The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/ world/americas/3556191.stm
Bush yet again being exposed for the hateful war monkey he realy is by former White House CT expert Richard Clarke.
"See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way," Mr Clarke quotes Mr Bush as saying in the book.
"The entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this," he added.
He also told the US broadcaster CBS that the day after the 11 September attacks, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld called for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.
"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan," he said. "And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said: 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."
COMMIE SPEEDERS!!!12
Bush yet again being exposed for the hateful war monkey he realy is by former White House CT expert Richard Clarke.
"See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way," Mr Clarke quotes Mr Bush as saying in the book.
"The entire conversation left me in absolutely no doubt that George Bush wanted me to come back with a report that said Iraq did this," he added.
He also told the US broadcaster CBS that the day after the 11 September attacks, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld called for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al-Qaeda was based in Afghanistan.
"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan," he said. "And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said: 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it."
COMMIE SPEEDERS!!!12
Page:
Loquacious Duck wrote:
> So long as you acknowledge that they're pure speculaton, and highly
> unreliable, though...
Yup. 'Evidence' does not mean 'Proof'.
> So long as you acknowledge that they're pure speculaton, and highly
> unreliable, though...
Yup. 'Evidence' does not mean 'Proof'.
So long as you acknowledge that they're pure speculaton, and highly unreliable, though...
and it's true you should be open to possibilities but once you start second guessing your second guesses etc etc...
True but because of the whole scale of it and loss of human life someone along the chain of command would have blown the whistle.
Hedfix wrote:
> I doubt they allowed it to happen Loquacious, aside from the death
> toll, the devastation and the fact they hit the pentagon, there's
> also the heavy amount of damage done to the American economy.
The damage to the pentagon was only ever going to be superficial, in regards to the building's operation. You're almost certainly absolutely right though, of course, they wouldn't have.
Then again, if you'd told me in '99 that the election would be rigged I'd have reacted with the same disbelief, so I figure it helps to keep half an eye open to the possibility.
> I doubt they allowed it to happen Loquacious, aside from the death
> toll, the devastation and the fact they hit the pentagon, there's
> also the heavy amount of damage done to the American economy.
The damage to the pentagon was only ever going to be superficial, in regards to the building's operation. You're almost certainly absolutely right though, of course, they wouldn't have.
Then again, if you'd told me in '99 that the election would be rigged I'd have reacted with the same disbelief, so I figure it helps to keep half an eye open to the possibility.
I doubt they allowed it to happen Loquacious, aside from the death toll, the devastation and the fact they hit the pentagon, there's also the heavy amount of damage done to the American economy.
If somehow they did allow it to happen, in full knowledge of what would occur, then that would make them no better than the Nazi's.
If somehow they did allow it to happen, in full knowledge of what would occur, then that would make them no better than the Nazi's.
This was sort of the last straw for me, in that it's now fully convinced me that Bush was looking for an excuse to go into Iraq from the word go, and used 9/11 to that ends.
The fact that he waited for 9/11, and proclaimed there to be links between Al Qaeda and Hussein (which the whitehouse later admitted there was no evidence for, of course), in order to convince people of the legitimacy of the war, shows that he knew it wouldn't be legitimate / supported by his 'electorate' without such a link.
And there wasn't such a link.
Only now a bunch of people (over 50% in the US was it?) still think there was :^S
More disturbing is the new evidence to suggest the US gvt could have predicted / prevented 9/11.
Which means they were either incompetent, or allowed it to happen to justify their Iraq agenda.
But it couldn't have been the latter? Could it?
The fact that he waited for 9/11, and proclaimed there to be links between Al Qaeda and Hussein (which the whitehouse later admitted there was no evidence for, of course), in order to convince people of the legitimacy of the war, shows that he knew it wouldn't be legitimate / supported by his 'electorate' without such a link.
And there wasn't such a link.
Only now a bunch of people (over 50% in the US was it?) still think there was :^S
More disturbing is the new evidence to suggest the US gvt could have predicted / prevented 9/11.
Which means they were either incompetent, or allowed it to happen to justify their Iraq agenda.
But it couldn't have been the latter? Could it?
Excellent last line, I laughed.
I've always thought the reason Dubya went to war with Iraq is to finish off his dad's unfinished business. Just a pure personal vendetta against Saddam and was willing to risk Allied troops lives to settle it.
To use a old joke
MORE BUSH IN THE WHITEHOUSE, CLINTON SAYS "YES PLEASE".
MORE BUSH IN THE WHITEHOUSE, CLINTON SAYS "YES PLEASE".
Page: