FretsAflame said:
Because she couldn't have been hassled because she didn't have her pass and punched an officer? That's the only harrassment she's received that I know of. And why would the democrats want to reopen the 911 commission when the majority of it's members were officials in the clinton administration? The 9/11 Commission Report is often touted as a 'clinton coverup' so to speak.
Granted there are 1 or 2 things I personally find compelling, but I give these videos very little merit. In my opinion, it is perfectly fine to ask questions, particularly if you sense there is something amiss. What is not okay, however, is NOT asking questions under the guise of actually asking questions. When I watch a video and come away with more questions on how the film was made, by who, why, when, where they got their information, what their sources were, what scientific evidence (verifiable) confirms some of their suspicions etc; I do not think of it as a compelling video in the aggregate. Many of the theories and explanations offered simply left me with more questions; is it possible that cracking concrete sounds like explosive? Is that a person jumping of their own free will? Are those terrorists who were claimed to be 'alive' in fact alive, or are there people with their same name alive and well, and was there confusion in identifying them? (This is actually the case with several of the people he mentioned).
It seems to me that this video glosses over far too many facts, and even more questions to actually be worthwhile. If this video leaves you with questions I encourage you to look on your own, rather than take this video as hard fact incarnate, especially when the motives of the maker can be called into question as well.
My advice if you want it: If you're going to question something, question everything.
I live by your last statement.
First of all, McKinney has been harrassed on several occasions at the Capitol. This isn't the first. Sure, she didn't have her badge on but Bill Frist, Trent Lott and the like routinely don't wear their badges either, and are
never harrassed by the police. This was her whole point with this incident. She shouldn't have gotten physical, regardless.
The 9/11 Commission Report and the Clinton connection have absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. That mini-scandal was about the thwarted attacks of '99 and how they were handled. The report also raises many questions that have yet to be answered.
The videos are both compelling and ridiculous, but they really don't show much that hasn't been said before. In a way, they are kinda like a Michael Moore production - some of the fact gathering (and the presentation thereof) is a little shady, but he still brings up points that cannot be ignored. I don't know what to think, but I
do know for a fact that there is a precedent for the U.S. government to conduct conspiracies and coverups. Something fishy is going on, but I still don't know if it's something that's for our own good in the grand scheme of things - or not.
I'm a network newshound, and I watch them all. Here are a couple of pretty significant mysteries related to 9/11 and the war on terror that I remember being covered by the major networks and "forgot" about. This is from what
I remember seeing - not something I got from any conspiracy videos or whatnot -
1. A man in Pakistan claims that his picture was shown as one of the 9/11 hijackers - but he is alive and well and owns a store in Pakistan. The man is outraged. WTF happened to this story???
2. After the attacks of 9/11, traces of anthrax were found in the trunk of the rental car the hijackers had left behind in Boston. Also, the first person to die of anthrax poisoning post-9/11 was the ex-husband of a woman who
rented an apartment to two of the terrorists in Florida. But then the Bush administration tried to blame it on some white dude scientist, until he proved his innocence. WTF is that all about???
3. Can someone tell me again why the fuck Saddam Hussein is in jail? I mean, GWB and his boys gave Saddam and his cronies 48 hours to get out of Iraq before we started bombing the shit outta Baghdad, right? So, in other words, they
were gonna let him go if he left on his own. I remember talk about him living in exile in Syria.
We used the WMD argument to go into Iraq (without the permission of the U.N. - the organization that
we started and convinced the world to become members of - thus making our invasion illegal) and the same WMD argument to depose Saddam Hussein, but we never found the WMD's!!! According to Scott Ritter (who was the head U.N. weapons inspector for Iraq in the 90's) and many others, Saddam didn't even have the stuff after Desert Storm. So then, after the Bush team conceded that there were no WMD's in Iraq, they decided to pull at people's heart strings and use the good ol' "genocide" charge to keep Saddam Hussein behind bars. Let's evaluate the genocide.... Third World arab country ruled by a psychotic dictator...attempted and subsequently foiled assassination plot...immediate execution for the perpetrators and accomplices...ummm, so fucking what? What business is it of ours? Ok, here's the other genocide charge - Third World arab country ruled by a psychotic dictator...civil war with the Kurdish people in the north...dictator says "Stop the unrest now or I will kill all of you"...Kurds keep rebelling...dictator kills them all...I say again, what the fuck business is it of ours? I think it's beyond arrogant for us to run around the world and say "Live like us - it's the best" and "Fight wars like us, or we'll call you terrorists and insurgents" to people and cultures that have been on this planet for thousands and thousands of years before us here in America.
Saddam Hussein is still a piece of shit, but he
did warn us that the people of Iraq would never surrender. So what's it gonna be for Iraq - Big Macs and Levi's or slamming your forehead repeatedly with the devil's handbook? We shall see.
) Bin Laden in retaliation for the attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Africa.
