• Hi Guest: Welcome to TRIBE, the online home of TRIBE MAGAZINE. If you'd like to post here, or reply to existing posts on TRIBE, you first have to register. Join us!

remember that thread-u.s.a gov. knew about 911 well.....

Uncle Bobby

TRIBE Promoter
Craziest shit I've heard so for all week. If you can be impeached for getting head, what will be the penilty if they could ever prove this?


Hi i'm God

TRIBE Member
She'll probably change her story like when they said the Pensylvaina(sp) plain was shot down...no er wait that was taken back by the passengers.
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts

Evil Dynovac

TRIBE Member
There will be no investigation and nothing is going to happen to her. If she died the flames of conspiracy theory would only be fanned. She will be slandered and even ridiculed as a crackpot as best, a manipulative politician at worst.

No shite, no fan, no change.


Well-Known TRIBEr
well she got her name in the paper for all to read, so I guess she gets what she wants. It's so transparent, and people actually go for it.


TRIBE Member
Another conspiracy for you...

You proabably won't want to read this then....:eek:

Wed Apr 3, 9:02 PM ET
By Ted Rall

"In ten years or so we'll leak the truth

But by then

It's only so much paper"

-Dead Kennedys, 1982

DUSHANBE, TAJIKISTAN-Writing for the website SpinSanity on October 15, Bush apologist Brendan Nyhan ridiculed my "absurd suggestion that the war [in Afghanistan (news - web sites)] is `solely' about an oil deal, trivializing the overriding motive of the attacks-going after Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s terrorist network and the regime that harbors bin Laden."

Nyhan's widely-circulated hit piece, commissioned by one of those outfits run by liberals so anxious to seem "non-partisan" that they mostly bash liberals (beware the man who says he's fair), was one among a volley of attacks that rained down on progressive commentators who dared to whisper three painfully obvious truths:

First, even before the 9-11 attacks, the well-oiled Bush Administration (bad pun intended) planned to take over Afghanistan one way or another. The only question was how and when it would be carried out.

American-aligned Kazakhstan sits atop the largest untapped oil reserves on earth, but can currently get its crude only as far south as Turkmenistan. Karachi, Pakistan's port on the Indian Ocean, awaits American oil tankers. Between lies Afghanistan; thus Unocal Corporation's $1.9 billion plan to run an 870-mile pipeline to link the Turkmen oil refinery at Charjou to Karachi. Trying to unify fractured Afghanistan under a regime (any regime) that would ensure the safety of a U.S.-sponsored pipeline, President Clinton (news - web sites) funded the Taliban from the origins in 1995 until their "guest" Osama bin Laden bombed two American embassies in east Africa in 1998. The Unocal plan was shelved until September 11th gave Bush the pretext he needed to begin bombing and regain momentum for the pipeline plan.

Second, the ersatz "war on terror" has little to do with reducing, much less preventing, terrorist acts by Islamic extremists. The CIA (news - web sites) has itself to blame for funding and arming these "evil doers" in the first place; the advantage of creating your own enemies is that you get to know them well in the process. Had the Third Afghan War actually been motivated by vengeance, Rumsfeld & Co. would have targeted groups in the countries that carried out the 9-11 attacks-Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan. Had it been prophylactic, the DOD would have bombed the biggest guerrilla training camps, which were, and still are, in Pakistan. And if the State Department had wanted to deny extremist groups the vast majority of their funding-millions of tiny donations collected in mosques throughout the Arab world-it would have denied them their most potent and legitimate rallying cry: unlimited U.S. support for Israel's home-grown terrorist Ariel Sharon (news - web sites).

Ninety-nine percent of the estimated 5,000 to 15,000 Afghans killed by U.S. bombs had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. That's an atrocity, it's even worse than 9-11 and Arabs know it. Thanks to George W. Bush, you and I are now significantly more likely to die in an attack by Islamists. Remember: to the rest of the world, we are terrorists.

Third, Nyhan takes me to task for "the insinuation that U.S. policymakers don't care about the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks or the oppressed women of Afghanistan." Insinuation, hell. I'll say it loud and clear. Let's take the last part first. The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001, more than half that time with direct or indirect American financing. Yeah, you say, but that was under Clinton. And yet, for the first seven and a half months of his presidency, Bush never issued a single statement criticizing the Taliban's treatment of women. During that period, he found numerous opportunities to discuss tax cuts, fast-track signing authority on free trade and countless other inanities. Long-suffering Afghans, it seems, only matter to U.S. policymakers insofar as they affect The Great Pipeline Project.

What about the 9-11 victims? Well, it was the Bushies who rushed through legislation depriving survivors of their right to sue the government or the airlines. When push came to shove, Bush sold out the victims for a few millionaire airline CEOs. Let's all repeat it together: the victims, American and Afghan, have been used by this vile, cynical administration to line the pockets of its corporate sponsors. And now our soldiers are dying, not for nothing, but while carrying out orders that are making things even worse.

Dying for nothing would be an improvement.

Nyhan and other Bush aficionados' "debunk" the idea of a link between the Afghan war and the pipeline scheme using a line of reasoning lifted from "The Simpsons": We bombed Afghanistan because of 9-11, not oil. "Oil may be a factor," allows Nyhan, but it is a sideshow; the main event is bagging Osama. Um, but the Taliban offered to turn him over but we turned them down. And we still haven't found him. And Bush says it was never about bagging Osama. The fact is, it's mostly about oil. 9-11 or no 9-11, the U.S. would never have invaded Afghanistan minus its oil component. Don't we deserve 75-cent-a-gallon gas in return for losing four planes and two big buildings?

As Homer replies when Marge asks him if he's lost his faith in God: "Nooooo! Noooo! No. No. No. No. Well, yes."

I expected the Bushies to wait a decent interval to prove me right about their real motivations in Afghanistan, but the Resident's 88 percent approval rating must be going to their heads.

Unocal-related discussions began while the bombs were still falling last October and picked up steam after Bush appointed an ex-Unocal consultant, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan.

Then, on March 7, Afghan interim prime minister and Hamid Karzai (yet another former Unocal employee) flew to Ashkhabat to meet with Turkmen president-for-life Saparmurat Niyazov. "There is a project from Turkmenistan, over Afghanistan to Pakistan and then India. We agreed to discuss this soon, both together and with the leader of Pakistan," summarized Niyazov. "Everyone would benefit. Afghanistan would receive employment and a twelfth of the overall profits."

The Pakistani piece of the revived pipeline project (which will likely be built by-surprise!-Unocal) clicked into place February 8 when Karzai met with military dictator Pervez Musharraf in Islamabad.

But what of Bush's self-avowed pledges to help the oppressed people of Afghanistan live in peace and dignity? Though our soldiers will remain "indefinitely," according to the Associated Press on March 28, "the Bush administration says it will not send American peacekeepers to the country." In other words, U.S. troops are there not to help the Afghan people, but to train Karzai's puppet army so they can eventually protect American business interests?

Nooooo! No! No. No. No. Well, yes.


TRIBE Member
I don't think that this is going to go anywhere. She sounds like a singular voice trying to sing over a chorus of reason.

Her only real factual argument is regarding this group of business people and the benefit they are seeing from the war, and the personal connections they have with the gov.

Business is about relationships and people, and it isn't reasonable to think that personal affiliations won't come into play. At the same time, given the nature of this 'war', I think I would be using sources that I trust, and I'm sure that sonny Bush trusts daddy Bush above all others. I don't think that this is 'necessarily' a case of collusion.

Of course, all that being said I don't think that I would be overly suprised if there were underhanded things going on. You never know.
Subscribe to Cannabis Goldsmith, wherever you get your podcasts


TRIBE Member
"Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman asked: "Did she say these things while standing on a grassy knoll in Roswell, New Mexico?"

"I mean, ummmmmm....... opps........ ummmmmm..... Honestly, we didn't kill JFK to stay in Vietnam another 7 years or anything, honestly we didnt" :D

This situation reminds me of the gary oldman from the "5th Element" ;)


TRIBE Member
Like, duh?!

"Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is calling for an investigation into whether President Bush and other government officials had advance notice of terrorist attacks on Sept. 11 but did nothing to prevent them."

Ummmm ... no need for an investigation. President Bush definitely 100% for sure had advance notice of terrorist attacks. Osama bid Laden threatened a "major attack on America in a few months" back in the summer of last year.

Why didn't the administration act? Probably because bin Laden had ALWAYS been saying this same kind of thing, and nobody took him seriously about terrorism on American soil. If the United States reacted to every crackpot who threatened terrorism, not only would they be wasting alot of resources, they would also be giving credence to these crackpots.

In retrospect, bin Laden should have been taken seriously, but hindsight is 20/20.