Skip to main content

View Diary: Condi Lied: Declassified Memo from Clarke (416 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Bush is a regular killing machine (4.00)
    But when you posit that he wanted 3,000 people dead to further his own agenda you sound ridiculous.

    Although I don't think Bush had a hand in 9/11 (complicit, maybe), take a look at the numbers:

    1. Bush killed 156 people while he was governor of Texas to "further his agenda". That's more than executed in all 49 other states combined during the same period.

    2. Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of over 1400 American servicemen to "further his agenda".

    3. Bush killed tens of thousands of Iraqis to "further his agenda".

    4. Bush is talking about killing lots of people in Iran and Syria to "further his agenda".

    5. More indirectly, Bush was a vociferous supporter of the Vietnam War, as long as he didn't have to go. So he would happily cause the deaths of plenty of other Americans (and lots of Vietnamese) there too in order to "further his agenda".

    Regardless of whether Bush was involved in 9/11, there's lots of evidence that George W. Bush is more than happy to kill lots of people to "further his agenda".  

    Bush has absolutely no problem killing people.

    "Those who betray the trust...are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - George HW Bush

    by DavidW in SF on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:15:11 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  there's a pretty clear difference (none)
      between your examples and the intentional murder of innocent American.

      Many presidents in recent history, Dem and Rep, have sent soldiers to die, and supported bombing raids on foreign cities to advance their political agenda.

      None have killed thousands of innocent Americans civilians at work as far as I know.  I hope you can see how big of a leap that would really be.

      "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

      by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:29:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  One would be shocked, (4.00)
        (hopefully) to imagine ships, blessed by Church leaders, yet filled with human life, many of whom perished on the voyage, in crawl spaces no higher than 18 inches, give or take,  to be sold on distant shores - yet, it happened.

        Many would be shocked, by a young, former soldier, bombing a building full of human beings in Oklahoma - yet it happened.

        I wouldn't be shocked, that an asshole, who from all appearances, never worked an honest day in his life, yet continually punishes those who have, and is, at least in part, responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 human beings - allowed 3,000 fellow human beings to die.

        What an excellent day for an Exorcism.... Social Security THERE IS NO CRISIS!

        by DianeL on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 07:57:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  n/t (4.00)
        there's a pretty clear difference between your examples and the intentional murder of innocent American.

        Goddamn it, no there isn't !

        As Governor of Texas, he had a responsibility to review clemency pleas prior to executions. By all accounts he and Gonzales willfully shirked that responsibility. The direct consequence of that was the death of those people. Even Bush's coke and booze damaged brain should understand that. If he wasn't prepared to take the responsibilities of the Governor seriously, he had no business seeking that office.

        Equally, the pretext for invasion of Iraq was trumped up and fabricated.

        Gonzales drew up memos permitting torture. Tortured prisoners died in Abu Ghraib. The best I can say for Bush is that he was ignorant of this memorandum. If other leaks are to be believed he signed an executive order permitting torture.

        In all these cases Bush's lack of due diligence (to put it mildly) had an entirely predictable conqsequence.

        Yes, this is not the same as pulling the trigger himself, but he still bears the responsibility: the responsibility to take such very grave decisions with the utmost seriousness and diligence. He singularly failed to do that. Just as he failed to heed clear warnings about Al Qaeda.

        Other presidents have certainly taken military decisions that led to the loss of life. I'm hard pressed to think of a case where the ONLY justification was furthering their political agenda. I believe Clinton did it formostly because it was the right thing to do. I absolutley fail to see what political advantage Clinton gained from say Somalia or Bosnia.


      •  Uh, beg to differ here (none)
        None have killed thousands of innocent Americans civilians at work as far as I know

        The Tuskegee Airmen were just doing their jobs and got killed all because the US Gummint wanted to study late-stage spyhillus.

        The US government also fed radioactive food to retarded children and released nuclear radiation over populations centers to see what would happen.

        There are a few ways to say the current administration didn't deliberately plan or allow this attack to happen, but the idea that 'the government would never do THAT' ain't one of'm.

        •  Just because it's possible, (none)
          doesn't mean it's even remotely likely.

          And it's still no small jump from the executions of convicted criminals in Texas to taking an active part in the massacre of innocent American civilians.

          "If immortality is found in the absence of time rather than infinite stretches of time, then those who live in the present live forever."

          by WAmod on Thu Feb 10, 2005 at 10:47:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Radiation (none)
          At Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, NY, unkowing patients were given plutonium. I think this occurred in 1948 but I can't recall.  This came out after a similar story broke.
        •  Tuskeegee (none)
          The Tuskeegee Airmen and the Tuskeegee syphilus "study" did not involve the same people. They are both connected with the same geographic place, but that is it.
      •  But Lincoln . . . (none)

         . . . and his brethren (excepting Bush) actually seemed to be genuinely bothered by it.  Even Grant (when he was Generaling) and Ike and, hell, I think Reagan was, deep down, actually bothered by those 241 Marines killed in a second in Lebanon.  

          But W. Bush is, in my opinion, a classic sociopath narcissist -- no conscience whatsoever.  His only sense of "duty" is to jack-up his own, bent, warped self-esteem demons.  A two-year-old, n desparate need of a nap, with a machine gun.  And he's in the Oval Office. . .


        "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

        by BenGoshi on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 05:11:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Dialogue from the Godfather (none)
      Remember when Michael showed up suddenly and surprised Kay after being absent for several years.  The dialogue went something like this:

      Michael: My father is no different from other men in power.  A governor, a senator, a President.

      Kay: But Michael, your father kills people.

      Michael: Look at who is being naiive now, Kay.

      During the 50's, the CIA hired armies to overthrow "leftist" states in the Americas and sent the Marines in to Lebanon.  Fifty years later, we rent existing armies in Afghanistan (the Northern Alliance) and overthrow a secular, leftist state in Iraq that gets replaced by (perhaps) a bunch of Muslim theocrats.

      What's changed: We replaced the Monroe Doctrine for the Bush Doctrine.  Now we don't limit ourselves by geography.

      (In a largely meaningless aside, did you see the picture of Condi shaking hands with French president Jacques Chirac.  She was avoiding him and looking at the camera.  He was looking at her and shaking her hand.  It looked scuzzy and kinda disgusting.)

    •  Let's not forget Cheney (4.00)
      Maybe you have a hard time believing Bush would kill 3000 Americans, but do you have a hard time believing Cheney would?

      Bush and crew knew there would be a hijacking. They figured that they would let it happen because it did further their agenda. In all likelihood, they never ever expected that it would result in the WTC collapsing and falling down. WHO THE HELL DID? We didn't even believe it after it happened! That morning, watching them burn, we thought about the people jumping, the fires. I could imagine the burnt-out shells of the Towers smoking over Manhattan.

      But noone outside of the barking mad believed that they would fall down. So my money is that only Cheney expected the outcome.

      You don't think it's possible that BushCo knew that there was a threat and let it proceed? They expected a hijacking with hostages. They expected a hijacking that attempted to fly into something that would be symbolic but not result in the deaths of thousands. That much is already covered by the 9-11 Commission Report, since those are the scenarios directly warned against in the appendices.

      So perhaps Bush didn't know that he was willingly sacrificing 3000 people when they agreed to let the situation play itself out. Perhaps Bush wouldn't even have been willing to make that sacrifice.

      But Dick Cheney sure as hell would be willing to kill Americans. He ordered the shoot-down of Flight 93. And he is cold-blooded enough to immediately see the opportunities that this attack presented. He argued for bombing Iraq that very day. Cheney knew that this was their chance - just as the PNAC manifestos that he's signed had stated such an attack would be.

      Bush is misguided, ignorant, anti-intellectual, vulgar, sexist, and suffering from a religious mania. But Cheney is evil. He will lie while looking you in the eye. He will sacrifice tens of thousands of lives for profit. He wants power at all costs. He's Sauron - he'd willingly trade 3000 Americans for his plans. He does it every day.

      Watching Clarke - meticulous, certain, a powerful survivor in a tough government bureaucracy - testify before the Commission made one thing crystal clear: he had documentary proof for every statement he made. He's got copy of all the files he referenced.

      And we're going to get to see them all before this is over.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site