Apparently these jackoffs have never bothered to listen to the recording from the Cleveland Center air traffic control. Nowhere in that recording is there any mention of any non-civilian aircraft in the area.And what exactly is this "overwhelming eveidence" they speak of that prove Flight 93 was shot down? Hmmm?
"After all, it would look pretty horrible if Bush and Cheney were responsible for the deaths of the crew and passengers about Flight 93, even if the planes were shot down to protect Washington DC."
More BS. I think that most Americans would have been proud of the President for having the guts to do it and proud of the Air Force for reponing so quickly.
A-holes.
I know of a certain conservative web site where no plane goes down without somebody proposing that The Gubment did it. Or Clinton's henchmen. Or, you know, them. We were all wondering where Michael Rivero went. Maybe.... |
It was shot down and , given the prior crashes into the WTC and the Pentagon, it was the correct action to minimize loss of life.
Believe the cover story if it makes you feel better.
.... and Todd Beemer's wife being invited to the President's speech was a phoney prop and her speaking around the country, and the cell phone call from the plane and those who claimed they heard him say "let's roll" before taking on the highjackers were lying...etc etc etc.
Right.
I hope the Democrats keep this crap up so everybody can see them for the hysterical delusional mental cases they really are.
And, honestly.. it makes no difference one way or the other. The plane had to come down and the passengers knew that, as well as the Vice President.
You cannot allow someone flying a bomb to reach a target like the WTC, it's common sense. So, even if it was a shootdown how does this tarnish the Administration? Because they realized the same thing the passengers did? What does that prove and how is it bad?
What idiots.
Cheney has no authority to order anything more than another ice tea. If it was a conspiracy, it would have to be Cheney who convinced Bush to give the order. These guys can't even write plausible fiction.
Hello democrats dot commie
we will make you cry to mommy
If for battle, youre insistent
in a game of wits your IQs non-existent
What a website
trite and boring
in just seconds
all are snoring
A-ho Fertik
watch him edit
we would call him stupid but thats too much credit
Heres a question
will you level
is your deal with the devil?
Just admit it
you are jealous
your site ought to read We stink, click on and smell us
You supported the Sinkmaster
for our country, a disaster
Are your kneepads now retired
or in lies and treason are you guys still mired
You are all such whining losers
and misguided hopeless boozers
Get a job
we know the pays not good when youre bused in with rent-a-mob
What accounts for your behavior
lowlifes you see as your savior
It is clear
if anyone looks close
your head is in your rear
Wait a minute
heres fair warning
if we hear of FReeper scorning
Theres no prisner well be taking
you can bet that your whole body will be aching
Well have mercy
you look sickly
death for you guys will come quickly
We are ready
are you frightened
by that look we know your sphincter has just tightened
...Pastor Mark Craig, was telling me that my re-election was the first Governor to win back-to-back, four-year terms in the history of the State of Texas. It was a beginning, not an end... People are starved for faithfulness. He talked of the need for honesty in government. He warned that leaders who cheat on their wives will cheat their country, will cheat their colleagues, will cheat themselves.
President Bush's statement of faith
It's called "Democrat for a Day." Player one comes up with a negative event, such as a company going bankrupt, a dog getting sick on a car ride, whatever. All other players then write on an index card how that event can be blamed on President Bush. Player one then reads off the cards, and each player votes for the explanation that best captures the Democrat's way of thinking, with no one allowed to vote for their own explanation.
Scores are automatically doubled if the players can create an explanation that shows that President Bush was not neglectful, but actually malicious.
Here's an example of how the game might be played:
The event "Cousin Floyd's Dog dying at the age of 17."
Explanation #1: "In his many speeches, Bush has not once explained the need for better veteranary medicine, instead spending his time waging a war against the poorest people on earth to cover up the fact he stole the election. Like most Republicans, Bush doesn't care about dogs, since they aren't campaign donors." (This gets only single credit, since it's only the uncaring angle.)
Explanation #2: "Bill Clinton has been remarkably silent in his criticism of President Bush. Considering Clinton understands better than anyone else how Bush is destroying the nation, it's obvious that Clinton has been intimidated into silence. The death of Clinton's dog Buddy is no coincidence. Note how it happened right when Bush was trying to get support for the war. Bush realized, of course, that if the truth ever came to light, millions of dog owners would never vote Republican again. To reduce possible damage to the Republican party, Bush decided to reduce the number of dog owners in the country as much as possible. Because of watchdogs like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, he realized he couldn't get away with killing the owners (yet), but he could kill the dogs. Hundreds of dogs die in this country ever day. It's time the gutless press persued the logical explanation." (Maliciousness implied. Double credit.)
Anyway, have fun!
It's called "Democrat for a Day." Player one comes up with a negative event, such as a company going bankrupt, a dog getting sick on a car ride, whatever. All other players then write on an index card how that event can be blamed on President Bush. Player one then reads off the cards, and each player votes for the explanation that best captures the Democrat's way of thinking, with no one allowed to vote for their own explanation.
Scores are automatically doubled if the players can create an explanation that shows that President Bush was not neglectful, but actually malicious.
Here's an example of how the game might be played:
The event "Cousin Floyd's Dog dying at the age of 17."
Explanation #1: "In his many speeches, Bush has not once explained the need for better veteranary medicine, instead spending his time waging a war against the poorest people on earth to cover up the fact he stole the election. Like most Republicans, Bush doesn't care about dogs, since they aren't campaign donors." (This gets only single credit, since it's only the uncaring angle.)
Explanation #2: "Bill Clinton has been remarkably silent in his criticism of President Bush. Considering Clinton understands better than anyone else how Bush is destroying the nation, it's obvious that Clinton has been intimidated into silence. The death of Clinton's dog Buddy is no coincidence. Note how it happened right when Bush was trying to get support for the war. Bush realized, of course, that if the truth ever came to light, millions of dog owners would never vote Republican again. To reduce possible damage to the Republican party, Bush decided to reduce the number of dog owners in the country as much as possible. Because of watchdogs like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, he realized he couldn't get away with killing the owners (yet), but he could kill the dogs. Hundreds of dogs die in this country ever day. It's time the gutless press persued the logical explanation." (Maliciousness implied. Double credit.)
Anyway, have fun!