Are You SURE About 9-11?

[Jackie S]

Hey, I'm still trying to figure out how two old white guys, Bush and Cheney, blew up those dykes in New Orleans after Katrina.

[Mr. Bill]

Please - whatever anyone says - don't mention that...

1) there were no planes crashing into the WTC Towers on 9/11
2) several of the so-called hijackers are alive (after the fact)

Carry on...


.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

especially the failure to gather and interpret necessary intelligence about al Qaeda operatives living and training in this country.

care to remind everyone how the republican congress did everything in their power to stop clinton at every Al Qaeda turn during his term?

As a result, the CIA no longer could "recruit, train and sustain officers for our clandestine services" and "the nation's human intelligence capability was in disarray.

"By the mid-1990s the Intelligence Community was operating with significant erosion in resources and people and was unable to keep pace with technological change. When I became DCI, I found a Community and a CIA whose dollars were declining and whose expertise was ebbing.

• We lost close to 25 percent of our people and billions of dollars in capital investment.
• The pace of technological change and a $3 trillion telecommunications revolution challenged the National Security Agency’s ability to keep up with the increasing volume and velocity of modern communications.
• The infrastructure to recruit, train, and sustain officers for our clandestine services—the nation’s human intelligence capability—was in disarray.
• We were not hiring new analysts, emphasizing the importance of expertise, or giving analysts the tools they needed."

CIA Director George J. Tenet testifying at the 9/11 Commission, April 14, 2004.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2004/tenet_testimony_04142004.htm


BTW, your "biased article" is from: http://driventotears.com/HTML/911.html


The “Senate.gov” you cited is invalid: "Requested Page Not Found (404)"

[CJ7]

The “Senate.gov” you cited is invalid: "Requested Page Not Found (404)"


see the ( ) scattered throughout the article ... hold your mouse on them and click ... some still work even though they are old ... iagine that


Clinton huh? .... still deflecting. Not to mention the original comment I made was from your wiki copy/paste and you want to deflect AND argue about it.

LMAO.

The End.

[Sa_artman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Gawd, you moron! Ad hominen attack? Bullshit! I never called you gay!

Oh so clever...Lawyer my ass, they can't all be so witty and smart like you.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

The “Senate.gov” you cited is invalid: "Requested Page Not Found (404)"


see the ( ) scattered throughout the article ... hold your mouse on them and click ... some still work even though they are old ... iagine that


Clinton huh? .... still deflecting. Not to mention the original comment I made was from your wiki copy/paste and you want to deflect AND argue about it.

LMAO.

The End.

It's not quite a copy and paste, but if you don't want to check, that's on you, you Liberal-Moronic-Asshole-Obamanite. And your comment WAS addressed. But because you have limited reading skills, it is understandable that you didn't understand.

BTW, your "Driventotears" website still lacks credibility.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by essence

ps

I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

I think not. Goldwater was whacko.

Johnson ran as a peace candidate against Goldwater; knowing full well he was on the verge of escalating the Vietnam War in 1964.

We are on the verge of bankruptcy largely due to the social welfare programs started under Johnson.

We would be better off today if Goldwater had won.

[CJ7]

BTW, your "Driventotears" website still lacks credibility


so rather than whine about credibility why dont you debunk all of their comments? should be easy enough to do for the guy people deem as SMART...

or is it easier to sit in the corner, whine, and point fingers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you Liberal-Moronic-Asshole-Obamanite


umm, Im and independent BTW.
you're a high road, name calling right winger

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

BTW, your "Driventotears" website still lacks credibility


so rather than whine about credibility why dont you debunk all of their comments? should be easy enough to do for the guy people deem as SMART...

or is it easier to sit in the corner, whine, and point fingers?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

you Liberal-Moronic-Asshole-Obamanite


umm, Im and independent BTW.
you're a high road, name calling right winger

You've been tossing around a few disparaging names yourself, so obviously you don't mind being a hypocrite. What say you post credible and relevant cites that support your arguments rather than assuming no one will call your bluffs.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You've been tossing around a few disparaging names yourself, so obviously you don't mind being a hypocrite. What say you post credible and relevant cites that support your arguments rather than assuming no one will call your bluffs.

my bluffs?

hahahahahahaha


did you click the ( ) in the article like I ask you to do SMART GUY? they take you to the source of the quotes printed in the uncredible article ... some were even fron the WSJ and we all know what direction they lean.

you want me to do it for you I suppose???

my my, how very liberal of you

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

my bluffs?

hahahahahahaha


did you click the ( ) in the article like I ask you to do SMART GUY? they take you to the source of the quotes printed in the uncredible article ... some were even fron the WSJ and we all know what direction they lean.

you want me to do it for you I suppose???

my my, how very liberal of you

Face it - first and foremost, your source is not credible!

[CJ7]

Face it - first and foremost, your source is not credible!


using first and foremost while acceptable is totally redundant

ergo discredit my source

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

Face it - first and foremost, your source is not credible!


using first and foremost while acceptable is totally redundant

ergo discredit my source

Damn! You better start looking at the shit you've posted before you begin to criticize others for grammar, etc.

Your source is "Driventotears.com" - a liberal rant. What else needs to be said, it discredits itself.

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Damn! You better start looking at the shit you've posted before you begin to criticize others for grammar, etc.

Your source is "Driventotears.com" - a liberal rant. What else needs to be said, it discredits itself.

first, grammar has nothing to do with it, redundant on the other hand does ... Einstein should know that! So whats your excuse?

Foremost, your inability to discredit anything by simply saying sources arent credible, lends no credibility to your comments ...

prove theyre not credible or STFU

see how that works, Einstein?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by CJ7

first, grammar has nothing to do with it, redundant on the other hand does ... Einstein should know that! So whats your excuse?

Foremost, your inability to discredit anything by simply saying sources arent credible, lends no credibility to your comments ...

prove theyre not credible or STFU

see how that works, Einstein?

You have not acknowledged with a single word - per Tenet's testimony - that by 1995 Clinton had gutted the CIA crippling its ability to gather intelligence! Your cite is a liberal rant, so STFU!