Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Could a 911 truth push helps stop the run up to war with Iran?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
dogindia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 01:14 PM
Original message
Could a 911 truth push helps stop the run up to war with Iran?
Is there anything we can do to stop these nuts. MSM news all about evidence for Iran making bombs etc. Even the talk of cooked books on Iraq intelligence does not stop this stuff. Dems busy with Hillary/Obama madness. Third carrier group going. They are doing it and will get away with it if something does not stop them. They seem to be unstoppable. It is outrageous. It is frightening.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Robbien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
1. I have been writing to CNN, MSNBC and
every paper which is carrying the story. I've already written my congresscritters and will continuously write them

Just asking them to stop pushing memes saying the US should bomb Iran.

Being silent right now is not an option I believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. I believe that our best chance to stop this is the ongoing exposure
and through the House. We do not even have an actuasl majority in the Senate yet. Hopefully that will change in 08. With one of the Independents voting for war and with Johnson still recuperating, the senators are hamstringed. We all need to batter them constantly anyway and the media. Thank you dogindia for your efforts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vexatious Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
3. Do you really think that anyone from the 911 truth could
be taken seriously. Are you talking about the 911 truth-out movement? I hope not. Something needs to stop the Bushies from invading Iran but it won't be a bunch of conspiracy nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogindia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I watched the towers fall. They went down too fast. It is as simple as that.
I am not a nut job comspiracy person. Something smells rotten and its not the kitty litter. I have not followed all the comspiracy arguments but something is not right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vexatious Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The buildings began their fall at the point of impact.
Ask yourself this: Why would they both plant bombs AND crash the planes into the buildings? Why not just bomb the buildings and blame it on Saddam? That's who they wanted to go after anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. ask yourself why
building 7 completely collapsed when no plane hit it! Fire? Give me a break! No fire has ever brought down a steel framed skyscraper! Never! :wtf:
Maybe you should do more research before making up your mind? :shrug:

911=catalyzing new Pearl Harbor event!= excuse for total war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vexatious Ape Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I did.
The NYC fire dept predicted that building 7 would fall--due to extensive fire damage along the northern side of the building at about 3pm. (the northern side is not the side the Loose Change clown shows in his film)It fell at about 5pm, a couple hours after they thought it would.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. right!
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. here's something for ya....
Edited on Sun Feb-11-07 03:31 PM by wildbilln864
here's a snip from an article...

"This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.

Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?

An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.

Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.

It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.

And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.

Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.

Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.

Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.

But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.

And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.

Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.

So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?

The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.

It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.

But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.

Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up.

The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?

And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.

The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times.

How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?

The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"

Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.

"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?

"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.

"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."

And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin.

So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ.

Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane.

So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?

No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded."


:shrug: Nothing here folks, move along! Link here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fooj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:17 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. Read up on PNAC...
it's ALL there. Neocon roadmap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #6
30. also stripped the Constitution. Hi Bill
:toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 06:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
36. Because 'WTC 7' was the cry on everyone's lips as they invaded Iraq, wasn't it?
Come on, you're saying they'd mine a minor building because they think people wouldn't worry enough about the 2 big ones going down? It was flying the planes into the 2 towers that outraged everyone. Even if they'd stayed standing, they would have been unusable on most of their floors (or all of them?) for years. There would just be no point in a plot to plant explosives in the buildings - it would be very likely that someone would blow the whistle, and it adds little to the end result.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:44 AM
Response to Reply #5
29. Building 7 wasnt hit by a plane,fall started from the Penthouse.
comeon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. No, it was hit by WTC 1
comeon
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:15 AM
Response to Reply #4
19. How fast
did all the other 110-story buildings you've seen collapse fall?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #3
28. The only "NUTS" are the people that believe this Govt.
Its been proven time and tima again.
Ask yourself this:
Have I honestly looked for answers in the 911 attacks?
If not
Please do. The children will thank you someday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-15-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #3
38. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
HuffleClaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. no
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. kicked
4 exposure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
12. It is happening worldwide
Edited on Sun Feb-11-07 03:49 PM by sweetheart
The world, especially europe, is experienced with false flag emperors before,
and certainly takes the 911 truth more seriously than US repressors realize.

Here is a former minister in the UK government and a former German minister of defense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq6kD4Cm8NU

The 9/11 demolition and mass murder by the bush government is strong reason to recognize
how ruthless they are, and to their bloodlust that has since been unquenched with orders of
magnitude more deaths at their cause.

The credible evidence from real scholars is not refuted, but merely 'talked loud at', repeating
their brainwashing and why we should be believers or we're not welcome in the clubhouse,
and what clubhouse pray tell, the club of warmongers.
http://911scholars.org/
http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/

The people who pretend it wasn't a demolition show their bias:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. great post sweetheart!
:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. right on
great info/reminder

:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-11-07 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. i will not be the threadkiller this evening
The op is right, no matter who agrees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
16. Yep. But this subject can't be discussed in this forum.
And I seriously wonder why.

Everyone here should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #16
31. Because it's an embarassment. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #31
33. The Real Kooks
The person who goes about an investigation in a logical, objective manner and pays attention to evidence is not a kook. The real kook is one who thinks that governmental treason is impossible and ignores evidence that is right in front of their face.

Skeptics will use delusional rationalizations to explain away all of the 911 evidence. For them, it does not matter what evidence is presented, because their ultimate goal is to hold onto their existing worldview at any cost (rather than to be open-minded and seek the truth). It is a worldview that is practical, sensible, popular, sane, and rational....but not true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. Thanks, Twist_U_Up
Lordy, did someone imply that *I* might be a "KOOK"??

LoL

You know what I find "kooky"? People who tell me they HATE Bush, HATE what the Neocons are doing, HATE the military industrial complex, totally believe Haliburton, etc., are evil and capable of lying the American people and Congress into an unnecessary war for oil and profit that has killed, oh, roughly 600,000 people -- but they would never do anything so vile and evil as stage a false flag black op that wold cost the lives of thousands of American (predominantly working class) citizens to get the ball rolling! NO, they'd never do that! Not with THEIR level media influence and control! And anyone who would even entertain the idea must be just, well, an ignorant, tin-foil hat wearing pudding head.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Twist_U_Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-13-07 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Indeed........
It is a bit like being told to sit up straight by the hunchback of Notre Dame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:08 AM
Response to Original message
17. DoD has already wargamed and knows an attack would fail. Diplomacy seems working in NoKorea
Edited on Mon Feb-12-07 03:14 AM by EVDebs
Will Iran Be Next ?
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200412/fallows

So why not negotiate with the Mullahs ? Libya and So. Africa decided having nukes was more expensive in the long term...they've gotta be rational and we haven't given diplomacy a chance to work thanks to Bushco.

Oh, btw, what was the WH 'situation room' lady officer doing in that school in FL w/Bush ?
Capt. Deborah Loewer, U.S. Navy, Director of the White House Situation Room, National Security Agency:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=114370

A little foreknowledge goes a long long way I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:12 AM
Response to Original message
18. It could. And the Downing Street hearings could too!
It's Downing Street Memo hearings in prime time and upstairs... that would put the binders on these darksiders.
IMHO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:20 AM
Response to Reply #18
22. I fear too much 'black ops' money is in the pipeline to fund a covert operation
and may already be in the works right now.

Task Force 121, et al, are already in motion and it's possible Sen Feingold's bill won't be heard and voted on in time to prevent another Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq, fiasco.

Bushco's credibility is shot and so any move to the UN can only be via another nation...and Britain can't help much now either. Iran must know that in the long run doing what Libya and So.Africa, and potentially No. Korea with recent negotiations, the best and most economical move would be to disown offensive nukes altogether.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:17 AM
Response to Original message
20. No
the 911 truthers should NOT, because it would have the opposite effect.

The only bigger liars around than the Bush administration are the so-called "truthers". At least the Bush folk make their lies plausible and hard to prove. The truthers don't have that benefit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:25 AM
Response to Reply #20
23. You're not talking about the self evident truth now are you.
What can you tell me about Ptech and the White House/DoD/FAA and the 'non-existent' wargames of 9-11 ?

""Ptech is used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints at the highest level of US government and corporate infrastructure. These blueprints hold every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the enterprise. A secondary use of this powerful tool is to build other smart tools in a short period of time. Ptech’s clients in 2001 included the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, the FAA, IBM, Sysco, Aetna, and Motorola, to name just a few. ""

Dollars of terror
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17730

Global Guardian etc wargames on 9-11
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian

Can you add to this information ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MonkeyFunk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:35 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Is there anything in those links
discussing the simple, obvious lies that "truthers" keep repeating?

I'm not going to get into the scattershot game you guys play - throw out a million "facts" and links under the guise of "just asking questions" without ever actually positing a real theory of "what really happened".

I'll take one very simple, disprovable lie that the truthers have told for years: "Marvin Bush was the head of security at the WTC."

I've seen it claimed a thousand times, and 990 of those times were AFTER it had been thoroughly debunked. Those who continue to make the claim are just liars.

"Loose change" is so full of obvious disprovable lies that when I encounter someone who claims it as a source, I immediately presume they're either liars or idiots.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #25
34. I've seen claimed denials by these BFEEers and note that you didn't answer my post
Edited on Mon Feb-12-07 11:51 AM by EVDebs
so I take it you didn't READ that one of those post was from a conservative weblink (the Rachel Ehrenfeld article). If conservatives are now unable to defend BFEE and your 'strawman' example (that supposedly all "truthers" as you call them believe Marvin Bush was head of WTC security and therefore all truthers beliefs are wrong).

You need to RE-READ my post about Ptech, who still works for the FAA, Air Force, and GWB's WhiteHouse. You need to explain those wargames, too, since the footnote re them in the 9-11 Commission Report is all you'll find about them in the official record.

I consider that this thread not making the 'locked' or move to the dungeon as they call it and staying in General Discussion noteworthy. It means that people are reaching critical mass on this topic and that it can and will be fully discussed and debated, possibly even reexamined in a Congressional study noting the shortcomings of the original 9-11 Commission Report's errors and omissions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChenZhen Donating Member (145 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 03:25 AM
Response to Original message
24. The "War" with Iran is merely a ploy
Don't take your eye off the ball...less well be in Iraq many years longer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barbtries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 04:44 AM
Response to Original message
26. i think it would help,
because an investigation will inevitably lead to congress being forced to fulfill their duties as explained by the constitution, and impeach this administration. and since this administration and their sundry war profiteering buddies are the only souls alive or dead who think war w/Iran is a good idea, then yes. no more threat of war w//iran

please read my post in response to an earlier thread re: 911 today: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/barbtries
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doondoo Donating Member (843 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
27. If shrub attacks he really WILL get impeached
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mwb970 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-12-07 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
32. They *are* unstoppable. Dick says so.
The White House reaction to the Senate resolution opposing President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq came from Vice President Dick Cheney. In a word, he was defiant, saying about the general idea of a resolution, "It won't stop us."

"We are moving forward. The Congress has control over the purse strings. They have the right, obviously, if they want, to cut off funding," Cheney said Wednesday in an occasionally testy CNN interview.

"But in terms of this effort, the president has made his decision. We've consulted extensively with them. We'll continue to consult with the Congress. But the fact of the matter is, we need to get the job done."

If the president was almost humbly pleading with Congress in Tuesday's State of the Union address to give his plan a chance, CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod says the vice president played what has come to be his typical role: the enforcer. He dismissed suggestions that the Bush administration's credibility is on the line because of mistakes in Iraq as "hogwash."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/25/politics/main2397224.shtml


You ask "is there anything we can do to stop these nuts?" Obviously, the answer is no. The only things that will stop them are impeachment or some form of forcible removal, and we are constantly told that impeachment is "off the table".

We will be at war with Iran well before the end of the year. Cheney called 2007 the "year of Iran", and the drumbeat for war has already started in the media. Every news broadcast now begins with a "threat from Iran" story.

This administration exists to thwart the will of the American people, as they have demonstrated ever since we elected Al Gore president in 2000. In the 2006 election we said "leave Iraq now", so Bush escalates his war by sending in more troops. Polls and expert advice say "don't attack Iran" as Cheney prepares to attack Iran.

This is certainly the most explicitly anti-American, dictatorial regime we have ever allowed to slither into the White House. It's hard to see what it will take to make them slither back out, since they consider themselves above our system of laws and our Constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC