President Bush is proud that the U.S. elections
By on Nov 12th, 2006 at 4:38 pm
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
WTF?!
He won’t even raise taxes to pay for the war! He’s PROUD that he didn’t completely subvert the remainder of our Constitutional government by suspending elections? What kind of dictator is he?
“Decider” is a polite word for “Dictator”…let’s not let him get away with it…
November 12th, 2006 at 4:53 pmWTF?!
He won’t even levy taxes to pay for his stupid, illegal and immoral war. And he’s proud that he hasn’t completely destroyed the remainder of our Constitution by not suspending the elections? On WHO’S AUTHORITY would he suspend elections?
“Decider” is a polite word for “Dictator.”
November 12th, 2006 at 4:55 pmWe need impeachment hearings.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:08 pmYes, people, we were that close to a Nazi take-over…
Now it’s been proven.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:09 pmYah hes wating for the 2008 election.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:09 pmMore evidence Bush believes the Constitution is “Just a god*amned piece of paper” as I don’t recall Congress declaring War.
But why snivel over trite formalities. I do not own nor subscribe to tin foil hat wardrobes but I am not convinced Bush plans on leaving in Jan 09.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:10 pmWHO’S AUTHORITY would he suspend elections?—-Publicus
Look at the 2 bills signed sept 17th, the rubberstamp congress gave him the ability to decide on his own whim, martial law.
King George, the decider can do this any time he wants.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:12 pmHe thinks we should be gratefull he didn’t
So he’s saying we should be grateful that we were able to vote at all?
Wow.
Thank you, Herr Bush.
Idiot.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:17 pmi had an epiphany this morning: bush and rove threw this election and wanted the democrats to have just enough power in the government to blame the impending collapse of iraq on these democrats for not voting to increase the troop levels, as the baker report will recommend.
the goal: one party rule will return in 2008 when the republicans campaign on the way the democrats lost iraq. throw in another ‘pearl harbor like attack’; throw in iran and israel…
think about it; that is all i ask. ask yourself what the rove and bush would have done differently HAD they wanted to lose… they even had cheney hunting on election day…
November 12th, 2006 at 5:18 pmNext, I fear, its gonna be Corporate takeover.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Bush is floating a trial balloon for 2008. Declare martial law, suspend Congress, the Supreme Court and the elections. He’s dropped hints before.
“the Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper.”-George W. Bush
November 12th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
The economy would crash so fast if he did that…faster than China could called in it’s loans maybe even….
November 12th, 2006 at 5:25 pmLieberman’s Opposition in 2000 and 2006 Received the EXACT Amount of Votes
i apologize if this duplicates another post on another thread, but, i don’t think it has been discussed here…. if this is true, it is quite an amazing coincidence, no?
see this link.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:27 pmHe thinks we should be gratefull he didn’t
Comment by Wayne — November 12, 2006 @ 5:12 pm
Almost makes me hate him. I just refuse to hate people. To me, it means that they’ve won…
He is proving himself to be just as dangerous as we all have been pointing out…
Fortunately, I think the rest of the country has mostly caught on and isn’t trusting him.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm#9 – james,
The more I hear and read, the more I have started thinking that way myself.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:38 pm“Nissan, Honda, and Isuzu are the Axis of Evil!†-President Levi Strauss
Comment by Dog_named_Boo — November 12, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
LOL!
November 12th, 2006 at 5:42 pmI think there’s a method behind the madness of GWB. Unka Karl doesn’t let his meat puppet do anything by accident.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pmBush is floating a trial balloon for 2008. Declare martial law, suspend Congress, the Supreme Court and the elections.
Comment by Uncle_Ho — November 12, 2006 @ 5:23 pm
Uncle Ho, I think you hit the nail on the head. I see another scenario under which he declares martial law: his impending impeachment. Should impeachment appear imminent, he will launch an attack on Iran, then declare martial law here.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pmz,
i am googling some stuff on it now… i found this–you will enjoy the photo of the author :)
November 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pmImpeach, Try, Convict and Remove the illegitimate, lying, election-stealing thugs Cheney and Bush as soon as possible.
What really amazes me is that most all of the totally dingbat statements (lies) by Cheney and Bush rarely, if ever, get “reported” in the so-called “mainstream” media, both newspapers and network television “news” shows.
It’s time for those that broadcast on our public airwaves (radio and television) start broadcasting a little of the truth, instead of their usual propaganda for C + B and their gang of gangsters. The coming new Democratic majorities in House and Senate need to do a little investigation into fairness of the corporate media. That is the heart of our problems in America. If the corporate media had done their jobs of reporting the honest unvarnished truth, we never would have got stuck with the illegitimate C + B in the first place…
Citizens should not have to report the news, but in the age of corporate greed, we have all been forced to become investigative reporters and news commentators… Thank God for the Internets…
Cheers.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:48 pm#9, that’s defeatist conspiracy-mongering.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:49 pmjames risser,
Your posts have been giving my the “willy-nilly’s” for a couple of weeks now.
Kindly take your finger off the pulse of the current political ploy…..
It’s scary. I don’t want to hear that beat anymore.
;)
It was sarcasm, but you have been eerily “on”…
November 12th, 2006 at 5:52 pm#19 – james,
Thanks for the link, it is rather sickening seeing those things in one place.
That photo is great, but his tinfoil hat is a disgrace. Mine is much nicer.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:54 pmI just cracked open my American history book and can’t seem to find a single war that shut down an election since The Constitution was enacted. The closest that I could find was the one in 1864 where certain states chose to not participate because of a certain disagreement. Perhaps W is to steeped in Teaxas history since being disowned by everyone in CT except for kissing companion, Lieberman.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:55 pmSo it seems the same nutjobs who said weeks ago Dems couldn’t win because of Diebold and you might as well not vote now say, well, since we did win, it must have been the GOPs throwing the fight.
Yeah, we on the left sure do suck. How on earth could we win on our own merits? We are a bunch of douchebags.
Go jump off a building, my friend.
November 12th, 2006 at 5:56 pmUnka Karl doesn’t let his meat puppet do anything by accident.
Comment by Zooey — November 12, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
I think Pinocchio cut his strings and ran away…
November 12th, 2006 at 5:56 pmShould impeachment appear imminent, he will launch an attack on Iran, then declare martial law here.
Comment by RealScientist — November 12, 2006 @ 5:44
pm
Perhaps it’s why Pelosi took it off the table… As did Conyers?
November 12th, 2006 at 5:58 pm#
Should impeachment appear imminent, he will launch an attack on Iran, then declare martial law here.
Comment by RealScientist — November 12, 2006 @ 5:44
pm
Perhaps it’s why Pelosi took it off the table… As did Conyers?
Comment by unbelievable — November 12, 2006 @ 5:58 pm
You guys are crazy.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:00 pmTeaxas sb Texas in my #24 – sorry.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:01 pm#28 – miles,
November 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pmNo, Rove is.
Real Scientist, I hope we are both wrong, but these kind of statements by our wannabe fuehrer tells me that we need to end his rule by any means necessary. Terminate with extreme prejudice.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pmYou guys are crazy.
Comment by miles
Quite possibly. What’s your point?
November 12th, 2006 at 6:03 pmYou guys are crazy.
Comment by miles — November 12, 2006 @ 6:00 pm
No. It is Bush who is insane, and being skeptical of him is what won the last election.
Think what you will, as people who’ve averted disaster rarely understand what they almost became.
Just ask the Germans what happens when you trust your elected officials a bit too much…
November 12th, 2006 at 6:10 pmmay have already been asked, but -
have elections EVER been cancelled? when/why?
according to easyrider at crooks, the answer to my question is “never”… anyone have anything different?
just wonder how dumbya could come up with that without some historical context… yea, i know, it’s dumbya…
November 12th, 2006 at 6:11 pmWhoa, were there talks about cancelling the elections?
November 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pmOT: (kinda)
Insurgent Activity Rising in Afghanistan
November 12th, 2006 at 6:16 pm/my apologies for the duplicate post…./
i’ll shut up now and go jump off that bridge, just for my friend miles…
November 12th, 2006 at 6:17 pmThe President is lucky that the US elections went forward despite the war.
If the elections had not gone forward, his own party would be impeaching his a** today.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:18 pm#34 – katy,
November 12th, 2006 at 6:18 pmI did the research and posted it in my #24. Basic answer is never in the USA unless the voluntary withdrawal of the Confederacy in the 1864 election could be factored in somehow.
I get this feeling that dubya is talking about the october surprise that wasn’t.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:25 pmthanks walt … like i said, sure seems a weird comment with no historical relation…
jrisser’s assertion that the election was thrown is not far off either…
just to put the onus on the dems, if nothing else…
i put nothing past this criminal gang…
November 12th, 2006 at 6:26 pmi’ll shut up now and go jump off that bridge, just for my friend miles…
Comment by james risser
Just try to hit the water, and don’t make a mess!
November 12th, 2006 at 6:27 pmXist. He’s freakin hopeless.
November 12th, 2006 at 6:39 pm#42 – Zooey,
November 12th, 2006 at 6:48 pmA drop of about 140 feet into water is equivalent to a drop of the same distance onto concrete when doing a belly flop. At 190 feet, the hamburger will just float on the surface no matter what the means of entry.
Oops, james just got deleted.
#44 – Thanks Walt, I thought mine was bad enough, but you topped me!
November 12th, 2006 at 6:53 pm#13 james risser
November 12th, 2006 at 6:56 pmThanks for repeating that – I saw it on Brad’s blog yesterday and it is very curious. No one seemed to be talking about it but I see you found it on another blog.
Wow, The President has once again lost it. The implication is more than a little Scary.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:00 pm#34 Katy,
November 12th, 2006 at 7:04 pmThe closest we came to suspending elections was in the civil war era.
I think Bush must have been considering this among all his options as the election was looking more bleak every day.
On the other hand, with all the opportunities for fraud (Diebold, Sequioa, ES&S) there was less fraud than we expected – except in about a dozen or so counties, so was the election “thrown” as james risser suggests? It will succeed in bringing the Dems to the table in resolving the Iraq dilemma (if any resolution is possible) and if a solution cannot be found, the Dems will be painted with some of the same tar as the Repugs. See post #13, and another story on Brad’s blog.
In all my life, I have never been as cynical concerning motivations of others, nor have I ever been this skeptical about what I see and read; I look for who stands to gain from whatever it is I am reading.
hi, marie,
i don’t know if i am banned again or what… that is what i get for putting on my beautiful pyramidical tin hat around here. i don’t really read ‘blogs’ that much; the quote is from editor & publisher magazine…but, if i am banned you will not see this.
another deeply existential moment, brought to you courtesy of think progress…
November 12th, 2006 at 7:05 pmCongress doesn’t vote on troop levels, only funding. In other words, Bush can increase troop levels without consulting Congress.
What is more likely is that the Democrat-controlled Congress will put an end to the warrantless wiretaps and other “necessary tools” to fight “terrorists.” A few months later… “terrorist” attacks which will dwarf 9/11 in magnitude…all timed to kick off the 2008 campaign season…and to put an end to Congressional oversight hearings/impeachment proceedings.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:19 pm50
November 12th, 2006 at 7:30 pmI really, really hope you are wrong, but yeah I still the blackness in the pattern too.
The neocons are not finshed yet and they have no scruples at all.
#49 jr
November 12th, 2006 at 7:32 pmEnjoy your posts.
Keep ‘em coming. :)
He certainly must have anticipated that elections would have to be postponed.
November 12th, 2006 at 7:57 pmI bet he still believes rthat the Iraqi airforce will lanch an attack on the US with their biologically tainted paper aircraft.
The President will believe anything that his asshole supporter tell him.
“your in Good Hands, mr goodwrench”.
Regarding the comment by james risser: # 9:
You need to go to Google video and watch TerrorStorm. This scenerio my be correct. Just because the Democrat’s have won both Houses doesn’t mean that they have any power. Hopuse bill HR6166 married with Patriot Act, and Executive orders pretty much gives Bush full control. Regarding the Democrats, if they are going to continue to be ball-less and not impeach the King then we will get martial law.
We need write emails to the democrat’s on a daily basis asking that they proceed with impeachment hearings. I have sent 50 emails each day to Pelosi, Reid, Conyers, and Waxman. It would be a great help if Think-Progress would link thier emails to thier website for easy access by all that visit.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:01 pmPresident Bush is proud that the U.S. elections weren’t canceled because of the war.
A war they started. Stalin would be proud.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:18 pmYes. And Democrats must have deliberately thrown the 2004 election, too!
This must have been the plan:
(1) Nominate a patently unelectable, preening windbag.
(2) Have him awkwardly salute and “report for duty” at the Democratic Convention.
(3) Have his daughters brag at the same convention that he once gave their hamster artificial respiration.
(4) Have said candidate insensitively exploit the sexuality of the VP’s daughter during the debate.
(5) Have said candidate limp-dickedly refuse to combat the smearing of his war record by a handful of crazed veterans.
(6) When there is ample evidence of voter fraud in Ohio, let said candidate nevertheless concede defeat.
Yeah, I get it now. Every party that loses an election threw it on purpose. Nobody ever just plain effs up out of stupidity that feeds on arrogance.
~miles
November 12th, 2006 at 8:19 pmps: #56 references #9.
November 12th, 2006 at 8:25 pmThe level of stupidity that resides in the Chimp’s head is truly startling. The 31 percent of the American public who still supports this stupid son of a bitch should be sterilized so their voting genes cannot be passed on through the pool. Is it 2009 so this moron can face his war crimes trials yet?
November 12th, 2006 at 8:29 pmWell, I understand the skepticism and pessimism expressed here, but we can fight them, and we can fight them successfully. On the other hand, there is some really bad news concerning the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Ted Rall is the first “MSM” guy making a report, and it looks really bad.
More at OUR LONG NATIONAL NIGHTMARE HAS JUST BEGUN.
Anybody know how this got past the radar screen? ThinkProgress, what do you have on this?
November 12th, 2006 at 8:42 pm#59 I was railing on that bill here on TP, debating Exley over it, right after it passed. I believe I was the first to bring it on here. And NO TP has not reported on it yet
November 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pmActually I have seen some T-shirts about this. Warna Brother
Actually it has alot to do with the Comme Positatus which some of us warned about some time ago. It fell on the deaf ears of the sheeple who are stuck on the boob tube reality based BS. The media do the population no favors by reporting the garbage they do and skipping the important issues.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:07 pmAh, Wayne, then you must be the “liberal blogger” that Ted mentioned. Congratulations on your new-found notoriety!
It really pisses me that these bills passed and were signed without the slightest wimper from Pelosi, Reid and the state governors. Why didn’t Murtha raise a stink?
The MCA is not so difficult because it can ultimately be shot down in court. But this JWDDA is different. Even though it clearly is unconstitutional, there will be infrastructural and funding changes that will be really difficult to unravel. This is an enormous mess.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:22 pmHey, Bush, come back to reality. When you come back from your fantasy land, rethink what you just said.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:28 pm#55 A war they started.
Uh oh….Here we go. Juan is breaking out his “9/11 was an inside-job” conspiracy theory again.
*yawn*
How pathetic of him.
November 12th, 2006 at 9:55 pm#64 – Exley,
November 12th, 2006 at 10:02 pmMainlining again! Be careful, it can rot your mind on more than a temporary basis. Look at W – do you want to be that stupid?
64 – failure to recognize that 9/11 was an inside job is a sign of mental illness
November 12th, 2006 at 10:10 pmUh oh….Here we go. Juan is breaking out his “9/11 was an inside-job†conspiracy theory again.
*yawn*
How pathetic of him.
Comment by Exley
Yeah, idiot, Iraq invaded US, right?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:18 pm#66 – stonehinge,
November 12th, 2006 at 10:22 pmI simply cannot comprehend why Exley would raise the conspiracy issue when Juan C. was merely comparing W with the most insensitive dictator of all time. In my opinion, Juan is guilty of an understatement.
The War on Terror began when Islamic terrorists killed 3,000 innocent people in NYC, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001, Juan….I know history is not your strong suit. But that atrocity took place recently enough that even you should remember that.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:24 pmHow pathetic of him.
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
Well, no matter how you put it, the Iraq war was one of choice. Pres Bush’s choice, since that country had nothing to do with 9/11.
So, yes, Juan C is right -it’s a war the Bush administration started.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:29 pmGegor, The President stated that we are in a time of war. We have been at war since 9/11/2001. Juan forgets that American and international forces are currently fighting Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. Moreover, Juan has been quite clear in the past that he accepts the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was an inside job.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:34 pmI know history is not your strong suit.
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 10:24 pm
Neither is yours, it seems.
Have you already forgotten Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?
Even if Pres Bush wasn’t directly referring to the war in Iraq, but to the more ethereal “War On Terror”, the US didn’t stop holding elections during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, or even the Cold War.
Why would this “War on Terror” be any different?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:35 pmExley, the war in Afghanistan was not a war of choice.
Exley, the war in Iraq was a war of choice.
We are losing the war in Afghanistan because our soldiers are fighting a war of choice in Iraq.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:37 pmGregor, That is exactly the point the President was making. American democracy is so strong that even during wartime — be it the Civil Warm WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the War on Terror — we continue to hold peaceful elections and transfers of power.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:39 pmMiles, I don’t necessarily disagree with you re: Afghanistan and Iraq. I was simply pointing out that Juan was not only referencing the Iraq War in posting #55. Since Juan has long stated his belief that 9/11 was an inside job, he was also referring to the war in Afghanistan when he stated he talked about “a war they started.”
November 12th, 2006 at 10:42 pm#72 – Gregor Samsa,
November 12th, 2006 at 10:44 pmYou forgot the North African War (Tripoli), the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War. Same difference – elections went through.
The War on Terror began when Islamic terrorists killed 3,000 innocent people in NYC, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001, Juan….
Comment by Exley
Im confused. Your idol, GWB, the great liberator recently said Iraq HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11. Your president attacked a defenseless country (bombed by years) without a declaration of war, based on the “preemptive war” doctrine. US started the war. No iraqi were on those planes we saw. MOst of them were saudis…but how can you attack the totalitarian, murderous, human right crusher, regime of your Saudi Pals? Hypocresy.
I urge you to keep up. My comment had nothing to do with 9/11 inside job theory; thats where the idiocy of your comment falls. And, btw, FBI says Osama has nothing to do with 9/11.
I know history is not your strong suit. .
mmm…still no anger here.
But that atrocity took place recently enough that even you should remember that
November 12th, 2006 at 10:46 pmI remembered it. One of the saddest days. Just as 9/11/1973.
That is exactly the point the President was making.
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
Well, I thought the comment was inane (one of those ‘Duh!’ moments we all have) and it was more self-congratulatory than anything else, given that Pres Bush fancies himself a “war-time president”.
Did you ever hear any Cold War-time president say anything like that?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:48 pm#77 So, Juan, when you referred to “a war they started” in posting #55, you were referring solely to Iraq and not the War on Terror and Afghanistan?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:50 pmYou’re into reading minds now, exley? Is there nothing you can’t do?
Tell me, if we must destroy the Constitution to fight the War on Terror, what do we gain?
For someone who can follow the proper rules of grammar, why is it you cannot see the evils you defend? For what price did you sell your soul?
November 12th, 2006 at 10:52 pmSame difference – elections went through.
Comment by WaltTheMan — November 12, 2006 @ 10:44 pm
Yes, I was sure I was missing a few; I just wanted to mention the “big ones”. Although we could also include the Indian Wars, I guess.
I just don’t know why Pres Bush thinks it is even worth mentioning, other than -as I said- to pat himself on the back.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:52 pmExley,
November 12th, 2006 at 10:54 pmI have not been able to ‘Google’ or ‘Ask’ Juan C. with “inside job” in a pure thread. I’ll check your response in the AM, us old farts have to sleep now and then.
#78, Actually, Gregor, yes. I have often heard politicians and Presidents — both Republicans and Democrats — say after elections and transfers of power that it is a mark of the greatness of American democracy that such events take place peacefully. Certainly in 2000, I heard many, many times how wonderful it was that that closest of elections was settled peacefully and without violence. What Bush said today in his radio address is pretty familiar rhetoric from American politicians following an election.
November 12th, 2006 at 10:57 pmAmerican democracy is so strong that even during wartime —
Comment by Exley
Oh, you are making me cry, boy. It seems US likes democracy…but not overseas…examples??? Like 180 military interventions from US forces or CIA to impose dictators. mmm…no democracy there. Why does the US hate democracy overseas?? mmm…Im guessing because if given the chance, people around the world wouldnt buy Coke and KFC.
Since Juan has long stated his belief that 9/11 was an inside job,
November 12th, 2006 at 10:59 pmComment by Exley
As long as all proof and evidence like that little video from the “plane” hitting the Pentagon see the light, I will stick to it. The difference between me and you is that you are naivee and scared to accept that your government (all governments…argentinian government would do the exact same thing) doesnt like you. He likes money and power. Give me a f***ing break, they sell guns at Wal-Mart and makes you a pill-addict for whatever reason. To keep you buying stuff and supporting oil and war companies, your government makes you believe there are a LOT of enemies that hate your way of living: koreans, japanese, russians, commies, muslims, illegals, black gangs, whatever. You would believe anything.
#80, No, BnF, I do not claim to have the ability to read minds. I base my statements on Juan’s numerous postings here at TP in which he stated his belief that 9/11 was an “inside job.” If Juan no longer holds that opinion, that is indeed welcome news.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:00 pm9/11/1973
thanks for the tip. another piece of the jigsaw puzzle falls into place. And exlie is too obtuse to notice.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:01 pmRe: Posting #84…See? I told you. Juan believes 9/11 was an inside job.
I rest my case.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:02 pmexlie, however, the more I research the events of 9/11, the more convinced I am that it was an inside job.
You, in your infinite wisdom, are welcome to prove me wrong. Please include citations to any assertions of fact.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:03 pm9/11/1973
thanks for the tip. another piece of the jigsaw puzzle falls into place. And exlie is too obtuse to notice.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire
That’s just eerie.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:06 pmAs long as all proof and evidence like that little video from the “plane†hitting the Pentagon see the light, I will stick to it.
Comment by Juan C — November 12, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
Even though I am afraid I am stepping onto a mined field….
Juan, do you mean a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Or that you haven’t seen a video of the event? Or that you haven’t read the eyewitness’ testimony?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:10 pmSo, Juan, when you referred to “a war they started†in posting #55, you were referring solely to Iraq and not the War on Terror and Afghanistan?
Comment by Exley
With some few exceptions since WWII…all wars where US has fought were iniciated by US. I was referring to the War on Terror. Afghanistan, Iraq…whatever US just need a playground to show up his war toys so he can sell around the world while conquering the resources of those countries it invades. Afghanistan…one of the poorest countries in the world…so where is OBL? Is the Taliban over yet? BS!!! War on Terror? What the f**k is that? You cant even define was terror, thats a broad word to use as an excuse to begin more wars…oh, look, that state is terrorist! BS. What happened to the war on drugs, fought by Clinton, -such a nice fella, too, sorry for all guys here who are fond of him-? He destroyed Columbia and made it the dangerous country in all America. Well, nothing happened, americans are still the greatest consumers of any kind of drugs…oh, something happened, now America recieves some benefits from the merchandising and installed military bases over there. War on this, war on that…you are being played like a puppet. Next time your president open his mouth dont ever question anything, just say yes.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:11 pmthanks for the tip.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:12 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire
No, I thank you for your posts.
#84 – Juan C,
November 12th, 2006 at 11:15 pmCalm down you crazy Argentinean! Not to be demeaning, but you guys have a temper that fries. On the other hand, you will buy someone a drink when you find that your anger is misplaced. Now really to bed.
That’s just eerie.
Indeed, the shocking dichotomy between September 11, 1973 and September 11, 2001 is unnerving.
On September 11, 1973, a group of freedom-fighters lbravely iberated their nation from a murderous Marxist dictator.
On September 11, 2001, a totalitarian murderous terrorist group attacked a free nation, killing 3,000 innocent people in NYC, Washington, and Pennsylvania.
The differences between the two days is indeed eerie. September 11, 1973 was a day of liberation and freedom. Septmber 11, 2001 was a day of mass murder, terror, and evil.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:17 pmNo Exley, there is nothing at all familiar about this rhetoric.
Considering that there is no attack on US soil, there is no reason why elections would be cancelled. In fact, there have never been any cancellations in the US for this very reason.
This reads precisely as a snarky reference to his newly-granted dictatorial powers. He’s basically asking us to be grateful that he couldn’t find a legitimate excuse to stop the election process.
Perhaps you should take some lessons in Orwellian double-speak. I would be very happy to recommend some nice tutorials for you.
Furthermore, there is no reason why Juan should rescind his belief in an “inside job.” There is more than enough hard evidence to fully support such a belief. In fact, it is the only possible solution to the facts as they are.
Try this.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:18 pmJuan, do you mean a plane did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11? Or that you haven’t seen a video of the event? Or that you haven’t read the eyewitness’ testimony?
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Im sorry, Gregor. This is a really sensitive issue. My POV about governments is that they will do anything to hold power. My government tortured and killed 30,000 people whose bodies cant be found yet. Do you think Kennedy was shot by a looney? I dont. Watergate was a direct attempt to blow up, not literally speaking, the Dem Party! So…what does that tell you? Now…I see a blur at the Pentagon video. No plane. Testimonies swing both ways. My question is…who is benefiting from that event? There you have it.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:20 pmSee posting #91….As I said, Juan was not simply referring to Iraq back in posting #55. He was referring to Afghanistan and all facets of the War on Terror.
I rest my case.
Juan, Will you be responding to Gregor’s questions of posting #90?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:22 pmCalm down you crazy Argentinean! Not to be demeaning, but you guys have a temper that fries.
Comment by WaltTheMan
Ha! Im sorry. :)
November 12th, 2006 at 11:22 pm#96, Wow, Juan, you stepped up to the plate and answered Gregor’s questions.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:23 pmOn September 11, 1973, a group of freedom-fighters lbravely iberated their nation from a murderous Marxist dictator.
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:17 pm
Huh?
Salvador Allende was democratically elected -hardly the hallmark of a dictator.
And you are not really calling Augusto Pinochet a “freedom-fighter”, and a “liberator”are you? He presided over one of the worst periods of Chile’s history, brutally repressing the opposition, torturing and disappearing poliltical dissenters (he had Orlando Letelier killed on American soil), all of which gained him wide condemnation at home and abroad as one of the worst human rights violators on the planet.
Is that the Pinochet you are calling “freedom-fighter”?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:25 pm#94 – F*ck you, Exley.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:28 pmSo, that’s three conspiracy theorists here who believe that 9/11 was an inside job:
Juan C
Briseadh na Faire
Stonehinge.
Any other progressives here at ThinkProgress who agree with them that 9/11 was an insider job?????
November 12th, 2006 at 11:28 pmIs that the Pinochet you are calling “freedom-fighter�
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Hence, my “f*ck you” to Exley.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:29 pmOh, and Exley,
You might have missed it, but Pinochet was arrested in the UK, extradited to Spain to stand trial for torturing and killing Spanish subjects.
He was also stripped of senatorial immunity and arrested in his own country for crimes agaisnt humanity.
Is that the “liberator” you are talking about?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:34 pmGregor, Allende was indeed elected (with 36% of the vote). However, upon taking office he undertook a series of oppressive measures and crushing of political dissent. His removal from office in 1973 met with great popular approval.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:34 pmAny other progressives here at ThinkProgress who agree with them that 9/11 was an insider job?????
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
count me in…
November 12th, 2006 at 11:35 pmoh, and i 2nd zooey’s motion – f*ck you exley… such an obnoxious prick…
Is that the Pinochet you are calling “freedom-fighter�
Comment by Gregor Samsa
Yes, he is. Good thing Im the mad man here.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:36 pm#101…Heh! Good comeback, Zooey. Read a little history and then get back to me.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:40 pmanyone else experiencing some deja vu here?
108,9 clicked something familiar… weird…
i’ve had enough… g’nite fellow progressives, libs, mods and realists…
November 12th, 2006 at 11:42 pm.
Allende was indeed elected (with 36% of the vote).
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:34 pm
According to Chilean law at the time, all he needed was simple majority. 36% did the trick.
And that is a whole lot more than Pinochet ever got during his murderious tenure as Chile’s strongman.
upon taking office he undertook a series of oppressive measures and crushing of political dissent.
That is simply not true. Allende’s great sin was to have nationalised national resources -mainly copper, and to establish relationships with Cuba.
Chile’s Congress was alive, well, and opposed many of Allende’s initiatives. Hardly the hallmark of a murderous dictator.
His removal from office in 1973 met with great popular approval.
Except, of course, of those he had tortured, killed, disappeared, or simply kicked out of the country.
You see, Pinochet is actually guilty of all the things you accuse Allende of. And you call Pinochet a “liberator”? What a joke.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pmGregor, As I am sure you know, after Allende began assuming dictatorial powers, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and Supreme Court condemned his rule and essentially directed the military to remove him for his illegal and unconstitutional acts.
That is a part of Chilean history that Juan likes to ignore and of which Zooey apparently has no knowledge.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pmRead a little history and then get back to me.
Comment by Exley
Yeah, Zoo. Begin with the heroic history of Contras, the freedom fighters at day, but nun-killers at night.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:44 pmEx, she can outrun you anytime.
As I am sure you know, after Allende began assuming dictatorial powers, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies and Supreme Court condemned his rule
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
So, he had dictatorial powers that were not broad enough to help him against the Deputies and the Supreme Court.
Some would say that is a sad excuse for a dictator.
and essentially directed the military to remove him for his illegal and unconstitutional acts.
Well, if he was a dictator, there was no way anybody could have removed him by an act of law, would it?
And let me remind you, Allende had called for a plebiscite to resolve the differences he had with Chile’s Congress -what a horrible dictator! Calling for a plebiscite! How dare he? Of course, the plebiscite never took place because of the coup d’etat.
Not only that, as soon as those “liberators” came to power, they dissolved Chille’s COngress and assumed absolute powers.
Yeah, great liberation allright.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:51 pmJuan, doesn’t the idea of a chihuahua come to mind when you think of Exley and her inane discourse?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:51 pmTo be fair I will tell you a story about Allende.
When the chilean military men began to conspired against his government, Allende showed up to some political act and said something like: Those who say anything unlawful about our army…be careful!
So, instead of removing the whole gang of murderers financed by Kissinger, he tried to pacify them…and he lost. He should have shot every traitor down.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:52 pmJuan, You are completely incorrect. Allende was a deeply unpopular figure among the Chilean people. Unhappy with his political oppression and his failed economic policies, mass demonstrations against Allende and his Marxist government were commonplace.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:52 pm#107 Okay that makes four “progressives” who exonerate Al Qaeda and believe that 9/11/2001 was an inside job.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:54 pmExley, on what do you base your claim to expertise in the matters of Chilean politics?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pmThis is an enormous mess.
Comment by stonehinge
Yeah it is pork laden
Takes away rights
violates the constitution
Typical republican legislation.
“John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007″ that “allows the president to declare a ‘public emergency’ and station troops anywhere in America and take control of state-based National Guard units without the consent of the governor or local authorities, in order to ’suppress public disorder.’â€
OMG, maybe he was writting about my rants.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:56 pmThat is awfull close to my wording
Gregor, The Chamber of Deputies had absolutely no power against Allende. He simply ignored them and refused to enforce or observe the Chamber’s legitimately passed legislation. That is why it turned to the military to remove Allende, which fortunately, it did.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:58 pmJuan, doesn’t the idea of a chihuahua come to mind when you think of Exley and her inane discourse?
Comment by stonehinge
Sometimes I would like to offend him with names but I made a pact with him (well, at least I try to do that), that Im going to respect even if he insult my mother (which, btw, she couldnt care less). So, I think he is really misinformed in some issues, but thats the fault of his ego. He thinks its about winning a debate while people dies.
November 12th, 2006 at 11:58 pmYeah, Zoo. Begin with the heroic history of Contras, the freedom fighters at day, but nun-killers at night.
Ex, she can outrun you anytime.
Comment by Juan C
Thank you, Juan. You are very sweet.
F*ck you, Exley.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:00 amUnhappy with his political oppression and his failed economic policies, mass demonstrations against Allende and his Marxist government were commonplace.
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:52 pm
Oh, so not only the Courts and Congress were alive, well, and asking for the military to remove Allende, but the people of Chile could hold mass demonstrations against his Marxist policies.
He sounds less and less like a bloodthirsty dictator as you post more comments.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:01 amAllende was a deeply unpopular figure among the Chilean people
who elected him…
Unhappy with his political oppression and his failed economic policies, mass demonstrations against Allende and his Marxist government were commonplace.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:02 amComment by Exley
The last part is true. The first ones are incorrect. There were a lot of demonstrations against some policies. If you begin favoring the lower class, the upper class will yell. This will happen until there isnt upper class…which in III World countries is happening really fast.
Thank you, Juan. You are very sweet.
Comment by Zooey
;) Hugs.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:03 am#125 You are wasting time, Zooey. Go read some history. Go ahead…Go on. Until you learn some history, your postings will continue to be vapid and shallow. Now, run along and do your homework.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:04 amwho exonerate Al Qaeda…
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
don’t put words in my mouth, you obnoxious, lying boor…
November 13th, 2006 at 12:04 amand a prick…
last time for you… nuff said…
The Chamber of Deputies had absolutely no power against Allende. [...] That is why it turned to the military to remove Allende, which fortunately, it did.
Comment by Exley — November 12, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
But fact remains that there was an opposition and they were not eliminated in the way a murderous dictator would do it, right?
He was a dictator who was elected, left Chile’s Congress intact, let mass demonstrations against him take place, and did not have a firm grip on the military.
And you applaud the people who removed him, and actually did all the things you accuse Allende of.
What a weird world you live in.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:05 am#127, Gregor, I don’t understand your point. Dictators are sometimes overthrown by the people. Such was the case with Allende. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but even dictators can be deposed when the people unite. That is what happened in Chile in 1973. The people, together with the trade unions and workers (By August 1973, more than a million Chileans-half the work force-were on strike, demanding that Allende go), assisted by the military overthrew Allende.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:08 amNow, run along and do your homework.
Comment by Exley
Someone´s getting mad…
November 13th, 2006 at 12:08 amGreat posts, Gregor.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:09 am#124 “Sometimes I would like to offend him with names but I made a pact with him (well, at least I try to do that), that Im going to respect”
Same here, Juan.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:09 amGo on. Until you learn some history, your postings will continue to be vapid and shallow. Now, run along and do your homework.
Comment by Exley
I amend my previous comments in the following manner:
Get f*cked, Exley.
Maybe there’s a crack whore out there who will do it — cheap. She probably won’t have teeth, and that’s always a plus.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:10 amHe simply ignored them and refused to enforce or observe the Chamber’s legitimately passed legislation.—Exley
Why does that sound so familiar. Like a current US situation?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:12 amHmmm
#134…I know, Juan. Zooey always gets so mad during these discussions. We both agree she needs to relax.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:12 amSomeone´s getting mad…
Comment by Juan C
:-)
*hugs*
November 13th, 2006 at 12:14 am#136…..And here I was saying that your postings were vapid and shallow. Well, you certainly showed me in that posting!
Heh!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:14 am#139 *hugs*
Comment by Zooey — November 13, 2006 @ 12:14 am
Awwww….Thank you, Zooey. I knew you couldn’t stay mad at me! Right back at ya!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:16 amI don’t understand your point. Dictators are sometimes overthrown by the people.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 12:08 am
The point is simple: Had Allende been a dictator, he would have eliminated Congress and saved himself the headache of having to deal with an organised political opposition.
Dictators are not elected, and certainly don’t let mass demonstrations against them become commonplace. They either eliminate the organisers or have demonstrators wiped out.
Any self-respecting dictator has a firm grasp of the military -because brute force is their source of power, and legitimasing agent.
This is the very course of action the Junta first, and later Pinochet, followed -the very same people you call “liberators”.
Calling Pinochet a “liberator” is so wrong, I cannot even begin to imagine what goes through your head as you type that.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:18 amEx. I dont understand too much. You are saying Allende got elected with only 36% of the votes.
Hows the Bush administration approval nowadays?
mmmm…are you saying the US military should overthrow him and that you would support it?
Now, how could a murderous dictator like Allende, according to you, give free breakfast to malnutritioned kids? And why Pinochet stopped all those social programs that help the majority of poor people if he was such a freedom, democracy-loving fella? Why did Pinochet get rich with 9,000 kilos of gold and his family lives in such luxury while there are people hungry in Chile? mmm…I just dont get it.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:19 amOh my god, Exley, it’s getting soooo late. You better get to bed, and rest up for your first day on your new job. So exciting!
How did you ever get such a cool job? Shaving patients’ naughty bits before surgery.
Your mommy must be so proud!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:20 amGreat posts, Gregor.
Comment by Juan C — November 13, 2006 @ 12:09 am
Thanks Juan.
I try….
November 13th, 2006 at 12:20 amYes, Juan, I can see that now. You are remarkably tolerant for someone of Latin extraction. I admire your self-control. However, for me, his argumentation is offensive for its wastefulness and stupidity. I have watched it for some time and said nothing. That will not be the case any more.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:21 am#144 Heh! Zooey, with each successive posting on your part, you reveal more and more the truth of posting #129….Keep it going!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:23 am#144 Heh! Zooey, with each successive posting on your part, you reveal more and more the truth of posting #129….Keep it going!
November 13th, 2006 at 12:23 amYes, Juan, I can see that now. You are remarkably tolerant for someone of Latin extraction.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:28 amComment by stonehinge
Ha ha ha! Whats that supposed to mean???? (Im kidding) Im half mapuche indian from my mom and half italian from my dad. So, I guess its the indian part of me keeping me tolerant. If my italian part was in charge…I d be like ma che cazzo dici, stronzzo di merda!!! he he he!
#147 & #148 – Getting a little twitchy there, Ex? Not good. Settle.
Think of the trembling patients and their favorite parts….
November 13th, 2006 at 12:28 amGregor. It was crystal clear to the people of Chile, the Chamber of Deputies, and the courts that Allende was consolidating his power into a dictatorship. He was cracking down on political dissent, seizing property, ignoring the legislature, creating a separate security force trained and armed by Cuba and the USSR. These were textbook moves by someone consolidating dictatorial power. That is why the military, at the request of the now-powerless Chamber of Deputies, removed Allende.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:28 amExley, once again, what is the basis for your claim to expertise in the politics of Latin America? What is the source for your information?
November 13th, 2006 at 12:34 amIt was crystal clear to the people of Chile, the Chamber of Deputies, and the courts that Allende was consolidating his power into a dictatorship.
Comment by Exley
Care to talk to a chilean about that? Or back that up?
He was cracking down on political dissent,
??? how?
seizing property
that was seized from chileans before… what else?
ignoring the legislature
that he addressed frequently???
creating a separate security force trained and armed by Cuba and the USSR.
Say what????
And just for you to know, you just described what CIA uses to do in countries where people try to elect their governments regardless of US interests.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:36 amGregor, I believe a plane did hit the Pentagon that day, but it most likely wasn’t a commercial jet.
At the risk of Judd deleting this post, here’s one link:
http://www.v911t.org/911PlaneSite.php
there’s dozens more links out there.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:36 amEx. I dont understand too much. You are saying Allende got elected with only 36% of the votes.
Comment by Juan C — November 13, 2006 @ 12:19 am
And this fact is irrelevant.
Chile’s electoral law at the time specified that all the winner needed was a simple majority. Allende’s percentage of votes was the highest, although not an absolute majority, but that was all he needed to become president.
And even that simple majority was a whole lot more votes than Pinochet ever got during his 17 year murderous (yes, Exley, Pinochet was a mass murderer. Get your mind around that already) rule over Chile.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:36 am#143, Juan, I did and have acknowledge that Allende was legitimately elected. I mention the 36% figure (barely 40,000 votes ahead of the candidate of the right) to demonstrate that Allende never had broad support of the people. He was overthrown not because he was elected with only 36% of the vote, but rather because once he took office he began crushing political dissent, seizing property, icollaborating with the KGB and Cuban intelligence, gnoring the legislature and the courts, destroying the economy (Again, by August 1973, more than a million Chileans-half the work force-were on strike, demanding that Allende go), and building up his own separate Cuban armed and trained paramilitary force. In short, he was deposed, by like all communist authorities, he was assuming dictatorial powers and destroying Chilean democracy.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:38 amI believe he gets his information straight from Winston Smith.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:39 amIt was crystal clear to the people of Chile, the Chamber of Deputies, and the courts that Allende was consolidating his power into a dictatorship.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 12:28 am
You just downgraded Allende from a murderous dictator to a potential dictator.
So your claim now is that the coup d’etat was a “pre-emptive strike”?
You are ok with ending a potential dictatorship with an actual murderous, dissenter-torturing, opponent-disappearing. human rights-violating, fascist regime of 17 years?
Again, what a weird world you live in….
November 13th, 2006 at 12:40 amHow appropriate that BnF would make an Orwell reference. What was happening in Chile in 1973 was straight out of “Animal Farm” — Until the military rescued Chile.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:44 amComment by Exley
Of all the misinformation you post I will rescue that Allende hadnt a broad support. My mother just woke up and I asked her if there were a lot of demonstrations against Allende. She said there were a lot of demonstrations against and pro-Allende…in the same street!!! The thing is that Chile was a divided country I will give you that. Upper class saw threatened its privileges, so they obviously protested. I havent seen any post of you regarding social unjustice, so I guess you are missing the core of the issue. You also say nothing about the destruction of human rights lived in Pinochet´s era, or the tortured…you will find that Allende didnt send tortures, but yet you support someone who actually did…and a lot!!! I wont say that Allende was the best president Chile could have, but we wont ever find that out, right? Now, thousands of tortured and killed men, women and children say hi.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:48 amI mention the 36% figure to demonstrate that Allende never had broad support of the people.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 12:38 am
And this factoid is utter rubbish.
Allende was not the first candidate to become president with a simple majority of the votes. Other presidents were elected before with an even lower tally.
They also passed unpopular laws but their presidencies survived -mainly because they didn’t touch American interests in the country.
He was overthrown [...] because once he took office he began crushing political dissent, seizing property, icollaborating with the KGB and Cuban intelligence,
He was overthrown because the US said so.
Chile’s coup is a text book example of American interventionism in LatinAmerica.
Your repeating Nixon-era talking points reveal how deep the deception was, and how long it has it has endured.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:50 amBriseadh: I believe he gets his information straight from Winston Smith.
omg, how incredibly funny — i should have seen it coming! I have to go get a new towel now to wipe my monitor screen.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:53 amGregor, There were undoubtedly innocent victims on both sides of the Chilean civil conflict following the removal of Allende. But the fact of the matter is the vast majority of those killed where Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries…Pinochet’s government was undoubtedly authoritarian in its early yeas. But as Cuba shows it could have been far worse.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:53 amChileans went with the lesser of two evils, broadlysupporting an unprecedented military coup to savetheir country, not only from economic ruin but also from the shackles of communist repression. The Chilean military and people should be applauded for their courage.
Allende was a deeply unpopular figure among the Chilean people. Unhappy with his political oppression and his failed economic policies, mass demonstrations against Allende and his Marxist government were commonplace. —- Exley
I think Exley likes Pinochet because his economy wasn’t real bad. Republicans like good business. Fascism.
Apparently, because Pinochet’s rule resulted in some economic growth, the murder and torture of thousands of innocent people was supposedly somehow justified and ignored by the US Government. Like he thinks the dropping of WP and melting the skin off the children Faluja was justified.
Yeah corporate profit before anything else. Have to keep your priorities straight now.
History books also report that Hitler made the trains run on time, too
November 13th, 2006 at 12:54 am
#165 “He was overthrown because the US said so. Chile’s coup is a text book example of American interventionism in LatinAmerica.”
Actually, Gregor, it is you who have bought into a myth, What you just wrote is utter rubbish. The liberation of Chile in 1973 was an indigenous revolution against a dictatorial Marxist regime.
“Allende was no democrat. He began building a
Cuban-armed personal militia outside the military structure and
financing left-wing guerillas. He also helped destroy his country’s
economy with a large-scale nationalization of private industries.
Washington played no direct role in planning the military coup in 1973
that toppled Allende and led to his death. By then it had no need to:
Allende’s policies combined with the economic pressures applied by the
U.S. had created a climate that was ripe for an indigenous coup.”
Walter Isaacson
November 13th, 2006 at 12:59 amTIME Magazine / CNN
“Kissinger: A Biography”
1992
But the fact of the matter is the vast majority of those killed where Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries…Pinochet’s government was undoubtedly authoritarian in its early yeas. The Chilean military and people should be applauded for their courage.
Comment by Exley
uhhh, low cheap shot. My mother would kick your ass for that. She had a friend named Liliana who was pregnant at the time. She was caught, tortured and killed. Her baby also. No, they were not marxist revolutionaries of any kind, but they happened to have books in their house. Fascists and murderers are not very fond of books. My father had a friend in Argentina who suffered the same destiny by the ruling dictatorship, she was called Irene. My big sister´s name is Liliana Irene.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:04 amMoreover, Gregor and Juan, you both ignore the fact that Pinochet voluntarily and willingly stepped down from power. In a plebiscite on October 5, 1988, the Chilean people rejected Pinochet’s bid to remain in power through 1997. Pinochet conceded his defeat, opening the way for presidential and congressional elections, rather than clinging to power by force.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:05 am#174, Juan, A terrible story. As I said, “There were undoubtedly innocent victims on both sides of the Chilean civil conflict following the removal of Allende.”
November 13th, 2006 at 1:09 amI think Exley likes Pinochet because his economy wasn’t real bad. Comment by Wayne
November 13th, 2006 at 1:09 amBut thats another lie. What dictatorships did in South America, besides crushing social programs which benefited the working class, was to handed the economy to the IMF, WorldBank and other US financing toys. This organizations loaned money, so there could be shopping malls, airports, luxurious buildings, etc. But almost none to social programs, welfare, hospitals, schools, health care institutions, etc. So, that economic growth or macroeconomics is a screen, cause low income people earn less than before the dictatorships.
My big sister´s name is Liliana Irene.
Comment by Juan C
Thank you for sharing that, Juan. So sad…
November 13th, 2006 at 1:10 amThere were undoubtedly innocent victims on both sides of the Chilean civil conflict following the removal of Allende.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 12:53 am
Correction: There was no civil conflict.
The military was in total control of the country by the end of the day Allende was killed.
Loose, sporadic opposition was easily and brutally crushed in the following days.
But the fact of the matter is the vast majority of those killed where Marxist-Leninist revolutionaries…
Yes, they were killed -after being dutifully tortured by the military, and other Chilean government agencies.
There was no real, organised opposition to the coup. All dissenters, and former supporters of Allende were rounded up and summarily executed.
I guess that is an ok way to deal with the political opposition to you.
Pinochet’s government was undoubtedly authoritarian in its early yeas.
Make that “brutally repressive throughout his whole time at the helm.”
But as Cuba shows it could have been far worse.
Cuba’s politics are irrelevant to this discussion.
Allende was elected. Castro was not. Allende had an active political opposition Castro has never had.
Pears. Apples.
Chileans went with the lesser of two evils,
You call crimes against humanity “lesser of two evils”? You call Thousands of tortured, disappeared, raped, killed, “lesser of two evils”?
Wow.
broadlysupporting an unprecedented military coup to savetheir country, not only from economic ruin but also from the shackles of communist repression. The Chilean military and people should be applauded for their courage.
The Chilean military “saved” their country from the hypothetical shackles of a communist regime that never happened, and threw into the actual shackles of a fascistic regime’s brutal repression.
Great trade off.
As for the military’s courage: It doesn’t take much courage to incarcerate unarmed civiilans at gun point, torture them, their families, and dispose of the bodies when you’re done.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:13 amIn a plebiscite on October 5, 1988, the Chilean people rejected Pinochet’s bid to remain in power through 1997. Pinochet conceded his defeat, opening the way for presidential and congressional elections, rather than clinging to power by force.
Comment by Exley
Hey, Ex…
November 13th, 2006 at 1:13 amMartial law? Isn’t it kind of hard to enforce when all the troops are on the other side of the world?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:14 amExley,
Will you ever shut the f*ck up? You are pathological….
Juan,
I’m so sorry about your parents’ friends. It’s a true sign of their love and affection that they named your sister after them. Goodnight.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:15 amExley, this is what you claim for authority? Surely you have better than that. But, maybe not. My, my, my.
The selection itself sounds just like the stuff Olliver North sends to my mother every month, stuff filled with assertions like “it’s no secret that Bill Clinton eats puppies for breakfast.” Ollie can fill a 4-page flyer with crap like that and say nothing whatsoever.
Ollie studied with Winston Smith at the University of Oceania.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:15 amThank you for sharing that, Juan. So sad…
Comment by Zooey
In some way its a beautiful story, Zoo. People live with our lives and die with our deaths.
Juan, A terrible story. As I said, “There were undoubtedly innocent victims on both sides of the Chilean civil conflict following the removal of Allende.â€
November 13th, 2006 at 1:16 amComment by Exley
Thanks, Ex. I am not trying to become a victim here. Its first hand info, just that.
#185…oops, wheres the link?
Another try
November 13th, 2006 at 1:18 amI’m so sorry about your parents’ friends. It’s a true sign of their love and affection that they named your sister after them. Goodnight.
Comment by Zooey
Dont be sorry. As long as there are people fighting for justice, there is nothing to be sorry. Goodnight :)
November 13th, 2006 at 1:20 amThanks, Ex. I am not trying to become a victim here. Its first hand info, just that.
Comment by Juan C — November 13, 2006 @ 1:16 am
I know you are not playing victim here, Juan. You are obviously closer to the reality of the history than I am. Clearly that accounts for part of your passion on this subject.
By the same token, maybe you can understand why I, as New Yorker, who knew people killed and injured on 9/11/2001 feel closer to the reality of that day than perhaps you do and accounts for much of the depth of my feeling on that topic.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:21 am# 179. Wow…too many grammatical mistakes there. Sorry.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:22 amBy the same token, maybe you can understand why I, as New Yorker, who knew people killed and injured on 9/11/2001 feel closer to the reality of that day than perhaps you do and accounts for much of the depth of my feeling on that topic.
Comment by Exley
I cant ever ever rejoy in the deaths of innocent people. I wish you could feel the same.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:24 amMoreover, Gregor and Juan, you both ignore the fact that Pinochet voluntarily and willingly stepped down from power.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 1:05 am
So? That still doesn’t excuse his murderous ways. Or does it?
At least the people of Chile and Spain didn’t think so. They saw it as an opportunity to finally prosecute the bastard for his crimes against humanity.
In a plebiscite on October 5, 1988, the Chilean people rejected Pinochet’s bid to remain in power through 1997.
Yes, the dictator miscalculated the sway he had on Chileans and thought he could still govern by fear.
Pinochet conceded his defeat, opening the way for presidential and congressional elections, rather than clinging to power by force.
Not out of the goodness of his heart. He retained the position of Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces and later had him named Senator-for-life, thus securing immunity against prosecution for his crimes against humanity.
Another miscalculation.
Face it Exley, you are defending one of the most reviled tyrants of the 20th century in LatinAmerica. The peoples of the UK, Spain, and Chile all agreed that there were enough evidence to try him for those crimes.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:24 amSo, that economic growth or macroeconomics is a screen, cause low income people earn less than before the dictatorships.
—- Juan C
Exactly,
now just for grins and giggles exchange dictatorship with Bush administration in your statement above.
Thats why Exley likes the overthrow.
US corporate interests and the us government had a role in the overthrow, Thats why it was propagandized. Exley is expousing the propagandized version of history backed by US corporate interest.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:25 amUS corporate interests and the us government had a role in the overthrow, Thats why it was propagandized.
Comment by Wayne
Yeah, the same thing happened in Central America. When Nicaragua wanted to make business with russians and cubans (due to the fact that US companies: United Fruit were exploiting workers and plundering the nicaraguan resources) NIcaragua became a threat to the US. I mean, come on, Nicaragua a threat for the US??? Who can possibly believe that? Its like saying now that Iran is threat to the US. Anyway, US jets bombed a defenseless, really poor country so the “evil communist seed” wouldnt stain Central America…with thousands of civilians paying that with their lives.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:32 amGregor,
I have nowhere defended Pinochet’s rule following the 1973 coup. What I have argued is that that coup was in fact a popular uprising against a Marxist takeover of Chile.
One can cheer the deposing of Allende and decry the excesses of the Pinochet regime that followed. An analogy can be seen in Nicaragua in the late 1970s and 1980s. One could cheer the fact that Somoza was overthrown, but at the same time denounce the brutal, murderous reign of the Sandinistas that followed. I am sure you would agree that Somoza was bad, but that the Sandinistas were no better.
Moreover, I don’t agree with you that it was incumbent on the Chilean people to wait until Allende had fully consolidated his dictatorial power before they took steps to remove him. The Chilean people had no responsibility to wait until Allende became so entrenched that removing him would have been a much bloodier and more difficult task.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:34 am#195 I cant ever ever rejoy in the deaths of innocent people. I wish you could feel the same.
Okay, Juan, now it is my turn to call “cheap shot.” Where have I ever rejoiced in the deaths of innocent people, whether they be American, Chilean, or Iraqi.
On the other hand, I wish you could understand that when you use the atrocity of 9/11/2001 to score political points by claiming it was some type of corporate/CIA/Mossad “inside job,” (I have never really understood exactly who you thought was behind 9/11) that can be construed as offensive and belittling the deaths of those killed that day.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:40 amOh, and Exley,
That 1988 plebiscite Pinochet lost?
Pinochet’s campaign was centered around a simple theme: Voting ‘No’ (meaning not allowing him to stay for another term) was tantamount to a return to Allende’s times.
In an ironic twist, he lost that plebiscite. I guess Chileans really were not all that much against Allende’s policies after all.
Maybe Pinochet would have feared better had hew not reminded Chileans how much better off they were before his murderous rule.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:43 amYeah, the same thing happened in Central America. When Nicaragua wanted to make business with russians and cubans…
And it looks like the Neo-Cons would like to do the same in Venezuela.
The language I see in the oligarchical rags is almost identical to that in Exley’s Time/CNN Kissinger source. Were it not for a goodly supply of Sunburn missiles and MIG-29’s, I think the cabal would have already made a first strike.
You know, the fastest way to solve the US debt problem would be to nationalize Exxon/Mobil, Chevron/Texaco, and BP/Amoco. Wouldn’t that be incredible?
November 13th, 2006 at 1:47 amGregor, The Chilean people knew that by 1988 their country was so secure and their economy so strong, that a return to the days of Allende’s political oppression and economy was impossible (especially considering that in 1988 even pretty much knew that the Allende government’s chief backer, the USSR, was on the verge of collapse). -There would be no more Soviet clients capable of taking charge in Chile. So, that threat did not sell with the Chilean people in 1988. In short, Gregor, if you think the 1988 vote was a vote by the Chilean people for a return to Allende’s Marxist policies, you are gravely mistaken.
The fact is that after he lost, Pinochet willingly and voluntarily stepped aside.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:50 amOkay, Juan, now it is my turn to call “cheap shot.†Where have I ever rejoiced in the deaths of innocent people, whether they be American, Chilean, or Iraqi.
Comment by Exley
Buddy, I didnt mean to say you are rejoiced by that, but what do I get from you, supporting the war??? I know you are worried about terrorism…everybody is, but thats a justification for killing thousands of civilians…and your own soldiers??? There is something called diplomacy, there is something called DO NOT TRAIN TERRORISTS to destabilize some country, they will turn against you someday. Do you possibly understand me? How long will it take until you get to kill all those terrorists when you are blowing up innocent bodies whose relatives are more than willing to avenge their deaths?
Now, about 9/11. I really dont know whats the problem with questioning the official version. Is that a lack of respect to those dead innocents? I see a lack of respect to never find out what really happened. Why there are so much loose ends in the official history, so many evidence concealed? If a friend or a relative would have been in those buildings, I would want justice over anyone and anything, at all cost. I would demand all evidence from all agencies, simple as that.
November 13th, 2006 at 1:59 amtheir country was so secure and their economy so strong. Comment by Exley
Wrong. I already explained hows the economy of III world countries pretty much operates. Chile has more external debt now than before Pinochet…and they privatize almost all public industries. No economist has ever explained to me, how that is progress. Not to mention that people earn less now than before. I was there in 2001. They were better than Argentina, but hey, in Argentina people were eating rats to survive.
The fact is that after he lost, Pinochet willingly and voluntarily stepped aside.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:05 amAfter 15 years of dictatorship and rivers of blood spilled. Yeah, I think we should appreciate him all his effort.
if you think the 1988 vote was a vote by the Chilean people for a return to Allende’s Marxist policies, you are gravely mistaken.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 1:50 am
I did not say that, did I?
I said, Chileans were not so all that much against Allende’s policies after all. Either that, or they wouldn’t buy Pinochet’s stale anti-communist propaganda anymore.
Whichever one you pick, Chileans could not be made to fear Allende’s times enough to vote ‘Yes’.
The fact is that after he lost, Pinochet willingly and voluntarily stepped aside.
Yes, even dictators get old, weary of killing people, and want to retire. But not without committing countless crimes against humanity first.
Is that the redeeming quality you find in that bastard? That he stepped aside? He though he would not get prosecuted as Senator-for-Llife, for crying out loud.
“Senator-for-Life” -such a stand up guy, eh? He didn’t even had to get voted into that position. Forget a 36%. Nothing. Zilch. He was simply sworn in.
Mao died in his bed, peacefully. Can we count that as a redeeming quality too? Enough to forget his mass murders?
November 13th, 2006 at 2:08 am#206, Juan, I do understand you. I just think of lot of what you want is not realistic at all times. I am all in favor of diplomacy. But there does come a point where diplomacy is now longer a viable option. There is no diplomacy that will work or would have worked with Al Qaeda. Do you really think that we can negotiate with Bin Laden? The Taliban was not about to turn Bin Laden over to us. The war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary and unavoidable.
As for Iraq, I have conceded here on TP now many, many times that Iraq was a mistake (Although I do believe it was a mistake undertaken for noble reasons) and that we should now withdraw U.S. troops from there (And redeploy many of them to Afghanistan).
As for 9/11/2001, I just don’t see all these “loose threads” in the “official story” that would lead me to believe that 9/11 was a plot hatched by officials of the U.S. government. One can always try to find loose threads and claim that equals conspiracy. There are people out there that claim man never landed on the moon. There is really nothing you can do to change the minds of people who feel that way. With all due respect, the same seems to be true of 9/11 conspiracy believers.
Well, it is very late here on the East Coast. I should turn in. As usual, an interesting and educational discussion, Juan (and Gregor). Look forward to future discussions.
By the way, Juan, turns out we are “paisans.” Like you, I too am of Italian ancestry (half).
Good night, folks.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:16 amFriends,
Please write to your Democratic Representative in the House of Representatives, and ask them to join with Speaker Pelosi in supporting Rep. Murtha for the post of Majority Leader.
Rep. Hoyer helped sponsor the HAVA (the Help Fascists Take Over America Act, otherwise known as the Help Amerika Vote Act).
Find your Representative (and their email form):
http://www.house.gov/
Here are the votes OPPOSING HAVA. See if you recognize any favorite names:
Baldwin, Becerra, Blagojevich, Bonior, Brown (OH), Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Davis (IL), Doggett, Frank, Gutierrez, Hilliard, Hinchey, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Jones (OH), Kilpatrick, Kleczka, Kucinich, McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meehan, Mollohan, Murtha, Napolitano, Olver, Pastor, Payne, Pelosi, Rahall, Reyes, Rodriguez, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Sanchez, Schaffer, Scott, Shows, Solis, Waters, Watt (NC)
Help STOP HOYER. Write your Representative TONIGHT.
Thanks,
November 13th, 2006 at 2:22 amExley – it was some type of corporate/CIA/Mossad “inside job,â€
Exactly. This was obvious to a trained eye within three hours after the initial attack. Beyond that, the accumulated physical evidence is overwhelming. I’m sorry that you are not qualified to deal with the technical analysis yourself, but you must learn to trust those who are so qualifed. I am one of those — chemist, engineer, pilot — knowledgeable in explosives, materials of construction, building design, mechanics of flight and flight control. I was one of the first who debunked the recent Binary Explosives Fraud in Britain.
Exley, if you are willing to get honest, then you will learn much by reading a brief, non-technical summary posted by the 911Scholars. If you are interested, simply ask me for the link. However, if you don’t want to get honest, then you will never heal. And if that is the case, then stop blathering on from your state of profound ignorance. Face the truth and heal or die like an ignorant serf. It’s your choice.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:22 amAs for 9/11/2001, I just don’t see all these “loose threads†in the “official story†Comment by Exley
Ask your government to release all evidence.
There are people out there that claim man never landed on the moon.
There wouldnt be such a huge telecommunication advances, fuel cells, material development, applied chemistry, weather information, astrophysic info, etc if that wasnt true.
Well, it is very late here on the East Coast. I should turn in. As usual, an interesting and educational discussion, Juan (and Gregor). Look forward to future discussions.
Thanks. I learn a lot here, too.
By the way, Juan, turns out we are “paisans.†Like you, I too am of Italian ancestry (half).
November 13th, 2006 at 2:29 amwho would have thought of it? :)
Exley,
what point are you trying to make here? Your president should take a leaf out of Pinochet’s book and do a preemptive strike on the Democratic Party in case they morph into dictators?
I am prone to consider your president’s declaration as a threat.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:33 amThanks for reading my rantz. I’m not entirely sure they matter all that much, but they do help me. Good nite for now.
—– stonehinge
I apreciate the posts =)
November 13th, 2006 at 2:57 amThe liberation of Chile in 1973 was an indigenous revolution against a dictatorial Marxist regime.
Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 12:59 am
I missed this one.
I didn’t say the US provided the troops, or that the US was directly involved in Chile’s 1973 coup. And, as I already explained to you, Allende’s presidency was not dictatorial, let alone a regime.
US policy towards Allende’s government was one of financial, political harrassment, and providing funds for opposition groups which included (obviously) juicy contracts for the military. The US further meddled in Chile’s internal affairs by plotting kidnaps of public figures, coups d’etat, and whatever they could cook up in order to prevent Allende’s ascent to the presidency.
The US government didn’t carry out all of the plans, but the intentions were clearly there, and American hostility towards Allende was not lost on the plotters of the 1973 coup.
After the successful attempt to overthrow Allende had happened, generous American financial help resumed and the harassment stopped.
In other words, American involvement was extensive to create the conditions for a military coup d’etat. And that is a textbook example of American interventionism in LatinAmerica.
Walter Isaacson’s use of the term “indigenous coup†is disingenuous at best, and wilfully misleading at worst.
November 13th, 2006 at 2:58 am“The Taliban was not about to turn Bin Laden over to us.”
They tried to turn him over. The U.S. wasn’t interested.
“The war in Afghanistan was absolutely necessary and unavoidable.”
To build pipelines, maybe so. But to stop terrorism, putting 1,500 soldiers into Afghanistan was a JOKE, proven almost immediately by the failure at Tora Bora.
“As for Iraq, I have conceded here on TP now many, many times that Iraq was a mistake (Although I do believe it was a mistake undertaken for noble reasons)”
Oh SURE. It was real, real noble to attack an innocent country over LIES about their danger to the U.S., in order to establish airbases by aggression.
“As for 9/11/2001, I just don’t see all these “loose threads†in the “official story†that would lead me to believe that 9/11 was a plot hatched by officials of the U.S. government.”
Sure thing, Exley. The Pentagon has no air support, and no video surveillance. Donald Rumsfeld had nothing to do with Nine-eleven, except for retasking NORAD in July 01.
In NYC, Building Seven just fell to the ground because of … well, that never got answered, and the Nine-Eleven Commission ignored it entirely. Wow, is that odd. Forty-seven story building falls for no reason at all, and no one seems interested on your side of the argument.
You haven’t made your case, your ‘noble causes’ are NUREMBERG PRINCIPLE crimes, and your shallow refusal to consider the anomalies about Nine-eleven is a pathetic CYA.
It doesn’t matter how late it is on the East coast. Your lights went out long ago.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:08 amThe liberation of Chile in 1973 was an indigenous revolution against a dictatorial Marxist regime.
Comment by Exley
No, the revolt in Chile in 1973 was a US Command operation. It was CIA-backed coup to oust a democratically elected president, because he nationalized companies owned by US corporations.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:12 amIt’s clearly documented history, Exley
ok, I am now tired of my posts being censored/deleted, night all
November 13th, 2006 at 3:14 am“The liberation of Chile in 1973 was an indigenous revolution against a dictatorial Marxist regime.”
The use of the word ‘indigenous’ is disingenuous.
‘Liberation’ is a strange word for being delivered into tyranny and deathsquads, you Pinochet-lover.
‘Revolution’ is an odd word for getting INTO tyranny.
As for ‘Marxist,’ the term has a definite meaning. You mean ’socialist,’ or what is really ‘nationalist.’ As with Hugo Chavez, misguided in his decisions or not, the determination was made to actually share the profitability of the resources being extracted with the desperate poor, who are human beings starving to death and watching their children die for lack of medical care, you crocodile.
That ‘liberation’ is yet another implication of the date ‘Nine-eleven.’ It’s another moment of tyranny in the long process of ALL countries deciding to invest their resourcs in the people, broadly considered — and not in the pockets of billionaires, and their paid lackeys like yourselves.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:18 amI had a list of all the times US troops interceded for corporate since 1990 and not because the US was threatened, but that list/post was deleted.
No cuss words and no links and alot of work compiling that list.
Just information.
That is some really nasty censorship, IMHO TP
night for real this time.
November 13th, 2006 at 3:24 am#221 1990 should have been 1890
November 13th, 2006 at 3:28 am“…all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.†— GW BUSHWACKING AMERICA
Since when hasn’t America been at war or engaged in “major combat operations?”
The 50 Dumbest Things President Bush Said in His First Term
#8 “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” —speaking underneath a “Mission Accomplished” banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003
November 13th, 2006 at 4:02 am#209: Noble Holocaust
“As for Iraq, I have conceded here on TP now many, many times that Iraq was a mistake (Although I do believe it was a mistake undertaken for noble reasons)” — Comment by Exley — November 13, 2006 @ 2:16 am
More than 650,000 people have died in Iraq since the U.S. led invasion of the country began in March of 2003. This is according to a new study published in the scientific journal, The Lancet.
We should all be “proud” that we didn’t put the elections on hold for a “noble” holocaust?…how sad and pathetic Bush and his supporters truly are.
November 13th, 2006 at 4:27 amKing George said this nonsense because I am sure he considered declaring marshall law to void the elections. Remember back to the summer of 2004 when Condi Rice commented that the elections might need to be cancelled. The comment was received as being ridiculous by most Republicans and was quickly withdrawn.
But the thoughts were there. I am sure it has been discussed by King George and his toadies. It is a good thing that King George did not cancel the election. That he might consider such a thing is the main reason why I will never support gun controls.
If one day, one of our elected officials in the White House tries to make his or her situation permanent, the citizens of our nation need to organize themselves into militias and stand up to tyranny. The second amendment is not for folks that like to hunt deer or elk. The right to hold guns is so the citizens of our nation have a fighting chance should someone ever pull a ‘Hitler’ as I call it, and try to grab total power.
November 13th, 2006 at 6:11 amagain, creating facts to support the argument that it’s ok to kill political opponents. Following your argument, it would be acceptable, even desireable, for a foreign government to assist the wealthy elite in executing a military coup in the United States and install a puppet dictator, followed by a systematic purging of “liberals.”
November 13th, 2006 at 9:09 amonly because you choose not to look. just a partial list of impossibilities:
Twin Towers – pre-contact explosions just prior to the airliners impacting the buildings – not explained in the official version. Steel and concrete buildings falling symmetrically into their own footprint – from assymetrical fires. Explosions registering over 2 on the Richter scale – before the buildings collapsed.
WTC 7 – another concrete and steel building collapsing into its own footprint, again from assymetrical fires.
The Pentagon – a commercial jet with a 125′ wingspan fitting neatly through a 14′ hole without leaving massive ammounts of wreakage on the outside. the nose of a commercial jet hard enough to punch through several feet of steel reinforced concrete. an “invisible” commercial jet – 2/3 of the jet should have been visible in the one shot where the tail of an aircraft was visible.
Flight 93 – impossible cell phone connections from a commercial jet. a hole in the ground with insufficient wreckage for a commercial jet which was said to have impacted the ground intact.
there’s more, and I’ve already provided some links.
November 13th, 2006 at 9:22 amBeware the Ides of March
November 13th, 2006 at 10:21 amSieg Heil.
November 13th, 2006 at 12:28 pmIf your’re going to proceed on impeachment hearings for Bush, you better include Cheney as well!
November 13th, 2006 at 1:18 pmSounds like we’re supposed to be subjecting our government to the soft tyranny of lowered expectations. What a retard our Dubbie is, and what retards he expects us to be….
November 13th, 2006 at 3:06 pm