Comments on: 10/5/01: Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators

By: GOD Bless George Bush & The USA! » Blog Archive » … that Bush _ s prewar claim that

Sat, 21 Oct 2006 09:16:11 +0000

[...] Think Progress ” 10/5/01: Bush Pulls Security Clearances From 92 Senators It _ s not in our nation _ s interest. ? – President George W. Bush, 10/9/01 … the truth is as powerful as Bush _ s lies, then things will get better. … [...]

By: GOD Bless George Bush & The USA! » Blog Archive » … were asked if they agreed that, If

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 18:43:17 +0000

By: GOD Bless George Bush & The USA! » Blog Archive » I imagine Turd Blossom, George Bush _ s

Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:26:18 +0000

By: » Blog Archive » … party candidate not beat a sitting president

» Blog Archive » … party candidate not beat a sitting president — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 13:53:35 +0000

By: » Blog Archive » … expression of Mahathir TO GET ENDORSED BY

» Blog Archive » … expression of Mahathir TO GET ENDORSED BY — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 03:39:35 +0000

By: » Blog Archive » … resounding boo ? came from the protesters

» Blog Archive » … resounding boo ? came from the protesters — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:13:18 +0000

By: » Blog Archive » Washington ” President Bush _ s attempt to

» Blog Archive » Washington ” President Bush _ s attempt to — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 08:10:12 +0000

By: GOD Bless George Bush & The USA! » Blog Archive » … as they did following the first President

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:15:22 +0000

By: kevin

kevin — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:29:54 +0000

When Powell went to the United Nations and presented all the fabricated false forged “evidence” the US Senate should have revoked it’s war powers vote.

Everybody knew about that, security clearnce or not.

That sould have been the end of Bush Iraq invasion aspirations.

By: ThePsychiatrist

ThePsychiatrist — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:52:04 +0000

True, Publicus. Lobotomies are outlawed, but I guarantee you we can, if we can get enough money, we can pay lobbyists in Washington, D.C. to get Congress to change the law. It’ll be easy. And I mean, REAL easy. All the psychiatrists, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, mental health workers, electronics retailers, and the fast-food industy, among others, would support this. So would most of the 400 richest Americans, who don’t want to lose their wealth. Piece of cake, pal. Furthermore, I think TheConformist has a real balanced and patriotic personality, caring so much for us all as he does.

By: Publicus

Publicus — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:40:40 +0000

Sorry, I disagree with TheConformist. I know he/she wants all of us to die happy. But as Americans, isn’t it better to die thinking? Perhaps then we’ll know what we’re dying for. So I propose a different Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “All Americans have the right to think.” Simple. I mean think like the Founding Fathers. They were thinkers, weren’t they? Shouldn’t we be like them if we can, and take back the government from the fools and flunkies like they did? I mean, wasn’t King George mentally ill? I don’t mean George W. but George III — I think the King our thinking Founding Fathers rebelled against. Yeah, I think it’s better that all Americans have the right to think, don’t you? Then we can all go to college, like Thomas Jefferson did! At least we can dream about it, if we think about it. Right? And aren’t lobotomies outlawed?

By: TheConformist

TheConformist — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 14:17:19 +0000

Yo, I think, therefore I think I think. But maybe TheShrink is write. If I get a lobotomy, so I never need to think again: about piece, war, truth, justice, the American way, nuklear bombs, pre-emptive attacks, law … I mean, innernational law, or the fate of the human race with fools and flunkies making all the decisions. Then I can eat at McDonalds; buy t-shirt, jeans, and Nike immitations at Walmart; work 3 jobs for minimum wage to pay for my SUV; become obese so I can sit and watch all the bowl games on TV without moving or thinking; listen to my favorite bible-quoting talkshow host; and wait for the Rapture so I can die happy. Should we make this an ammendment to the constitution? I mean, getting a lobotomy, that is.

By: ThePsychiatrist

ThePsychiatrist — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 13:53:30 +0000

Ninety percent of Americans are undereducated and can’t think. Most weren’t breast fed and got beat with belts by their dads when their minds wandered. So they make irrational decisions based on their preconceived ideologies inherited from their parents and the imbecilic media they attent to. Of the ten percent who can think, 9.99999 percent should get lobotomies. That way no American need think. So the few thousand who govern and the 400 richest who have more wealth than half the country can continue to elect fools and flunkies to lead and make decisions for us.

By: Dr. Memory

Dr. Memory — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 02:28:20 +0000

President Bush is a good man — he’s got a ranch and everything. We should just support our President and not worry about thinking so much.

By: Quack quack

Quack quack — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:04:07 +0000

Actually, Bush pulled security clearances from 96 senators and 431 representatives â€“ a total of 527 members of congress.

By: mewstersworld.com » Rewriting the history of the Iraq war

mewstersworld.com » Rewriting the history of the Iraq war — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:38:16 +0000

[...] In October 2001, in an action that was not widely reported, Bush yanked the security clearances of 92 Senators. You can read about the action and follow a link to the actual order by clicking here. [...]

By: Laser Beam

Laser Beam — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 06:23:31 +0000

Did anyone else notice that these references don’t point to the clearances being PULLED, but only to restrictions on how information was to be SHARED?

This is an important distinction that needs to be noted. Of course, it’s still a dastardly act, especially if you consider how loose GWB was with intel management WRT people in the same party.

By: Crazy Dems!

Crazy Dems! — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 03:37:37 +0000

Hahahaha! Not only do we control the intelligence but we control the voting machines! You are all on the path to destruction, make your time! Hahahaha!

By: Jessie

Jessie — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:52:12 +0000

Why is there a date difference on these articles? How did Gannet report on an article that hadn’t been written yet?

Gannet says it is taking info from a Wapo article written a week before but this article was written after Gannet published this article. Am I missing something here?

This does not make sense. Why is the order written on a sheet of paper with no seal? Where is the original source for the order and an order number? Are these things not available? If this info is true then we must have clear, undeniable proof.
Please provide that. I would like to see this story on the evening news but only if it’s backable. The previous poster is right…we don’t need another Dan Rather.

By: James

James — Sun, 13 Nov 2005 19:10:36 +0000

There is something that needs to be clarified here. Look at the date on the Gannett news service article (10/01/01), they are reporting on an article that was in the WaPo. Look at the date on the WaPo article, it is dated as 5 days later. Gannett can not be reporting on an article that has not been published yet. This needs to be cleaned up before the argument is done like they did Dan Rather.
——————————————————
Gannett News Service reported on 10/1/01 that Bush was restricting information because, â€œThe Washington Post reported last week that various lawmakers had been told there would be more terrorist attacks if the United States retaliated.â€

Hereâ€™s what the Washington Post reported:

Asked whether more terrorist attacks are inevitable if the United States retaliates, [Sen. Richard] Shelby said, â€œYou can bet on that.â€ U.S. intelligence officials have told members of Congress there is a high probability that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden will try to launch another major attack on U.S. targets here or abroad. [Washington Post, 10/6/01]