Obama Says Terrorist Mess-up His Fault, takes the rap

[Kramer]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100108/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_airline_security

Barry, you are right the screw-up that allowed the panty bomber to get on a plane is all your fault.

plus you get the blame good or bad for:

the economy
employment (un)
health care
future terrorist attacks

and guess what -- that's why your term will be only ONE!

If it makes you feel any better your one term will be the most harmful 4 years any president has been able to inflict on this nation. Barry you will go down in history as the worst president ever.

How much would you like to bet that then and only then will you become known as the half white half black president.

[Michael Tee]

According to the report you linked to, the indications are that no heads will roll. 

According to the reports here - http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9951&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

and here - - http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/sullivan/2010/january/04/us-complicit-terror-plot-fbi-media-cover-flight-253-assistance-updated#comment-43423

the bomber was a patsy, a witting or unwitting dupe of a CIA or CIA/Mossad plot to fake an attack on an airliner to justify expansion of the war into Yemen and/or to ensure the continuation of the Patriot Act, soon up for Congressional renewal.

The evidence for the phony plot is found in a Detroit lawyer's eyewitness testimony that the bomber was assisted in boarding the plane without a passport by a well dressed man of Indian appearance, who has not been referred to in any MSM coverage, as well as by the FBI changing its story four times as to what actually happened.  (Obviously they had not counted on the Detroit lawyer and possibly other eyewitnesses coming forward with their testimony of unheard conversations and eyewitnessed videotapings.)  Apparently, an unidentified passenger had been videotaping the "bomber" in his seat before the detonation of the "bomb" as well as during and after.

That Obama apparently will not be firing any high-placed individuals for this so-called "breach of security," in which - - according to the official story - - an aircraft and its 300-plus passengers were endangered - - can most easily be explained by the theory that this plot to blow up an American passenger plane was in reality something more - - or less - - than it seems.

If the U.S. government has decided to invade Yemen next, then this "provocation" would seem to be a necessary preliminary to the actual invasion.  Not the first time, and not the last time that the U.S. will be lied by its leaders into a war of unprovoked aggression, with a faked tale of justification, be that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the WMD or this fake attack on an airliner.

Read the article - - an amazing story.

[Kramer]

According to the report you linked to, the indications are that no heads will roll. 

According to the reports here - http://www.veteranstoday.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=9951&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

and here - - http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/sullivan/2010/january/04/us-complicit-terror-plot-fbi-media-cover-flight-253-assistance-updated#comment-43423

the bomber was a patsy, a witting or unwitting dupe of a CIA or CIA/Mossad plot to fake an attack on an airliner to justify expansion of the war into Yemen and/or to ensure the continuation of the Patriot Act, soon up for Congressional renewal.

The evidence for the phony plot is found in a Detroit lawyer's eyewitness testimony that the bomber was assisted in boarding the plane without a passport by a well dressed man of Indian appearance, who has not been referred to in any MSM coverage, as well as by the FBI changing its story four times as to what actually happened.  (Obviously they had not counted on the Detroit lawyer and possibly other eyewitnesses coming forward with their testimony of unheard conversations and eyewitnessed videotapings.)  Apparently, an unidentified passenger had been videotaping the "bomber" in his seat before the detonation of the "bomb" as well as during and after.

That Obama apparently will not be firing any high-placed individuals for this so-called "breach of security," in which - - according to the official story - - an aircraft and its 300-plus passengers were endangered - - can most easily be explained by the theory that this plot to blow up an American passenger plane was in reality something more - - or less - - than it seems.

If the U.S. government has decided to invade Yemen next, then this "provocation" would seem to be a necessary preliminary to the actual invasion.  Not the first time, and not the last time that the U.S. will be lied by its leaders into a war of unprovoked aggression, with a faked tale of justification, be that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the WMD or this fake attack on an airliner.

Read the article - - an amazing story.

the one flaw in your reasoning is that the guy should have got away with it. So they planned it all to the exact detail but the guy was a moron and could not blow up the plane. Or was the screwup part of the plan?

[Michael Tee]

I think the plane was never meant to be blown up in the air and the passengers were never meant to be killed.  It was a FAKE bomb attack.  The guys who set it up are taking their chances just by being caught in a fake or by allowing the fakery to become public knowledge.  They're in shit up to the ankles.  If they'd been caught after the plane went down and 300-plus passengers killed, they'd be in shit over their heads.

This is like the Gulf of Tonkin incident - - if the "enemy" had gotten away with it, a U.S. destroyer would have been sunk with all hands.

Or like Saddam's "WMD" - - if Saddam had gotten away with it, an American city would have had to be nuked by terrorists.

Obviously a fake pretext is more convincing when the "plot" or "threat" actually materializes, but that's a degree of realism that the plotters aren't willing to undertake.  Even the CIA has to have some kind of limits on its activities. 

The only guy I know of who might have gone all the way with a fake attack was Adolf Hitler - - he started the invasion of Poland with a fake Polish attack on a German border post, but he used the bodies of executed German criminals, some dressed in Wehrmacht uniforms and some in Polish Army uniforms, as "proof" that the "attack" had taken place.  What's not clear is whether the German criminals were executed in the normal course of justice or whether they were killed specifically for their bodies to be put in uniform to fake evidence of the attack.

[Rich]

>>the bomber was a patsy, a witting or unwitting dupe of a CIA or CIA/Mossad plot to fake an attack on an airliner to justify expansion of the war into Yemen and/or to ensure the continuation of the Patriot Act, soon up for Congressional renewal.<<

You really are delusional.

Get help.

[sirs]

Or like Saddam's "WMD" - - if Saddam had gotten away with it, an American city would have had to be nuked by terrorists.

Still pushing that lie I see.  Sad

[Michael Tee]

<<You really are delusional.>>

I hope you read the article I linked to.  The eye-witness, who is a Michigan lawyer, said that the "bomber" let the well-dressed older man do all the talking and got him on the plane without going through passport control.  The entire account is consistent with the bomber (a) being a patsy who really thought he was going to bring down the flight but might have had his passport on a watch-list and/or (b) being drugged or very confused.  The FOUR DIFFERENT stories put out in succession by the USG are consistent with the bungling idiots not being aware until too late of the lawyer eye-witness and having to fabricate cover-ups on the fly.  The MSM silence on the very controversy itself speaks volumes.

You are the one who is delusional if you have failed to grasp the war-mongering, lying nature of your own government and fail to see the similarity of this phony "terrorist attack" to the fabrications of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the non-existent WMD "threat"  that "justified," respectively, the Viet Nam War and the illegal invasion of Iraq.  How fucking blind do you have to be?  You are obviously a sucker who can be fooled over and over and over again, living under a lying government which never changes despite your phony four-year "elections" and proud of your own ignorance.   But obviously, you are not alone.  I really feel sorry for you, and for the whole God-damned population of your whole fucking country. 

None so blind as those who will not see.

[Michael Tee]

Just an addendum to my last post.

Isn't it strange that (a) no U.S. ships were lost or sailors killed or wounded in the Gulf of Tonkin "attacks," (b) no U.S. targets were ever nuked by Saddam's WMD in this "threat" that he posed and (c) no U.S. plane was damaged or passenger killed in this latest "terrorist attack?"

My, how "LUCKY" your country has been.

[Xavier_Onassis]

If it makes you feel any better your one term will be the most harmful 4 years any president has been able to inflict on this nation. Barry you will go down in history as the worst president ever.
=============================

Juniorbush holds the record for Americans killed in preventable terrorist attacks (9-11)
Also the record for Americans killed in unnecessary wars, poor response to natural disasters, and poor regulation of the economy. You do not know what you are talking about, and never have.

[Kramer]

If it makes you feel any better your one term will be the most harmful 4 years any president has been able to inflict on this nation. Barry you will go down in history as the worst president ever.
=============================

Juniorbush holds the record for Americans killed in preventable terrorist attacks (9-11)
Also the record for Americans killed in unnecessary wars, poor response to natural disasters, and poor regulation of the economy. You do not know what you are talking about, and never have.

Here is your lesson of the day.

http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/the_democrats_job_standard/

[Rich]

>>I hope you read the article I linked to.<<

No. I never read anything you link too.

[Michael Tee]

<<No. I never read anything you link too.>>

I'm sorry you're so closed-minded.  What are you afraid of?  Being proven wrong?

[Rich]

No. I would never fear being you for any reason. Least of which would be being proven wrong.

I don't read what you link to because it's bullshit. Conspiracy theories ... wacky shit.

[sirs]

Just look at all the Bush lied conspiratorial frak.....going to war because Saddam was about to nuke Boston.  Pure BDS idiocy

[Michael Tee]

<<I don't read what you link to because it's bullshit. Conspiracy theories ... wacky shit.>>

Well, that's exactly what I meant.  Your mind is closed.  How can you condemn ALL conspiracy theories just because you don't buy into some of them?  In effect, you're denying the existence of conspiracies.  You've refused to consider the evidence of a conspiracy on the basis of your closed-minded conclusion that there CAN'T be a conspiracy.  That is just nuts.

You've obviously made up your mind in advance, which is OK I guess, we all do sometimes - - but you're refusing to look at anything that might contradict your conclusions.

"Wacky shit" is believing that Viet Nam was invaded because the U.S. Navy was attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin, or that Iraq was invaded because of a sincere belief that it was in possession of WMD.  Or in this case that the Amsterdam-Detroit flight was ever in any real danger of being brought down by a "terrorist" bomb from Yemen.