So you ask us democrats to respond to your question in one sentence and in the next say the answer will be bullshit. Way to answer your own question and end the dialogue before it starts. Nice going Jay.

Have fun reading the frothings from the wingnuts instead. You'll hear the usual insightful and oithy commentsf from the usual nits hollering TRAITORS, TERRORISTS, AMERICA HATERS. Enjoy.

I just realized my wife;s name Linda was in the signature box from a comment she made yesterday, Thie comment above, proudly, was mune.

JFO

Heaven forfend you should prove me wrong, JFO. After all, everyone knows you are loathe to do such things. Why, that would be rude and ungracious of you, and that would be completely out of character.

J.

What's the big deal? In "The Looming Tower", by Lawrence Wright, and it slams Clinton era as hard as Bush, it shows how the government did have most of the pieces to the puzzle but in-fighting between agencies and incompetence in the Bush administration kept the attack from being stopped.

If you have read any Michael Scheur you know this is true. HE WAS THERE.

That's a far stretch from the LIHOP/MIHOP crowd, lava, and you KNOW it is.

Nice attempt at deflection, though.

J.

JFO:

First of all what's a "mune" that your so proud of?

That aside: So you ask us democrats to respond to your question in one sentence and in the next say the answer will be bullshit. Way to answer your own question and end the dialogue before it starts. Nice going Jay.

Nice going JFO is seeing something that isn't there. Where does it say you had to give an answer in a single sentence?

And it being "likely" that someone would spin an answer isn't a definitive statement, it just means a better than 50% chance. I don't see you disproving J's thought.

I just said this in the other thread you dropped a turd in but is worth repeating here:

Take that condom off your head.... If you get my drift.

dr. lave:

If you have read any Michael Scheur you know this is true. HE WAS THERE.

I have read it and Imperial hubris still sits on my bookshelf.

Whether he was "there" or not is immaterial. What is of more importance is Scheuer is a bigger nutcake that you:

From Imperial Hubris as Scheuer talks about Osama DEM Laden:

Osama bin Laden appears to be a geniunely pious Muslim; a devoted family man; a talented, focused, and patient insurgent commander; a frank and eloquent speaker; a successful businessman; and an individual of conviction, intellectual honestly, compassion, humility, and physical bravery (3).

[B]in Laden's character, religious certainty, moral absolutism, military ferocity, integrity, and all-or-nothing goals are not much different from those of individuals whom we in the United States have long identified and honored as religious, political, or military heroes, men such as John Brown, John Bunyan, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine (5).

[B]in Laden's philosophy and action have embodied many of the same sentiments that permeate the underpinnings of concepts on which the United States itself is established.

Scheuer is Osama's greatest fan!

And a nutcake just as you dr. lava.

Jay Tea,

You say you don't give much stock to polls, and in this case it's for good reason. It's interesting to look at the poll questions.

Do you agree that "19 fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces of guard."

If you don't agree that the FBI, CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. were totally caught off guard, then the other choices were either that the government was behind the attacks or the government knew the attacks were coming but "let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives."

Remember, Zogby may have conducted the poll and may have done a good job of collecting an analyzing the data, but 911truth.org was the one who paid for and worded the question.

"So, by default, I find that I'm best at what I like to call "connecting." I find items that interest me, and then connect them to other items in hopes of piecing together a little portion of the big picture."

It's no less important a task than all the others. I see attempts by many (the media, in particular) to present an unflattering large picture in small increments so as to give the appearance that they're unconnected occurrences. That is, they see the big picture, but don't like the looks of it, and breaking it down detracts from the overall importance of it. It's easy to then omit a detail or two that links all the others together to form that picture.

Only one thing kept the U.S. from detecting the plan and stopping 9-11 (by the way it was planned in the 90's, start in 93, long before the dimwit's favorite whipping boy came to D.C.) and it was called the Gorlick (aka Shrillary Clinton) wall. As for the 42%, it matches the number of democrats that have never worked a day in their life (welfare riders), but spend they're days watching 'Days of our lives', and think that's the way everyone lives, no job and money to burn. Doesn't that tell you the mental capacity of the majority of democrats? The Communist News Network (CNN) along with the soaps has had it's effect on the retards of the country. I think it's time to call BS of half the welfare riders excuse 'my great-great granddad was a slave' and you owe me.

TRAITORS, TERRORISTS, AMERICA HATERS. Enjoy.

JFO will state: "I will answer your question after you answer this______________." Then later he will say," Is anyone going to answer my questions I asked in comments 10, 18, 36,43,58,99,101?" "You wing nuts are crazy."

An example of how the left deludes itself, with JFO being the typical model. ww

There are a couple of reasons for this data.

1. Democrats believe George Bush had something to do with 9-11 because they hate George Bush. It has nothing to do with facts.

2. They are fed lines of crap by the Troofers. Dylan Avery begins Loose Change alleging that Marvin Bush was in charge of security at the WTC on 9-11, and does so to a family member of a 9-11 victim. If one hasn't the intellectual ability or curiosity to determine the veracity of the claim (and it's an outright lie) then one is immediately sucked into the vortex of conspiracy. On the part of Democrats, it's called a willing suspension of disbelief. It has nearly become a Democratic religion. The troofers continue to feed the useful idiots lie and after lie after lie- Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD, NORAD had set up a command post on the West Side on 9-10, Wirt Walker is a relative of Bush, United Airlines was a client of Securacom on 9-11, and on and on.

All are lies, but if you buy into the lies, the rest is easy. It also means you're an idiot.

We just don't know.

What part of that "We just don't know" did you miss?

Baghdad barney:

And so...........?

Hmmmm let me see here.

Statement No. 15 ("Overview of the Enemy") as contained in the 9/11 Commission's report:

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps.

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.

This is great coming from the guy who STILL argues that Iraq had WMD.

Keep it up!

Has any moonbat stopped to figure how many people would have to be in the loop to bring the plan off if it were an inside job. I know you are a bunch of idiots but there can't be anybody that dumb.Well there are a few here but not enough of you to matter.

Breaking news jp2: they found WMD in Iraq. Not huge stockpiles like *everyone* anticipated, but chemical weapons were found.

If you say a lie often enough, two things will happen. Those predisposed to believe it will make it gospel. Those who don't will know you're a lying idiot.

jp2: "This is great coming from the guy who STILL argues that Iraq had WMD."

hey...maybe he's Kurdish???

hey...maybe he's a fan of Nancy Pelosi:
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

or HEY...maybe he just read the Duelfer Report on Iraq's WMD!!! Not the few excerpts that the MSM used to claim there was NO THREAT! But the ACTUAL report which points out how grave the threat WAS!!

could be some of those...or just common sense! :)

Re:above

"Stupid People in Large Groups"

QED

jp2...did you just insult her excellency Ms. Speaker Nancy Pelosi??? I just might drive up the coast ahd rat you out!!

Jay Tea,

I'm calling straw man.

Having re-read the poll question, I find that your statement about what Democrat do or do not believe to be a bit of a stretch in interpretation.

You state "42% of Democrats don't believe the official story behind 9/11 and think that President Bush either knew about it and permitted it, or actually arranged for the whole thing".

What the poll says is "42% of Democrats are more likely to agree with the statement 'certain elements in the US Government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed' than the other two alternatives".

The poll question said nothing about President Bush. However, the CIA, NSA, and FBI are all elements of the government and some people there knew and reported that al-Qaeda wanted to attack the U.S. again. Did they "consciously let them proceed"? I would highly doubt that, but in a pooly constructed questionaire, paired with the alternative "19 fundamentalists executed a suprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard.", the question was "Which theory are you more likely to agree with?"

I'm sorry...when Rance calls "straw man" what are we all supposed to do next?? :)

just askin'

I dunno about you, Rance, but when someone calls "Straw Man," I do the Scarecrow dance from the Wizard Of Oz. Or, if I'm feeling partiuclarly, funky, from The Wiz.

J.

I'm sorry...when Rance calls "straw man" what are we all supposed to do next?? :)

just askin'

Kick the can? Move the goal post?

Question? With Osama's re-statement claiming his responsiblity for 9/11-----

In the speech, bin Laden refers to the attacks on New York and Washington several times, almost gloating about policy changes by the U.S. government in response.

"Nineteen young men were able -- by the grace of Allah, the Most High -- to change the direction of its compass,"

-----will the "truthers" request some quality time with Osama so they can get their storys straight?

marc,

How about I clarify it for you so that even an intelligencia like you can understand a mere mortal.

In one sentence jay asks a question. In the next, to paraphrase, he says whatever the answer is it will be bullshit. That's a real conversation starter kinda like "how are you?" [but i don't really give a damn about how you are.

As for turd dropping, I hope I didn't miss you. Your mouth is certainly big enough.

Straw man: Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Nah, they'll just send him the proper talking points so they're all on the same page. Then Osama can be seen as someone wanting to SAVE the US from that eEvil Bushco conspiracy, and he'll be a hero instead of a bad guy!

It's SO much easier when you control the narrative, isn't it?

geez, Rance, I KNOW what a "strawman" argument is! I just thought you "calling a straw man" as though you were an NFL Referee calling "Clipping" was a little silly!

Do you address yourself as "Sir"? If so it could be a sign you're taking yourself just a tad too serious! Certainly more serious than the rest of us take you! :)

Nyahh. What's Up, Doc. Forty-two percent were asleep at the switch whether or not they were push polled.

Besides, anyone, of any skill, can make up a stupid poll to show anything, to idiots. Pay attention to DJ and Jay Cost.
====================================

Justrand,

I just figured that I would throw the definition up there because there were no serious responses to the strawman charege.

Jay Tea states that the poll says that 42% of registered democrats think that "Bush either knew about [9/11] and permitted it, or actually arranged for the whole thing."

He's accusing them of something that is not true, or at least not indicated by the poll he is citing, so that he can rhetorically knock them down.

re: # 19 - how many times must this point be addressed?

The only WMD's that have been found in Iraq:

1) were so degraded as to have been effectively useless

2) predate the first Persian Gulf conflict, and so are not from any further WMD program

3) are not the WMD's we invaded for

I also find it very unfortunate that so many persons do not believe that 9/11 was a sneak attack by a gang of terrorist thugs.

There is absolutely no way that the U.S. government would allow such a major crime as 9/11 to take place if they knew ahead of time and not attempt to stop it.

Some tried to also create a similiar wacky theory behind the Pearl Harbor attack, claiming that Roosevelt knew ahead of time, but that's been discredited as well by the facts.

Unfortunately wacky conspiracy theories will always be with us despite good facts and simple logic.

Well, the "official story" isn't a story. It's been closely investigated by bipartisan and nonpartisan groups. We know what happened and how it happened.

Anyone who believes the "truther" baloney is just an idiot.

Now, am I surprised that at least 42% of self-identified Democrats are idiots? Of course not - that's WHY they are Democrats in the first place.

BTW ~ That's not an original Will Rogers quote. He stole it from Josh Billings. Billings' version is variously given as

"It's not ignorance does so much damage; it's knowin' so derned much that ain't so." or

"It is better to know nothing than to know what ain't so."

jim, in post# 33 asks: "re: # 19 - how many times must this point be addressed?"

The report by Charles Duelfer of the Iraq Survey Group, October 2004 is HUNDREDS of pages long...and I have read essentially every damn one of them! The MSM used VERY tiny pieces of the report to say "there were no WMDs when we invaded"...and thus conclude "Saddam was no threat!"

The reality was that the threat they (the ISG) found was MASSIVE! How many fighters did Ali defeat because him covering up on the ropes (rope-a-dope) made him look like "no threat"?? LOTS!! Here are some of the key findings from the report that the MSM chose NOT to use...that show just how big the threat was from Saddam's rope-a-dope! [I'll try to only include a few findings, but MOST of the report is in this vein)
*************

Saddam Husayn wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.

He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections--to gain support for lifting sanctions--with his intention to preserve Iraq's intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face.

The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad's economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq's WMD capability--which was essentially destroyed in 1991--after sanctions were removed and Iraq's economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed.

Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability--in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting ec