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.
Bobbo, it’s not just Jews who would not vote for a flake like Buchanan. He may be mildly interesting as a right-wing talking head on TV, but as president? nfw. Of course, compared with the dipstick we’ve got in office, maybe he’da done a better job. At least he’s articulate, which puts him head and shoulders above Nookyoolar Bush.
31—If those intelligent voters in Miami had correctly marked their ballots, Gore would have won Florida on the first count. I don’t think BushCo planned on said voters being so incredibly incompetent. Therefore, their plans to steal the election actually were not effective. Gores lack of precinct workers to educate the feeble was what lost him the election.
One kind of stupidity failing to lose over a different type of stupidity. Politics in the GOUSA!!!
OK, let me see if I got this. Bush and the Federal Government orchestrate the 9-11 attacks either with or without the assistance of al Qaeda. And the same government that was able to do such an amazing feat wasn’t able to sneak in a nuclear weapon or a 55-gallon drum of sarine gas into Iraq?
Sorry, can’t by that….
33—So you’re in the possible but not probable camp with everyone else on this thread. Oh, thats so Obvious!!!
>>If those intelligent voters in Miami had correctly marked their
>>ballots, Gore would have won Florida on the first count.
Bobbo, have you actually ever LOOKED at one of those butterfly ballots? I have, and they’re pretty fucking confusing.
I’m not saying Dumbya staged that (he doesn’t have the IQ). But, just like Kaposi’s sarcoma, he’s an opportunistic infection. So he took advantage of the situation.
Florida had the opportunity to make things right, and they didn’t. The Supreme Court had the opportunity to make things right, and they didn’t. So, just like a fungus slipping into the toenails of an innocent health-club attendee, he (and Daddy, and Presidents-to-be Cheney/Rove) took advantage, subverting the electoral process, and driving the Good Old U S of A into the cesspoool we’re in now.
I believe Bush knew some things about 9/11. He definately didn’t plan it or was behind it (that is beyond his capabilities) but certaintly he was briefed that something was going to happen that day. To what extent I don’t know but he knew enough that he HAD to go with the plan. I heard that there was an option to blow away Airforce One out of the sky unless he complied with the power behind 9/11 (It could easily have been explained away as part of the terrorist plot for that day). He really didn’t have a choice. It was either president on the war on terror or the president who was killed by jihad.
35—You are right, both court systems let us down. Either side would take advantage of the windfall of mistakes. No difference their. I disagree though, I don’t think Bush is a fun-guy.
36–Being one step shy of full blown BS conspiracy theory is still being full of it. His report of Al-queada planning attacks “was not actionable” as ricecakes reminds us. The truth is more distasteful. Meatpuppet Bush’s coke fueled imbecillic religious certainty is being played by and for Cheney’s business interests and the BushCo Neocon’s plans for remapping the world. No (other) conspiracy needed.
37–Not very “French” of him is it?
So Bush was blackmailed into the war on terror? That must be some secret organization that has the much power to manipulate a political leader that has the strongest active army and a massive nuclear arsenal.
I think what we have is a leader who is drunk with power. He is a little paranoid, and is gaming the system to provide him with the laws necessary to fight (some real and other delusional threats). It doesn’t help that he has placed two conservative members on the Court that in most circumstances (will agree with his policy framework).
Worse, he has almost a century of Court cases to support his case for executive prerogative powers. An simple case by case illustrations of this would be:
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Co., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)
Royal prerogative inherited by president from Crown of Britain. This case has been wrongly misunderstood to grant the president total power in the arena of foreign affairs.
United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937)
Executive agreements are binding to states without Senate approval. This allows him to make deals with other nations without advising or consenting the senate.
Missouri v. Holland, 242 U.S. 412 (1920)
Treaty power (or executive agreement) superior to 10th Amendment and state rights. President negotiates treaties and they do not have to conform to United States Constitution. Treaty is law of the land.
The real solution is for Congress and the Court (and lower courts) to take back some of the power that has been delegated to the president over the past eighty years. This of course would require new constitutional case law (i.e. interpretations). Most academics seem to think we need to look back having a unified front in all international issues, while still preserving the ability of the president to, “speak with one voice,” for the country. The beginning of these balances started in the mid 1970s but were never completed (FISA 78, many others).
39—I’d love to have you part of this discussion
The essence of wit is brevity.
>>So Bush was blackmailed into the war on terror?
Probably not. He’s just too stupid to realize that he was greased into it by Presidents Cheney/Rove, and the rest of the war-profiteering traitors who sought to make billions of dollars over what was supposed to be a “slam dunk”. Unfortunately, they underestimated the depths of his stupidity, his cowardice, and his desire to suck up to those whom he perceived as his superiors.
In the past, presidents have been allowed to accumulate what (in retrospect) may be excessive “privilege”. But that’s only because no president until 43 has been as spineless, as dishonest, and as much of a total fuckup as Dumbya.
I hope that, as Americans, we learn from our mistakes. And even the Bush-stacked Supreme Court will generate some new case law (i.e., interpretations) that make it clear that sucking up to criminals is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
13 – Jeff – You put entirely too much faith in both the motives and the intent of the pols running the federal government. Until someone competent and capable of telling the corporations to f**k off gets within 50 feet of the Oval Office, it will, as Lily Tomlin once said, get a lot worse before it gets worse.
I’d love to be proven wrong.
I agree that the key is that in the past the Court never believed a president would willfully abuse the powers granted to him. History, however, has taught us otherwise. There have been a number of power grabs beginning with Truman (steel workers strike and Korea). It has never risen to the level of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Though I think LBJ, Nixon and a few other presidents did have their moments (of shame). Again, not to this level…
43—I skimmed the prior posts again. What do the courts have to do with anything? I think you are on some tangent of your own? Legal cases don’t go to the motives of bad actors. Did you mean Congress or the Constitution?
I don’t know what BushCo is doing is that extreme compared to other “power grabs” (aka defaults by Congress)–moreso it is just the most recent. Not to be confused with Nixon, another Repug, who did all the same things, but owned up to it when caught. Bush will never own up to it. He thinks disagreeing with everyone else is a marker of his own private truthiness.
No, Bush will never change. However, case law is the backbone of this country, and is second only to the actual Constitution. It can put limits on what Congress and the president can do. It is these cases that allow him to legally keep on doing what he was been doing:
#Go to war without a formal declaration of war.
#Wire tapping (this is questionable, conflicting)
#Secret agreements with other countries without informing Congress
All of these are legal under current case law. They establish the president as the supreme politician in contemporary American politics in the arena of foreign affairs. If the president so wishes to link foreign affairs (both Nixon, GWB have tried) to domestic affairs it gives him supremacy over both and shuts down the federalist system and kills checks and balances.
To avoid this in the future simply put limits on the office of the president in respect to both domestic and foreign affairs. Drafting up articles of impeachment would be easier if what he was doing was actually in many respects a violation of the law.
>>To avoid this in the future simply put limits on the office of the
>>president in respect to both domestic and foreign affairs.
That would require the cooperation of honest Supreme Court justices. Unfortunately, they all seem to be beholden to either Daddy or Junior, and until there’s a Democrat in the Oval Office, that ain’t going to happen.
True. Congress, however, can decide the laws that the Court can review and they can remove Justices.
35 – Mr Mustard – Don’t forget, co-Prez Cheney has already set up his business interests to move to Dubai to avoid difficult questions at the end of this period of looting the national treasure. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if co-Prez Rove went along. As for Dubya, he’ll probably just head over to his hand-holding Saudi oil buddy if anyone has the temerity to want to question him. Not that his packed, ideological Supreme Court would permit that.
>>As for Dubya, he’ll probably just head over to his hand-holding Saudi
>>oil buddy if anyone has the temerity to want to question him.
Well, unless Presidents Rove/ Cheney or Daddy are there to help him out, he’s pretty much fucked. Just like every other time he tried to do anything on his own. They should put his name in WikiWhatever under the header “Looooooooser”.
2008, BRING IT ON!!!
…heard the Bushes bought a huge tract of land in Paraguay for retirement; try questioning him about 9/11 there.
#14 Fishy Lauren
Anyone who questions whether or not 9/11 was an inside job you label as wrong, blasphemously or sinful. Open your mind Lauren, take the red pill. Examine the evidence. Start here: http://tinyurl.com/2jpfuv
#25. “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.”
which I always thought was hilarious because the bloodiest war ever fought by the US was against another elected government – that of the Confederate States of America. The US Civil War also puts the lie to the whole ‘elections prevent domestic bloodshed,’ since it was Lincoln’s election that set off secession and the war.
52—If you think conspiracies of that scope are possible, you’re a bigger idiot than Bush is. While that would be unique, its not a compliment even in your world?
53–What part of “less likely” does not include a Civil War?
#54. If you are extracting lessons from history, a singular event like the Civil War should weigh heavily in your thinking. That war was probably inevitable, given the conditions of the time, and the fact that both sides believed in ‘democracy’ made not a damn bit of difference.
Fact of the matter is that the US has fought numerous wars against opponents with elected governments that were ‘democratic’ for the age: War of 1812, Mexican War, Spanish-American War. The whole idea is rubbish. It derives from the fact that most governments throughout history were NOT ‘democratic,’ so of course most of the wars will involve non-democratic combatants.
>>> 29. 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.
A ballot format that was created by the Palm Beach County Canvassing Board (run by Democrats) and approved by the Palm Beach Supervisor of Elections (also a Democrat) I think everyone knows who should have been held accountable in that instance.
As far as elections go, I don’t see why we shouldn’t start verifying voters who are legal US citizen to show a picture ID. We require ID for people to write checks, and to drive cars. Requiring them for voting in a US election shouldn’t disenfranschise any legitimate voter. There were too many people in Florida who voted who probably weren’t legally entitled to vote. And then there were a lot of military ballots that Al Gore tried to get thrown out.
#52 – Stars & Bars
“Anyone who questions whether or not 9/11 was an inside job you label as wrong, blasphemously or sinful.”
Not quite. Anyone who even entertains for an instant the possibility of conspiracies like this; a) is incredibly gullible; b) has no grasp of human nature, and c) has usually watched too many Oliver Stone movies.
A bunch of egocentric, self-serving, corrupt, greedy, semicompetent-at-best, back-stabbing clowns like the current regime is believed to be selflessly dedicated to a cause other than their own enrichment, evil and ruthless, yet somehow uncorruptable, amoral yet loyal, untempted by the global celebrity and fabulous wealth that would instantly be theirs for betraying the conspiracy, willing to sacrifice the very society that gave them their money, power and elite positions… the list goes on and on. They’d have to hold meetings in Madison Fucking Square Garden, yet no one can find one shred of their plans,; they’d have to spend lots of time working on planning and implementing their plot, yet their families, coworkers, friends suspect
nothing at all (or they’re all in on it, an even more insane idea) – it’s a joke.
72 houris waiting for a suicide bomber in the afterlife is more believable. As the great Ben Franklin – the only President of the United States who was never President of the United States – said, regarding such matters; “Three people can keep a secret – as long as two of them are dead.”
And since his time, it has become infinitely more difficult to keep such things secret.
#57 They’d have to hold meetings in Madison Fucking Square Garden, yet no one can find one shred of their plans
Why this fact never seems to dawn on most is beyond me. The only way to keep a secret between three men is to kill two of them, yet people are willing to believe in grand Bond-villain conspiracies involving a cast of thousands…
55—So you dont understand how the Civil War was “less likely” but still happened? Math or logic is not your forte I see.
59—I like your use of “we”–now include me out. I have thought very carefully and specifically about 911 conspiracy. I very much like conspiracy theories. Still waiting for even ONE theory to prove correct, as opposed to still not disproven.
The mechanism of faith on display without a relgious foundation. Very interesting. Tell me more of this God of yours?
#61 re: God, Please see #23
62—You are advancing a minority opinion. Dont make a general reference to anything and tell me to justify your position.
What in that film are the 2-3 compelling “facts” you find to overrule the majority view or atleast to call it into doubt?
I’ll look back for your position every few days as needed. Again—I LOVE CONSPIRACY THEORIES. The best one so far that I have seen is that we never landed on the moon. See the flag wave in the perfect vacuum of space??? See there are no stars in that jet black sky???? Good evidence that. What have you got?
#57 and 58, Manhattan Project, thousands kept the secret, oh yes they fucking did. Cripes.