| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Considering how much Kissenger is despised in the Middle East, that he has been brought to trial for War Crimes in recent years and that he a proven liar during Vietnam I can't think of a worse appointment that Bush could make. If this doesnt secure the thought that Bush IS trying to start a strategic global conflict....I fuckin give up. He might as well appointed Sharon to head up the position. |
|
Source; Financial Times. Sources of any charges: BBC only creditable source. All others come from the black helicopter conspiracy crowds who also beleive GWB had first hand knowlege, if not hand in planning 911 attacks and think that the war on terror is all about rounding up all US citizens into concentration camps |
earlier this year courts in Argentina, Chile, and France sought Kissinger's testimony in war crimes trials relating to Chilean dictator Pinochet...and the attrocities commited under his rule and possible knowledge Kissenger had at the time. Kissinger worked and supported corrupt and brutal governments to advance US interests...in this manner, he's a war criminal by association, some say. You missed it J because of the conservative press. |
|
And as far as he being despised in the middle east, who gives a rat's ass? Would you prefer we asked the PM of Saudi Arabia to head up the investigation? Since when does the opinion of any group of people have any bearing on an individual's ability to lead a group of people running an investigation? I don't want another name calling heated session here, but you are the one who blames me of knee jerk reactions. |
"Since when does the opinion of any group of people have any bearing on an individual's ability to lead a group of people running an investigation?" When its evident that this individual has a history, a repeated history mind you, of turning a blind eye and even engaging in attrocities in order to advance US interests Id say its time to second guess the nomination. Kissinger is an established liar. What the fuck makes you think he is going to get to the bottom of 9/11? There's no knee-jerk reaction. Kissinger is absolutely the worst person I can think of to head up a fact finding mission into 9/11. Just do some reading up on Kissinger trace and tell me you think he's a fantastic nomination for the job. Go read about Kissinger and his dealings with Chile, Cambodia, Suharto and East Timor, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in 73. Just read a bio of him. It doesnt have to be biased one way or the other. See for yourself trace. |
Do you think there are many in the US government that meet that criteria? I personally want someone to run my country that is interested in the advancement of my country. Sorry, but that's his job. The US needs to be run like a business and not a charity. I know that sounds cruel, but you know what? Trying to stick our nose into the cruel treatment of people, and our history is chalk full of examples of this, comes and bites us in the ass every time. We need to stick to the business of our country, and defending it from agressors, and ensuring our resources are protected. |
We are not an island trace. There is a right way to do things and you dont do them with, deception, crime, and brutality and Kissinger has one of the worst track records as such in the last 50 years. This idea: "stick to the business of our country, and defending it from agressors, and ensuring our resources are protected." Is paranoid and based from fear. Fear they create to keep you in bondage. Dont you feel like a chump? Aggressors? The "aggressors" are people like Kissinger who are the real threat to America. Not al Qaida, whom exists due to assholes like Kissinger. And when you say "resources" who's are you referring to? Because people like Kissinger have a track record of taking other people's resources. Usually selling American arms (resources) along the way too. You, yourself have admitted to the suspect aspects to 9/11. As one who believes Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen, you have hinted yourself that perhaps 9/11 was allowed to happen. You expect Kissinger to reveal as such or you expect him, knowing his history, to propel the lies? Hell its fucking obvious WHY the Bush administration picked such a professional liar to run the investigation. Somedays you actually sound like a light is on upstairs, giving way to possibility, and then other days with your rants about " p'tectin 'merica from them dogonne aggressors is priority #1" you sound like the biggest hillbilly. |
How dare you blame anyone other then the ones who actually flew the planes that day, or helped plan or fund it? I am so sick of blaming everyone but the ones who actually did it. I do not fucking care if we flew down there and pointed a gun at one of thier children until they had impact, there is no one to blame for killing 3000 people other then the murder himself. |
|
|
tell me. why does al Qaida want to kill us? whats the solution? if no one but the hijackers are to blame for flying planes into our building why are we holding so many others illegally in Cuba and here in the US? Why did we drop all that ordinance in Afghanistan? Your position that 'no one is to blame but perpetrators of the crime' while correct in some aspects, is terribly ignorant and defeatist when it comes to solving the problem on the whole. You can't solve the al Qaida problem without recognizing and addressing what created it to begin with? To avoid that is ignorant and futile. |
Want a Cover-Up Expert? Kissinger's Your Man! History puts his credibility at zero in the 9/11 probe. The president clearly does not want to know the truth about Sept. 11. Otherwise he would not have appointed Henry Kissinger to head an inquiry into the origins of arguably the most successful terrorist attack in history. Long an unabashed advocate of concealing and distorting the truth in the name of national security, he is the last guy who has the right to ask someone in government, "What did you know and when did you know it?" Kissinger, after all, was the member of the Nixon White House most bent on destroying Daniel Ellsberg for giving a copy of the Pentagon Papers, the government's secret history of the Vietnam War, to the New York Times. His obsession with preventing all government leaks, except those of his creation, is well documented in the Nixon tapes. And this is the man who publicly lied about everything from the bombing of Cambodia to the cover-up of the Watergate break-in of Democratic Party headquarters to the overthrow and death of the democratically elected leader of Chile. But even if truth serum could be slipped into his morning espresso, Kissinger still would be an appalling choice to lead what should be the fearless, unbiased fact-finding investigation necessary to prevent future tragedies like the destruction of the World Trade Center towers. He has been much too personally embroiled in the gamesmanship, greed and opportunism underlying politics in the Mideast; neither is he willing to disclose his long list of lucrative government and business contracts that pose potential conflicts of interest. For example, Kissinger Associates, the former secretary of State's ultra-connected consulting firm, has had dealings in the past with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait -- the two nations most closely linked with the 9/11 hijackers -- and was the subject of a congressional investigation for its role in the $4-billion bankrolling of Saddam Hussein in the late 1980s by the Atlanta office of Italy's BNL bank. Kissinger Associates then included Brent Scowcroft, who became national security advisor for President George H.W. Bush, and Lawrence Eagleburger, secretary of State in that administration. That those ties crisscross with other suspicious activities of close Bush family advisors -- including Poppy Bush's consulting role with the Carlyle Group that took him to Saudi Arabia to drum up business -- makes Kissinger's selection as understandable as it is dishonest. The truth is, the administration doesn't want a commission looking into what went wrong on Sept. 11 because its focus might turn too close to home. The incoming Bush administration in 2001 ignored dire warnings from Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger that Al Qaeda was the major security threat facing the U.S. Instead, the new administration focused on the war on drugs and even funneled "humanitarian" aid to Taliban-run Afghanistan as a reward for the fundamentalists' eradication of an opium crop. The truth about Sept. 11 might dampen Bush's exploitation of tragedy to draw attention from a sagging economy, a down stock market and stunning financial scandals that began with the downfall of Bush's close buddies at Enron. How convenient to divert the public's attention from other problems with the notion that the whole world must be turned upside down to combat terrorism, when marginal and avoidable mistakes by our government allowed the dreams of madmen to be fulfilled in blood. Would the monstrous new homeland security bureaucracy really have protected us from a few box-cutter-wielding nuts? How difficult, after all, is it to prevent people already on a terrorist wanted list from entering the country to attend U.S. flight schools? How hard is it for the president of the United States to get the FBI and the CIA to talk to each other? And why are we apparently going to war with Iraq, which had nothing to do with Sept. 11, instead of with Saudi Arabia, which did? The Bush administration was floundering before Sept. 11, and it still seems to have difficulty dealing with the nation's domestic problems. Instead of facing that harsh reality, Bush wants us to welcome the shredding of constitutional protections, allegedly for our own protection, and be excited at the prospect of a sideshow war with Hussein. Best to not look too hard at any of this. The Bush administration resisted convening a 9/11 commission for more than a year and, when forced by overwhelming public pressure to do so, picked an infamous man with the legendary chops to quash any search for truth. * Robert Scheer is a syndicated columnist. |
|
Right on. I told you I thought GWB was too liberal for my blood. And I have never defined myself as republican, but rather conservative |
|
|
|
|
|