For those who think we have a liberal media
Feb 7, 2007 | 03:13 PM
#181
Thread Starter
|
Elite Pro Rider
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,599
Likes: 0
For those who think we have a liberal media
And another gem, that wont make the so called liberal media, yet is a topic all liberals want to know more about.
Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 3
The illegal leaking of 'cherry picked' info from a classified NIE
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleV..._no=3&back_url
Published 2007-02-07 17:51 (KST)
Bush illegally leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.
Charge
George W. Bush authorized the leaking of classified national secrets in violation of executive order 13292 to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U.S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter;
March 25, 2003
President Bush signs an executive order amending (among other things) the legal method for declassifying information. After the administration released classified information, they claimed the release was legal because it had already been disclosed by the media. Ironically, the following quote from the president's own executive order eliminates this defense:
"Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."
The following quotes from the executive order reveal that the process for declassifying information requires a procedure. Contrary to some people's speculation, a president can not simply declassify information via announcement to the media. One requirement is that they inform the head of the related agency (in this case, the CIA) of the planned disclosure:
"the following [declassification instructions] shall appear on the face of each classified document ... the date or event for declassification, ... the date that is 10 years from the date of original classification, ... [or] the date that is up to 25 years from the date of original classification ..."
"Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification"
"In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information ... When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure." (F.A.S.)
Prior to July 6, 2003
President George W. Bush authorizes Lewis Libby (a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney) to leak information from a classified intelligence report to a New York Times reporter, as revealed in Libby's sworn testimony to a federal grand jury in a 39-page Fitzgerald filing on April 5, 2006.
"Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE." (Fitzgerald filing)
July 8, 2003
Lewis Libby leaks to the press classified information relating to Ambassador Wilson's pre-war intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and Valerie Plame's position as a CIA operative. This is also in the 39-page Fitzgerald filing.
"Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. [Joseph] Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms.[Valerie Plame] Wilson's employment [as a CIA operative] with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time)." (Fitzgerald filing)
July 18, 2003
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admits to leak publicly in Press Gaggle. Additionally, he references newly released classified information. McClellan's comments make it appear as if the administration released this new information to give context to the previously leaked intelligence. This made it appear as if the previous leak was not orchestrated by the administration. He indicates that the information in the NIE was not declassified until that day -- July 18. If true, this would make the President's authorization on July 6 illegal.
Question by reporter: "Why, Scott, was the cable that was -- that derived from the debriefing of Joe Wilson not included among the declassified documents?"
MR. McCLELLAN: "[...] There is some classified information that -- well, there's some information that remains classified for national security reasons. But we felt that this information -- which is what the State of the Union statement was originally based on -- was important to share with the American people, because it could be declassified."
Question by reporter: "When was it actually declassified?"
MR. McCLELLAN: "It was officially declassified today." (White House Transcript)
Sept. 29, 2003
White House Press Secretary:
"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration." (White House Transcript & Video)
Sept. 30, 2003
President Bush:
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." (White House Transcript & Video)
Sept. 30, 2003
President Bush:
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business." (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 6, 2003
President Bush:
"We will cooperate fully with the Justice Department. ... I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker. I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, ... And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, ... but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth."
Question by reporter: "What about retaliation? People are saying that it's retaliation"
PRESIDENT BUSH: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth. You hear all kinds of rumors. And the best way to clarify the issue is for full participation with the Justice Department. ... look, I want to know. I want to know." [Audio Clip] (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 7, 2003
President Bush:
"This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible." [Audio Clip] (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 7, 2003
White House Press Secretary:
"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business." (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 17, 2003
President Bush: In Cabinet Meeting responding to a question about his confidence that the leaking senior administration official will be discovered.
"... How many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out." [Audio clip](White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 28, 2003
President Bush:
"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information." (White House Transcript & Video)
June 10, 2004
President Bush:
Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts." (State Department's Website)
July 19, 2005
President Bush:
"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration." (July 19, Associated Press)
April 5, 2006
Lewis Libby testifies to a federal grand jury about President Bush authorizing the leaking of classified information. (Fitzgerald filing)
Jan. 31, 2007
Cheney implicates "this Pres.[ident]"
Later during the Lewis Libby trial, it is revealed that Cheney had written about President Bush's involvement in asking Libby to leak the NIE information.
"Thus, Cheney's notes would have read 'not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.' The words 'this Pres.' were crossed out and replaced with 'that was,' but are still clearly legible in the document."(Jan. 31, 2007, Truthout)
In light of this evidence, and the other evidence in this impeachment series, how can one doubt the impeachability of this president?
Bush's Impeachable Offenses, Part 3
The illegal leaking of 'cherry picked' info from a classified NIE
http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleV..._no=3&back_url
Published 2007-02-07 17:51 (KST)
Bush illegally leaked 'cherry picked' information from a classified National Intelligence Estimate. Bush subsequently feigned ignorance of his involvement, keeping the public and the investigators from seeking accountability.
Charge
George W. Bush authorized the leaking of classified national secrets in violation of executive order 13292 to further a political agenda, exposing an unknown number of covert U.S. intelligence agents to potential harm and retribution while simultaneously refusing to investigate the matter;
March 25, 2003
President Bush signs an executive order amending (among other things) the legal method for declassifying information. After the administration released classified information, they claimed the release was legal because it had already been disclosed by the media. Ironically, the following quote from the president's own executive order eliminates this defense:
"Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information."
The following quotes from the executive order reveal that the process for declassifying information requires a procedure. Contrary to some people's speculation, a president can not simply declassify information via announcement to the media. One requirement is that they inform the head of the related agency (in this case, the CIA) of the planned disclosure:
"the following [declassification instructions] shall appear on the face of each classified document ... the date or event for declassification, ... the date that is 10 years from the date of original classification, ... [or] the date that is up to 25 years from the date of original classification ..."
"Prior to public release, all declassified records shall be appropriately marked to reflect their declassification"
"In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information ... When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to the national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure." (F.A.S.)
Prior to July 6, 2003
President George W. Bush authorizes Lewis Libby (a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney) to leak information from a classified intelligence report to a New York Times reporter, as revealed in Libby's sworn testimony to a federal grand jury in a 39-page Fitzgerald filing on April 5, 2006.
"Vice President advised defendant that the President specifically had authorized defendant to disclose certain information in the NIE." (Fitzgerald filing)
July 8, 2003
Lewis Libby leaks to the press classified information relating to Ambassador Wilson's pre-war intelligence about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and Valerie Plame's position as a CIA operative. This is also in the 39-page Fitzgerald filing.
"Defendant was instructed to provide what was for him an extremely rare 'on the record' statement, and to provide 'background' and 'deep background' statements, and to provide information contained in a document defendant understood to be the cable authored by Mr. [Joseph] Wilson. During the conversations that followed on July 12, defendant discussed Ms.[Valerie Plame] Wilson's employment [as a CIA operative] with both Matthew Cooper (for the first time) and Judith Miller (for the third time)." (Fitzgerald filing)
July 18, 2003
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan admits to leak publicly in Press Gaggle. Additionally, he references newly released classified information. McClellan's comments make it appear as if the administration released this new information to give context to the previously leaked intelligence. This made it appear as if the previous leak was not orchestrated by the administration. He indicates that the information in the NIE was not declassified until that day -- July 18. If true, this would make the President's authorization on July 6 illegal.
Question by reporter: "Why, Scott, was the cable that was -- that derived from the debriefing of Joe Wilson not included among the declassified documents?"
MR. McCLELLAN: "[...] There is some classified information that -- well, there's some information that remains classified for national security reasons. But we felt that this information -- which is what the State of the Union statement was originally based on -- was important to share with the American people, because it could be declassified."
Question by reporter: "When was it actually declassified?"
MR. McCLELLAN: "It was officially declassified today." (White House Transcript)
Sept. 29, 2003
White House Press Secretary:
"The President has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leak], they would no longer be in this administration." (White House Transcript & Video)
Sept. 30, 2003
President Bush:
"I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action." (White House Transcript & Video)
Sept. 30, 2003
President Bush:
"If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is. And if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of. . . . I have told our administration, people in my administration to be fully cooperative. I want to know the truth. If anybody has got any information inside our administration or outside our administration, it would be helpful if they came forward with the information so we can find out whether or not these allegations are true and get on about the business." (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 6, 2003
President Bush:
"We will cooperate fully with the Justice Department. ... I'd like to know who leaked, and if anybody has got any information inside our government or outside our government who leaked, you ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker. I have told my staff, I want full cooperation with the Justice Department. And when they ask for information, we expect the information to be delivered on a timely basis. I expect it to be delivered on a timely basis. I want there to be full participation, ... And if this helps stop leaks of -- this investigation in finding the truth, it will not only hold someone to account who should not have leaked -- and this is a serious charge, by the way. We're talking about a criminal action, ... but also hopefully will help set a clear signal we expect other leaks to stop, as well. And so I look forward to finding the truth."
Question by reporter: "What about retaliation? People are saying that it's retaliation"
PRESIDENT BUSH: "I don't know who leaked the information, for starters. So it's hard for me to answer that question until I find out the truth. You hear all kinds of rumors. And the best way to clarify the issue is for full participation with the Justice Department. ... look, I want to know. I want to know." [Audio Clip] (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 7, 2003
President Bush:
"This is a town of -- where a lot of people leak. And I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. And I want to know, I want to know the truth. I want to see to it that the truth prevail. And I hope we can get this investigation done in a thorough way, as quickly as possible." [Audio Clip] (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 7, 2003
White House Press Secretary:
"Let me answer what the President has said. I speak for the President and I'll talk to you about what he wants . . .If someone leaked classified information, the President wants to know. If someone in this administration leaked classified information, they will no longer be a part of this administration, because that's not the way this White House operates, that's not the way this President expects people in his administration to conduct their business." (White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 17, 2003
President Bush: In Cabinet Meeting responding to a question about his confidence that the leaking senior administration official will be discovered.
"... How many sources have you had that's leaked information that you've exposed or have been exposed? Probably none. I mean this town is a -- is a town full of people who like to leak information. And I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official. Now, this is a large administration, and there's a lot of senior officials. I don't have any idea. I'd like to. I want to know the truth. That's why I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators -- full disclosure, everything we know the investigators will find out. I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is -- partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. But we'll find out." [Audio clip](White House Transcript & Video)
Oct. 28, 2003
President Bush:
"I'd like to know if somebody in my White House did leak sensitive information." (White House Transcript & Video)
June 10, 2004
President Bush:
Reporter: "Do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?"
President Bush: "Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts." (State Department's Website)
July 19, 2005
President Bush:
"If someone committed crime, they will no longer work in my administration." (July 19, Associated Press)
April 5, 2006
Lewis Libby testifies to a federal grand jury about President Bush authorizing the leaking of classified information. (Fitzgerald filing)
Jan. 31, 2007
Cheney implicates "this Pres.[ident]"
Later during the Lewis Libby trial, it is revealed that Cheney had written about President Bush's involvement in asking Libby to leak the NIE information.
"Thus, Cheney's notes would have read 'not going to protect one staffer and sacrifice the guy this Pres. asked to stick his head in the meat grinder because of the incompetence of others.' The words 'this Pres.' were crossed out and replaced with 'that was,' but are still clearly legible in the document."(Jan. 31, 2007, Truthout)
In light of this evidence, and the other evidence in this impeachment series, how can one doubt the impeachability of this president?
Feb 7, 2007 | 11:01 PM
#182
Pro Rider
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
For those who think we have a liberal media
Originally posted by: hondabuster
440EX026, been doing good, working too much, but still hanging in there. Good to see youre still around, and offering good opinions.
Even after reading your post, The question is still unanswered.
If theres a story out there(and there are many), which present the opportunity to show the so called liberal bias, and its in the best interest of the liberal media to present it...why doesnt it get covered? It doesnt make sense on a logical level.
Take for instance this little speach bu the liberal poster boy. If the media were liberal...wouldnt his viewpoint be the one driven in the media....instead, its just the opposite, the war mongers get their air time . How about the sunday morning corporate talking heads shows? Why doesnt a real liberal stand a chance of being on?
Heres speach from Sen Sanders, which at last count(in the polls) reflects what over 3/4 of all American citizens think...yet still wont make even 15 seconds in the so called liberal media.
Senator Bernie Sanders: It Is Time To End This War
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? After Republicans voted to block debate last night, Senator Bernie Sanders delivered this speech on the floor of the Senate.
.
440EX026, been doing good, working too much, but still hanging in there. Good to see youre still around, and offering good opinions.
Even after reading your post, The question is still unanswered.
If theres a story out there(and there are many), which present the opportunity to show the so called liberal bias, and its in the best interest of the liberal media to present it...why doesnt it get covered? It doesnt make sense on a logical level.
Take for instance this little speach bu the liberal poster boy. If the media were liberal...wouldnt his viewpoint be the one driven in the media....instead, its just the opposite, the war mongers get their air time . How about the sunday morning corporate talking heads shows? Why doesnt a real liberal stand a chance of being on?
Heres speach from Sen Sanders, which at last count(in the polls) reflects what over 3/4 of all American citizens think...yet still wont make even 15 seconds in the so called liberal media.
Senator Bernie Sanders: It Is Time To End This War
WASHINGTON, D.C. ? After Republicans voted to block debate last night, Senator Bernie Sanders delivered this speech on the floor of the Senate.
.
I am sure anyone who cares to read it did so already anyhow.
Do you really want to know why this didnt get blanketing coverage to every household in America? Well its pretty darn simple if you think about it honestly because its a big bunch of pure crap.
Just like all the rhetoric were fed from the right all were getting is a bunch of useless nonsense from the misguided left as well.
Maybe if the basis for the majority of what we do see was other than securing election numbers and increasing their parties power etc there would be more things of substance to supply the viewers.
Personally I am just as tired of having my rights removed or violated (by our friends from the right) as I am now with hearing countless empty garbage from most everyone on the left. Joining in on the popular anti war band wagon without any real answers to the obvious questions and problems (and even the not so obvious ones were being protected from knowing about, remember the last thread?) is not only obsurd, but totally insulting, and deffinately not an answer to anything that is in any way new worthy.
No one wants to see our fellow citizens and anyone we may know become injured or dead from fighting a war, and only a fool would think these things are a good thing etc, but making a stand that your against something without addressing the real issue in an attempt to further the agenda of your chosen political party is a far worse crime against america than the war itself.
If I remember correctly there was a heated debate in the previous thread about exactly why the US invaded Iraq in the first place. I know there was not immediate or total agreement initially, but after all the long discussions on everything from oil, power, saving our economy, petro and euro dollar covergence, and a host of others I remember that most had accepted that the war was not a personal issue for our president, and that it was mostly if not entirely to be seemingly based on protecting our local and global economic stability, maintaining control of the ME region, and potentially to stop the idea of the oil producing nations to switch out of the petro dollar program and begin to adopt the euro dollar standard.
Does the theory of our countries oil suppliers threatening to call in our tremendous amounts of debt still remain?
If Senator Sanders wants to make any real friends he should consider causing his whole party (and the opposition as well) to stop the lies and not just tell us what we want to hear in trade for votes, and just get off the popular opinion vote gaining band wagon and actually put in some effort to fix the problems seen by the citizens of the US.
And btw I am about sick of hearing the same BS from both sides over and over, and being denied the coverage by our news sources on the other serious issues affecting us all.
Our deficit is insane, the trade deficit even worse, good mfg jobs are disapearing faster than we can count them, medical care and insurance is out of control, the new service industry jobs all were expecting to save the day are already seeing reductions in wage and numbers, taxes continue to eat up more and more of our incomes, and so many more I can not type them all etc, but all we seem to hear about is stop the war without any explanations, al ***** thinks global warming will drown us all (moron) and atvs are killing our kids.
Enough of the same buzz word BS and lets get to fixing the real problems that we all face immediately, and then move on to fixing the world later.
Feb 19, 2007 | 03:08 AM
#183
Pro Rider
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
For those who think we have a liberal media
Hey dont you guys go and let me have the last word [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Anyhow though not directly related to the liberal media this short video is deffinately related to the attempt by them to seperate support of the war from supporting our military men and women.
Deffinately worth watching, and maybe even worthy of a new subject or thread (take it and run if you like lol).
'If they're gonna support us, support us all the way.'
Anyhow though not directly related to the liberal media this short video is deffinately related to the attempt by them to seperate support of the war from supporting our military men and women.
Deffinately worth watching, and maybe even worthy of a new subject or thread (take it and run if you like lol).
'If they're gonna support us, support us all the way.'
Feb 23, 2007 | 05:02 PM
#184
Elite Pro Rider
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,641
Likes: 1
For those who think we have a liberal media
Originally posted by 440EX026: Hey dont you guys go and let me have the last word [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]
Anyhow though not directly related to the liberal media this short video is deffinately related to the attempt by them to seperate support of the war from supporting our military men and women.
Deffinately worth watching, and maybe even worthy of a new subject or thread (take it and run if you like lol).
'If they're gonna support us, support us all the way.'[/quote]
That is a great link, and 100 percent correct. I can tell you first hand that everytime a liberal gets on the news demanding a withdrawl they are seen as supporting al qaeda and all terrorists groups by both the terrorists and the US Military. This has been stated by the terrorist themselves, who where very happy to see the recent elections. I cannot bear to think how many of our people have died because some liberal wanted face time on the TV. I also cannot tell you how many times a young Marine has expressed their concerns to me about this very thing, both "in country" and here in the States.
No matter how anyone feels about the President or the war in Iraq, one thing I know is we will be fighting terrorism for many years to come. We can fight them there, or we can fight them here.
If we let the liberals overrun the country, throw your ATV in the trash cause you won't be able to ride anywhere. And if you ever even thought about owning a gun you are going to jail. Anyone who thinks I'm wrong needs to ask a Border Patrol Agent how wonderful our justice system is.
Anyhow though not directly related to the liberal media this short video is deffinately related to the attempt by them to seperate support of the war from supporting our military men and women.
Deffinately worth watching, and maybe even worthy of a new subject or thread (take it and run if you like lol).
'If they're gonna support us, support us all the way.'[/quote]
That is a great link, and 100 percent correct. I can tell you first hand that everytime a liberal gets on the news demanding a withdrawl they are seen as supporting al qaeda and all terrorists groups by both the terrorists and the US Military. This has been stated by the terrorist themselves, who where very happy to see the recent elections. I cannot bear to think how many of our people have died because some liberal wanted face time on the TV. I also cannot tell you how many times a young Marine has expressed their concerns to me about this very thing, both "in country" and here in the States.
No matter how anyone feels about the President or the war in Iraq, one thing I know is we will be fighting terrorism for many years to come. We can fight them there, or we can fight them here.
If we let the liberals overrun the country, throw your ATV in the trash cause you won't be able to ride anywhere. And if you ever even thought about owning a gun you are going to jail. Anyone who thinks I'm wrong needs to ask a Border Patrol Agent how wonderful our justice system is.
Feb 24, 2007 | 01:41 AM
#186
Pro Rider
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,252
Likes: 0
For those who think we have a liberal media
If we let the liberals overrun the country, throw your ATV in the trash cause you won't be able to ride anywhere. And if you ever even thought about owning a gun you are going to jail. Anyone who thinks I'm wrong needs to ask a Border Patrol Agent how wonderful our justice system is.
Thumbs up, and well said!!!!!!!!
Feb 28, 2007 | 02:14 PM
#188
Elite Pro Rider
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,641
Likes: 1
For those who think we have a liberal media
Originally posted by squeege: WOW
Anybody see http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7building7.htm
found it here http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reporte...Before_It_Fell
http://www.jonhs.net/911/bbc_wtc7_collapse.htm
Talk about a conspiracy, the video didn?t show either tower because they are both down. Prisoner planet is just another anti-American socialist propaganda tool.
"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart, but if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain." Winston Churchill
Anybody see http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...7building7.htm
found it here http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reporte...Before_It_Fell
http://www.jonhs.net/911/bbc_wtc7_collapse.htm
Talk about a conspiracy, the video didn?t show either tower because they are both down. Prisoner planet is just another anti-American socialist propaganda tool.
"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart, but if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain." Winston Churchill
Feb 28, 2007 | 02:37 PM
#189
Pro Rider
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,250
Likes: 0
For those who think we have a liberal media
DeeDawg
I'm not sure you understand what the video is showing.
"building is being reported to have fallen 24 minutes before it actually falls"
The video is showing the building #7, off to the right behind a lady reporter on the scene.
That same building is being reported to have fallen 24 minutes before it actually falls. Just as the the reporter looses signal, is when the building actually falls. Weird
I'm not sure you understand what the video is showing.
"building is being reported to have fallen 24 minutes before it actually falls"
The video is showing the building #7, off to the right behind a lady reporter on the scene.
That same building is being reported to have fallen 24 minutes before it actually falls. Just as the the reporter looses signal, is when the building actually falls. Weird
Feb 28, 2007 | 07:18 PM
#190
Elite Pro Rider
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 20,641
Likes: 1
For those who think we have a liberal media
I watched it again, and I am not convinced that the building they claim is the second tower is the correct, nor are other people I showed it to. Funny how they don't actually show the building coming down. I still think it is BS.