Now we have King George in the USA..proof

I'd say Osama is now more an idea than a man.

To repeat what I said earlier, it's likely OBL has died many times, including the original. There's always someone else to pick upt he beard and video camera.

that your proof is worth nothing more than toilet paper. How are you going to accuse Bush's grandfather of doing business with the Nazis when they weren't in power when you said he did it?

There should still be a trial, even if Osama is dead. As I stated at the beginning, we don't have evidence that Osama committed or masterminded the crime beyond a video that supposedly has him saying he did it, but doesn't even feature him. Other possible murderers should also be ascertained and investigated. Further, there should be investigation of each individual supposed hijacker. If people were supporting them here or abroad, that's something I'd expect even you to want to know.

The Nazi Party was in existence as early as 1919. That's why :::heeeeeesh:::::

http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/germany/lectures/25naziorigins.html

I thought that was what the 9/11 Commission was for

9-11 Commission was for getting the Bush administration off the hook.

You mean the Commission whose results were censored and stifled by the government because of, and I quote, "potentially damning evidence against the administration that could humiliate or incriminate key members of the cabinet"?

No, that's not what the 9/11 commission was for. They raised questions in their report that go uninvestigated today. If they were a continuing investigative body, they would still be investigating things. Further, they don't have legal authority to prosecute anyone, should they find someone to prosecute. Also, as far as I know, the results of their report have not been entered into any court proceedings to date.

since it was bipartisan and all sure.

stifled by whom?

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

some stifling job, its widely available.

Agree 100% with this.

Much like 9/11 being a large terrorist attack on our own country and waking all of us up to terrorism, even though it has existed for eternity and has befallen us before as well as courses through the rest of the world.

9/11 was a "zOMG WTF?!" moment for us. It awoke many from the ignorant bliss of their happy little capitalist lives, and shook them into understanding that none of us are truely safe no matter where we go.

Sometimes it takes a huge slap in the face to realize something is going on out there we should be outraged and/or involved in.


The 750ish Bush slashes to laws are also a "zOMG WTF?!" moment for many. Many of us wouldn't have thought/knew that was possible or allowed or going on like it is. Therefore, we're now awaking from our blissful slumbers uttering "he does what now? WTF?"

We like to go around thinking that while the government doesn't always act "correctly" or "in our best interest" sometimes they're at least following the rules put in place for them. Now? Shocker .. they aren't following them, and the ones they're forced to follow they can just pull a pen out and scribble a comment on a napkin and give themselves permission to disobey.

Law is equal parts past and future. Half the time you should be looking back and finding reasons/cases why you can credit (or discredit) a specific moment in time. "The people vs _____ shows that ____ is legal and ____ is not type" moments. The other half of the time you need to keep your eyes to the future, and wonder "if we rule this way NOW, how will that effect future decisions and laws?"

If we turn a blind eye and let this President slash 750 laws however he chooses what right do we have to say anything about a future President that slashes 1000?

If we let government have an inch of rope NOW ... how long before they turn it into enough to hang us by later without us even knowing?


The whole "I have no problem with them spying on my conversations on the phone" topic comes to mind. If you let them spy on your phone conversations now ... what can they turn that into later? Will you stand up when they put cameras on every streetcorner to "watch for terrorists" but now you can't buy a newspaper or nudie-mag without them knowing what you like to read? Will you let them open and read your private mail next - I mean .. what if it is mail from a terrorist? "I have nothing to hide," some say. Well, good for you .. know what? .. neither do I ... but I personally LIKE having privacy here in the US ... it is something I value as a freedom. Will you let them implant tracking chips in everyone so they can tell us apart from 'terrorists'?


Or the flag burning amendment. (BTW, a guy here at work told me the only two nations on the planet that outlaw flag burning are Cuba and China ... good company we'd be in, isn't it?) Make it illegal to burn a flag. What is next .. if you accidentally drop it you're fined? To some if it touches the ground it is a travesty. Own bedsheets that have a flag on them? Blasphemy. Your T-shirt have a flag? Well I don't think you should be allowed to wear that, because you could get it dirty, and as a flag that would upset people.



It just rolls out of hand WAY too fast. ... you have to stand up and stop it sometimes. Sadly, we can't really do anything about ANY of it anymore. The common person has no ability in government anymore. It is elitest, and closed.

The most you can do is vote against someone ... but ... that can always be changed as well, nowadays.

http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

some stifling job, its widely available.

That's the 9/11 report, which does not reflect all findings due to the censorship that was imposed upon it. DO you really forget news that is only a couple of years past?

That's cute. You actually think that means anything.

yes I do. You honestly believe that had the Democrats found anything remotely damaging to the current administration they would have blared it to every reporter they could

If you'd care to review news footage from the day of 9/11, you will discover that reporters were indeed venturing remotely damaging things until they were promptly told to hush up.

told by who? and what were they saying? every news program I watched they told what they thought and didn't get hushed up.

I'll go you one better.

I don't think reporters would have cared, It's not like the attacks on 9-11 had anything to do with a missing blonde woman.

You'll note then that several reporters commented on the explosion at the pentagon and the way the towers fell. You'll then note that the following day that they didn't care to either repeat or expound on their original thoughts when that seems to be all they do these days and in the past. If Natalie Holloway was 9/11, for instance, nobody would have ever dredged a lagoon or lake or whatever looking for her due to lack of coverage.

I'm not going to guess at who told them to hush up as that is something best left to the same investigators who should be looking into the culprits behind 9/11.

Their tapes were confiscated that suggested that the Pentagon strike was an antitank missile or stunt jet instead of an airliner.

Fox News's CEO sent an order to the anchors, editors, and other staff to intentionally avoid stories that could hurt the President and to spin the stories that might. This was after a discussion with the existing Press Secretary.

Proof?

Have you seen any?

That tapes were confiscated? No. Hence, my question

Have you seen any tapes?

An AP reporter and some independant people were able to get their digital media uploaded to the internet before it was confiscated. It's been compiled by someone into a small presentation about the BS of the Pentagon strike.

Some of it is also pictures of the wreck. It asks two very poigniant questions: 1) where's the rubble from the aircraft? Airplane crashes are messy affairs, but there was only white sheetrock powder everywhere, and 2) Why are the holes in the cement layer walls in a pattern consistant with an armor-piercing shaped charge?