Subject:
|
Re: Bush, a flawed evil genius?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 8 Jun 2003 11:36:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
125 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Costello wrote:
> Perhaps my good friends here on OTD, who are against the war can help enlighten
> my understanding, because I get a bit confused sometimes. From several of your
> posts I have pieced together what I think you have been trying to tell me.
>
> Bush was able to hatch a plan with the FBI and CIA to allow several terrorists
> to attack the world trade center and pentagon on 9/11, or possibly we ourselves
> bombed the pentagon for added effect. This was all done so that the FBI and CIA
> both could usurp more power via the patriot act, which was already drawn up and
> ready to sign before the attacks happened.
Either 9/11 was intentionally allowed to happen (doubtful) or the FBI once again
dropped the ball on an important investigation. If a person or organization
proves their gross incompetence (yet again) leading to massive loss of life, my
first response is not to hand them MORE authority. The FBI had all the
intelligence-gathering capabilities they needed to thwart 9/11 if they had just
listened to their field agents. The FBI needs to be REFORMED from the top down,
not simply given more power to abuse.
The "Patriot" Act is a massive piece of legislation. I would almost prefer to
think that it was the culmination of years of hidden agenda rather than
something that was hastily thrown together by a roomful of sleep-deprived
legislators. But either method is unlikely to create Good Law.
> Then Bush and his rich pals in the oil industry came up with another secret
> plan, whereby they would elaborate, and fabricate evidence against Sadam Hussein
> in order to launch a preemptive war. The final results of this war would be huge
> lucrative contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq.
The Bush Administration at the very least turned a blind eye toward any evidence
that suggested that Iraq might not have WMD, then used their biased analyses of
whatever "intelligence" was left to justify attacking a sovereign nation in a
region where we already have image problems. Going into the war, they said that
to declassify their information would somehow endanger field agents and/or
informants. Now that the war is over (sort of), the danger to those field
agents and informants has surely subsided to the point where this information
can now be shared with the American public.
Halliburton has certainly profitted from every stage of the conflict in Iraq.
The disturbing thing about this is not that power is being abused, but that it
is being abused so blatantly and without any fear of consequence.
At least Nixon knew that he should be ashamed of what he was doing.
> Bush was then clever enough
> to convince Tony Blair, who is completely opposite of him ideologically, to go
> along. Bush was so convincing that Blair not only to follow, but also to try to
> convince other nations to join their coalition.
>
> This war was executed with minimal loss of coalition life, with only the
> occasional break to mock up scenes of hostage rescue, and statue destruction.
> With the victory now sealed the coalition troops are merely left in Iraq to
> humiliate and beat the remaining citizens who dislike our country.
>
> All these plans successfully accomplished without any of the participants
> spilling the beans about these secret plans. Not only that but Bush has been
> successful in spinning it such that the majority of Americans support all these
> actions, and his approval numbers are still high.
If you read the newspapers you will see that many government officials are now
spilling the beans about the fact that the evidence of WMD appears to have been
trumped up. I think you will see those approval numbers continue to move South
as more details come out over the next several months.
> With all that done, you would think that Bush would have come up with a better
> plan for planting the weapons of mass destruction. I mean Mark Furhman was able
> to plant the bloody glove, why couldn’t those guys who mocked up the Jessica
> Lynch rescue simply video tape a couple of barrels of flour and claim that it
> was anthrax, or VX gas. They could fabricate an elaborate destruction of these
> items and be fully justified in the eyes of the media.
>
> Maybe Bush just didn’t think this through well enough, and maybe he just got
> lucky on all that other stuff. So which is it? Is Bush just a sloppy subversive
> genius, or are some of these claims just a bit exaggerated?
Actually, according to the Conspiracy Theory, Bush had nothing to do with the
planning. He is merely the finger puppet. The fact that he doesn't have a
cover story does not in itself prove that he is not part of a conspiracy. The
true power brokers don't care if he is left holding the bag; they would need a
patsy anyhow.
He could be either a deranged genius or a complete idiot. I don't know which,
(although I would happily venture a guess) but either way this nation is in for
a rough ride.
- Chris.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Bush, a flawed evil genius?
|
| Perhaps my good friends here on OTD, who are against the war can help enlighten my understanding, because I get a bit confused sometimes. From several of your posts I have pieced together what I think you have been trying to tell me. Bush was able (...) (21 years ago, 8-Jun-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
