Before I continue:

It looks as if the first YouTube link I gave above is no good. Apparently YouTube does that a lot these days - move around links to broadcasts of 9/11 evidence, particularly 9/11 Truth broadcasts, causing links on other pages to break.

Anyhow, here's two more:

"Bush's Seven Minutes of Silence" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8 (and http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI) and "Seven Minutes - The Bush 9/11 Split Screen Video" at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ro3o-ld0CWw

In the latter, the real time footage of the September 11 attacks are juxtaposed to President Bush's activities in Florida at precisely the same time.

(continuedfromabove)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=5WztB6HzXxI

The footage of that first strike (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UpONEX8tme8)
only shows up on television
the next day, September the 12th, 2001. It was taken by a
French documentary crew that happened to be in downtown New
York.

Bystander: "Holy 5hit!" (Explosion)

Barrie Zwicker: The Orlando Town Hall session takes place seven
weeks after 9/11, so it can be suggested Bush confuses
the second plane with the first. But, how to explain this?
We'veall seen Andy Card do that. None of this can ever be
retracted. It is an interlocking historical record.

Why go on at length about this? (Presidential aid ) Because it may one day
become the basis for criminal court proceedings.

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623 http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/tgc.html http://www.greatconspiracy.ca/pdfs/TGC_transcript_GOIssue9.pdf)

(The above was also posted to "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8288#130992)

---

If you had lost a loved one on that day, either on flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 or in the World Trade Center twin towers or in the Pentagon, would have felt satisfied that President Bush had done everything within his power to prevent those losses?

If you truly want to see something done "to prevent more abuse of power by........those in power" as you say you do, then why shouldn't the above be used as evidence in a legal suit against former President Bush and his staff for criminal negligence?

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

Ditch wrote, "Anyone who believes it was an inside job is a wack job."

Why do you say that?

Do you happen to think that anyone who believes that is a 'whack job' independently of whether or not the evidence supports that belief?

Or are you saying that you know that the evidence does not support that belief?

If you guys want to argue about 9/11 why not start your own thread? I was hoping this would be a sensible discussion of the issues I started with. Can we learn from the Bush experience?

911 happened when GW was president. You say that is not relevant to what we can learn from GW. Really!!

I'm leaving the building. I'll find my own way out thanks.

Daviy,

How was my initial post was not relevant to a forum entitled "What to do about George W Bush?"?

Can't you at least see George Washington's point that there is more than sufficient evidence to launch a prosecution against former President Bush for criminal negligence?

---

You asked, "In a democracy is it OK to torture a person provided the executive re-defines torture? Can a democracy decide it is OK to kidnap a person and transport them to another country where it is known they will be tortured? Is there a limit to what can be done in the 'National interest'?"

---

As Hermann Goering once said, if you can convince the people they are threatened, they will support war.

That's what Hitler succeeded in doing in 1939 and that's what Bush, Howard and Blair succeeded in doing from 2001 onwards.

I also think it follows that as long as people accept that some of those kidnapped and tortured or imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay had the intent and ability to launch further attacks on the US such as that of 11 September 2001, it will be very difficult to convince people that Bush and Cheney should be tried for having made that happen.

I finally made myself look properly at the question of 9/11 seven years late than I should have starting about 4 months ago, and have become convinced that the US Government lied about 9/11. That made me extremely angry - angry with the Bush Government and angry with myself for having been taken in by them.

Now I know for a fact that few, if any, of those who were kidnapped and tortured had any intention of launching terrorist attacks against the US, and none, except as deluded patsies under the guidance of the US intelligence agencies that staged September 11, would have been capable of launching similar attacks.

I suggest that if you sincerely want to see Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice et al, brought to justice, then have another look at 9/11. A good start is the article at http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/01/now-is-ideal-time-to-prosecute-bush-and.html and linked articles.

Hi Daggett
Another notable quote was from Hitler himself; 'It is lucky for governments that the people do not think.' I don't know if I want Bush bought to justice or not. I don't know if he has been legally guilty of anything. But even if it was legal was it acceptable?
What I would like is for 'the people' to think about what has happened. And from there go to deciding if this is what they want and can we demand better.
We do not live in a democracy. Democracy is about making choices. People who are lied to or do not think cannot make choices. They only blindly follow dogma. Voting for someone's lies over someone else's lies every few years is not democracy. It is a series of time limited dictatorships. If Australia is going to become a democracy Australians will have to start thinking and making choices on a continuous time-line.
Do you want democracy (general question to all)? If you do the price is that you have to start thinking and making choices. And you have to be certain you are not being lied to. That is the main reason I want the Bush administration examined, to expose the lies. If that leads to include 9/11 then so be it, but I think Guantanamo Bay is one of the big issues to start with.
I have no idea what happened on 9/11. I can see both views and to me there is no clear indication. Both sides are circumstantial. But Guantanamo Bay is different. The Inquisition was revived. Torture, detention without charge, guilt by of religious association.
It showed just how easily the human race can wipe out five hundred years of supposed progress. Who is next on the list? Atheists, Buddhists, homosexuals, people with red hair? If we do not start thinking and making choices it is all down hill from here.
And I will reserve the right to get frustrated when questions are answered with unthinking dogma as happens with many of the posts on OLO. That just perpetuates the whole unthinking mess.