Was Bush a plant?
 

I'm never one for conspiracy theories, but after much thought, i wonder if this isn't the case... was he a plant by a) The Saudi Royal Family, or b) The Carlyle Group?

With the recent news about the voting machines and the timestamped votes that did not appear to be during valid voting times and the Dubai Ports World issue, coupled with the on-going, ever-losing war in Iraq (that, as with the former two issues noted, do NOT help the American people), it begs the question, how and why is George W. Bush our president? Both of the above named groups have the money and influence to probably make something like this happen. That coupled with the fact that the Bush family has their hands in oh-so-many pies... Just a few stories before you flame me...


http://www.correntewire.com/bush_fam..._in_appalachia

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/1211-05.htm

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html


Now honestly, I'd love to hear GOOD, TRUE and PROVABLE rebuttals against this idea. It doesn't excite me to think that our system is so easily overcome by greed and money. However, I'm beginning to fear that perhaps it is the case.

The name of this thread is one of the funniest double meanings I've ever seen. "Was Bush a plant?" That is excelent.

As for the response to this threads questions...I have to fall back on what I've been saying since 2000: either Bush is a raving idiot, or he is truely corrupt. The second option does allow for the possibility of outside influence or even control. The evidence makes it clear that this thread does not belong in paraioa, and I hope others will agree with me on that point.

All right, I'll bite. Is he a plant in the mould of Invasion of the Body Snatchers or The Manchurian Candidate? No, that would be ridiculous.

Have powerful interests put their resources into his election and influencing his decisions? Sure. This doensn't make him a stooge though; just a politician.

My sense of him has always been that of an empty vessel, so I understand your fears, even if I don't fully buy in to them.

ME thinks it is highly illegal, therefore highly improbable for the Saud's to prop him up. If he were hypothetically a plant, then it is obviously the Neo-Cons Wolfowitz/Rummy/Cheney as they started there backing of him after Clinton refused the idea of invasion in 98'.

Charlatan- Good call...

Willravel - Thanks, I was pleased with it myself... ;-) Also note that BOTH of your option lend themselves toward outside influence and control. If he's corrupt, he's doing it because he gets something out of it. If he's just an idiot, he may simply not KNOW what's going on half the time.

Fresnelly - A plant as in either? Both? I'm not really sure. Willravel's points are well made. I think he could be either or possibly both. And sure, he's a politician... but even the really corrupt ones usually try to do things in the guise of aiding their constituency. Bush does things for less substantial (to the public at large, at least) reasons as far as I can tell. As I said, I'm not one to go for this kind of thinking generally... but for a change, it may be an issue.

Mojo - of COURSE it is illegal... that's why it'd be a conspiracy of sorts. At any rate, we've influenced the path of other countries governments for decades, maybe longer. It's not that it's unheard of, so much, as that it's something that scares me regarding our own country.

Since when is anyone worried about doing something illegal? The point of this thread it connect the dots...and each of those dots is either illegal or counter to the best interests of the US, or both. The wiretapping thing is obviously illegal to anyone who understands the history of FISA, and that alone should be telling as to how far this has been allowed to come. Add illegal kidnappings and detaining people indefinatly, invading a country that did not have the means to be a threat to the US or it's allies, (at the very least) being complacent in the largest terrorist attack in American history, and warmungering that would make an emperor cringe....this is not a pretty picture, and it is certianally not a picture of legality.

I hadn't thought of this before; the notion of a reverse propped up regime. That IS scary.

Excuse the quick thread jack, but near everything you have said has not been found illegal in any capacity, in fact in a few cases it has been upheld by American common/statutory law. On top of that, everything else is at best flimsy and is theoritical and could not be proven in any legal capacity, therefore it would not be illegal.

That having been said, how could outside campaign finance from a foreign source not be picked up? I have never heard any accusations of such a thing happening, you think with all the charges levied against Bush, that would be one of them.

Also maybe as a side note, Mods and perhaps other members, if people are serious about trying to clean up this board and enrich discussion, perhaps threads based on hypotheticals and unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are not best for this board.

In all honesty, I can't tell if you're trying to be ironic or sarcastic, or if you really mean it. Frankly, I don't support OUR OWN interference with other countries, and I certainly don't support another country's interests controlling the USA. *shrug* I think it *IS* a bit scary.

Seconded. I'm no fan of the current administration, but this thread belongs in Tilted Paranoia.

/metathreadjack

Is Bush influenced? No question about it. The Bush family has been tight with the Saudi royal family for generations. Why do you think, when 11 Saudis flew planes into our buildings, we attacked... Iraq?

Is Bush a plant? Aside from the (very clever) pun, no. He's as scheming and machiavellian as any other politician, and his brain lives in Karl Rove's head, but I just can't believe our administration is somehow propped up or controlled from afar.

Mojo-

First of all, politics is a string of hypotheticals. Laws are, oft times, written pre-emptively. If ALL laws were written as a matter of reactionism, we'd be in a heap of trouble.

Second of all, I think it's an extremely valid discussion, and honestly not meant for the oogie boogie boards. How has wire tapping been upheld by common/statutory laws? I've not seen such laws in place in any legal libraries I've perused. Can you link me to such an item?

As for outside funding, how is it hard for a foreign interest to transfer money to a presidential candidate through an American company/person who has common interests with said foreign interest? I would say the war in Iraq has benefited the Saudi Royal Family more than any other major body. The increase in crude oil prices and allowance of other countries to compete with Iraq more than ever before is certainly a boon to them since they directly make money from Saudi oil sales. What about the "Good ol' boyism" that has been RAMPANT in this administration? Has another president so blatantly misused his power to the financial gain of his kinfolk, friends and business partners? None of these items are secret, and while they may not, currently, be against the law, many attempts to investigate such matters to DETERMINE their legality have been shot down by the administration. The Bushies and their utter lack of cooperation with the rest of the government (little well the will of the People) stinks of corruption from top to bottom. How can such a debate NOT be fit for this board? Is it that you are simply too supportive of Bush to find any allegations against him to be completely falacious and thus unfit for proper discussion and debate? Why do you feel this thread bears such little merit?

Again, as with this thread, I wonder when Americans became so complacent regarding government. Even our Founding Fathers were unsure of the very government they were creating. They put in checks and balances, and tried, to the best of their knowledge and ability, to make it an equal playing field. At some point our bipartisanism trumped any real hope of true democracy. Now, even intelligent folk such as yourselves can be seen putting down revolutionary or skeptical ideas as Paranoia and Conpsiracy. How is that, exactly? Do I think we should have an armed coup as OP'd in the thread linked above? Not at all. But as I posited there, what IS the limit. It was mentioned that maybe the limit was Bush refusing to leave in '08. But is another stooge or potentially falsely elected official acceptable? Is Jeb Bush in '08 an okay thing? How does one verify (either way) whether an election was rigged or not. Do you just blindly trust the system and assume that all is well? If you do, is it so you are NOT labeled a reactionist or paranoid?

Frankly, I think discussions such as this, that use FACTS and NEWS from past and present warrant intelligent discussion and have a merit unto it's own. I'm sorry, but I don't see this thread being at all similar to Bat Boy or other such items. The fact is that George W. Bush has not been good for the American people at large. Even many Republicans are beginning to see this. ALL interests that have gained from it are at least CONNECTED to, if not part of the Middle East. Iraq certainly has not gained much (except a few hundred? thousand? dead citizens and a complete lack of a stable government). America has not gained anything except a loss of freedoms (in the name of national security), a few thousand dead soldiers and an ever-growing debt. But the Bush family has stood to turn a pretty penny. As has the Carlyle Group, Haliburton and a few select others (not to mention the oil companies). It just seems a bit strange that such things are practically flaunted by the administration, and everyone seems okay with that. "It's just politics" you say? I call bullshit. Are you really that accepting of getting bent over?

Edit:

In fact, your second paragraph speaks volumes. So 11 Saudis fly into the WTC and we attacked Iraq? Hmmm, yup, just another day of politics. It's okay folks, nothing to see here... it's just the paranoid ramblings of an eccentric person. *sigh* Are you serious?

Bushs wiretaps have in no capacity been found to be illegal, yet, I concede they very well could be. But accusations about such acts ignore the fact that the President as the Executive is allowed to execute in good faith the laws of congress, that is an expressed provision of the ultimate legal authority of this country the constitution.

As for the funding, it what you purpose in argument against my earlier comments is true, then that would be an innate flaw of our system. So on that note the only reason Bush got outside funding from the Saudi's was to counter money from George Soros and other foreigners, all he was doing was leveling the playing field.

/emote Tinfoil hat realignment /crinklecrinkle

I didn't move this to paranoia right away, because I think there might be something to discuss here.

Specifically around the subject of external influences on those in power.

I recognize this is a topic that could easily drift into the mud or paranoia, hence my warning at the top.

I will keep it here for now but please, as I said before, keep it civil and try not drift.

Mojo-

I believe you may not fully be grasping the concept of checks and balances. What congressional laws are the Executive branch executing that allow for such broad, unchecked wire tapping? Again, please link me to such items in written law. In fact, AFAIK, Congress is the body trying (and not being cooperated with) to investigate the matter further.

As for the funding, I believe there are limits to funding, both regarding amounts and sources. Isn't this the case? Also, I'm speaking to the possibility, which appears to be growing over recent months, that the election itself was bought, not that Bush's campaign was funded, per se. Yes yes, crinkle crinkle... you're very clever Mojo. But you didn't really respond to my comments or questions. Do you have such blind faith in the government that you believe any of these ideas are simply obsurd? What would have to happen to convince you otherwise? Are there parameters or criteria that the government, in your eyes, currently meets that would have to be surpassed before you'd believe that something larger may be at play? As I recall, last time this country went to war for no founded reason, it was a VERY unpopular act. It seems to be unpopular now, with us in Iraq, but less seems to be getting done about it. The people are more complacent, more ignorant or simply more lazy and are unwilling to go to battle about this. In fact, whats-her-name that camped out in front of The Ranch was deemed to be a bit of a kook herself. If I were to suggest our current state of willingness to go along with things was, say, caused by governmnet tainted water... then I'd think perhaps this was the wrong forum. However, I believe nothing of the sort. I also, however, don't believe that things are on the up-and-up (even to the typical level of politics) regarding our current president and the people that work directly around him.

xepherys: the difference between the public now and the public in vietnam is that the government learned a lot about the effectiveness of PR in Vietnam.

They won't make that mistake again (regardless of who is in power).

xepherys please refute this

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=2413


Now honestly, I'd love to hear GOOD, TRUE and PROVABLE rebuttals against this idea. It doesn't excite me to think that our system is so easily overcome by greed and money. However, I'm beginning to fear that perhaps it is the case.

Obviously this thread needs to be moved.

That's a fair point Ustwo.

I agree that speculation is just that. However, I think we can all agree that corruption has a home in politics. As you say, greed and money can override the system.

I am less inclinded to see the Saudi's behind every Bush (so to speak) as I am to see US corporations such as Halliburton (or at least stakeholders in these companies) consipring to wrest control of the levers of power.

Plant a tinfoil hat on my head if you will but it isn't that impossible to imagine...


Regarding the moving of this thread... the situation is being monitored.

1) Why would they plant Bush?
2) If they planted Bush, did they also plant congress, the UN?
3) How did they get me to vote for Bush, twice and also in the primaries? How did they get me to work on his campaign?
4) Why would Bush sellout to them, he already has more money than he can spend?
5) How did they get the US Supreme court to go along in 2000?
6) Are they responsible for Al Gore losing his home state in 2000?
7) Is Cheney a plant too? Is he still running the country through Bush?
8) How have they been able to keep this secret?
9) How did they know 2004 would come down to Ohio and then focus voter fraud in the right areas?
10) Is Bush the dumbest President ever, or is he so smart he can fool an entire nation for 5 years?

I don't expect an answer to each question, but I would be interested in a response to one of them just to understand where the conspiracy theory would take it.

I don't really have much to say on this subject, but in case you've forgotten, after 9/11 we attaced the TALIBAN in AFGHANISTAN. remember?

1) The last Bush worked.
2) If you could plant a president, isn't it logical to assume that they could plant some members of congress? How many times has the UN agreed with an action taken by the Bush administration?
3) Every candidate had some votes. I voted for Badnarik, but if he had won, I'd know something was going on because of the popular vote.
4) What do you think Bush wants more, money or power?
5) Similar influence.
6) That doesn't really man anything....moving on...
7) Cheny is more likely to have an active role in the operations of the government than Bush, simply by the fact that he is more of a success in the buisness and government world overall.
8) Because it seems so fantastic on the surface that people just let it go.
9) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct25.html
10) Well if he didn't fool me or xepherys, then he didn't fool everyone, did he?

*sigh*

Ustwo, first of all, I do not HAVE provable evidence that that is false. I am, however, able to draw a logical conclusion that it is not. However, let's look at this from another perspective. While most conspiracy theories seem completely absurd, how many might have some basis in reality. Especially the technology related ones. I doubt you can build a "free energy" UFO for personal transport... but I wonder how many people also think a personal jetpack is a complete falacy. I mean, you certainly can't go to Wal-mart and pick one up, but in all factuality they've been built. Hell, they flew them around the stadium during the half time of Super Bowl I. But alas, less informed Americans (and others) would probably look at you with a hint of suspicion if you just said "Personal jetpacks are something that can be built." Why is that? Well, partially it's the WYSIWYG concept that is prevelant in this generation. People assume, with all of the wonderous technology that appears new to consumers each year, that we MUST be seeing all of the incredible wonders science can offer us. My fellow military folk here can attest, most likely, that this is not the case. Hell, if you talked about "sound weapons" and "military lasers" in the 60s in any serious fashion (and not in the defense biz) you'd have been assumed to be reading too many comic books. The point? You never know what is ACTUALLY available. You also never know what ACTUALLY is happening under a deep corruption.

Back on topic, if Bush is, in fact, innocent of crimes against the American people, then why does the administration try so hard to foil discovery attempts made by other branches of the government? I don't recall executive power being used to prevent the courts from finding the William Jefferson Clinton wasa filanderer. Sure, he didn't come out and admit it right away... but he also didn't form cabinet level positions and teams of people to PREVENT such information from being found. And for him it wasn't something that really AFFECTED the American public. Cover ups are certainly nothing new to the government. Hell, watergate was pretty big... but that was then and this is now? I still don't see why you believe this to be so ridiculous. I can understand fine-lining it, but the outright assumption that it is not the case seems a bit silly to me.

Also, I think comparing real world events with a letter from some random person is a bit off keel as well. It's not like I came here with a million and one reasons why Bush is an alien or something as such. I linked articles (and could link more... CNN last week ran stories about the Diebold voting machines registering votes from as early as two weeks before elections and as late as midnight... it was chalked up to "computer error" by the manufacturer. I've worked with computers for a LOONG time... once in a while a single computer making a timestamp error COULD occur... but multiple times across multiple systems... it takes more than poorly written software.) and gave a valid, plausible argument. So far nobody has made any REAL attempts to argue against it. I've mostly just seen attacks on the theory as to debunk it by comparing it to pop-culture funny stories. *shrug* Why is that?

Charlatan, so far, has been the most reasonable voice. He hasn't outright agreed with it (and I'm not ehre to "convince" people either). But he can also at least make comparisons to other real world events, and not ridiculous stories from a site that was meant to mock them. Honeslty, Ustwo, I'm a bit disappointed... usually I enjoy reading your arguments whether I'm on the same side of the fence or not... guess your heart just isn't in it this time.

I do remember that... people I know are still over there... but we didn't keep many troops there for long, and we sure jumped on Iraq rather quick-like.


As to Ace:


1) I agree with willravel... the last one worked great (though he was MUCH better at PR)
2) Also agreed... the UN doesn't seem to favor our actions for the most part, and generally, we don't seem to give a damn anymore.
3) Oddly enough, 3 for 3 with will... I ALSO voted for Badnarik (1 of <160 in my country, in fact). Every candidate gets votes... Reps and Dems will ALWAYS account for >40% each of votes regardless... too many party ticketers.
4) I wonder where most of his families money came from... oh wait, Oil? I wonder where those oil relationships came from... oh wait, Saudi Arabia? It's ponderous man, really ponderous. Also a thing to note about wealthy people... they tend to use their money to make more money. There's isn't an upper cap, exactly.
5) Who knows... luck? Money? Personally, I'd go with random chance on that one. At the time, even the balls out conspiracy theorists weren't entirely sure what had just happened.
6) I don't get it... would there have to be some reason for that? I'm not a fan of Gore or Kerry either, mind you... but I don't see this as an important point at all...
7) Again I tend to agree with Will... I don't honestly know anymore than I know it's true about Bush. Maybe, maybe not... perhaps he's just along for the money train.
8) Maybe because thoughts like this are rarely taken seriously. As it has been the case primarily in this thread so far. Maybe because money and power are major players in what the people are allowed to know. That's not conspiracy, that's just cold, hard fact.
9) Again, Will seems to have hit it on the head.
10) I vote for the former, but it could be the latter as well, who knows. Maybe he really doesn't know he is just a puppet. Hell, the man can barely get out a proper sentence in English half the time... I'm not convinced either way...

#6 is important because Gore losing his home state TN suggests that those who planted Bush were so powerful that they could get people who knew Gore the best to vote against him. If they could do that, then that is a display of real power.

Ace-

You are making this out to be more looney than it truly would have to be. Has no presidential candidate ever lost his own state before? I don't see it as being important to the picture as a whole. It also doesn't seem to be part of any conceivable conspiracy. I didn't say that they made Florida vote for Bush... but it's PLAUSIBLE that the election there was rigged, and there is data to support that possibility. You don't see a difference between my example and yours?

http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/.../08astate.html
and later in the article:
#6 isn't important because there was no reported voter fraud there.

I'm not sure if he's a plant but his IQ does leave me wondering...

The swing was 5 electorial votes, TN has 11. If Gore had focused on his home state he would have won. If he could have gotten New Hampshires' 4 instead of the 4 going to Bush, Gore would have won. He lost NH by about 7,000 votes.

Perhaps Nader was the plant. He got 2% of the Florida vote, if most of those votes went to Gore, Gore would have won. I think Nader's vote total was more than what the new fraud accounted for (we have to assume x% of fruad in any election so for the conspiracy theory to work you would need a new fraud % fraud above what is normal). In NH Nader got about 4% of the vote, Gore lost by 1%.

Why would they assume Gore would lose TN? Bush won TN by 51% to Gore's 47% or about 80,000 votes. Did they know in advance that Gore was not going to work his home state?

Gore lost becuase of a poor strategy. Even after the election he made strategic mistakes that most likely cost him the election.

It was never about Gore losing, it was about Bush winning. Had Gore ran against a really popular candidate, then he would have gotten spanked and rightly so. I'd love to see Gore go up against JFK or Clinton or Jackson.

The reason we think Bush stole the election is the big wonderful mountain of evidence. It has nothing to do with the effectivness of Gores campaign.

CNN reports that the confusing butterfly ballot used in Florida's Palm Beach County cost Gore 6,607 votes. This means that Gore actually beat Bush in Florida by 6,070 votes. Thus Gore won BOTH the popular vote and, by rights, the Electoral College vote. You'd think that would be enough to convince people, but no. Now I have to temporarily threadjack...
from http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=239

Gore lost his home state because he is liberal. He lost Florida and the win because of foul play.

/end massive threadjack.

Tilted Paranoia is that way ==>

Your argument convinced me. In 2000 it was not about Gore losing it was about Bush winning in the states he won, and "stealing" the election in Florida. And Gore lost his home state because his liberal views did not match those of the people of TN. I can accept those statements. And I can accept that Bush, his brother and the republican party conspired to make sure Bush won Florida no matter what the price. However, I don't think the conspiricy goes further than that.

One final question, did Gore know Bush's brother was govenor of Florida?

Speaking from experience, I know that it's not easy to be convinced of someone elses argument. I offer much praise and respect.

Did Gore know Bush's brother was governor of Florida? God, I hope so. The problem is that he kept the information in his lock box, and it probably got lost. /end Gore joke

I think that Gore underestimated how hungry Bush and his supporters were. Had Gore seen the reality of corruption, he could have taken adequate measures to concentrate on Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Iowa instead of Florida. Had I been Kerry, I would have done a shit load more mud slinging. Bush = failed buisnessman, daddys boy, alcoholic, went to and failed at Harvard and Yale, ruined Texas' environment....etc. Kerry should have had the same fire he had when he was protesting the war. He also should have been more serious about the second gulf war. He was a big dissapointment, even though I didn't vote for him.

I have to confide that I resent that I'm still coming here...I'm having a very similar reaction to spending time here, as I am to finding myself still in residence in the US of A.

I think that roachboy is "right on the money" with his opinion that what we currently have is a political system controlled by two parties of the right, differing only by degree. I watch what is happening in areas of public sentiment about issues, the way people vote, the encroachment of religion (American christians who possess total control of the political system, while they whine about being somehow, "persecuted"!!)

I observe these threads, my TV....and my countrymen....and lately it's like watching a train or car wreck....I want to avert my gaze, but I can't quite bring myself to look away.

I agree with this post 2000 election assessment: <a href="http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:OGrd1GDHwNkJ:www.oakridger.com/stories/120800/opE_1208000075.html+%22gore+lost+tennessee%22&hl=en&lr=&strip=1">Why Al Gore lost Tennessee</a> ....it speaks volumes about where we as a country have been, where we're headed, and about how shallow issue driven sentiment is, and how easy it is to manipulate it when one understands the prejudices and history of a regional culture, and knows what buttons to push to sway voters to <b>vote against their own best</b>(economic, environmental, security, educational, political power potential of the majority) <b>interests.</b>

Voters in Tennessee gave up the economic impact and prestige of having a Presidential "son"...the attention, tourism boost, the post presidency library, birthplace....for what? They're left living in one of the poorest states with the one of the least educated and most devoutly "christian" populations. They got new bankruptcy and tort reform laws that will go over great in a state with high bankruptcy and home foreclosure rates, and low percentages of families covered by private health insurance.

The "reform" was more about rewarding the credit card industry lobby, and cutting the incentive (and incomes) for trial lawyers to contribute to democrats who might have stopped passage of tort reform, than it results in any lowering of consumer interest rates or reductions in malpractice insurance premimums.....

My awareness (and disgust) are heightened by a few things that I personally know about, pretty well. My best childhood friend's father was a "Yale man".
During football season, I was invited to all the home game talegate parties, and I got to observe Yale alumni tradition and interaction, close up.

I noted that, after Bush "won" in 2000, he came back to Yale, where he graduated in '68, to give a speach at graduation, for his first visit in 32 years!

On 9/11, I was living on the upper west side of Manhattan.....I didn't know it before the first plane hit a WTC tower....but the thought soon crept into my
mind that, before it crashed, that "airliner turned missle", had flown just a few hundred feet higher and to the west of where I was standing in my 18th floor apartment, two blocks east of the Hudson river. That afternoon, I walked out into the river on the newly built Trump pier, and I could look south and see the smoke coming from where the WTC stood, five hours before.

Sixty days later, I accepted an opportunity to move into a sublet apartment for three months. It was located on the Hudson, three blocks from what was now the WTC debris field. I had to pass through a roadblock daily, manned by NG troops or NYSP, in order to drive my car in or out of that area. ID and an authorization from the apartment building management was required to pass.

I was struck by how total, massive, and concentrated the obliterated area in lower Manhattan, in reality, ended up being. It couldn't have been any more impressive, yet compact, contained, and materially and collaterally insignifigant, even on an island as geographically small as on Manhattan....than if <b>"They"...had fucking planned it....</b>

I walked or drove by the main entrance where trucks with debris were washed down as they exited with their full loads of WTC wreckage, at least twice, each of the next 90 days. In empty and out full, those trucks ran 24/7, as long as I lived there, even on Christmas. From my living room window, I could watch the barge loads of WTC debris (the trucks drove less than two blocks before they dumped their loads into the bucket of a giant, rail mounted pier crane that transferred the "material" destined for the landfill on Staten Island.)....as the tugs nudged them away from the pier and out into the Hudson river current.

When the three month sublet ended, I drove down to my current new home in a major metro area in the "new south". When I got here, it was as if the 9/11 attack had never even happened. The "south" had moved on. The dreary, WTC collapse dust stained storefronts of lower Manhattan, shuttered since 9/11 by a lack of customers caused by the loss of the WTC and the post attack, security "lockdown" of that area, were in sharp contrast to the newly constructed strip malls springing up all over the vicinity of my new southern home.

I became acquainted with a "born again" influenced, social and political culture and nearly uniform mindset, as similar...and foreign to me, anyway ....as the one that is described in the "Gore article", linked above, or the one that I observe in the opinions and reactions in the posts of about half of you,
......on these threads.

The mindset is as "different" to my thinking and life experience, than George Bush's reaction and behavior to finding himself as a Yale alumni, for the 32 years after he graduated. I don't understand George, I can't comprehend how "working people" in the "new south" vote for candidates who obviously represent corporate interests and priorities, to the detriment of their citizen constituents, and I don't understand you folks, here.

Now, a few observations and queations that confound the shit outta me....I've had a bird's eye view of the events,and their aftermath, that have most shaped recent American times, compared to most Americans, and I have a tendency to be more curious, and more apt to immerse myself in the details of what might be going on....than most other people.....can anyone answer the following questions, for me???
<b>[1]</b>How the "eff" did a thread with such a title, links, and comments, avoid being "moved" outta "politics", for this long? (I could never convince mods to even let my more reputably footnoted "endeavors" that leaned toward conjecture, remain on here...what's the "secret"? I'll opine that I feel strongly that any thread (or post) reinforced by links from mainstream sources, should never be moved....or CLOSED. The quality of the information displayed and the diminished future exposure that moving and closing serves to deprive those who might have read it if it had been left OPEN or "IN PLACE" on here, trumps any potential positive effect of "moderation", IMO. After all, isn't it about increasing the potential exposure to "hard news", to as many people who could come across an unaltered post or thread??

<b>[2]</b>How come the only source for the 9/11 "boxcutter as hijacker weapon" reports, can be narrowed down to coming from Ted Olson, wife of Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olson, and the solicitor general of the U.S., who told the SCOTUS that he believed there are times when it is appropriate for the federal goverment to lie to the citizenry? Ted allegedly "fed" the boxcutter "story" to his friend, a CNN exec. who had it posted on CNN's site, early on the morning of 9/12.

<b>[3]</b>How come the only two major candidates for the 2004 Presidential election, were members of a Yale "secret society" that inducts just 15 members per year, and how come the major Washington DC newspaper assigned coverage of the campaigns of both candidates to a reporter who was also a member of that same "society"? How come the candidate who was the Yale "outsider", the man with no family tradition at Yale, had the "normal" alumni relationship with the school, similar to the ties that I had personally observed in my best friend's dad, and his former classmates, and the candidate who's Yale ties went back four generations, never visited as an alumni? Who did Yale, as an entity that boasted a long reputation for placing it's grads in high office, or the tiny secret society, truly want to see elected, or would either of the two "right" party candidates, mesh interchangeably?

<b>[4]</b>How come the "new south" and other, more rural, "red state" constituencies, acted so "impacted" by the 9/11 attacks, that they backed the "War prez-nut" without question or dissent, and agreed to such expensive, aggressive, and wide ranging responses, when the area of impact was so remote from where they lived, was so contained, and had such a tiny impact on their day to day lives, while the folks living near "ground zero" failed to trust Bush, and half believed that he and his administration lied about what it knew before the 9/11 attack, and how earnestly it defended the area military and provided post disaster aid to surviving family of attack victims, for rebuilding, and for actual future security to cities most likely to be "hit"?

<b>[5]</b>As I detailed in the post that I so cooperatively moved to the "P" word forum yesterday, before I was even required to......why are there so many contradictions in the 9/11 Commission report, if it is a sincere determination of what happened on 9/11, and why do all the folks who seem as foreign thinking...to me....as Bush does as a Yale alumni....seem not even curious enough to look into or to respond to discrepancies like the ones in my "P" thread post? Where does they're unquestioning "faith" in Bush come from?
Why do they almost never cite MSM news reports when they defend Bush or disagree with what I post.?

<b>[6]</b>If the MSM is so "liberal" in it's bias, how come last Sunday's NBC
"Meet the Press", had three republican guests, and no democrats?

<b>[7]</b>Trent Lott was on Chris Matthew's "Softball", the other day. He ranted that he was "mad" that his prez-nut, wouldn't even discuss the Dubai port deal.....just threatening to veto any effort by the congress controlled by his own "right" party, that attempts to interfere with the "DEAL". Lott pointed out that he represents PEOPLE!! Why does this all seem like a Karl Rove "Op" designed to deal with the reality that Bush is an anchor around repubs who have to run for election in late 2006? The "Dubai story" was public and under-reported by MSM for three months. Why did it suddenly make headlines, and why does it seem such a convenient vehicle for repub congressment to use to "push back" against Bush, and show the sheeple back home that they are independent representative and do not bow to Bush's every whim?

<b>[8]</b>Can't a case be made that almost all federal elected officials of both "right" parties, are PLANTS that represent only the status quo and the goals of GE, Bank America, Lockheed, and whoever else pays the K street lobbyists? Why stop with just Bush? Who, in congress, represents working families that deserve the "playing field" balancing effects of strong unions, a progressive tax system, affordable health care, equal access to competent legal aid, women's health and reproductive services and clinics, honest and open government with active ethics enforcement, quality public financed education, and enforced environmental protection laws, fiscally sustaining and resource conserving energy and alternative energy resource policies, and a less confrontational foreign policy with an empahsis on defense of human rights? Since Carter was voted out, 26 years ago, I see only two "right" parties dominating the political spectrum. How do any of you justify arguing that it is any other way? Just like in the days after 9/11....ask yourself, who benefits from the outcome of the attack, or from our "elections". Is it most of us?

good post, host. that was a good read.

Wrong Board. It belongs in Conspiracy Theories...

Host. That is one of the best posts I've seen from you... I think, ever.

I will answer your first question.

It would have been moved to Paranoia except I felt that discussing extrenal influnces on the levers of power was a valid topic. I have to admit that I am still on the fence about moving it.

I would like to see the discussion move more to towards what it means when Corporate (and perhaps foreign) interests get their hooks into a candidate. Clearly there is a concern that these interests derail the political process.

What would it take to convince people that it is happening?
Does it matter that it is Bush vs. some imaginary Democrat?

In my mind, I believe the invasion of Iraq was being planned long before Bush took power. It was certainly laid out in The New American Century. Cheney and a group of Oil Industry higher ups were passing around maps of the oil fields in Iraq long before 9/11. These are all documented facts.

To say that Bush is a plant, I think, goes too far. To say that he is working to line the pockets of his wealty friends is not too far. Do I have proof for this, no. Is there enough circumstancial evidence to make Bush and Cheney's administration fail the smell test? Yes.

Ultimately, unless there is a howitzer's worth of smoking guns. Those who view Bush as a good president will not be convinced.

That said, I'd like to hear what those who cry conspiracy think about a situation like this in general. No slings and arrows at Bush in the specific. Just political graft and the potential of actual conspiracy. Let's assume for a moment we have the smoking gun. Would it be enough to make you change your mind? Would you still support an Administration like that?

I love this argument. People disagree socially and economically and suddenly it's them being swayed against their interest. Please, the number of jobs that are controlled by unions is falling because unions have a BAD history of sapping large % of income while destroying the industry, and thus the amount of jobs, while getting very little in return.

Because the South is extremely patriotic. The South reacted in much the same way as if someone had raped our sister, grab the rifles and "lets get 'im". There's a reason Recruters love the Southern states. A buddy of mine had to fly to California (from Texas) when a woman pulled him to the side and a small mob of half a dozen tried to talk to him about what he was doing was wrong. While here in the South if you're wearing a Uniform in the airport people will litterally line up to buy you drinks. These social differences are not to be made into conspiracies.

However your point about the Skulls I agree with, I dont believe it's and Oligarchy.. however there are definately strings being pulled to get their own kind there.

If the South is so patroitic, what's with all the confederate flags? Are you going to tell me that no one knows what they really stand for? The last time I was in Mississippi, I asked someone about it (in a purepy inquisitive tone and mannerment), and they screamed at me for being a yankee. I'm not making this up. I think there is some confusion here. California, actually let's say Berkley specifically, is the most patriotic place I've ever seen. More patriotic than Texas, in fact. How in God's name could I say that? It's simple. Patriotism is subjective. I happen to think that the Bush admin istration is a hinderance to our country, so I feel it's my patriotic duty to call him on it. Those who are complacent in this are not patriots in my eyes. On the other hand, right now in Austin there's a man whos son has joined the army to fight in Iraq and he feels that protesting the war and not voting for the president is unpatriotic. Who's right? Neither...both...whatever. The fact of the matter is the South is NOT more patriotic than any other place in the country, and to say so discounts the reality of differing perceptions.

Oh, and I do not support our troops. I'll support them 110% when they serve in the defense of our country, but not when they are in another country trying to fix a mess made by idiots. I have taken steps to remove military recruiters from the lower income highschools in my area. By your post, I imagine people would hate me and call me traitor from the Southern states. Be that as it may, I know that I very well could have saved lives.

There is a fine line between patriotic and nationalistic. The South blurs that line.

As a soldier myself, I would NOT recommend to anyone that enlisting right now is a good idea. The regime that controls the military has other agenda than making the USA a safe place to live. I enlisted for what I consider the right reasons. It was not long after 9/11 and I felt that we had been wronged. I believed that going into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban from power was our right and duty as Americans. Now, I am often ashamed of my uniform. While I love my country and would be happy to defend it, I feel sick to know that myself and others like me are sent off to war in another country to save the asses of others that care not at all for us.

But, that's not what this thread is about. I still don't quite get how any theory against a current group is a paranoid conspiracy theory.

However, in response to the "Mods that Be"... it's not a Bush thing. I am not a party-minded person. There have been great Republicans (and still are). There have been great Democrats (and still are). I don't much care for Bush, but if it was Gore or Clinton or Badnarik or anyone else that was in his seat, and the same things were occuring, than I would have the same post (sans the clever title perhaps?).

And yes, all politicians have a claw or tooth stuck in them from somewhere. I don't agree with it, but it DOES seem to be the case. However, letting those interests interfere entirely with the interests of the American people is not acceptable. The presidency should not be a tool for ANYONE to gain wealth, it should be a position of power to help guide the nation to greatness.

Willravel, the Confederate flag is something you wont understand until you live in the South. It took me 4 years to get to the point of realizing that to many people it's not about the right to slavery or a revolt against the US. It's about standing up for what you believe no matter what the odds, and fighting long past the point where most would give up. Thus, you can see the point of Pride and Patriotism where they coexist even though the exact definitions dont.

A great example where this applies is the Kurds in Iraq. While they fought a continuous fight for the past 100 years, with almost no hope of winning, enduring massacre after massacre... they still have Iraqi national Pride. During the Iran/Iraq war many people volunteered for the Iraqi army even though Saddam constantly massacred them. They sided with Iraq even though Iran supplied them with arms, protected them during their exodus, and had more Kurds in the country than Iraq. Yet during this they still actively fought for Kurdistan. So you can see how they have great regional pride while having patriotism.

Thus your argument about the Confederate flag flying in the face of Patriotism, and Berkley (home of more socialists and communists than I've seen anywhere else) is in fact the most patriotic place in the US is just... wrong.

If the confederate flag stands for the underdog and fighting for what you believe in, then so does the swastika. The roots of the confedarate flag and the confedaracy are obvious, and the connotations are blatent.
But the Kurds aren't sporting a flag that represents slavery, while trying to tell people it's simply about fighting for what you believe in.
I'm a socialist. I am patriotic. I love my country. I love my constitution. I love my Bill fo Rights. I love my deomcracy. My very existence proves my point.

Edit: the reason I pointed out Berkley is that it is extreemly liberal. WHave you ever wondered why you hear about so many protests in Berkley? Because we are fighting for the benifit of the US. It's not to undermine democracy or because we hate America.

Actually you just proved MY point.

Ideologically, a socialist in no way shape or form should love our constitution or democracy. They blend together ideologically as well as oil and water. Your point about the South can not be patriotic was just proven false.

You're right. It's the VERY flag that Millions of Kurds were killed under by the government. Yet they're rising to defend said flag with their lives. Point proven.

Are you ready to admit you don't know what socialism is yet?
Who defends a flag? They're defending their country.

so·cial·ism Audio pronunciation of "socialism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ssh-lzm)
n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

So, our government is built around Capitalism. Socialism is owned collectively between the people and the government. How does that work with the basis of our constitution of limited government powers?

You dont understand. I'm not talking about the litteral flag. I'm talking about what it means to the people. So while the Confederate flag means slavery to you, it doesnt mean that's what it means to everyone else. The Iraqi flag means their country to the Kurds, not the country that has been mass-killing them for a hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

i looked at the wikipedia definition of socialism, from which you bit the one sentence definition of it--that definition focusses on the usage of the term in the writings of marx and represents but one strand of current usage. more often, when folk use the term these days in anything like a meaningful sense, the reference is to democratic socialism. the split in ways of understanding the term "socialism" came about in the context of the 2nd international across the debate within the german communist party over whether to support war credits in parliament. behind this was the question of whether revolution was a short or long term horizon for political action. democratic socialists hold to the latter position, and so see intervening in the organization of capitalism with the aim of bettering the living conditions of working people in real time as a desirable goal.

democratic socialism is an alternative conception of how capitalism could work.
it is coherent and in general far more functional that neoliberal style regimes.
no wonder, then, that so often you see in spaces like this folk from the right who feign ignorance of the matter.

anyway, this usage is not new.
it has been around since world war 1, seaver.


as for the subject of this thread, i only looked in on it to see if there really was a debate about whether george w. bush at some point was an actual plant...you know, like an azelia or something...once i saw that it was a conspiracy theory thread, i lost interest. but i scrolled through, just to see if someone would float the theory that george w bush was, in fact, a potted plant. not that i had anything to say about it. i was just curious. it is like another thread title from a while ago, "nochld left behind my ass" which i took to be a debate about whether there were children left behind someone's ass or not. there too, things did not pan out as hoped.

Why does everyone think that democracy and socialism are mutually exclusive? Anyway.....as a socialist, I can appreciate the governmentally enforced rights, self regulating 3 branch government, and representation of the people and their interests. Those are three really big parts of America. ALSO, socialism does not necessarily need centralized government. In fact, in my perfect world, we there would be community states that are each under socialist rule, and each of those communities would meet in a parliment and discuss the various needs and abilities of each community state. Trade, relations, and treaties would be handled by elected officials. The thing is that while wikipedia and dictionary.com are great places for information, they are really vague when it comes to something like socialism. Socialism is a blanket term that covers so many diverse governmental, economic, and social systems that it requires volumes of information...not a few sentences.

Back to the reason we are discussing socialsim.....Texans don't think people from Berkley are patriotic. This goes along with "liberals hate America", "lefties are sissies" and "Kerry is a flip flopper". It really doesn't mean anything. I've never met you and you've never met me...and yet you have assumed that I am not patriotic. The problem, as I have stated several times, is that the term patriotic is subjective. I think it's extremly patriotic that I've been arrested for being in over 12 protests since the beginning of the Iraqi war. I think it's damned patriotic that I'm doing everything I can to expose the current administration as a group of traitors. If you don't think so, that's great for you, but don't go calling me unpatriotic. Everyone who thinks they are patrioitc is patriotic. It's really that simple. To say that the south is more patriotic than somewhere else is niave and disrespectful to everywhere else.
The comparison doesn't hold up. Maybe if, hundreds of years from now, the families of the parties responsible for the chemical attacks on the Kurds are the only ones to sport the current Iraqi flag, and the country has long since united and managed to almost forget the atrocity...then maybe the comparison would be correct. Until then, it's apples and oranges for this coversation.

I really feel this thread is not going in the direction I would like to see it go.

As it was my call to keep it out of Paranoia... I suppose it should fall to me, to move it there now.

That said, I am quite happy that you didn't throw any uneccessary mud.

I did my best not to bring up the obvious "shrub" connotation. Until now. :D

Channeling Monte Python and the importance of shrubbery

*sigh* I guess it was bound to happen...

Sorry. Take solice in the fact that the thread survived in politics for quite a while. Also, it's not impossible to get a thread moved back.

Hmmm, fair enough.

I suppose, if nothing else, it'd be nice to hear the more "over the edge" theories people may have in relation to this thread. I mean, let's try to keep ourselves planted at least somewhere in reality, but I'm interested in other points of view.

Bush went to Harvard, Yale, and he married a teacher....despite all of this he cannot pronounce "nuclear" or "terror". At first I just explained it away by saying "well, it's his accent". That's not really true, though. The man has trouble thinking. We can all see that. He can't even read a speech written for him. People with a low IQ are more susceptable to influence and control. It's not solid proof, but it does support your theory.

"Harved" - Check.
Yale - Check.
Married a teacher - Check.
Governor - Check.
Two term President of the United States - Check.
Does not prounce "nuclear" or "terror" right - Must have a low IQ and trouble thinking.

Jesus, I just realized, the TV announcer types must be like da Vinci geniuses's with their teleprompter and pronunciation skills!

You know when I talk to Liberals the only Republican president they give any credit for brains is G.H.B, the one term who fell for their 'no new taxes' trap.

i am not sure of the utility of conspiracy theories in general---they seem geared toward simplifying the world, running along a kind of royalist logic that assumes, somewhere behind the surface of diverse folk acting with various motives for divergent ends, there lay a single explanation for what happens---an explanation that is condensed aroudn a discrete group of folks.

for example, i do not buy into the mythologies that have surfaced about skull and bones. mostly because i have spent almost all of my academic life at ivy league schools---so they hold no mystery for me, so the basis for much of the speculation isnt compelling.

as for the assocations of the bush family with arabs: so what? i found nothing interesting or explanatory about the segments of moore's "farenheit 911" that tried to work this association, nor have i found any other arguments rooted in the same basically racist view of arabs compelling from other political sectors.

i see the appeal of these theories as largely aesthetic--they function as conditions of possibility for very simple explanations for complex phenomena.

on the other hand, maybe i'm wrong about all the above: but given that i am hostile to the reversion to conspiracy, the arguments would have to be very strong. so far, i havent seen any.

besides, if there was a conspiracy behind the present political order, you'd think that they would have chosen someone less---um---inept to front for them. if the conspiracy is that incompetent, then i dont see why we should worry about it.

Ustwo - I will repeat for clarity. "despite all of this he cannot pronounce "nuclear" or "terror". At first I just explained it away by saying "well, it's his accent"." This is probably true.

Seperately, (and in addition to mispronunciation) he has said....
"Wow! Brazil is big." —George W. Bush, after being shown a map of Brazil by Brazilian president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Brasilia, Brazil, Nov. 6, 2005

"I mean, there was a serious international effort to say to Saddam Hussein, you're a threat. And the 9/11 attacks extenuated that threat, as far as I-concerned." —George W. Bush, Philadelphia, Dec. 12, 2005

"I think we are welcomed. But it was not a peaceful welcome." —George W. Bush, defending Vice President Dick Cheney's pre-war assertion that the United States would be welcomed in Iraq as liberators, NBC Nightly News interview, Dec. 12, 2005

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." —George W. Bush, to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his job performance, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005

"It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground." —George W. Bush, turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One , Aug. 31, 2005

"The best place for the facts to be done is by somebody who's spending time investigating it." —George W. Bush, on the probe into how CIA agent Valerie Plame's identity was leaked, Washington D.C., July 18, 2005

"You see, not only did the attacks help accelerate a recession, the attacks reminded us that we are at war." —George W. Bush, on the Sept. 11 attacks, Washington, D.C., June 8, 2005

"We discussed the way forward in Iraq, discussed the importance of a democracy in the greater Middle East in order to leave behind a peaceful tomorrow." —George W. Bush, Tbilisi, Georgia, May 10, 2005

"I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the Mother in me." —George W. Bush, Washington D.C., April 14, 2005

"I want to thank you for the importance that you've shown for education and literacy." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2005

"In terms of timetables, as quickly as possible — whatever that means." —George W. Bush, on his time frame for shoring up Social Security, Washington D.C., March 16, 2005


He's not distracted or befuddled. He doesn't just have trouble with pronunciation. He is stupid.

willravel - You're right, IMHO. I mean, a bad quote or two is something that anyone in the spotlight is bound to have. But regular and constant quotes that show ignorance of your native tongue is generally considered to be due to lack of intelligence.

roachboy - I'm not sure I follow your thought line. First of all, by saying that you've been around ivy league schools just makes you a non-candidate for that argument to those that believe something there IS amiss. Also, how do you draw the conclusion that the assertion of political sway between the Saudi Royal Family and the Bush Family are somehow racist? It's nothing against the Saudis, or Arabs or any other group... it's a family with a lot of wealth and power (and interest in the US) that seems to hold a larger share of the political pie, behind the scenes, than most people would like to see or believe. I grew up in Detroit... Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit (and not far from where I lived) has the highest Arab population outside of the Middle East. I've been around Arabs as much as Blacks, Asians, Brits and pretty much any other group of people. I don't have any racist inclination toward any of them. *shrug* It seems to me that the racism card is a smoke screen of sorts, or that you don't really understand the argument being made. Is this a valid assessment?

i guess i had in mind the moore film, which stopped short of making an actual argument, assuming instead that the association between bush family types and saudis was on its own enough to render them suspect.

as for the ivy league thing, i dont think skull and bones more than just another semi-secret society of wealthy young fuck-ups. these schools are full of them. trust me on that one.

mostly, i was saying that i dont find anything interesting about conspiracy theory explanations in general. but that's just a personal aesthetic thing.

sorry for being opaque: sometimes i think i am much lcearer than what i write turns out to be. it has a life of its own, the writing. it goes around, does things, gets tangled up. you know how it is too, i expect.

This is the History of Bush's Family. Apparently it's a family tradition to work for foreign dictators.

http://nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstor...Bush_Nazi_Link

Its all about the illuminati. All of the US Presidents throughout history were masons who are linked to the illuminati. Its the new world order and its also the reason that Tony Blair is his lapdog. They are all told what to do from a higher source, a huge group of people who I believe invented the various religions, currencies, governments and world organisations.

People nowadays are forced into thinking that the world is a bad place, using scare tactics and a blanket of fear ("war on terror?"). People are generally less religious so I truly belive that the leaders of various countries are trying to make it all seem about religious beliefs.

Having said that, Bush does come across as an idiotic puppet and I think they could have found someone better. But he has the character (or fake character) of being very homely and a generally nice bloke so people listen to him.

I have no idea if your president was put there by someone else...

But I find the title of this thread to be the most distracting thing on the main page.

Could we not have used different terms for this? *sigh*

Back to paranoizing...

Awww, Cello... you didn't like my title? *pout*