commemorating 9/11

Jabberwocky

Registered User
Forum Member
Mar 3, 2006
3,491
29
0
Jacksonville, FL
"just look around stevie....look at who you`re aligned with...troofers,radicals,anti-american types,black liberation theologists,socialists,anarchists,domestic terrorists,farakhan-style fanatical muslims,hollywood types,aclu types,spy the web and jer-z-jock....(of course they`re all preferrable to the nascar crowd and some christians)...."

I would like to take this opportunity, in memory of those that lost their lives on 9/11, to spread my idiotic neocon politics of hate.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Yeah, I think of it all the time, he's done EXACTLY NOTHING!! I do think that he let the people of this nation down when Katrina hit though, do you think that was the case there?

Could you imagine if that was a dirty bomb with that bozo in charge?
 

jer-z jock

Blow $$ Fast
Forum Member
Jun 11, 2007
4,564
3
0
Could you imagine if that was a dirty bomb with that bozo in charge?

Honestly Sponge, cant even nor do I want to begin to think about it, but by the admission of there own mouths...theres no way in hell a dirty bomb could be let off in the States nowadays, Bush has so much Homeland Security, good policies in place and ready to take action so fast, no way that could happen. Thats funny as it gets! This clown knows one thing when it comes to politics and safety of Americans...NOTHING! Why are we occupying Iraq again? That ruler has been dead for how long now? Thats right as soon as they become a democratic society uninterrupted by terroist is when we can return our troops home.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
Honestly Sponge, cant even nor do I want to begin to think about it, but by the admission of there own mouths...theres no way in hell a dirty bomb could be let off in the States nowadays, Bush has so much Homeland Security, good policies in place and ready to take action so fast, no way that could happen. Thats funny as it gets! This clown knows one thing when it comes to politics and safety of Americans...NOTHING! Why are we occupying Iraq again? That ruler has been dead for how long now? Thats right as soon as they become a democratic society uninterrupted by terroist is when we can return our troops home.
It has been seven years and people still walk onto the subway trains with full sets of luggage unchecked. Amazing.
 

jer-z jock

Blow $$ Fast
Forum Member
Jun 11, 2007
4,564
3
0
It has been seven years and people still walk onto the subway trains with full sets of luggage unchecked. Amazing.


Exactly, but these ReDUMBLICANS will talk to blue in the face about whats been done to make us securekurby


The drones know terroist dont use subways, only interested in suicide bombs and airplanes.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,432
132
63
Bowling Green Ky
Yeah, I think of it all the time, he's done EXACTLY NOTHING!! I do think that he let the people of this nation down when Katrina hit though, do you think that was the case there? And I also cant seem to shake the thought of how you dickheads support the WORSE PRESIDENT IN HISTORY REGARDLESS OF THE FACTS THAT ARE IN YOUR FACE, and continue to support a party that has no plans or policies shown to us but just beats a bunch of lies into your head a bout the other party. I see SOMEONE ran out and voted Bush back in '04 because he was scared of the terroist. Im no more safe from terroist today then I was 35 yrs ago. Only thing I am is slowed up at the airport when taking a flight cross country and scared to talk about "somethings" on my phone or email not knowing if someone will show up at my door labeling me as a terroist. Oh, and out of a job....but that doesnt mean too much:mad: the people overseas work way harder then myself and co workers did so I understand that:rolleyes:

What facts are you referring to??

heres a few for you to dispute--


The Terrorists Are Losing
By Quin Hillyer
Published 9/11/2008 12:08:33 AM
Seven years. Zero attacks. And almost zero credit.

President George W. Bush deserves better.

Seven years ago today, evil men killed 2,998 innocent people in New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. They did so in service of an evil ideology. And they were directed by evil, small-souled creatures protected by a rogue state halfway across the world. The creatures called their murderous organization Al-Qaeda, which means "The Base" -- a name appropriate for an organization that serves man's base instincts, for base motives, to achieve base results.

At the time, there was every reason to believe that Al-Qaeda would strike again on American soil. There was every reason to believe that even if the free world could track down Base leader Osama bin Laden and pulverize him, the cost in the meantime would be the endurance of more terror -- mechanical, chemical, biological, maybe even nuclear.

President Bush said no. Not on his watch. Not if he could help it.

And for seven years, he has backed it up. The only terrorism on American soil since 9/11 came from a home-grown scientist, clearly disturbed, who sent some mail laced with anthrax for a few scary weeks and spent the next seven years trying to hide his tracks. Sure, the bad guys have tried again -- they've planned more plane bombings, a bridge bombing, an airport bombing, and other assaults against American civilization -- but they were interdicted every time.

This wasn't a dog that didn't bark merely because it felt like being mute; this was a dog that didn't bark because it was forcefully muzzled. And Bush was the one who applied the muzzle.


HE DID IT by fashioning, with the help of Colin Powell (before Powell went off the reservation), an incredibly impressive coalition that went into Afghanistan -- even then, liberal pundits predicted, yes, a "quagmire" in Afghanistan, too -- and in incredibly short order kicked out the rogue regime, killed numerous members of Al-Qaeda, and chased the remaining ones high into the hills where they presumably live in caves perfectly suited to their troglodyte mentality.

Bush did it by directing his government to use all the tools at its disposal to identify and freeze Al-Qaeda assets, improve intelligence-gathering (and intelligence-sharing, back and forth, with anti-terrorist nations), disrupt Al-Qaeda communications, and track down and kill Al-Qaeda leaders. He did it by getting tough on other terrorists, too, even ones not directly affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And he did it by encouraging democratic movements throughout the Middle East and central Asia, while providing material support where necessary.

And yes, Bush warded off terrorists by toppling Saddam Hussein's dangerous outlaw regime in Iraq. It was a regime that had repeatedly shot at American aircraft. It was a regime that demonstrably owned weapons of mass murder and then refused to account for their removal or their destruction. It was a regime that had invaded its neighbors, and that had gassed and slaughtered its own people. And it was most certainly a regime that harbored terrorists, trained terrorists, and that maintained friendly communications and at least some operational ties with Al-Qaeda. Hussein's Iraq provided asylum for infamous terrorists Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas. It gave reward money to homicidal Palestinian suicide bombers. It ran a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. It provided asylum for Al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who later founded and ran "Al-Qaeda in Iraq." An interdicted letter to him from Osama bin Laden's chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, made clear that Zarqawi's efforts in Iraq were an essential part of al-Qaeda's plans for conquest -- indeed, that "the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq" was the single essential predicate for "the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet."

Well, Zarqawi is dead now, and so are most of his lieutenants, and so is his entire Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq organization except for a few final remnants in isolated last-ditch redoubts.


YES, THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION mishandled Iraq in many ways after toppling Saddam. The mismanagement began early on, when the State Department and the Defense Department had conflicting plans and then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice failed to effectively coordinate or impose order upon the operation. (One acquaintance of mine came back from a visit to Iraq in those early post-Saddam days and said "Quin, man, it's a clusterfu**.") John McCain said early on that we needed more troops and different tactics, and so did the Weekly Standard, and so did others -- but Bush, contrary to his reputation for being headstrong and unwilling to listen, instead listened to and deferred too much to his generals and to Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, who were honorably but terribly, disastrously wrong.

But here's where Bush got it right: As Bob Woodward has been reporting in the Washington Post this week, apparently unaware that the reporting actually does credit to Bush's judgment rather than providing more evidence of bad judgment, Bush stood tallest when Iraq fell into its worst chaos. Even when almost all the top military advisers continued to stubbornly advocate a failed plan, Bush insisted on victory and found a strategy to achieve it. The "surge" of course has worked wonders, and Iraq is now likely to be a success -- and despite Bush's earlier mistakes, it would not have happened if the president had not shown extraordinary leadership.

And yes, the developing victory in Iraq has indeed played a big part in the protection of our homeland from terrorist attacks. If the U.S. has been "bogged down" at times in Iraq, for the terrorists the fight there has been equal parts catnip and quicksand. Attracted there by the presence of their American enemy, they haven't been able to escape. Hundreds upon hundreds of key terrorists have been killed in Iraq. Thousands of their followers have perished. And with their attention, blood, and treasure sunk into their losing battles there, they haven't been able to attack us here within American borders. Also, by exercising their brutal natures not against infidel Americans but against fellow Moslems, the jihadists have lost the "hearts and minds" not just of the Iraqi people but of many of their Islamic brethren worldwide. President Bush was right all along that success in Iraq would have beneficial repercussions throughout the Islamic and Arab worlds.

One of those benefits came early on, when Libya's Moammar Ghadafi saw the fate of Saddam Hussein, pronounced himself scared by it, and began cooperating with the West. Ghadafi turned over huge stores of weaponry and dismantled his nuclear program -- a program that, the free world discovered, had been far closer to fruition than had been previously supposed. And now Ghadafi has hosted a visit from Condi Rice -- and, urged on by the dictator's pro-American son, Libya is more than likely to become a staunch American ally in the region.


TO REVIEW: Seven years ago bin Laden enjoyed the state support of the Taliban, Saddam was in power and bribing his way to greater autonomy, and Ghadafi was still a serious burr under our saddle. Now they are, respectively, encaved, embalmed, and enlisted (at least partly) in our cause.

That's a pretty darn good record. It comes at the cost of more than 4,000 dead American service personnel, and more than 30,000 injured. But hundreds of millions of us have, in the meantime, been safe in our daily lives from jihadist terror. Those American soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen are heroes of heroes. And they have been led by a commander in chief who has often been wrong on tactics, but always right about the ultimate goals and always determined that their sacrifices be in service to a worthy and successful cause.

Seven years after 9/11, the victories have been far greater than the intermittent setbacks. No jihadists have struck within our borders. Freedom reigns and rings. And President Bush deserves some thanks.


Quin Hillyer is an associate editor at the. Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator. He can be reached at qhillyer@gmail.com.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
responsibility/accountability : just words on the extreme right

responsibility/accountability : just words on the extreme right

the right likes to sell as fact that they are the party to protect America....before 911, hardly a word was spoken to the american people about terror or al qaeda or bin landen.... on sept 1rst ,I was in airports, on sept 8th and 9th also..... security was not like it is now.....there was a threat.... why did it take untill sept 12th to address it ?? The tax payers of this country pay billions each year for intelligence and homeland security.... someone in our government let us down.... this administration was not ready on day one to do the job.... with the endless tax dollars that we drop on washington,this has to be the biggest case of incompetence in the history of governments any where in the world....... 911 didn't just happen... we put people in office that let it happen....
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
43, thanks for transfering Americas wealth to the middle east and china.....thanks for the leadership with your energy policy..... thanks for putting everything on hold because of 911....didn't bush say, don't let the terrorist win....move on with your lives and business as usual ? the American people did their part.... why did this administration stop working/governing ? We owe this president nothing.... he owes a dept to the American People that can't be repayed... bin landen sends his thanks also mr president.....he couldn't have scripted your every move any better himself... picture this : bin landen sleeping, smile from ear to ear..... dreaming about bush/cheney, 4 more yrs...4 more yrs..... quin hillyer needs to put down the pipe....
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
I used to subsribe to the spectator and listen to rush every day....I still tune into rush from time to time.....he's like a soap, come back every 30 days and you don't miss much.... I don't think William F Buckley would wipe his ass with the spectator or piss on rush to put out his free base fire ! I became a conservative because of Reagan & Buckley....the movement has lost it's way....
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
GW Look at who you are aligned with. Every Corporation that has made a profit in Iraq. Big Oil, who is bleeding America to death. People that God talks to. Not people that talk to God but people who actually have a conversation with him.
People who feel the rich deserve everything at the cost of the working class. You have aligned yourself with Right Wing Talk Radio and the Corporate Press. So I guess if you believe the rich are going to trickle down some wealth on you then vote for McCain. McCain claims to work bioth sides of the aisle yet votes with Bush 90% of the time.

corporations that employ americans...that provide jobs.....that are the basis.... the linchpin of american society for as long as this country has been great.....j

or radicals and anti-american lunatics and fringe wackos....

tough choice...:rolleyes:

/real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time...
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
corporations that employ americans...that provide jobs.....that are the basis.... the linchpin of american society for as long as this country has been great.....j

or radicals and anti-american lunatics and fringe wackos....

tough choice...:rolleyes:

/real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time...

It is the people that buy things that the corporations sell. That is the backbone of America.
 

StevieD

Registered User
Forum Member
Jun 18, 2002
9,509
44
48
71
Boston
and what do the people buy,if there are no corporations producing goods and services?...not to mention jobs....

If they keep sending the jobs out of the country and they don't allow the middle class to make a decent living you will have no corporations. We are way to heavy at the top and the top is sucking way too much life out of the working class. How much is enough for these people?
 

gardenweasel

el guapo
Forum Member
Jan 10, 2002
40,573
226
63
"the bunker"
If they keep sending the jobs out of the country and they don't allow the middle class to make a decent living you will have no corporations. We are way to heavy at the top and the top is sucking way too much life out of the working class. How much is enough for these people?

stop taxing businesses out the ying yang and make it profitable for them to stay here...

stop the unions from strong arming their workers with things like open voting....allow the workers vote to be private...just like an average citizen`s vote during an election.....

theres your corruption...and the democrats are 4 square behind this reprehensible tactic....

disgraceful...
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
stop taxing businesses out the ying yang and make it profitable for them to stay here...

stop the unions from strong arming their workers with things like open voting....allow the workers vote to be private...just like an average citizen`s vote during an election.....

theres your corruption...and the democrats are 4 square behind this reprehensible tactic....

disgraceful...
These unions just want to make a decent wage, go home to their familes, and maybe catch a show on the weekends. The money grubbing corporations just want to make every penny they can. Weasel why don't you give up every benefit you have because you wouldn't have shit if it weren't for unions. Once again you have been brainwashed into thinking something good is bad. Stop painting every union with the same brush like u do you with Lawyers, liberals, war protestors and the list goes on and on. To think a union wants to make all they can and possible shut down a corporation which would mean they lose their jobs is ridiculous. Again the unions created the middle class in this country and a snake like you is benefitting every step of the way. Is their bad unions? Off course. Just like their are bad lawyer, liberals, corporations etc.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
did you liberals all get down and thank GW keeping you safe for 7 years of safety despite your and media whining at every step on taking the fight to them abroad vs her--interogations--treating enemy as war combatants vs criminals--fisa (electronic eavesdropping.)

Let's all 'get down' and thank each president from 1941-1993 for 'keeping us safe.'

In 1993, we had an attack under Bubba on the WTC that killed, what, 8 people?

Ok, now let's 'get down' and thank Bubba for 'keeping us safe' for the next 7 years. Great job, Bubba.

Then we had an attack in 2001, under W, that killed 3000 people. In response, we attack a country that had nothing to do with it and was absolutely no threat to us. 4000 more and counting killed. About 35,000 and counting seriously maimed.

Let's not get too carried away here about the last 7 years.

BTW-FISA was in place before the Patriot(sic) Act.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
an incredibly impressive coalition that went into Afghanistan -- even then, liberal pundits predicted, yes, a "quagmire" in Afghanistan, too

An 'incredibly impressive coallition.' :mj07:

I guess when countrys like Poland say, 'yeah, we'll throw ya 60 troops', but there will be strict rules on how they can be used and they must at all times be 100 miles from any danger', that comprises an incredibly impressive coalition.

And a 'quagmire?' How stupid could those 'pundits' have been? Hell, we've been there 6 years, opium production is at an all-time high, the Taliban controls over half the country, troop deaths are rising, the situation is so controlled that all the pols are talking about putting more troops in there. Can you imagine those stupid pundits predicting a quagmire?

I wonder if the Soviet pundits predicted their 8 year quagmire over there in Afghanistan.
 

bryanz

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 8, 2001
9,724
35
48
63
Syracuse ny, usa
These unions just want to make a decent wage, go home to their familes, and maybe catch a show on the weekends. The money grubbing corporations just want to make every penny they can. Weasel why don't you give up every benefit you have because you wouldn't have shit if it weren't for unions. Once again you have been brainwashed into thinking something good is bad. Stop painting every union with the same brush like u do you with Lawyers, liberals, war protestors and the list goes on and on. To think a union wants to make all they can and possible shut down a corporation which would mean they lose their jobs is ridiculous. Again the unions created the middle class in this country and a snake like you is benefitting every step of the way. Is their bad unions? Off course. Just like their are bad lawyer, liberals, corporations etc.
most unions have turned their backs on the workers....corporate & political puppets.... no vision..no leadership.... when things are good the workers get payed, sometimes over paid...... when there is no more blood, your union is worthless.... unions had there day...the last 25 to 30 yrs hasn't been good ...
 

djv

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 4, 2000
13,817
17
0
Wow unions are bad. My father may he rest in peace would handle this subect very well. It's simple you need to go way back. When companies would try and pay the least they could. Benifits are you kidding, none. Vacation more then week with pay no way. Take all time off you want if you not back in week your fired. Hence unions appered
in the work force. Times have changed you say. Yes the Gov set minium wage. Benifits still a battle.
You talk way back when the rich really did get richer and the poor slowly got to middle class. Now the come back is those poor had same chance to get rich. But thats not completely true.
 

DOGS THAT BARK

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 13, 1999
19,432
132
63
Bowling Green Ky
September 11th, 2008 1:00 AM Eastern
The Continuing Censorship of ?The Path to 9/11′
By John Ziegler
Writer/Director/Producer
?Blocking the Path to 9/11″

Just less than seven years ago it would have been impossible to predict that the horrific events of September 11, 2001 would be as forgotten as they now seem today. In those heady days of national unity that marked the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on America, we made a communal pledge that we would never forget the victims or the lessons of that fateful day. There is little doubt that we have long ago betrayed that promise.

There is no more dramatic example of this distressing reality than what has happened to the one major film that attempted to answer a very simple and yet extremely complex question: How was that day allowed to happen?


In 2006, exactly five years after the attacks, ABC attempted to broadcast ?The Path to 9/11.? The extraordinary mini-series was a $40 million, five-hour-plus production that aired, commercial-free, over two nights, in prime time.

However, prior to broadcast, Bill Clinton and members of his former administration went ballistic after discovering that one scene in the film dealt with the many opportunities during his presidency to kill or capture Usama bin Laden. A two-week firestorm erupted and the film had several key scenes edited out of the completed and legally vetted version before finally airing with numerous disclaimers.

Since then, the film which was originally intended to run each year around 9/11, has not been broadcast again and the DVD has never been released. While it has been reported that this decision was made over concerns about disrupting Hillary Clinton?s presidential campaign, Robert Iger, the head of Disney (the parent company of ABC) declared at this year?s shareholder meeting that it was ?simply a business decision? to not put out the DVD. He made this odd declaration despite the fact that DVD distribution would have limited costs associated with it and not doing so insured a $40 million loss on the project.

We now know (thanks to the book, ?Clinton in Exile?) that it was Bill Clinton himself, among others, who called Iger and demanded that movie be edited or pulled. With the specter of a then nearly certain Hillary Clinton presidency staring them in the face (and with Iger and many others in the film?s management hierarchy already financial contributors to the Clintons), Disney caved and committed perhaps the most blatant, under-reported, and significant act of censorship in modern American history.

I have devoted most of the last year of my life to producing a documentary on the controversy surrounding ?The Path to 9/11.? My film, ?Blocking the Path to 9/11,? has put together O.J. Simpson-like evidence demonstrating that the initial smear of the movie and the filmmakers was a travesty of justice so ?Simpsonian? in its proportions that Americans of all political stripes should be equally outraged.

What anyone who sees my film is likely to conclude is that the great irony of the ?The Path to 9/11″ being branded ? and largely discredited ?as a product of a right-wing conspiracy within Hollywood (a concept which is absurd enough on its own) is that almost all of those who made the docudrama were so liberal that they feared attacks from the right on the mini-series.

Among the many revelations my documentary provides is new evidence that what Disney actually did was to take a dive on their own movie. They did this by preventing the liberals in charge of the film from speaking out in defense of the movie. Why? Because, amazingly, they preferred the scenario of unilateral disarmament (not to mention throwing away $40 million) to rebutting and embarrassing the Clintons.

The writer/producer, director, research assistant, and editors of ?The Path to 9/11″ have all demonstrated enormous career courage (something rarer in Hollywood than a starlet without plastic surgery) to participate in this documentary. They risked their standing in Hollywood because they believe in this film and want to stand up for the truth and what is right.

Unfortunately, their courage has not been matched by any of the numerous entertainment organizations that pretend to defend free speech but have been shockingly silent on this issue, apparently for fear of appearing to protect ?conservatives.? The news media as a whole (which is also skewered in the documentary) should be embarrassed by their complicity in this smear and the injustice, too.

One of the many unfortunate consequences of this controversy is that the education company Scholastic also caved to left-wing pressure and killed their plan to use ?The Path to 9/11″ as a teaching tool in schools. Seven years after 9/11 we live in a state where teaching ?global warming? is part of the official curriculum, but the events of 9/11 are not. It is now an anomaly to meet a youngster who has yet to reach their teen years who has any memory or even rudimentary knowledge of 9/11.

If those who do not know their history truly are doomed to repeat it, we are well on our way to disgracing the memories of those who died on 9/11and setting ourselves up for making the same mistakes again. The continuing censorship of ?The Path to 9/11″ is both emblematic and symptomatic of that sad truth.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top