Some great comments though..."Tell that to the roughly 450 firefighters who gave deposition which would substantially undermine the official story, NONE of whose testimony was included in the 9/11 Commission report." jnicholas02@snet.net
"Bill, welcome to the club of knuckle-draggers. With your wholesale dismissal of the 911 truth movement, you embody the proverbial three wise monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. I just watched my last Bill Maher show."
pixelman_2006@yahoo.com
"Bill Maher needs to get over himself and research 9/11. Then he needs to explain his theory of WTC 7 and the lack of plane debris with both the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crashes. I like Bill Maher but sometimes he is way off in his opinions."
"Haha...it's a pretty funny piece, but it still doesn't account for the fact that those buildings were designed to withstand the impact, and that the physical evidence points to a controlled demolition. He still didn't say anything about WTC 7."
"Maher's making the same mistake he made that got him fired after 911: he's not reading the mood of the country. As my wife said to me: the guy doesn't cook.
If he did, she said, he'd know that woks in the best Hong Kong restaurants are heated higher than jet fuel can EVER go, or the temperature the NIST said caused the demolition of the towers. The HK woks are heated to 1800 F. That's 300 degrees higher than the NIST's figure, and 700 degrees higher than what FEMA told the 911 Commission. [We go to HK a lot. But just go to your local commercial outdoor barbecue place and ask questions about the cooking heat. No mystery.]
Maher lost a lost of listeners on that one. He's an idiot. He lost me. It's just physics class, man."
"ASBESTOS & 9/11
The WTC was a $15 billion HALLIBURTON liability.
There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?
The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings.
The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!
In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely."
"How big a lunatic do you have to be to watch two giant airliners packed with jet fuel slam into buildings on live TV and then see a third tower drop into its own footprint some 8 hours later, on voice command, and blame it on airplanes?"
"wow, look at the number of comments...
WTC 7 wasnt hit by a plane. I suppose fire made it collapse into it's own footprint? Well I got news for you, that's never, ever happened before in a steel framed building. No wonder most people dont know anything about WTC 7. The BBC reported it's collapse half an hour before it actually did... Why are there so many dickheads that still believe the offical story? It's pathetic."
78 comments:
Ordinarily Bill is about as funny as a chapped ass. However, I might have to agree with him on this rant. Might be a small amount of hope for him yet.
Anyone who used to date Ann Coulter (which he did) has to be either a total idiot or an a-hole. Or both. I'm voting for "both."
I should have seen this coming from comments on Rosie's blog about when Mos Def was a guest on Maher's show. I had some hope for him because of hints Rosie made that she might be a guest of his soon.
This is obviously an attack on Rosie, especially with that Paxil comment. Yet another frightened little boy bites the dust. Geez.
I always liked him (and still do in many ways), but I never fully trusted him on women's issues and on racial issues, and his "intelligence level" in my view also dropped significantly when he came out a while ago with comments about how stupid the Internet was.
The permit for the march in Washington today was for 10,000 people, but apparently, closer to 100,000 showed up (unofficial numbers because the police would not give an estimate), and 190 were arrested, the most in the history of this war.
http://tinyurl.com/2v8czn
Good for them.
Just wondering (for those of you with TV's) if this was covered at all in the spineless MSM.
Bill Maher the putz is a strong proponent of global warming and is in constant fear for his life over it. He attacks the White House on it non-stop.
Now the White House is coming out today and saying that "unequivocally" global warming is for real and is caused by man...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6994760.stm
This does not bode well for the validity of global warming, in my view!
Also, could it be that an unofficial deal may have been forged with the putz? Torpedo 9/11 and we'll throw you a bone on global warming?
Did anybody see the whole show? Did he mention the global warming thing in Washington today, like he was finally vindicated?
Just curious.
They're really pulling out all the stops now!
You just know when they start blaming Jane Fonda for global warming in the NY Times that 9/11, the war, and global warming are all fundamentally about that "men being afraid of biting vaginas" thing (or is it vaginae).
http://tinyurl.com/33bvew
This may not be the most official source for where the nation stands on the war, but it may be the most accurate, and it sure sounds about right -- a 12% approval for keeping the soldiers in Iraq.
From the transcript from Bill Maher's show yesterday (where he completely lost me as a fan from another topic, of course -- his inexcusable ignorance of 9/11 events):
CAREY: It’s The National Review. What do you expect them to say? On “Power of 10,” we had a survey question. I don’t know if it’s even been aired yet, but – oh, well – it was like for 100,000 or a million or something. The question was – and we do a – Rasmussen Reports does our polls; it’s an accurately demographic representation of the United States – huge polls – and we asked Americans, “Do you think America should stay in Iraq and finish the job we started?” So the question is, what percentage of Americans said we should stay in Iraq and finish the job we started? And the response was 12%. Very low. Hardly anybody wants to.
http://www.billmaher.com/?page_id=207
I entered college as a math major, yet I still don't get this. Maybe somebody can explain the math to me here.
Congress and the media keep claiming that there "aren't enough votes" in Congress to bring the troops home, yet 88% of the population want to bring the troops home.
Hmmm.
Is Drew Carey's popular show giving out inaccurate statistics -- and I mean off by like 30%?
Alan Greenspan says BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW.
Well, at least that's my interpretation...
This may be skating on thin ice here, but I've always picked up an undertone of resistance from the Jewish community in coming out strongly against the war in Iraq.
Adding to these feelings was the fact that the most powerful Jewish member of congress, Senator Joe Lieberman, was decidedly pro-war.
Well, thank heavens for Alan Greenspan! Forget Lieberman, Greenspan was the most powerful Jewish person in the world, if the not most powerful person in the world period, for many years and probably still may be for all I know.
And now Greenspan is saying GWB is a dweeb. Bravo.
More important, it appears he is coming out decidely anti-war in his new book to be released tomorrow...
http://tinyurl.com/3dnkw3
Excellent! This sham war has to end so Bush and Cheney (and others) can be impeached. They both belong in prison.
One of the first things I think I am going to do to promote the "anti-war" campaign is stop calling it a war. It gives it way too much credence.
This is nothing more than an occupation that Congress was strong-armed into voting for continuously since its inception and now can not seem to get out of the habit.
We'll help you, Congress! We promise! Just repent now and there may still be hope for you at the next election...
Interesting, I didn't think "Progressives" supported gassing of innocent Kurds, mass graves with untold millions of political and ethnic victims in the desert, women and children being treated like cattle, and all the rest of the "progress" Saddam and the boys made for Iraqis. Those were the good old days...too bad the ol' USofA had to come along and mess it all up. Them Iraqis' don't need no cell phones or schools or hospitals, or any of that there civilized tofutti us mean old Amurikans have.
STFU...http://tinyurl.com/2wnjb7
ahhh...CNN...The Clinton News Network. Good reliable unbiased reporting.
Nice talk...ya' learn that in bloggers' school?
http://tinyurl.com/3bo5c7
http://tinyurl.com/2wzvpz
http://tinyurl.com/czvh5
Doesn't look to me like everything in Iraq is bad.
Things are so great?? Let's leave.
Life, one link is for a three year-old article from 2004. Not sure what the point is there.
The second link is to a web site whose title is "Good News Iraq" meaning they only report good news, which is fine, but not what I would call a reasonable assessment of the "whole picture."
The third link is to a site that also reports good news from two different soldiers there, but it is annecdotal at best (yes, like a lot of personal stories that come out of Iraq, good and bad).
There are obviously good things and bad things going on in Iraq, but why are we there? Why did we go in the first place? To get rid of Saddam? Done. To stabilize the country? Many argue that we are destabilizing the situation by remaining, especially in such large numbers. I agree, along with apparently 88% of the rest of the country.
Congress must follow the will of the people on this.
Drew Carey's popular(?)show said that 88% (of what? his audience) favored a pull-out of troops?
Here's another poll-Invenstors Business Daily:
70% of Americans believe any withdrawal should be gradual (Dems. backed gradual withdrawal by 73% vs. 71% by Republicans)
69% of Americans think we should boost surveillance of terrorists while 60% say it is OK to wiretap suspected terrorists without a court warrant
63% beleive we should keep prisoners at Gitmo & 59% have no problem with detaining non-US terror suspects in foreign jails.
Also note, the IBD/TIPP poll shows Bush rallying off his own personal lows. His favorability rate hit 40.2%-highest since March AND the 3rd straight month gain.
The anti-war march this past week-end was coverered on page 4 of my local newspaper. The "peacers" didn't cause enough of a civil disturbance when they laid down on the Capitol lawn. When the police took no action, some decided to start climbing over the barricade (doesn't that remind you of a six year old?)
A permit for the march obtained in advance had projected 10,000 but OF COURSE, organizers estimated that more than 100,000 people attended.
190 of the "peacers" were arrested. They should be so proud of themselves.
Maybe this answers the question as to why the Dems. in Congress have not yet stopped funding the war and pulling out immediately. They must realize that bottom line, Americans don't really back that plan. That's only what MoveOn wants.
Good job Lee!! Everything I have read says "several thousand" protesters. Of course, in Dreamland where the Progressives live, this equates to 100,000+. And I have also read the reports of protesters not getting any attention, so they escalated to provoke an incident with the authorities, as you said, like a 6 year old when it can't have it's candy bar.
The link to your poll please, Lee. Thanks.
As for the protest, the DC police should release their official estimate if the given estimates are so far off. Whatever the numbers, it seems fairly safe to say there were well over ten times the number of counter protesters, if not 100 times.
Saying the protest was not covered by the media is not saying much, even if it were true. I was mostly curious to know if it got any national TV coverage.
As for Drew Carey, who happens to be a conservative, he said, "The question was – and we do a – Rasmussen Reports does our polls; it’s an accurately demographic representation of the United States – huge polls."
This is not his studio audience.
However, now Rasmussen Reports seems to have different numbers when you go to their web site, so maybe the poll Carey is talking about is old or more likely -- something fishy may be going on.
For example, I read this on the Rasmussen Reports web site:
"Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome."
Uh-oh. Somehow, "the only polling firm to be lock in step with the government," as if the government were the standard by which to measure accuracy, does not make me want to run out and place faith in this company!
Thanks for the info, though. Onward. I can see getting reliable poll numbers on this may be more difficult than sorting out global warming. Specifically, I am looking for a breakdown of polling numbers by state or better yet -- within congressional districts -- to see which congresspeople are really following the will of their people.
Here is the latest Rasmussen Reports poll on Iraq after President Bush's speech:
http://tinyurl.com/335blj
Mind you, I am already labeling Rasmussen Reports as "conservative-biased" from their own claims to be lock in step with the 2004 election results. Even then, the numbers are pretty strong in favor of bringing the troops home now, especially with Democrats, which make up the majority of Congress.
Some critiques of this poll: it is based on only "1200 likely voters." With 435 members of the House of Representatives, thats only about 3 "likely voters" per congressional district, on average. Come on, folks. We can do better than that!
Website to that specific poll: www.InvestorsBusinessDaily. com
On another note, if the Twin Towers were "condemned structures", airplanes hitting them loaded with fuel is not so far-fetched.
AAACCCCKKK!!!! Lee...Focus on the light...I'll guide you back from the Dark Side....The Force is with you....>;}
Come on, Lee. Where did you get those numbers that are accredited to IBD? Was it online? If so, I'd like the actual link to the page that has the poll numbers since the IBD homepage (what I think you were trying to link me to, though even that link does not work) does not have a search engine.
If you got the numbers from a newspaper or magazine that credits IBD, just let me know which one. I'm not going to get into an argument over poll numbers until I can view the info myself.
Interesting that neither Newsweek (which features Alan Greenspan on their cover -- http://tinyurl.com/2sqtho) nor the New York Times article about him today (http://tinyurl.com/2zqqvn) mention anything about Alan Greenspan's comments on the war.
Here is the quote from his book:
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.
http://tinyurl.com/3dnkw3
Oye, so this is news?
Good for you Lee, now you're thinking!
The news is that the words came out of somebody's mouth who is pretty high up -- not what the actually words were.
I personally don't think it was the oil, at least not primarily. It's the "Federal Reserve Truth Movement" version of the WTC7 distraction in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It just smells like an obvious "no brainer" that all the Internet sleuths believe the government is trying to cover up, when in reality, it's probably just a distraction to cover up something bigger and a lot less forgiveable.
In this context, Alan Greenspan coming out and saying this (i.e., still actively taking part in the game, whatever it is), is pretty big news to me! I just wish I knew what the game was.
I finally got a Cheney sighting here.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics/story/279570.html
He always keeps his message simple and macho. A little like this:
Cheney, you murdered thousands of US civilians on 9/11. You're gonna hang, bastard!
I'm curious as to what Lee, Life and all the anons think about Darfur. Not trying to take us off topic, but y'all SPOUT all the reasons why the US needed to invade Iraq.
What about Darfur? Do you have any opinions?
I do. The reason no one has gone there is because there's no oil.
And before anyone has any smart remarks, I think our Prime Minister is in on it, too. It's just way too late for him to send anyone to Iraq. Instead, he's keeping our troops in Afghanistan. Notice that country isn't mentioned as part of the surge withdrawl.
Doesn't matter anyway.
130 000
+ 30 000
---------
160 000
- 30 000
---------
IS STILL 130 000!!!!
Harmless idea time...
What if we were on the verge of discovering a renewable energy source that could completely replace oil safely and efficiently? Do you think the oil gurus of the world, including BushCo from this country and every leader in the Middle East, would be happy about this news? Is this something they would actively support or is it something they would actively suppress as long as there was a single drop of oil left out there -- or a single life to be controlled left out there.
Aside from the biting vaginae theory, I think the idea that a renewable energy source is already invented or is close to being there may explain a lot, on a global scale, including this weird global theater going on where BushCo and the Middle Eastern leaders are all pretending there is a raging battle going on over "precious oil" when in fact, the oil very well may be close to becoming relatively worthless.
Just an idea for fun...
Posted by ro on September 17th at 10:34pm in ask ro
nick writes:
Sally field wins Emmy and says “If mothers ruled the world, there wouldn’t be any god-damned wars in the first place.” AND IT GOT BLEEPED! Because of “goddamn,”?! Please! The Emmys were on Fox! DUH!
ro writes:
well
as u know
fox is pro war
jessi writes:
did you watch the emmys? sally fields, acceptance speech, anti-war remarks, BAM sound out and cut to black.
I’m sick at my stomach. Is this america?? where am i?? what the hell is going on?!?!?!
ro writes:
sad
Sabrina writes:
Any idea what the closing words were on Sally Field’s emmy acceptance? Sounded juicy
if mothers rules the world
there would be no goddammed war
ro writes:
bravo sally
h nic: Y'all ain't ready...
Sally Field's speech was apparently NOT censored on the Canadian broadcast of the Emmy's.
Canadians heard it as it was said.
"...there would be no God damned wars in the first place!"
Shameful language like that has no place in the living rooms of America.
Talk about Big Brother.
I'm half Canadian -- my mom is from Edmundston, NB, near the Quebec border. I love Canadians, especially my mom.
gettin' ready to hit the road...I'll get back to ya' on Darfur.
Time for another Fax to some Congresspeople!
September 18, 2007
Dear Democratic Leader and Fellow Human Being:
Why are you not listed as a signatory to Representative Barbara Lee’s letter to the president regarding his occupation of Iraq?
http://tinyurl.com/35wf43
Is this not the will of the people in your district? Given you were voted into office as a Democrat last November specifically to stand up to the president and, above all else, end his occupation of Iraq, I doubt a majority in your district would object to the refreshingly clear language of the letter, which basically states that the members of the United States House of Representatives, by upholding their oaths of office and avoiding possible acts of treason, will be following the will of their constituents and will be deciding the fate of the lives of the remaining troops in Iraq from here on out, thank you very much Mr. President.
I am sending this letter to you and your Democratic colleagues because I did not see your name listed as one of the original 70 signatories to this letter, which includes Republican presidential candidate, Representative Ron Paul from Texas, whose political views I admire and respect.
According to Drew Carey, host of "Power of 10," a Rasmussen Reports poll for his show revealed that only 12% of Americans approved of staying in Iraq and finishing the job we started (http://www.billmaher.com/?page_id=207). I’m taking that as an 88% disapproval rating for remaining in Iraq.
Interestingly enough, according to an MSNBC online poll in which over 564,000 people have responded, a similar percentage (89%) think that the president’s actions while in office have justified impeachment (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/).
Even a highly respected man across all political parties, Mr. Alan Greenspan, makes it clear in his new book that he is disappointed in the behavior of the president, vice-president, and congressional Republicans, and he goes so far as to openly state: "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil" (http://tinyurl.com/3dnkw3).
It is clear that the American people are fed up with this president and with his occupation. Aren’t you?
Sincerely,
H. Nicole Young, Ph.D., Representative of the Citizens of the United States of America (ROC-USA).
hn_young@yahoo.com
This letter also posted at: http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com
CC:
Newly Elected Democratic Representatives Who Have Yet to Sign Up to End the Occupation of Iraq
Arizona:
*Representative Harry Mitchell (D - 05)
Phone: 202-225-2190
Fax: 202-225-3263
Webmail: http://mitchell.house.gov/contact/
*Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D - 08)
Phone: 202-225-2542
Fax: 202-225-0378
Webmail: http://giffords.house.gov/contact/email/
California:
*Representative Jerry McNerney (D - 11)
Phone: 202-225-1947
Fax: 202-225-4060
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Colorado:
*Representative Ed Perlmutter (D - 07)
Phone: 202-225-2645
Fax: 202-225-5278
Webmail: http://perlmutter.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
Connecticut:
*Representative Joe Courtney (D - 02)
Phone: 202-225-2076
Fax: 202-225-4977
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
*Representative Christopher Murphy (D - 05)
Phone: 202-225-4476
Fax: 202-225-5933
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/formchrismurphy/ic_zip_auth.htm
Florida:
*Representative Tim Edward Mahoney (D - 16)
Phone: 202-225-5792
Fax: 202-225-3132
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/formmahoney/issue_subscribe.htm
*Representative Ron J. Klein (D - 22)
Phone: 202-225-3026
Fax: 202-225-8398
Webmail: http://klein.house.gov/feedback.shtml
Indiana:
*Representative Joe Donnelly (D - 02)
Phone: 202-225-3915
Fax: 202-225-6798
Webmail: http://donnelly.house.gov/issue_subscribe.shtml
*Representative Brad Bradley (Brad) Ellsworth (D - 08)
Phone: 202-225-4636
Fax: 202-225-3284
Webmail: http://www.ellsworth.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=126&Itemid=
*Representative Baron P. Hill (D - 09)
Phone: 202-225-5315
Fax: 202-226-6866
Webmail: http://baronhill.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.shtml
Iowa:
*Representative Bruce Braley (D - 01)
Phone: 202-225-2911
Fax: 202-225-6666
Webmail: http://braley.house.gov/contactform/
Kansas:
*Representative Nancy Boyda (D - 02)
Phone: 202-225-6601
Fax: 202-225-7986
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Kentucky:
*Representative John Yarmuth (D - 03)
Phone: 202-225-5401
Fax: 202-225-5776
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/formyarmuth/zip_auth.htm
Minnesota:
*Representative Tim Walz (D - 01)
Phone: 202-225-2472
Fax: 202-225-3433
Webmail: http://walz.house.gov/ContactForm/ZipAuth.htm
New York:
*Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (D - 20)
Phone: 202-225-5614
Fax: 202-225-1168
Webmail: http://gillibrand.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
*Representative Michael Arcuri (D - 24)
Phone: 202-225-3665
Fax: 202-225-1891
Webmail: http://arcuri.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
*Representative Heath Shuler (D - 11)
Phone: 202-225-6401
Fax: 202-226-6422
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Ohio:
*Representative Charles Wilson (D - 06)
Phone: 202-225-5705
Fax: 202-225-5907
Webmail: http://charliewilson.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx
*Representative Zack T. Space (D - 18)
Phone: 202-225-6265
Fax: 202-225-3394
Webmail: http://space.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.shtml
Pennsylvania:
*Representative Jason Altmire (D - 04)
Phone: 202-225-2565
Fax: 202-226-2274
Webmail: http://altmire.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
*Representative Joe Sestak (D - 07)
Phone: 202-225-2011
Fax: 202-226-0280
Webmail: http://sestak.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
*Representative Patrick Murphy (D - 08)
Phone: 202-225-4276
Fax: 202-225-9511
Webmail: http://www.patrickmurphy.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=55&Itemid=86
*Representative Christopher Carney (D - 10)
Phone: 202-225-3731
Fax: 202-225-9594
Webmail: http://carney.house.gov/contact.shtml
Texas:
*Representative Nick Lampson (D - 22)
Phone: 202-225-5951
Fax: 202-225-5241
Webmail: http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Wisconsin:
*Representative Steve Kagen (D - 08)
Phone: 202-225-5665
Fax: 202-225-5729
Webmail: http://kagen.house.gov/IMA/issue_subscribe.htm
Hi Shoes! I found your site from a link you left at Bradblog.
Thanks for your excellent website & commenters who are very astute, with the exception of a couple who aren't quite up to speed, yet. Maybe in time?
Bill Maher IS A PUTZ. I may have watched him for the last time unless he apologizes [I was already just watching to hear his guests.] Could he be dating Coulter again?
Anyway, I have something more important than sassy comments to share. It's a plea for help from Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., National Commander, The Patriots.
He has written an "Open Letter to the New Generation of Military Officers Serving and Protecting Our Nation" ---
[snip] I contend that should some civilian order you to initiate a nuclear attack on Iran (for example), you are duty-bound to refuse that order. I might also suggest that you should consider whether the circumstances demand that you arrest whoever gave the order as a war criminal.
I know for a fact that in recent history (once under Nixon and once under Reagan), the military nuclear chain of command in the White House discussed these things and were prepared to refuse an order to “nuke Russia .” In effect they took the (non-existent) “button” out of the hands of the President.. We were thus never quite as close to World War III as many feared, no matter how irrational any president might have become. They determined that the proper response to any such order was, “Why, sir?” Unless there was (in their words) a “damn good answer,” nothing was going to happen.
================
The letter is very powerful and Bowman is an important ally.
His Webmaster has posted this plea:
September 13th, 2007
I am going to have to help Bob, and I ask for all of you to help me.
Bob is in Washington DC and phoned me asking for some kind of help. The problem is; he tried to get into the Pentagon, but was not allowed in. His security clearance is not valid according to the new rules. He needs help getting his letter to our Nations Military Leaders. Please help me get this letter on as many websites, and media as we can. I am looking foreword to your posts and letters.
===================
Bob's website is here:
http://www.thepatriots.us/
Thanks so much - & btw, h nicole - you ROC!
Will do, Kira. Very interesting situation. Thanks for the post!
What a great idea. I'm on it. Will do what I can...
BTW, Kira, if you are trying to get Senator Kerry to help on this, you may be barking up the wrong tree. I know a lot of people here may like him and respect him for his military duty, but I haven't trusted him much since he was the first and only Democratic congressperson to come out against the recent, excellent MoveOn.Org ad that questioned the validity of General Petraeus' facts.
However, you might want to recruit Kerry's most recent nemesis, Andrew Meyer from Univerity of Florida!
http://tinyurl.com/2p6gsh
Again, Shirley, I have to agree with you about Darfur -- no oil = no intervention. There's nothing for the administration and the cronies to gain there.
About a year or so ago, Esquire ran a piece on an international conference where various experts looked at how to improve life for people in the Third World. They concluded that if the rest of us pooled a very tiny amount of our wealth -- something like 1% per annum -- we could eliminate poverty throughout the world.
That would mean children wouldn't die of curable diseases, everyone would have clean drinking water, food and a decent place to live. And it would also eliminate much of the desperation that makes terrorism an appealing option.
Needless to say, just the idea of doing something that would benefit humanity as a whole (rather than just your super-rich friends) didn't even get acknowledged by you-know-who. Just the thought probably blew out the batteries in Cheney's "heart."
Somebody would have to crunch the numbers, but I suspect the cost of this occupation is some multiple above and beyond that number that you quote, Money.
Oh, yes, plus it's hard to gauge the true cost of the occupation, because there are going to be tremendous expenses incurred caring for the 200,000+ wounded Iraq war vets, suffering from everything from amputations to PTSD and TBI that will go on for years. Then there will be the mystery illnesses, like Gulf War Syndrome to deal with. The last estimate I saw was well over one trillion. It would only cost a small fraction of that to erase poverty, and the cost would spread among other nations.
Maybe the next administration will have a different, more humane world view.
Sometimes the things that seem so farfetched are because they seem too simple.
But what if it was that easy?
Some things are.
But when you have:
oil + war = $$$
no oil + humanitarian efforts = increased positive reputation but no immediate $$$$
H Nicole, thanks for posting your letter to Dem. Leaders & for the list of contact info. Much appreciated!
Last night I viewed the tasing of Andrew Meyer and was STUNNED, myself. There was absolutely no reason to tase that kid. It sounded like 4 times, to me. From an article I read last night, nearly 200 people have died from being tased in the last 5 yrs. Isn't that too much of a chance to take with a college kid?
Besides, he was clearly overpowered after the BIG dude picked him up & hauled him towards the exit and further overpowered after the 4 or 5 officers were holding him down on the floor. so why was it necessary then to tase the kid 4 times? Yea, Police State, we're there.
Kerry continues to disappoint. Is it the skull-n-boner connection, or was he threatened with being "Wellstoned" back in '04? Anyway, I can't help feeling Kerry is simply a "Player." Congress too.
I say we should start by IMPEACHING Pelosi, then maybe we can get started impeaching the rest of the criminals.
I feel certain you all know Col. Robert Bowman's work in the 9/11 Truth arena. Here's a link to a large collection of Bowman videos:
http://tinyurl.com/2rhykr
Wow! No, Col. Bowman was only in my peripheral vision on the 9/11 Truth Movement until after I read his letter (that you recommended to us here) to his fellow military comrades.
The letter, which is excellent and highly recommended reading BTW, doesn't mention 9/11 outright, but it certainly piqued my curiosity into the history behind this incredible person.
I want to be very guarded about my recommendations since some of my past "heroes" seem to have turned out to be trolls and/or operatives, but a cursory look into his writings, biography, and videos indicates this guy is the real deal and is probably ten times the military hero Petraeus' is! Very exciting.
As for impeaching Pelosi, if she does not sign on to the Lee Amendment (which basically says the say thing as the letter) and if she does not strong arm at least a few dozen house Democrats to join her, I say forget impeachment, let's start hearings on treason with the possibility of hangings.
Crank up the guillotine!
H Nicole, I too believe Dr. Bowman is the real deal. The 9/11 Truth community is suffering from infiltraitors spreading disinformation laced with truth & causing disorganization and disunity.
Regarding 9/11 & the Iraq War, I believe there are enough lies and mishandling by this administration to IMPEACH without even bringing up WHO did it or HOW. And once the process starts with testimony under oath, more information will come out. Shame on Congress for dragging their feet on such an important investigation.
what I mean is - I don't think we have to figure it all out, do we? Isn't that what a trial should do? I mean, obviously dick & bush are hiding something, why else have they refused to testify under oath?
I hope someone figures out how to get Congress to do something other than let Bush flip them off. So far, the entire group's performance has been underwhelming and I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's going to change anytime soon.
"So far, the entire group's performance has been underwhelming"...and you expected something more from a bunch of Dimohypocrits?
awright...kira....fresh meat.
bow wow...
Kira, don't take him seriously, it's like boxing with Jello.
much like this site is a fart in a tornado...
It's these Qui Tam cases I'm most interested in -- whistleblowers are the ones who may save the day in the end. That and a few brave media people, some of whom I've noticed have already begun to surface here and there.
It's people like Bill Maher that really have to make you wonder (and puke at the same time from the sheer ignorance of the statements). Funny thing is, he is known for having a minority opinion, so the 9/11 comments are no different in a way -- a minority opinion!
Here is a post I took down on 9/11 just to take a break, for the sake of 9/11:
In Lee's defense (eek!) I do remember Bill Clinton coming out pretty early with the "bin Laden did it" comment. I find it difficult to believe, though, that he did not know instantly exactly what had just happened, along with many congresspeople and probably most leaders of the world. It was, after all, a bit of an advertisement, among other things.
The events of 9/11 certainly did a fine job scaring the beegeebees out of Congress, especially when BushCo followed up with the anthrax "scare" on Congress, just to seal the deal and put the icing on the cake. Unity in Congress for sure! Just for all the wrong reasons, that's all.
To this end, hats off to former senator from Minnesota, Mark Dayton, for being the first and only congressperson to date that I am aware of to speak out against 9/11 lies,
http://tinyurl.com/yqeqk7
with the possible exception of Representative Keith Ellison, also from Minnesota, who compared Bush to Hitler and got his home district bridge destroyed and his constituents killed for his troubles. Remember him?
written version: http://tinyurl.com/2pqgc9
video version:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=031_1184599788
There goes Minnesota again. For a place supposedly low-key and out of the way, it sure gets a helluva lot of action. Where's Marge Gunderson when you need her?
why is it so hard for anyone to believe that political leaders knew almost immediately who was responsible for 9/11? Terrorists had been doing this for years to countries all over the world. That is why they pretty much assumed who was responsible not because they were all "in" on a secret.
Lee said: "Terrorists had been doing this for years to countries all over the world."
So you're saying terrorists had been flying jets into skyscrapers all over the world for years? Would love to see REPUTABLE, OBJECTIVE links to all those stories!
Thanks, Shoes. Should we feel compassion for the Hannitycapped?
Read slowly, Mr. Dense: No kidding terrorists weren't flying jets into skyscrapers over the world. I was referring to the terrorists attacks (in general) that occured all over the world BEFORE 9/11. Or, were your eyes & ears shut during those years (like Clinton's)?
Damn, I keep forgetting that terrorists don't really exist and that this "war on terra" is phony.
Excuse me.
The "War on Terra" is real, the reasons are phony.
The American people are more at risk of being injured by the pharmaceutical, insurance, tobacco, and fast food corporations than by any TERRORISTS.
Put things into perspective and get a grip, Lee.
"The American people are more at risk of being injured by the pharmaceutical, insurance, tobacco, and fast food corporations than by any TERRORISTS."
ROTFFLMFAO!!!
...gawd I think I may have just peed a little bit from laughing so hard...at my age it's hard to tell sometimes...which is ALMOST as sad as ANYBODY who would even give a statement like that ANY credibility.
Shoes: If you seel that we are so threatened by the pharmaceutical, insurance, tobacco and fast food corporations, why do you waste your time on the phony-baloney "terra" stuff? Why don't you go after them?
We should all be threatened by Big Pharma, insurance, tobacco, et al, because their profits are primarily derived from suffering and death. As I posted earlier:
"Here's one statistic: Nearly 200,000 Americans die each year from medical errors while in hospitals.
And look, here's a link to an actual news story from an unbiased source!
http://tinyurl.com/3bqlkd
But wait...there's more! Here's a story from FOX News reporting on a study that found deaths from prescription medications nearly tripled in the last few years, to nearly 90,000 annually.
http://tinyurl.com/24pjjp
So that's nearly 300,000 deaths each year just from hospital errors and legal prescription drugs. And you still think we should be worried about terrorists coming to get us? You don't have to be a statistician to see how wrong you are."
And here's another point: Do you think the insurance industry makes profits by paying for the ever-increasing costs of medical care? No possible way. They make money by denying care to people who have been paying premiums, which are becoming increasingly unaffordable. That's why nearly 50 million Americans now have no health insurance. There is no other non-third-world country where that would be allowed to happen.
"Here's one statistic: Nearly 200,000 Americans die each year from medical errors while in hospitals."
Simple solution...just kill all the doctors.
"deaths from prescription medications nearly tripled in the last few years, to nearly 90,000 annually."
Simple solution...Kill all the pharmacists and make all medication illegal.
See...it wasn't so hard to come up with a solution was it? Problem solved....next.
Post a Comment