Fruit Pie Jones, you are wrong. There are no victors in this debate. The reason I do not go too deeply into the demolition issues, the NORAD standing down issue etc., is because the debate will turn into an argument over petty details.
I'm sorry if I offended you by not replying in detail to your excellent points, but since you seem to think 9/11-conspiracy theorists are nuts, what about those former team members of the Reagan and Bush administrations?
David Schippers, the former Chicago mob-busting attorney who was selected by Congress to head the Clinton impeachment also believes the official story of "9/11" is not the correct one. Then there's the former MI-5 agent's story. These are hardly paranoid nuts, are they? Furthermore, since the first two are Republicans and Schippers prosecuted Clinton, this is not a partisan issue. For links, see my previous posts.
Stroggy, regarding the Democrats: you are aware that Al Gore, when he ran against Bush II in 2000, had almost exactly the same points on his agenda? Pro-gun, pro-big corporations, anti-environment (he got a nuclear plant in his home state). Democrats, although voicing dissent on most occasions, continue to vote with the Republicans.
Then there's John Kerry: wealthy, like Bush, Ivy League Yale graduate like Bush, Skull & Bones fraternity member like Bush, pro-war like Bush. Sure, he openly voiced his criticisms of Bush's handling of the War in Iraq, but he stated that if he was elected he would not recall the troops either. He's also pro-gun by the way.
Clinton: what has Clinton ever done for the working poor? He tried to get a health care plan through congress, but it failed. He increased funding for right wing talk radio shows (why?). NAFTA, Defense Of Marriage-act, bombed Sudan and Kosovo to divert attention away from national politics. Any conservative Republican president wouldn't have done better than Clinton. Perhaps that's why they hated his guts: with Clinton in charge, who the hell needs Republicans?
|