I'm certainly not saying it was the government themselves who perpetrated the attacks and committed the murders... but I had NO idea that there were actual SCENARIOS depicting what occured on 9/11 that were prepared decades ago which then resurfaced in the late 1990s.

Cheney was one of the individuals who worked with Osama back in the mid-80's supplying him with weapons, training, and information... his company (Halliburton) is making money hand-over-fist from this war...

That's the skeleton of the case I would make against him.


(And, for the record, I don't go in for any "conspiracy theories". Nor do I think this is a "conspiracy theory". I think that if Cheney did something like this, it is nothing more than a treasonous act and should be addressed as such.)

(Additionally, I do NOT think that GWB is in any way involved in such an act. I think he's a buffoon who is being played as a patsy by some very bad, greedy men.)

Exactly. The US government's relationship with Osama goes back much, much farther than most people are aware and MUCH farther than the government is willing to admit.

And what's even worse? Cheney wasn't even IN politics around the time that I would wager he planted the idea for the attacks.

Please expand. I have no doubt the US government supported OBL and Taliban against the USSR in the 80s and also played Iraq and Iran against one another. Those were sound policies in my opinion and based on the greater threat. Stop the spread of communism from the Soviet Union and stop the spread of Islamic extremism in the case of Iran.

Bin Laden was a known issue during Bush #1's time in office. Bush was also head of CIA before becoming Reagans VP. So for the last 30 years, odds are that Bush #1 was in the position to know and to have done something about it. In a way, I feel sorry for Bush #2, in that he inherited a problem that should have fallen on his father. But then, I am biased in my opinions about Bush #1. So, take with a grain of salt.

Yes and we were using him to fight the greater threat (USSR). Once Soviet Union fell then OBLs status changed. Especially after the first WTC bombing.



Bush was the head of the CIA for about 1 year back around 1975. Don't know how you expand on that to where you make him responsible for the Muslim threat over the last 30 years. Are you giving the Carter administrationa pass? He let the Shah of Iran be exiled only to have Muslim extremist take over Iran and hold hostage our Embassy personel. We are still dealing with that screwed up policy now almost 30 years later.



Please don't skip over 8 years of Clinton between Bush #1 and Bush #2 when it comes to taking out OBL. Clinton had numerous changes to take out OBL after he became a threat to the USA.

It's a given that Clinto inherited the problem as well. Also, my understanding of the situation was that Bush #1 ignored all recommendations from the transfer team when Clinton left office. So, you could say that Bush #2 would bear just as much a brunt of the responsibility though it keeps coming back to Bush #1. Also, didn't Bush #1 learn anything from Iran/Contra? It keeps coming back to Bush #1 again and again.

Gentlemen, I ask you, why, after all this time, do we still assume that these politicians are working for OUR best interests?

Things have to be put into context of the times. Before and after the fall of communism. Iran/Contra happened in the 80s. Basically arms were sold to the Iranian regime on one side to kill the Bathist regime in Iraq. We were also selling arms to Iraq to kill the radical cleric regime in Iran at the same time. The benefit was that the money gained by selling arms to Iran helped fund freedom fighters (Contras) fight against communists (Cuban backed Sadinistas). What Bush/Reagan was doing in the 80s was sound policy for that time. After the fall of communism in the early 90s relationships changed. Soviets were no longer in Afghanistan (actually the U.S.S.R didn't exist anymore). The first WTC bombing should have woke up the Clinton administration about radical Islamics. To my knowledge neither Bush #1 or #2 had OBL in the sights of a predator drone and refused to give the autherization to take him out. I don't know how you can blame Bush #1 for Clinton not taking action against OBL. That to me means Clinton had to be either Bush #1s lapdog or he was just plain incompetent. You have to remember that Bush administration didn't really get to hit the ground running because of the Florida recount. He didn't even have his full cabinet in place until months after he took office and 9/11 was only 8 months into his first term. There is no way Bush should be hold as much responsibility for 9/11 as Clinton. Any briefing by the Clinton's NSA run by Sandy "The Burgler" Berger to the Bush administration has to be looked as suspect. The guy was caught stuffing top secret papers in his tightie-whities during the 9/11 commision hearings.

I don't. That is why we need term limits in the Senate and the House and a ban on all Corperate or big money lobbying. I would also ban former elected officials from being able to become lobbyists. Unfortunately none of that will ever happen.

Well, we're certainly in-line with each other on that one!

The strange thing to me is that I think the vast majority of the American public feels similarly, yet we argue CONSTANTLY about the differences between the parties when NEITHER party is actually representing us in any meaningful, substantive way.

I suppose the face of rhetoric is changing as we speak, but I wish it would hurry up and get to the part where we start presenting a unified front against the new "ruling class" of politicians and lobbyists and giant corporations.