Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The whole Able Danger thing is a mess. I refuse to comment on it until more comes out.

Hey, has Rove been indicted yet?

well yes. but until it comes clearer, these guys should really shut up, shouldn't they? And Ramsi whatever's computer did have the 9/11 attack outlined and in our possesion 96 or 97.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
well yes. but until it comes clearer, these guys should really shut up, shouldn't they? And Ramsi whatever's computer did have the 9/11 attack outlined and in our possesion 96 or 97.

Hank,

If I wanted to watch Inside 9/11 again, I'd play it again on my DVR. Yes, Clinton had a shot to kill bin Laden in the late 90s and didn't. Would that have stopped 9/11. No, because as the special noted, 9/11 was planned by Khalid Sheikh Muhammed.

I agree the responsibility can be parcelled out. I happen to think that parcelling shoould be Clinton 20, Bush 80.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
the liberals will never admit this. they can't. they are fully vested in upholding the myth of Clinton at any cost. Lawyers who refuse to admit that perjury is a bad thing. All of sudden there is a non-statutory "if its about sex" exception to the perjury laws. Its mind boggling.

Same with 911. Clinton, 8 years, Bush 8 months. Same intel, but Bush is responsible. Better yet, even if Clinton's ommission might have had some small affect, its trumped by Bush's fuck ups, if any, in Iraq policy (notwithstanding that Clinton told us that until Saddam was removed, he posed a huge threat of destabilization to the region and the pursuit and use of WMDs). Bush's alleged "mistakes" in Iraq, that to date haven't resulted in 2000 American deaths, are more egregious than Clinton's mistakes that resulted in the first foreign attack, of any substance, on US soil, by a foreign army since WWII, ad 3000 American deaths in a matter of hours.

With the liberals its blame us first, black is white, up is down, through the looking glass and no looking back.

No, thats you're warped view of "liberals." I'd have been MORE aggressive, turning Afghanistan into glass, then I'dhave pushed for further sanctions on Iran which would destabilize it so badly the mullahs would topple. And I'd take the gloves off the CIA and let them assassinate mullahs everywhere, all the time. This "liberal" thinks we should exterminate radical Islamists and poison those we don't kill with western culture, to get them fat, lazy and irreligious. And take thie fucking oil while we're at it.

I hate Bush most because he half assed this thing and fucked it all up.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No, thats you're warped view of "liberals." I'd have been MORE aggressive turned Afghanistan into glass, then pushed for further sanctions on Iran which would destabilize it so badly the mullahs would topple.

I read your 9/11/01 posts recently. i didn't read them just to read your's but your's were the only by someone I recognized.

You aren't a liberal, at least as to posts. You're sort of gonzo-demented. I agree putting you, or at least your board persona, in the White House would help take out the terrorists. Porno piped in over VOA, carpet bombing anyone who truly fucked with us etc.

You wouldn't get the Democratic nomination though Seb. Ty's the kind of guy they'd run

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes, Clinton had a shot to kill bin Laden in the late 90s and didn't.

I don't understand how the same people who say Clinton was somehow criminally negligent for failing to get bin Laden before 9/11 can ignore the fact that the man has been loose in the mountains of Afghanistan for years now. Let's face it, he's not an easy man to track down, and Clinton was under all sorts of constraints Bush isn't.

And if you look into the details of the bin Laden/Sudan thing, it just didn't happen the way Penske and Hank would have it. Which is not surprising, because they seem to have informed themselves solely from conservative trolls' comments on the DU board.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I read your 9/11/01 posts recently. i didn't read them just to read your's but your's were the only by someone I recognized.

You aren't a liberal, at least as to posts. You're sort of gonzo-demented. I agree putting you, or at least your board persona, in the White House would help take out the terrorists. Porno piped in over VOA, carpet bombing anyone who truly fucked with us etc.

You wouldn't get the Democratic nomination though Seb. Ty's the kind of guy they'd run

You mean this thing below? This Hallmarky bit was about the only piece I've followed consistently since. Correction. I tried to follow it. But its kinda hard in the United States of Today to not be a cynic, isn't it. Call Clinton a liar and a degenerate, but I felt good when he was in. I don't know why, but I know I don't feel good about the man presently running things. Granted, he's got a tough gig handed to him, and I think he's trying to do his best. But its damn hard to fell safe, right, "good" behind a bunch of people who lie and behave so heavy handedly and laugh off everything with a "fuck it, alls fair in politics" smirk. 9/11 made me actually want to drop being a cynic for a while. Iraq fixed that. I'm twice the cynic I was. Thats OK, but the real sin is people coming of age now, who will think behaving like Bush and his criminal cabal of advisors is OK. We're going to be a very fucking jaded nation for a while.

But fuck it. I like insulting rubes. Bring it on.

ETA: God was I a pompous, flowery writer. Was?

"Anybody,

Perhaps this isn't the best forum for this sort of thing, but here goes...

In the past week, unless you were in a cave on Mars, chances are you had a chance to reflect on your life. I sat back and thought about what I was doing and what I was chasing. In a moment of painful lucidity, all the material things I was chasing seemed superfluous. I can't take my suit, watch or car with me. I didn't think about whethger my investments were safely backed up on some computer in case the NYSE was wiped out. I didn't carefully hide my checkbook or my briefcase under the desk when I walked out of the office on Tuesday. I didn't call the garage to see that my car was safe. I didn't give a fuck about any of those things.

I called my girlfriend, and I called my parents and friends, and like everyone, we all commiserated about the horrendous loss of life. I thought about friends I had who worked in and near those twoers, and having been at the tops of those towers more times than I can imagine, I thought about the horror of those who fell. For the first time in an awfully long time, I actually felt an emotion knife through what has unfortunately become a very cynical exterior. I think law makes many of us cynical. We tend not to trust. We are suspicious. That's not necessarily bad. We need to be cautious to survive in this business. But when horrors like this occur, its quite soul-cleanising and liberating to step back and reflect, and make a conscious effort not to let the cynicism of our business infect our personal lives. Its also important to remember all you have is time, and no matter the money you make, you can never buy back the time lost.

S(yeh... I know... this is like a goddamn Hallmark card, but indulge me...)D"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't understand how the same people who say Clinton was somehow criminally negligent for failing to get bin Laden before 9/11 can ignore the fact that the man has been loose in the mountains of Afghanistan for years now. Let's face it, he's not an easy man to track down, and Clinton was under all sorts of constraints Bush isn't.

And if you look into the details of the bin Laden/Sudan thing, it just didn't happen the way Penske and Hank would have it. Which is not surprising, because they seem to have informed themselves solely from conservative trolls' comments on the DU board.

I don't really blame you, and i think Penske doesn't either, really if the truth came out. But your tone of post seems to suggest that you blame yourself and your party. i understand why you would, but I'm sorry you carry that blame.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
. Let's face it, he's not an easy man to track down, and Clinton was under all sorts of constraints Bush isn't.

By "constraints" do you mean the gorelick wall or the fact that he had elevated masturbating into the Oval Office sink while a 20 year old intern watches to a priority agenda item?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


And if you look into the details of the bin Laden/Sudan thing, it just didn't happen the way Penske and Hank would have it. Which is not surprising, because they seem to have informed themselves solely from conservative trolls' comments on the DU board.

Ty, stick with that. Defend Clinton at all costs, blame Bush. The more I look at and listen to what Lt. Col. Tony Schafer is saying the more I, to some extent sadly, come to the conclusion that this is finally the schmoking gun that will expose Clinton for the Arkansas side show huckster that the Right correctly identified him as over a decade ago. The lid is about to blow off the liberal's betrayal of our national defence which will make Clinton's attempt to sell out Israel to a second holocaust look like a trip to Magic Mountain. The only hope I have is that if someone needs to be hung in the public square that it is not Bill Clinton (because I think he was a sex addicted dupe for larger forces of evil), but rather Gorelick and Hillary (although I am sure the RedChinese will give them asylum).

THE ONGOING CONTROVERSY over the Able Danger project deepened this week when two more sources from the U.S. Army data-mining project came forward. Navy Captain Scott Phillpott and civilian contractor James Smith joined Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer in claiming that Able Danger identified Mohammed Atta and three other 9/11 hijackers as potential al Qaeda operatives well before the attacks. Phillpott specifically told the New York Times when he went public that Able Danger made that connection between January and February of 2000, 19 months before the attack However, after 9/11, Czech intelligence privately told the United States that it had evidence that al-Ani met with Mohammed Atta on April 9, 2001. Later, the Czechs went public with the information--and to this day, the Czechs insistently stand behind this intelligence.

However, the 9/11 Commission disregarded the Czech intelligence and declared that Atta had never gone to Prague in April 2001


WOW! Iraq and 911 were part of the same whole!!!!!!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't really blame you, and i think Penske doesn't either, really if the truth came out. But your tone of post seems to suggest that you blame yourself and your party. i understand why you would, but I'm sorry you carry that blame.

I don't blame Ty, I just hope that when the truth comes out he can forgive himself for being fooled time and again by these snake oil salesmen. And apologize to us......perhaps we can reinstate at least some of the deleted posts.

[Penske_Account]

Washington began to pressure the Sudanese government in 1995 to shut down Islamist terrorists operating from Khartoum and even threatened to close our embassy in early 1996. Fearing the consequences for international investment in Sudan, the government began making a series of overtures to Washington. Of particular significance were two meetings held in Washington in March 1996. What happened at those meetings between the Sudanese Defense Minister and officials from the State Department and CIA continues to be the subject of controversy.

Did the Sudanese government offer to turn Bin Laden over the U.S. during these meetings, as its officials claim? Current and former administration officials say no. Richard Clarke in his book Against All Enemies labels such reports a "fable." In October 2002, CIA Director George Tenet told congressional investigators that the agency "has no knowledge of such an offer." And the 9/11 commission seems to have taken their word for it. In a report issued on the first day of the hearings, it concluded that "We have not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

In coming to that conclusion, it appears that the commission has overlooked the testimony of one key player. Newsmax.com has an audiotape of President Bill Clinton telling an audience in February 2002 that "I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America." He said that he had "pleaded with the Saudis to take him," but they refused. Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden, writes that Clinton told his dinner companions in late 2001 that turning down Sudan's offer in May 1996 was "the biggest mistake of my presidency."

Newsmax writes that it repeatedly offered the audiotape to the 9/11 commission. According to its account, "At no time did the commission express any interest in obtaining a copy of the recording, or request the original tape to verify its authenticity." No commissioner raised questions about Clinton's account during two days of public testimony. Clinton had originally offered to testify publicly, but now has agreed only to a closed-door appearance.

Of course it refused, how else could Gorelick and Ben veniste perpetuate the fraud on the American public?

[Penske_Account]

..........

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I want a glass of whatever Penske was drinking tonight.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I want a glass of whatever Penske was drinking tonight.

Repeat:

Latitude 46º Clifton Cuvee 2004

I've got a few more bottles, next time you are in Seattle......

[SlaveNoMore]

Penske_Account
I've got a few more bottles, next time you are in Seattle......

Don't believe 'em. I was there for 2 years and he still owes me cigars and lap dances from '02

[Ty@50]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Hank,

If I wanted to watch Inside 9/11 again, I'd play it again on my DVR. Yes, Clinton had a shot to kill bin Laden in the late 90s and didn't. Would that have stopped 9/11. No, because as the special noted, 9/11 was planned by Khalid Sheikh Muhammed.

I agree the responsibility can be parcelled out. I happen to think that parcelling shoould be Clinton 20, Bush 80.

Sebastian, I am Ty writing from 15 years in the future- Bill Gates is a f'ing genius, and a great President. Anyway, I regret almost all of my posts from 2002-2007. In 2007 much came out that proved Hank and Penske correct. I eventually admitted I was wrong, when Paigow (by than an admin) threatened to have my sock deleted.

I'll give you more details as time goes on, and as appropriate.

btw- in 2009 you start hormone treatments for a sex change. Just some advice, stay out of the sun starting now and do what you can to keep your skin nicer. Other than the leather face you will make a comely young woman some day, and a little less sun today might ensure a few more lustful stares in 5 years.

By for now.