A senior French politician, now a minister in President Nicolas Sarkozy’s government, suggests that U.S. President George W. Bush might have been behind the September 11, 2001 attacks.
The www.ReOpen911.info website, which promotes September 11 conspiracy theories, has posted a video clip of French Housing Minister Christine Boutin appearing to question that Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda group orchestrated the attacks.
Liberation newspaper on Saturday quoted Boutin’s spokesman Christian Dupont as saying that she had not wanted to appear pro or anti-Bush at a time when Sarkozy was being branded a “U.S. poodle” after meeting the president in Washington.
Tee hee.
“Tee hee?”
Really? That’s your response? Wow. What a shame.
“Tee hee” probably meant that he figured the first responder would be some [edited: comments guide]
Bush was clueless on 911. Cheney did it.
At last, a politician with the guts to say what everyone else has been thinking for years.
Well, following the time-honored legal question of “cui bono?”, Dumbya certainly did end up profiting (at least in the short run) from 9/11. If it hadn’t been for 9/11, he would have gone down in the history books as another Chester A. Arthur. “Chester A. Who”?? You know, the 21st President, the one nobody remembers?
But as a result of his lack of backbone, his legendary dull-wittedness, and the basic evil and cowardly nature of him and his regime, he will go down in the history books as one of the biggest bunglers of all time.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, Georgie!
She serves a useful purpose by demonstrating conclusively that idiocy is not exclusive to Americans.
Oh–come–on— geesh!
Al-Qaeda were flying the planes. If they wanted to set the USA to self-destruct, they would need only to deny involvement and provide proof of the negotiations between US officials (Cheeny?) and Al-Qaeda to hire /provide the pilots. Just imagine the fallout… UG-LY.
Minister Christine Boutin’s remarks were insane. i hope it was temporary.
Conspiracy is like religion, it requires faith rather than logic to believe in it. People will believe what they want to believe. Internal rationalization often requires individuals to brake down vast amounts of information and come to childish, unprofessional and emotional conclusions:
#God, alien grays, JFK-RFK-MLK assassination , NWO, 911 truth.
>>Conspiracy is like religion, it requires faith rather than
>>logic to believe in it.
Does that account for the existence of the Right-Wing Cabal and the 9 remaining people who still support the Bush regime? Anyone who has any skills in logical evaluation of facts dismissed Dumbya long before he stole the 2000 election. What goes around, comes around, eh?
Mustardarino – I dismissed W then and now as the dimwit is always was and will be. So how can I reconcile that with him stealing the election? I don’t. He didn’t steal it – he’d have trouble stealing a pen off the desk in the Oval Office. His loyal supporters in Florida govt and on the Supreme Court, orchestrated by Bush family consigliere James Baker III, stole it on his behalf.
OK, Lauren the Fish, I’ll concede that point.
He doesn’t have the IQ to steal an election. Just like every other thing he’s gotten in life, somebody (Daddy, Presidents Rove/ Cheney, his underlings, etc.) got it FOR him.
So let’s go passive voice, and say “the election was stolen on Dumbya’s behalf”. Pretty much the same thing though, As Harry Truman said, “The Buck Stops Here”. That must be a real bitch, not being smart enough to pull off a scam, but getting blamed for it anyway. That dickwad shoulda stuck with the ball teams and the oil companies. At least his failures there didn’t result in the deaths of thousands of American kids. Daddy should have made him Ambassador to Monte Carlo, and let him live out his days gambling and drinking.
8–Excellent summary as far as it goes. Logic is no guarantor of validity though, only consistent with it. Add some “facts” and you are much closer.
Yes, the lady said it was “possible” Bush was behind 911. And nobody can deny that is true.
Then she said “”I’m not telling you that I adhere to that position.” This comment does not appear on the video clip on ReOpen911.”
So, she makes a completely logical statement that is true, dissassociates herself from the possibility entirely, and now she gets grief?
You’ve been pimped.
There is not right wing cabal (anymore than a left wing). Whenever individuals are disenfranchised. We saw this in the late 90s with the political propaganda against former President Clinton.
So basically what you are saying is that the current resident of the White House put himself into power through fraud and than proceeded to design attacks on the country in order to secure his position and give him political capital (and more executive prerogative powers). Ok….
No, basically what happened is that the current president took advantage of certain political actions by other disenfranchised individuals (i.e. al-Qaeda) and used this to strengthen his position in international affairs, like most presidents do.
Worse, no one seems to be able to provide a buffer against executive hedgemony because they are too scared politically. What essentially has happened is a collapse between horizontal and vertical institutions of political balance (i.e. checks and balances).
I agree with your that the current president is not the most ethical individual. Worse, much of the War on Terrorism is a fraud in the sense that it is been used as a tool to manipulate and control individuals through an extension of the political process.
The problem is that it likely is not willful (at least not the majority of incidents). These political actors “probably” do believe that they have our best interests at heart (no matter how wrong they are). They of course are wrong (i.e. overreacting to a small, vocal base).
This is not a conspiracy, however. It is a political establishment that is incapable of leading (and needs to be corrected by a qualified Democrat, Republican or third party candidate).
My guess is that come the next election, something with vastly different political beliefs will be elected (few of the current candidates from either party share his beliefs). The country will slowly be corrected and we will try to put this moment behind us as politically embarrassing. This is not the first time the United States has overreacted to situations that we did not fully understand. It won’t be the last, but maybe with a proper understanding of the political divisions of government we can put a limit on executive power within the arena of foreign affairs (to avoid a spill over into domestic matters).
bobbo, melad, you’ve been snookered.
Possible? Yes, and to a similar degree of likelihood as you winning the Powerball jackpot, being hit by lightning and gettin a hole in one on the 13th hole at St. Andrews, all on the same day. Possible in a purely academic sense; in the real world, not a fucking chance in Hell.
And her demurrer? “I’m not telling you” can be meant two distinctly different ways and she obviously knows that. It does not necessarily mean “I am not asserting this.” The phrase “adhere to that position” is another very carefully, deliberately crafted evasion. It is not, logically and semantically, the same as “believe that.”
All she had to say, clearly and unmistakably – if she really doesn’t believe it – is “I do not believe it.”
But she made certain not to say that.
13–I wouldn’t respond but your first sentence is so demonstrably wrong. Of course, the problem in American Politics is that THERE IS a right wing cabal – – – – – – just as there is a left wing cabal. Its called the two party system, if not the extremes of both parties?
Bushco has said his actions are based on his religious beliefs (God wants all people to be free and it is the GOUSA’s duty to deliver it to them) and the reasonable position of protecting GOUSA agaisnt its enemies. Al-Qaeda just hit the tripwire, thats all.
Sadly, most of those running do support the Bush policy. They speak against it to whip up their base, then vote in support to placate what they think is the majority voters position of “Supporting the Troops” and not “Cutting and running.” Goes to your first post about faith and religion not being factually based. The religious grip on GOUSA has many effects beyond a request for prayer in school and so forth. Its very pernicious.
>>So basically what you are saying is that the current resident
>>of the White House put himself into power through fraud
You hit the nail right on the head there, Fish Meister!
As to his role in 9/11, who knows? I don’t necessarily believe that, but I shoor as shit wouldn’t put it past Presidents Cheney/Rove. I just ask the age-old question “Cui bono?”. You decide.
14—If we agree that “its possible” that BushCo was behind 911 then how can we criticize anyone for saying it? She didn’t say “probable” afterall. So, I really don’t understand how you take a negative tone while agreeing with the statement?
Re her demurrer–I agree I missed that subtlety, but it changes nothing as it is consistent with either belief or non-belief of something we both agree is accurate.
So, I wonder what she really thinks?? Few politicians are dull witted. They know their base. To me, the most likely scenario is she has a bunch of rednecks she has to satisfy and she has done so within her tolerance for ambiguity.
Still, another in a long chain of rednecks getting excited over something another person doesn’t say.
16—The worst post I have seen you make. Whatss up with dat? Both Gore and Bush fought the same battle in about the same way as far as I could see. There was no theft. The Supreme Court gave the election to Bush under one of its worst reasoned cases in history. Perhaps fraud was committed there, but not by BushCo.
BushCo had nothing to do with 911. Stupid not to say so.
Bobbo, they didn’t “reason” the case, poorly or otherwise. Baker pulled strings, and they danced.
19—I would be very surprised if that were true–but I haven’t heard about the Baker connection. ((Sounds interesting.)) One of the most impactful things a president does is select judges for the Supreme Court. The selection is made on presumed prediliction/bias/philosophy of the judge. If a judge is “conservative” or worse Republican, then no actual quid pro quo need be made, no strings pulled, you simply allow the creature to act as they have demonstrated in the past.
BTW–I spoke too fast. I do think the Pubs stole the election in Florida by missing ballots and removing blacks from the eligibile voters rolls, but the “last clear chance” was the Supreme Court. Thats an overemphesis and simplification. Sorry about that.
>>The Supreme Court gave the election to Bush under one of its
>>worst reasoned cases in history
So. Either you make it to the Supreme Court by being stupid, or there are other forces at play. To paraphrase Fox “news”, “I report; you decide”.
21–That makes no sense at all. Rephrase, and be direct, otherwise I’ll think you are dining on bree and champagne.
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
Watch it. You might even learn something
Nonsense. The Supreme Court made exactly the decision that should have been made: you can’t change the rules, including and especially the rules surrounding what counts and what does not count as a vote, during the election.
No, what most candidates running support is democratic peace theory. The current Bush administration has embraced this, but his current set of policies go beyond DPT with a strange, quasi religious tone. It is most similar to the City of the Hill associated with John Winthrop’s sermon and employed years later by JFK and Reagan. Democratic peace theory does not believe that the United States is ordained by God, but rather that states that share a common belief system (i.e. democracy) are less likely to go to war.
As for a cabal, it can not be the extremes of both parties. In the past the extremes usually had less influence. This, however, has recently changed. This having a majority influence does not tantamount to a cabal even if the influence is in the minority.
The system was already in place to the current president to take advantage of the legal system and maximize his executive powers.
Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Missouri v. Holland, 242 U.S. 412 (1920)
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp (1936)
United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937)
Korematsu v. United States 323 U.S. 214 (1944)
Dennis v. United States (1951)
United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1979)
Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
>>Rephrase, and be direct
Ok, Bobbo. “Dumbya’s underlings and political connections (esp. Daddy) made sure that he would win an election where the majority of people in the United States did NOT want him to be president”.
How about that?
I’m sure that this included his lackeys kicking people off the voting rolls in FL because they had names that were spelled sorta, kinda, somewhat like the names of convicted felons, voter fraud, the whole “hanging chad/ pregnant chad” debacle, the unethical harridan who was in charge of the voting in FL, and political favors called in (even if implicitly) when the Supreme Court decided we didn’t need a recount to find out who REALLY won.
23—An hour and 56 minutes??? First minute looked good though. First time I have seen a full movie available on the internets. I’ll rent it. Thanks.
24–Surely the Court should have ordered a recount of all precincts requested by either side? I lost respect for Gore when he requested only recounts in those districts he thought he would gain in. No better than BushCo in an attempt to steal the election.
26—Both sides wanted to win, I’ll give you that. Maybe just because he lost, I’ve not seen any allegation that Gore also used dirty tricks/ I’d be most surprised if he didn’t. And, it is still surprising BushCo didn’t do a better job of theft. My favorite is the 90.000 Jews in Miami who voted for Buchannan. ((The confusing ballot issue.)) “Morally” should a candidate be credited with the votes of people too stupid to mark the right spot??
Big difference between explicit and implicit don’t you think? Course, that seems to be a continuing confusion on your part (that implicit thing.)
Anyhoo, good to see you back on track.
Hey, don’t be calling the people who “voted” for Buchanen stupid! My daughter, who lives there, thinks she may have voted for him by mistake. And she’s neither stupid nor Jewish (not sure where you’re going with that one). It was a fucked up ballot format.
In any case, Dumbya slimed his way into office, and then made a mess of the whole country. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
29–I’m going with the pop-culture view that Buchannan is a neo-nazi and Jews naturally would not vote for him. Buchannan==another newsmaker pilloried mostly for things he didn’t say.
I’m seeing a pattern!!!