Flytard.... first off, you have only situational hatred for Bush and Cheney. Because when it comes to their most disgusting crimes - obstruction of justice and negligence re: 9/11 - you have literally spent years defending their "oops, we just messed up" storyline. In fact, they received the benefit of the doubt before you ever considered the evidence, and you doubled down on your support for them once you heard it all.

So, yeah... to people like you, they're capable of torture and distorting intel to grease the skids for war ... But absolutely would never block an investigation or bury ongoing surveillance. That's where you draw the line!!!

STFU, or grow some consistency.

LOL!!! You keep telling yourself that so it sounds better in your trollish head. There's absolutely nothing "incoherent" about anything I've written. Sorry. It's all painfully clear and thoroughly sourced. Each and every time.

I used to think you were above the most lazy of troll tactics, but nope. You're not.

In any event, yeah, an avalance of columns on the 60 Minutes report. Gosh, I thought Sunday night's report went by without any of the big media taking notice at all? LOL-Jiggs!! Ooops, nope. Wrong again. Even the WH was forced to acknowledge it.

Do you guys ever tire of being flat wrong at every turn in this exchange? Jeeezus, do you suck at this.

I think I'd give most leaders the 'benefit of the doubt' that they didn't actively encourage/allow/participate in a major terrorist attack against their own country. It seems like the default assumption to make.

Uh, I don't think any of us think they wouldn't block an investigation or bury ongoing surveillance. I think many of us think they probably wouldn't do it to allow a major terrorist attack to happen that would kill thousands of Americans.

And its not like I'd be *that* surprised if they did do something that evil. But I need more evidence than you've ever shown.

LOL!!! You seem unable to understand something here:

The 60 Minutes piece isn't the proof. My overall body of work in this thread and threads just like it absolutely is.

OK, run along then, angry Bush defender. Run along.

Eh, I just saw that headline and couldn't help but think of how excited you must be.
LOL @ "forced". Here's your big acknowledgement:
Pretty low bar for claiming victory.
What exactly has anybody been wrong about?

That the Bush League is seen as being among "most leaders" despite their record before (Iran Contra, Florida election, etc. etc. etc.) and after the attacks, really tells the story here about your side's obvious confirmation bias.

The problem you suffer from is that you start from a foundation of skepticism against the allegations, then you reinforce that skepticism with trollish behavior. From there, you can never actually reverse course once the evidence is presented out of fear of embarrassment. You guys "dug in" deep years ago, and you're not letting go no matter how many documents surface showing how wrong you were all along. I merely enjoy watching you torture logic as each layer of your coincidence narrative gets stripped away.

Ummm...many of you do (or did). Shall I present a few examples?

yeah, cool story... nevermind that they literally wrote about the need for such an event in their PNAC manifesto calling for enhanced American global dominance.

It's like you guys can't remember any of the previous aspects of the discussion that have been covered ... just the latest one, as if that's all I've ever offered.

Of course, if I provided another 50 documented examples of obstruction, negligence and censorship, you'd demand another 50 before you budged an inch. It's the perfect position of plausible deniability you guys fall back on. "Yeah, but. Prove it more!!!"

Your heroes had physical models prepping for similar attacks, then told the American people and Congress "no one in our administration could have envisioned using planes as missiles..."

Your heroes phoned democratic lawmakers threatening them against any kind of investigation. (Anthrax attacks from within the U.S. followed, but that's just another coincidence)

Your heroes finally acquiesced, but then attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger to direct said investigation.

Your heroes limited investigation funding to 1/5th the amount of the Ken Starr report, and set a laughably unreasonable deadline to complete said report.

Your heroes, from the outset, announced the report would "not assign blame" on anyone.

Your heroes redacted cozy business relationships with the perpetrators.

Your heroes moved the vast majority of NORAD fighter cover out of the Northeast sector that morning.

Your heroes destroyed all SEC records investigating the insider trading that weekend.

Your heroes had the attackers under surveillance, then halted that surveillance.

Your heroes were alerted of Muslim fundamentalists receiving commercial flight training with no interest or focus on actually landing.

Your heroes used the event to dupe Congress and the American people so as to invade a sovereign nation that never attacked us, and still allege a Saddam/bin Laden connection to this day.

I could go on and on and on and on ... but you'd still insist you need more.

I confidently predicted two years ago the information would be released. There's really no surprise here, including the anticipated feigned reaction from your camp.

It's telling that you seem to think your Fox report is as far as it goes. He's literally told the 9/11 widows that he's aware of the contents and he promised them, twice, he would release it all. You should probably catch up on what this is actually about before attaching yourself to the PU mob.

You mean besides "AQ acting alone?" ... Notice the skepticism from coincitards - after my original 60 Minutes post - that anyone watched or noticed.

I wonder if you realize how awesome this sentence really is.

IK,R? It is... Because it shows we're talking about a group of people who were corrupt long before 9/11, and people like you insist they still deserved the benefit of the doubt. Of course, you later concede you're not surprised.

But then again, dumb as you are, you're probably not even aware of how many people on the PNAC were neck-deep in Iran-Contra, including Cheney... I can almost hear you scrambling to teh Googlez to get up to speed.

But you're known for being wrong. A lot. Why would anyone take anything you say seriously based on your body of work?

LOL, you said the WH was forced to acknowledge the 60 Minutes report (from 3 days ago). Apparently you think Obama's reaction was to get in a time machine and go back to 2009 to make promises to 9/11 families.

Right... so a senior policy adviser finally calling Bob Graham the day after the CBS report to update him on the progress of the review is ... just a coincidence...

or, one in a mind-boggling series of them in the view of your camp.

Not on 9/11.

I guess because I cite every single claim with direct quotes (or memos) from the people involved.

As for other topics you think I've been "wrong" bout, those are the pitfalls of actually talking about a very volatile geopolitical future. You wouldn't know, because you don't actually risk offering ANY original perspective on what's to come and how to hedge. You're more of a reactionary, armchair critic.

look at Team Troll desperately perpetuating the "don't care" myth hour after hour, day after day ... on and on and on it goes.

LOL!!!

they knew it was coming, they buried surveillance, they obstructed all efforts to investigate, they redacted the most damning evidence... you guys have been fighting those allegations for 14+ years, and now you're drawing dead. ... No one is surprised you've resorted to the fake apathy angle.

#TeamTroll

I hope you don't pursue women they you pursue the "don't care" crowd here.

another empty response from a contingent completely out of options.

run along, then

oh look... it's the very poster who asked if anyone actually watched Sunday night!!!

You didn't answer if the Saudis planted the explosives or just paid for it.

My sentence was this:

> The fact that you think this is absolute proof you are completely out of your mind.

To which you responded:
Just as a note, based on your response, you didn't parse my sentence correctly. I wasn't saying you think something is proof. I was saying "the fact that you think this" is absolute proof. I could've probably worded that better and the mis-parse is understandable.

lol

moron

I don't respond to obvious trollish misdirection attempts. But you know that already, troll.

Truther

That's fine. Of course, your altered definition of what the term means is quite different from mine. But thanks for your efforts, Cheney concubine.

This isn't why your statement was awesome. Want to try again?

Personally I regard the way the Bush administration's willful misleading of the public in the pursuit of an unprovoked war of aggression killed over a hundred thousand people a LITTLE BIT worse than them trying to cover their asses about 9/11, but you know, you do you do.