and you love of Reagan/Bush, that leaves your credibility at zero on this topic.
And by the way, I am not the FBI or the GOVT.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14641
there would not have been those.
But to say that no laws were broken in Iran/Contra is a lie.
To act like Reagan and Bush Sr did not break the law is "Politics"
or very naive.
http://www.geraldplessner.com/articles/article.cgi?doc=20060925182653
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/reagan/peopleevents/pande08.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/aug2001/cont-a01.shtml
9/11 theories? What theory? The only thing I have said is, I dont buy the unofficial "offical" story about 9/11. And you do?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060926_the_great_9_2f11_cover.htm
http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm
No it is your hate of Clinton, and you love of Reagan/Bush, that leaves your credibility at zero on this topic.
And by the way, I am not the FBI or the GOVT.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=14641
27 September 2006 11:57:04
wrote:
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060803/NEWS01/608030348/-1/all
27 September 2006 18:52:36
wrote:
Tell us YL, what is it that you believe happened on 9/11?
You dont know!
http://cialien.gnn.tv/blogs/15273/Everybody_s_Gotta_Learn_Sometime
You dont know!
http://cialien.gnn.tv/blogs/15273/Everybody_s_Gotta_Learn_Sometime
27 September 2006 19:01:06
wrote:
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20020227Hersh.html
I should believe you, because you say so?
I should believe you, because you say so?
27 September 2006 19:27:47
wrote:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/clin-j22.shtml
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/ray.transcript/index.html
C.mon somebody jump in here, debate and inform is what "we the people " need. TL with all do respect, just because in your opinion, is just that, your opinion.
When you said, You supported war in Afghanistan, because "Osama 9/11" I simply showed you a report
that said, FBI says "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". I am not the FBI nor do I
know if this is fact. But, you as an American was not a wee bit puzzled? You call me a conspiracy nut, but you mr media supplied no answer. And your reasoning on Afghanistan changed, to support
your support. All I have tried to do and say is, where did (people) hear that? Why do (people) believe that? About whatever,and time and time again nothing but nana nana booboo and spin. You, me and the man in the moon. Have been and will be wrong about something. But with only rhetoric, spin, and politicaly biased opinions, not much will change. That is why most
Americans dont know what or why they believe.
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/19/ray.transcript/index.html
C.mon somebody jump in here, debate and inform is what "we the people " need. TL with all do respect, just because in your opinion, is just that, your opinion.
When you said, You supported war in Afghanistan, because "Osama 9/11" I simply showed you a report
that said, FBI says "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11". I am not the FBI nor do I
know if this is fact. But, you as an American was not a wee bit puzzled? You call me a conspiracy nut, but you mr media supplied no answer. And your reasoning on Afghanistan changed, to support
your support. All I have tried to do and say is, where did (people) hear that? Why do (people) believe that? About whatever,and time and time again nothing but nana nana booboo and spin. You, me and the man in the moon. Have been and will be wrong about something. But with only rhetoric, spin, and politicaly biased opinions, not much will change. That is why most
Americans dont know what or why they believe.
27 September 2006 20:38:56
Susan wrote:
Dan, I did try to "jump in here" but you told me to quit reading if it doesn't interest me. The topic interests me just fine, it is your over-dosing of all the links that has gotten completely boring and irritating. I personally would like to see this particular post put to rest so we can move on to fresher postings and new topics of debate. This one was from way back on Sept. 10, which in blogworld is equal to about a half a year. On Sept.18, you wrote, "Agree to disagree.". Then two minutes later you post another link and say, "Nuff on this, I quess". Then...six more links and two days later you write, "But we will agree to disagree.
And move along." Then you continue on to post 20 plus MORE links after that! For cryin out loud, Dan, nobody says you have to agree with anything Tom says, but just the same, he does NOT have to agree with you either and you seem to be fighting to the death to convert him over to your side. Give up already and "agree to disagree" and MEAN it this time. Geesh.
And move along." Then you continue on to post 20 plus MORE links after that! For cryin out loud, Dan, nobody says you have to agree with anything Tom says, but just the same, he does NOT have to agree with you either and you seem to be fighting to the death to convert him over to your side. Give up already and "agree to disagree" and MEAN it this time. Geesh.
27 September 2006 22:34:12
wrote:
I QUIT! AFTER ALL THAT SUSAN, YOU SAY NOTHING? WONT BE BOTHERD BY INFO OR DAN ANYMORE. Sometimes,there is only the truth,
not two sides. Did you have anything to say about THE TOPIC?
Or any LINK? Any COMMENT? WTF?
ADIOS!
not two sides. Did you have anything to say about THE TOPIC?
Or any LINK? Any COMMENT? WTF?
ADIOS!
28 September 2006 10:02:41
wrote:
TL,
You called me a "conspiracy nut"
But inless you belive it was a
crime committed by ONLY ONE PERSON.
It was a conspiracy. But since I am insane and you have the answers.
I have a few questions.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
You do have answers? No? Than watch your mouth.
You called me a "conspiracy nut"
But inless you belive it was a
crime committed by ONLY ONE PERSON.
It was a conspiracy. But since I am insane and you have the answers.
I have a few questions.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
You do have answers? No? Than watch your mouth.
29 September 2006 13:51:13
wrote:
I did,do you have the answers?
No? Just runnung your mouth?
I did quit, quit tryng to please,
AH like you! You have never posted anything but BS. GFY!
This is you?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666
Speak up, this is what you support?
You and TL, should just "shut up"!
And Yes, I dont care anymore, about your lock on STUPIDITY, or the LIES of the lima news. Good Luck!
No? Just runnung your mouth?
I did quit, quit tryng to please,
AH like you! You have never posted anything but BS. GFY!
This is you?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/7/14/193750/666
Speak up, this is what you support?
You and TL, should just "shut up"!
And Yes, I dont care anymore, about your lock on STUPIDITY, or the LIES of the lima news. Good Luck!
29 September 2006 16:35:09
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
The fact is you are a conspiracy theorist. Every Web site you submitted is filled with unsubstantiated claims. Well, you want links? If we are to have a serious debate on the issue, then the evidence we use MUST be peer reviewed. That is the essense of good scholarship. These articles are all peer reviewed and destroy the silly sites you have posted in explaining the collaspse of the towers:
Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp
IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
The Towers Lost and Beyond
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi
If you want more, I can get you more. This is reality.
The fact is you are a conspiracy theorist. Every Web site you submitted is filled with unsubstantiated claims. Well, you want links? If we are to have a serious debate on the issue, then the evidence we use MUST be peer reviewed. That is the essense of good scholarship. These articles are all peer reviewed and destroy the silly sites you have posted in explaining the collaspse of the towers:
Engineers Explain WTC Collapse
http://www.architectureweek.com/2002/0529/news_3-1.html
Report Ties WTC Collapses to Column Failures
http://enr.construction.com/news/buildings/archives/040119.asp
IT WAS THE FIRE, CAUSED THE TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE - icivilengineer.com
http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/Fire.html
Simulation for the collapse of WTC after aeroplane impact - Lu XZ., Yang N., Jiang JJ. Structure Engineer, 66(sup.). 2003, 18-22
Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.
Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.
Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.
"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.
Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.
"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.
Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)
Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.
Glover, N.J.
"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103
Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.
Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.
Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.
National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.
Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.
Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)
Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.
Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.
The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.
"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.
The Towers Lost and Beyond
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Meg Hendry-Brogan, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi
If you want more, I can get you more. This is reality.
29 September 2006 18:35:51
Lucente wrote:
The following are more Web sites with much more credibility than the blogs and personal sites you posted.
A must read!
9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2577/9_11_and_the_
New_Pearl_Harbor_Part_I
Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
http://www.jod911.com
911 Myths - Reading between the lines
http://www.911myths.com
Screw Loose Change Blog
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Debunk 9/11 myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
Internet Detectives Group - Loose Change
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276&hl=en-CA
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
Attempting to make sense of senseless acts
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=903b3f4a-2e6c-47b4-b710-632c1439aacc&p=1
Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already
http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/
All Plots Move Deathward
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/06/mclemee
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2281052
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html
Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
http://www.nymetro.com/news/features/16464/
Facts about 9/11. Not Fantasy
http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/
The September 11 X-Files
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=66
The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6p/skeptic.htm
Debunking the 9/11 Movement
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/debunking911.html
Interview with Prof. Jonathan Barnett, an expert in structural and fire protection engineering who was one of the WTC investigators
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html
Public Eye - Post 9/11 Conspiracism
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/demnowfaq.html
Public Eye- 9/11/01 - Repercussions General Conspiracist Views
http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/conspiracist.html
Perry Logon's "Delusion Central" (A fun site.)
http://perrylogan.org/
Viewer Guide to Loose Change (Doc)
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc
9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide (A light hearted look)
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
Screw Loose Change Video. (Yes, it's finally here)
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
Loose Trains
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
Penn & Teller's Bull Shit - 911 Conspiracy theories
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+teller+911
Salon - The 9/11 deniers
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index.html
SciAm blog about conspiracists' reaction to Shermer
http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/05/a_conspiracy_of.html
In These Times: Nightmares of Reason: Sorting fact from fiction in 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/15/feature1.shtml
The September 11 X-Files
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=66
Snopes debunks "Hunt the Boeing", a conspiracy site based on Thierry Meysan’s (and David Ray Griffin’s) claim that a missile, not AA77, hit the Pentagon
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Wikipedia articles on conspiracy theory characteristics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracism
It Was Flight 77 - Debunking Alternative Pentagon Crash Theories
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/
A must read!
9-11 and the New Pearl Harbor
http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2577/9_11_and_the_
New_Pearl_Harbor_Part_I
Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
http://www.jod911.com
911 Myths - Reading between the lines
http://www.911myths.com
Screw Loose Change Blog
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Debunk 9/11 myths
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
Internet Detectives Group - Loose Change
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
Screw Loose Change - Not Freakin' Again edition
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6596630292015140276&hl=en-CA
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Engine Investigation
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml
Pentagon & Boeing 757 Ground Effect
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
Attempting to make sense of senseless acts
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=903b3f4a-2e6c-47b4-b710-632c1439aacc&p=1
Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?
http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/911truth.html
Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already
http://www.alternet.org/story/41601/
All Plots Move Deathward
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/09/06/mclemee
9/11 Conspiracy Theories Persist, Thrive
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2281052
Why The 9/11 Conspiracies Won't Go Away
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1531304,00.html
Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Fahrenheit 2777
9/11 has generated the mother of all conspiracy theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll
http://www.nymetro.com/news/features/16464/
Facts about 9/11. Not Fantasy
http://www.geocities.com/factsnotfantasy/
The September 11 X-Files
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=66
The 9/11 Conspiracy: A Skeptic’s View
http://www.crisispapers.org/essays6p/skeptic.htm
Debunking the 9/11 Movement
http://www.infoshop.org/texts/debunking911.html
Interview with Prof. Jonathan Barnett, an expert in structural and fire protection engineering who was one of the WTC investigators
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/fall.html
Public Eye - Post 9/11 Conspiracism
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/demnowfaq.html
Public Eye- 9/11/01 - Repercussions General Conspiracist Views
http://www.publiceye.org/frontpage/911/conspiracist.html
Perry Logon's "Delusion Central" (A fun site.)
http://perrylogan.org/
Viewer Guide to Loose Change (Doc)
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/911_loose_change_2_guide_1.doc
9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide (A light hearted look)
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
Screw Loose Change Video. (Yes, it's finally here)
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
Loose Trains
http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/
Penn & Teller's Bull Shit - 911 Conspiracy theories
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523&q=penn+teller+911
Salon - The 9/11 deniers
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index.html
SciAm blog about conspiracists' reaction to Shermer
http://sciam-editor.typepad.com/weblog1/2005/05/a_conspiracy_of.html
In These Times: Nightmares of Reason: Sorting fact from fiction in 9/11 conspiracy theories
http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/15/feature1.shtml
The September 11 X-Files
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?bid=3&pid=66
Snopes debunks "Hunt the Boeing", a conspiracy site based on Thierry Meysan’s (and David Ray Griffin’s) claim that a missile, not AA77, hit the Pentagon
http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Wikipedia articles on conspiracy theory characteristics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracism
It Was Flight 77 - Debunking Alternative Pentagon Crash Theories
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/
29 September 2006 18:36:11
Lucente wrote:
Shall we continue throwing links at each other or simply agree to disagree on this point and move on?
29 September 2006 19:06:14
wrote:
I have no Idea what you are talking about. You did not even have one answer? You blew off the whole link and called me a nut. But had no answers? I only pointed
out, the FBI said No evidence it was Osama.
And I do not believe we were told the truth. You have no answers, but I am the nut? I never said I believe any "theory What is the "official" story? Why are your links more credible? There never was an investigation, so why do you believe anything? Most of the 9/11 story is unsubstantiated claims. So what are you talking about. Ps Nice hit piece on Slick Willy. Did W turn him down also?
You still dont know what happened do you? It dont add up. But believe
what you wish. I said I dont know. For some reason you say you do know. So what happened? I could show you links to debunk your links. So what do you believe?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lauro__22l_060930_another_military_whi.htm
What unsubstantiated claims? Maybe we can start there.
out, the FBI said No evidence it was Osama.
And I do not believe we were told the truth. You have no answers, but I am the nut? I never said I believe any "theory What is the "official" story? Why are your links more credible? There never was an investigation, so why do you believe anything? Most of the 9/11 story is unsubstantiated claims. So what are you talking about. Ps Nice hit piece on Slick Willy. Did W turn him down also?
You still dont know what happened do you? It dont add up. But believe
what you wish. I said I dont know. For some reason you say you do know. So what happened? I could show you links to debunk your links. So what do you believe?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lauro__22l_060930_another_military_whi.htm
What unsubstantiated claims? Maybe we can start there.
30 September 2006 06:18:53
wrote:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
See?
Lets start here, what do you think?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060926_the_great_9_2f11_cover.htm
Can you answer any of the questions?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html
I have never made a 9/11 theory claim. Only we were not told the truth. And why no investigation?
http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html
See?
Lets start here, what do you think?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060926_the_great_9_2f11_cover.htm
Can you answer any of the questions?
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html
I have never made a 9/11 theory claim. Only we were not told the truth. And why no investigation?
30 September 2006 06:57:23
wrote:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13969.htm
Nuts?
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=14316
??
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/ex-bush-official-exposes-911-as-inside-job
?
http://mindprod.com/politics/bush911insidejob.html#INSIDEJOB
Alot of things dont add up, how can you dismis everything, by calling people nuts?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Oh well, back to Clinton lied! LOL.
Nuts?
http://www.informationliberation.com/index.php?id=14316
??
http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/ex-bush-official-exposes-911-as-inside-job
?
http://mindprod.com/politics/bush911insidejob.html#INSIDEJOB
Alot of things dont add up, how can you dismis everything, by calling people nuts?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
Oh well, back to Clinton lied! LOL.
30 September 2006 08:46:06
Lucente wrote:
Dan,
Take a chill pill, will you.
First, I never called you nuts. No one is nuts for expressing an opinion. I called you a consipiracy theorist, which, in this case, you are. You believe in a government conspiracy concerning Sept. 11. In fact, by the links you are posting, you are accusing the Bush administration of killing 3,000 innocent Americans to further some vague political agenda. You post a lot of blogs and opinion peices. I countered by posting peer-reviewed articles written by academics explaining the physics of the WTC collapse. Just because some idiot with a Web site refuses to believe that a building that size can't collapse from an airplane smacking into it, does not make it so.
I believe someone was in the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963, though I can't prove it. However, I KNOW, airplanes smashed into the WTC because I SAW IT. I have seen the evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon and I saw the remains of an airplane in Pennsylvania.
And if you think the government knew all this and just let it happen, you are really giving the government way too much credit.
When the FBI says there is no evidence concerning al-Qaida, they mean there is no evidence that would stand up in a tradition court of law. However, Osama ADMITS he did it.
Are there things that don't add up? Of course there are. Does that mean the government killed 3,000 Americans? Of course not.
We disagree. Let's move on.
-tjl-
Take a chill pill, will you.
First, I never called you nuts. No one is nuts for expressing an opinion. I called you a consipiracy theorist, which, in this case, you are. You believe in a government conspiracy concerning Sept. 11. In fact, by the links you are posting, you are accusing the Bush administration of killing 3,000 innocent Americans to further some vague political agenda. You post a lot of blogs and opinion peices. I countered by posting peer-reviewed articles written by academics explaining the physics of the WTC collapse. Just because some idiot with a Web site refuses to believe that a building that size can't collapse from an airplane smacking into it, does not make it so.
I believe someone was in the grassy knoll in Dallas in 1963, though I can't prove it. However, I KNOW, airplanes smashed into the WTC because I SAW IT. I have seen the evidence of a plane crashing into the Pentagon and I saw the remains of an airplane in Pennsylvania.
And if you think the government knew all this and just let it happen, you are really giving the government way too much credit.
When the FBI says there is no evidence concerning al-Qaida, they mean there is no evidence that would stand up in a tradition court of law. However, Osama ADMITS he did it.
Are there things that don't add up? Of course there are. Does that mean the government killed 3,000 Americans? Of course not.
We disagree. Let's move on.
-tjl-
30 September 2006 09:09:34
wrote:
I never said I believed anything,
other than we did not get the truth. Which means I dont know what happened. And you assume I am an idiot, who cant research info.
And your first link, was a report
done by FEMA. C'mon. You saw the remains in PA? Osama admits he did it? Please tell me you dont mean the video. Believe what you want, but just because you say so, that means its fact? You are pretty good at avoiding the questions, and going into something I never said anything about. Avoid what I ask, why? I could care less about every theory out there. I ask what do you think about the lastest stories? And can you answer ANY, of the 9/11 questions?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060926_the_great_9_2f11_cover.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html
You keep putting words in my mouth.
Or saying I believe something I never said. I am looking for answers, I have not tried to push a theory.Only question why someone believed something and why. If we cant ask questions or seek answers whats the point? Most of your links were either govt reports,
or use the FEMA report as evidence.
How did we know who did it so fast?
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
I dont know the answers, but I quess even talking about 9/11 is
not possible.
other than we did not get the truth. Which means I dont know what happened. And you assume I am an idiot, who cant research info.
And your first link, was a report
done by FEMA. C'mon. You saw the remains in PA? Osama admits he did it? Please tell me you dont mean the video. Believe what you want, but just because you say so, that means its fact? You are pretty good at avoiding the questions, and going into something I never said anything about. Avoid what I ask, why? I could care less about every theory out there. I ask what do you think about the lastest stories? And can you answer ANY, of the 9/11 questions?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_allen_l__060926_the_great_9_2f11_cover.htm
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911q.html
You keep putting words in my mouth.
Or saying I believe something I never said. I am looking for answers, I have not tried to push a theory.Only question why someone believed something and why. If we cant ask questions or seek answers whats the point? Most of your links were either govt reports,
or use the FEMA report as evidence.
How did we know who did it so fast?
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
I dont know the answers, but I quess even talking about 9/11 is
not possible.
30 September 2006 11:09:08
wrote:
Dear Mr. Lucente,
I can understand some of your grievances. I have some myself. There are, however, some factual 'misstatements' you have made.
Let us take Canada, for example. In the year 1992, I went there on a Mission. I was stopped by the CANADIAN government, because the American bus company forgot to tell me to bring a birth certificate! What a surprise I received. lol.
There have been no requests for Library requests. It is impossible for a few thousand people to listen to over 6 billion people speaking on the phone, e-mailing, texting, IMing, etc. lol. This is why they use a computer that does not keep the information, unless there is a set of code words attached in the conversation. I doubt if you have anything to worry about.
The ascertain that we have secret prisons for people who would just as soon cut off your or my head? I say, "Yeah, baby!"
We are at war. Like it or not. We did not start this war, no matter how many choose to believe we did. War was declared on us in the 1970's.
Have we been drastically wrong in the way we have handled this? Yes. Are we losing? Hell no! HOOAH!
I can understand some of your grievances. I have some myself. There are, however, some factual 'misstatements' you have made.
Let us take Canada, for example. In the year 1992, I went there on a Mission. I was stopped by the CANADIAN government, because the American bus company forgot to tell me to bring a birth certificate! What a surprise I received. lol.
There have been no requests for Library requests. It is impossible for a few thousand people to listen to over 6 billion people speaking on the phone, e-mailing, texting, IMing, etc. lol. This is why they use a computer that does not keep the information, unless there is a set of code words attached in the conversation. I doubt if you have anything to worry about.
The ascertain that we have secret prisons for people who would just as soon cut off your or my head? I say, "Yeah, baby!"
We are at war. Like it or not. We did not start this war, no matter how many choose to believe we did. War was declared on us in the 1970's.
Have we been drastically wrong in the way we have handled this? Yes. Are we losing? Hell no! HOOAH!
29 November 2006 09:09:26
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
[COLUMN] Terrorists have won the Global War on Terrorism
Yes, you read that right. Monday marks the fifth anniversary of President Bush’s ill-fated, ill-considered, amorphous War on Terror. And we have lost.
Don’t be too concerned, though, for we lost that war before we even knew it was a war. After all, how can you wage war against a military tactic? That is about as ludicrous as waging a War on Pincers Movements.
Despite that, I know we lost the War on Terror because I can’t board an airplane without removing some of my clothing.
I know we lost the War on Terror because I can’t bring a tube of toothpaste onto an airplane.
I know we lost the War on Terror because I can’t make a telephone call without wondering if some jackbooted government thug is listening.
I know we lost the War on Terror because I can’t check a book out of a library without wondering if the government is monitoring what I read.
I know we lost the War on Terror because while the rest of the world is opening its borders, I cannot even go to Canada without a government passport.
I know we lost the War on Terror because the country I love and the country I have spent my entire adult life defending as a soldier is operating secret prisons contrary to our values.
I know we lost the War on Terror because teenagers and others who commit normal everyday crimes that have nothing to do with terrorism are being charged as terrorists and given stiffer penalties than warranted.
I know we lost the War on Terror because I can no longer surf the Internet or send e-mail with a reasonable expectation that it won’t end up in a government file.
I know we lost the War on Terror because American citizens are being held in American prisons without being charged with a crime or being allowed to speak to an attorney.
I know we lost the War on Terror because we have a president who wants to create a whole new court system operated by the military to try terrorists outside the purview of the judicial branch.
I know we lost the war on terror because we have a president who signs laws passed by the Congress but proclaims he doesn’t have to abide by them. That is akin to proclaiming “L’état, c’est moi!” (I am the state.)
President Bush is fond of telling us that we are safer today than we were five years ago.
Are we? We are certainly not safer from our own government.
And Bush’s immoral and unjust foray into Iraq has created a boom in terrorist recruiting. Bush is the greatest terrorist recruiter since Emperor Nero sent Gen. Vespasian into Judea to ruthlessly crush a Jewish revolt in A.D. 66.
Meanwhile our owned armed forces can’t even meet its recruiting quota. When the military in a free society can’t convince people to volunteer to join, it is a sure sign that something is terribly awry.
Supporters of the tyrannical state … er, I mean the Bush administration … like to point out that there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. They ignore the fact that there were really no major (foreign) terrorist attacks in the United States before Sept. 11, 2001.
Let’s face it. The terrorists got lucky because of bureaucratic incompetence within the FBI and CIA. Anyway, there does not need to be an actual attack for terrorism to work. Just the fear of an attack and a nation’s response to that fear is enough.
Besides, Bush is not serious about the War on Terror. He simply is using that as an excuse to launch a personal crusade in Iraq and to rule domestically with an iron fist. It is easier to govern when you have a scapegoat to draw attention away from your domestic inadequacies and lack of ideas. After all, how else can you explain the fact that Osama bin Laden is still a free man?
If Bush had not spent $313 billion (and counting) in Iraq and instead put a fraction of that money in the hunt for Laden, the terrorist might be dead instead of 2,662 Americans (and counting).
Five years after the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001, our republic is being torn asunder, collapsing under the weight of its own irrational fear, planted there by an administration that is led by people who are either cowards or too lazy to administer the nation’s business properly.
The Spirit of Liberty, which drove patriots like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, et al., is dead. That is how I know we lost the War on Terror.
category | Column
author | Lucente