"Patriot?" Are you gonna man-up and admit you mis-characterized my "only independent investigation allowed" statement? Or are you hoping to drown out that accountability by way of silent aversion?
LOL.
I can see that you've been on since, and I have no doubt you saw my reply. ... I'm hoping to counter the rest of your spin-tacular post, but if you've officially raised the white flag, I don't see the point.
Admit you were wrong, and we can move forward.
Sorry. I saw your tracks as you ran away from the debate and assumed you were tired of getting your ass kicked. I didn't realize you were actually begging for some kind of affirmation from me!
LOL... In other words, "yeah, I fucked that up." ... White flag accepted.
Even when challenged to admit you got my statement wrong, you don't even possess the integrity to acknowledge it.
This is what I'm dealing with here. LOL... What an angry yet disciplined little Bush loyalist.
You dumbfucks always pretend there has been no investigation by claiming it wasn't an "independant" investigation.
No, retard. We claim the FBI and SEC reports were not independent. We acknowledge the Kean Commission was "independent," at least, supposed to have been. Please try and follow along.
Loosen your Cowboy belt, or something. Perhaps it's cutting into your overhanging gut as you type.
You come up with lameassed excuses like not believing the evidence found to dismiss the investigation. News flash, skippy! You don't get to pick what investigations are "good" and which are "bad".
Nor do you.
You have to have actual evidence the investigation was fundamentally flawed before you can get another investigation.
I know you're probably a big Matlock fan, but you do realize that evidence doesn't have to be a tangible object or document taped and sealed in a manilla envelope, yes? Evidence can be a concept. A mere established truth. ... Their lack of due diligence, their pattern of obstruction of justice? Heck, there's perjury from the Joint Chiefs' testimony to the Commission on timeline stuff. That's evidence, champ.
Every word of Colleen Rowley's letter to Robert Mueller questioning the suppression of surveillance. That's evidence. ... Evidence that at least shows that those people on the frontlines of surveillance should have been questioned, under subpoena, and with transcripts. That the money trail should have been followed to its exhausted conclusion... not stop short at ISI officials with known ties to terror before/after 9/11.
So is the fact they found "left behind luggage" is reason enough to ignore the investigation?
No, that laughable angle is merely part of it.
Another part is that your heroes didn't let anyone else examine the painfully convenient documents and other contents found ... stuff that -- allegedly -- spelled out the whoooole plot, like the end of a Scooby Doo mystery. Hooray!
Surely you have some of that vaunted "court admissible" evidence that proves the luggage was a plant, right?
See, this is where you and I come to a fundamental disagreement I guess. To you, state secrecy's "word is bond" To me, it's evidence that should be examined. By all parties.
No matter how deep down the 9/11 rabbit hole we go, the phrase "
classified due to matters of national security" can always bail you out of trouble. That's why you remain so smug. You're off the hook. But not by a refutation, instead by a dead end. LOL.
I love when that happens. Because when your team falls back to that final rallying point? You're officially on the run.
Considering the long history of domestic and foreign policy fraud by plutocrats -- on everything from Savings & Loan, to Iran Contra, to Mossadeq, to jackals in South America to Gulf of Tonkin -- they're completely trustworthy, and we should continue to take them at their word, and let them have their secrets. It's for our own good.
We're not suppose to just take a lying piece of shit like you at your word, are we?
LOL. To be clear, between the two of us, only you have been caught red-handed in a bold face lie. Nice try.
Oh, there is that shit word again! Did I offend you? Tough shit.
You threw your own feces as a kid, didn't you? I can tell.
Still waiting to see a single piece of your massive amounts of court-admissible evidence. You would think you would have posted a piece by now. Or are you still pretending a hit piece by the Times of India against Pakistan somehow proves Cheney knew?
Once again, the information emanated from Indian intel, as confirmed by the FBI. The Times of India only reported the matter. Logic dictates to any lucid thinker that if the Times of India was making the claim, and Indian intel went on THEIR word, the FBI would openly dispute it all if untrue. Or the CIA would. Considering no one questioned the Indian intel's findings (I mean besides good little Bush loyaistis like you on random message boards), we can thereby deduce Indian intel is correct and the ISI chief Mahmood Ahmed facilitated the transaction. And that, subsequently, Ahmed was pressured to resign for SOME reason, and was amazingly NEVER apprehended for any kind of recorded testimony.
lawl and stfu
