And now for something completely different...

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2004
5,849
384
48
Columbus, OH
<center><h1><a href=http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp?story=609895&host=3&dir=70>It just gets better and better...</a></h1></center>

<blockquote><h2>Bush team tried to suppress pre-9/11 report into al-Qa'ida</h2>

<b>By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

11 February 2005</b>

Federal officials were repeatedly warned in the months before the 11 September 2001 terror attacks that Osama bin Laden and al-Qa'ida were planning aircraft hijackings and suicide attacks, according to a new report that the Bush administration has been suppressing.

Critics say the new information undermines the government's claim that intelligence about al-Qa'ida's ambitions was "historical" in nature.

The independent commission investigating the attacks on New York and Washington concluded that while officials at the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA) did receive warnings, they were "lulled into a false sense of security". As a result, "intelligence that indicated a real and growing threat leading up to 9/11 did not stimulate significant increases in security procedures".

The report, withheld from the public for months, says the FAA was primarily focused on the likelihood of an incident overseas. However, in spring 2001, it warned US airports that if "the intent of the hijacker is not to exchange hostages for prisoners but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion, a domestic hijacking would probably be preferable".</blockquote>

Gosh, didn't Condi testify before the 9/11 Commission that she had "no recollection" of any such warnings? Didn't she say that the warnings were "historical" in nature? And she was promoted after these grave "lapses" of memory. But promoting incompetence seems to be a habit with this administration. How does anyone continue to justify any faith and confidence in this administration when it suppressed this report until after the elections? Are they really that credulous? :wtf:
 
Has the USMB commission gotten around to investigating your past yet ,Bully.
Some how choirboy for 30 years doesn't seem palatable.
 
fuzzykitten99 said:
Don't you ever get tired of your own bullshit? I know we do.

I'm sorry you drank the koolaid, but there's always hope for you. I can sum it up in 2 words: GROW UP!

I didn't drink any kool-aide dear. And I've got two words for you...WAKE UP!
 
dilloduck said:
Has the USMB commission gotten around to investigating your past yet ,Bully.
Some how choirboy for 30 years doesn't seem palatable.

Tch...Tch...Debate the issue or go home. Dismissed.
 
dilloduck said:
LMAO--coming from the king of hit and runs posts you just crack me up

I seldom expect rational debate here, and am delighted when I actually encounter it. Unfortunately, this is not one of those times.
 
Bullypulpit said:
I seldom expect rational debate here, and am delighted when I actually encounter it. Unfortunately, this is not one of those times.
The one day you actually hang around to defend some of your same old BS and now your going to complain about the lack of debate? :cuckoo:
 
-=d=- said:
...just an aside...the word 'completely' in the subject, is not needed.


Another aside, it was the title of specific skits on Monty Python's Flying Circus.

And now for something completely different...
 
no1tovote4 said:
Another aside, it was the title of specific skits on Monty Python's Flying Circus.

And now for something completely different...

Never watched it; Wasn't that a 'Heart' Album?

Either way, somebody should tell Mr. Python that 'completely' doesn't mean anything in that phrase/sentence.


'different' = unlike
'completely different' = unlike

:D
 
-=d=- said:
Either way, somebody should tell Mr. Python that 'completely' doesn't mean anything in that phrase/sentence.

completely

adv 1: to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent (`whole' is often used informally for `wholly'); "he was wholly convinced"; "entirely satisfied with the meal"; "it was completely different from what we expected"; "was completely at fault"; "a totally new situation"; "the directions were all wrong"; "it was not altogether her fault"; "an altogether new approach"; "a whole new idea" [syn: wholly, entirely, totally, all, altogether, whole] [ant: partially] 2: so as to be complete; with everything necessary; "he had filled out the form completely"; "the apartment was completely furnished"
 
freeandfun1 said:
completely

adv 1: to a complete degree or to the full or entire extent (`whole' is often used informally for `wholly'); "he was wholly convinced"; "entirely satisfied with the meal"; "it was completely different from what we expected"; "was completely at fault"; "a totally new situation"; "the directions were all wrong"; "it was not altogether her fault"; "an altogether new approach"; "a whole new idea" [syn: wholly, entirely, totally, all, altogether, whole] [ant: partially] 2: so as to be complete; with everything necessary; "he had filled out the form completely"; "the apartment was completely furnished"


That does not take away from the fact 'completely' doesn't add any meaning to the phrase. It is an added word, which, if removed, doesn't change anything.

"Now for something different"

"Now for something completely different"

It's like using 'really'.

"I am really hungry" means "I am hungry". "I am really sorry" means the SAME thing as "I am sorry". It's a 'filler' word, but when push comes to shove it 'really' doesn't mean anything; Id Est, using 'completely' or 'really' in the contexts above, or 'not' using them does not change the meaning.
 
-=d=- said:
That does not take away from the fact 'completely' doesn't add any meaning to the phrase. It is an added word, which, if removed, doesn't change anything.

"Now for something different"

"Now for something completely different"

It's like using 'really'.

"I am really hungry" means "I am hungry". "I am really sorry" means the SAME thing as "I am sorry". It's a 'filler' word, but when push comes to shove it 'really' doesn't mean anything; Id Est, using 'completely' or 'really' in the contexts above, or 'not' using them does not change the meaning.

gotcha. but to me, there is a difference between being "hungry" and "really hungry"! :teeth:
 
My pet peeve is when people say, "same difference". Nothing can be the same and different at the same time... that's an oxymoron.

Small crowd, Sweet sorrow, Clearly misunderstood, etc.
 
-=d=- said:
Never watched it; Wasn't that a 'Heart' Album?

Either way, somebody should tell Mr. Python that 'completely' doesn't mean anything in that phrase/sentence.


'different' = unlike
'completely different' = unlike

:D


If you happened to see any of the show you would realize that it was a nonsensical romp through English humor and therefore they probably knew it was meaningless but chose to use it anyway. I think that Bully was probably using it much the same way.
 
no1tovote4 said:
If you happened to see any of the show you would realize that it was a nonsensical romp through English humor and therefore they probably knew it was meaningless but chose to use it anyway. I think that Bully was probably using it much the same way.


It's a show?

weird.
 
Bullypulpit said:
Tch...Tch...Debate the issue or go home. Dismissed.

ok...how did they try to supress it? who tried to supress it? who caught them?.....

oh..... and if you actually paid attention to the liberal news, cnn abc nbc cbs la times ny times etc... the fbi and the cia both said that they were tracking hijack folks prior to 9-11 and that this idea of running planes into buildings came up during the clinton years....

now if you are saying did the bush admin know this the answer is yes beacuse they said they did ..... did they know they were going to specificcaly hit the wtc on 9-11 the answer is no....and remeber osb delclared war on the US during the clinton years when clinton and gore were busy getting blow jobs, inventing the intenet, cutting and running from osb in somalia, repairing the cole, rebuilidning embasies in nigeria, cuting the military, closing military bases, passing laws to prevent the fbi an cia from talking to each other....

lastly if it was so bloddy obvious to the intelligent left and us stupid moronic red state folks couldn't figure it out how come you all let it happen? and why did you let them hit builings in a blue state but a corn field in a red state?

you know why? beacuse your bloated government did a study and they discovered that incompetant people are unaware of it and constantly accuse others of incompetnace....see ted kennedy
 
Im glad to see that I am not the only one trying to figure out why Bully seems to think his continued attempts at conspiracy theories that Bush was responsible for 911 is something new. We all know Bully's rabid hatred of President Bush. Look Bully, if you want rational discussion give us something to work with rather than these kook conspiracy theories that dont even say what you want them to say.
 

Forum List

Back
Top