"Thank God George Bush is president."
q
paralyzed the city and nearly took the life of the former mayor and key
members of his staff, Giuliani told the delegates he recalled grabbing the
arm of former city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and saying, "Thank God
George Bush is president."
I would of done the same thing, grabbed the guy next to me and thought about
bush?..........
when Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik later revield Guiliani actually said
"shit I need clean underwear right now" like everyone else.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040830-063008-5639r.htm
too many bad scripts in this movie
q
controlled robots,..."
David Icke - The Biggest Secret
The Obscure Goat Story of 9-11
It is very important to examine the first reactions President Bush had
concerning the events of September 11. You can tell much about the truth by
observing the reactions of men. Human nature is almost always the best truth
detector and said to be the most accurate lie detector. One of the basic
instructions taught to every U.S. military and civilian police trainee is to
"watch and observe". Let's observe what really took place before these
headline stories are buried in a sea of obscurity.
"In Sarasota, Florida, Bush was reading to children in a classroom at 9:05
a.m. when his chief of staff, Andrew Card, whispered into his ear. The
president briefly turned somber before he resumed reading. He addressed the
tragedy about a half-hour later. " - Associated Press, September 12, 2001
[bold emphasis added].
"President Bush listened to 18 Booker Elementary School second-graders read
a story about a girl's pet goat Tuesday before he spoke briefly and somberly
about the terrorist attacks." - Sarasota Herald-Tribune, Page A20, September
12, 2001 [bold emphasis added].
President Bush became briefly somber and continued reading a story about a
goat for nearly another half hour. He didn't politely excuse himself to the
children, but rather, temporarily stopped reading only to continue on as if
nothing had happened. Is this how you - or anyone around you at the time -
reacted when you first heard the news of the WTC tragedy? At the very
least, one would think that Bush would have spent a minute or two being
properly briefed by his trusted Chief of Staff before finishing his reading
of a goat story. If this was new news to him, one would surely think that he
would immediately want to know more details. Does anyone else see that this
"Presidential" reaction was out of place and doesn't fit the circumstances?
His reaction seems to imply that this was not fresh news to him, but more of
a confirmation of what he might have already known about. Watch and observe.
In human nature, this kind of reaction - in reality, a non-reaction -
usually comes about when the hearer either already has knowledge of what he
was just told, or he doesn't have any concern over what he was just told.
Some have already said that Bush didn't want to upset the children as an
excuse for his continuing to read the goat story. Wouldn't one have to
believe that these 7 year old children were already upset and nervous about
having the President read a story with them in their classroom? A simple
and polite "Children, I'm sorry I can't read with you any longer. As the
President, sometimes my schedule changes quickly, but I want to thank you
for allowing me to join you in reading this story" would have been fitting.
The problem is that's not what happened. Watch and observe.
It struck us odd that both the above newspaper articles (as well as many
others) stressed the word somber in describing the President's first as well
as delayed reactions. That seemed normal enough at first, but then we
decided to find out what a somber reaction and manner of speech really is.
Watch and observe.
somber / sombre.* French sombre ; Spanish sombra , shade, prob. from LL.
subumbrare to put in the shade; Latin sub under + umbra shade. See Umbrage.
umbrage.* French ombrage , shade, suspicion, umbrage. Latin umbraticus ,
belonging to shade, French umbra, a shade. Cf. Umber, Umbratic. 1. Shade;
shadow; obscurity; hence, that which affords a shade, as a screen of trees
or foliage. 2. Shadowy resemblance; shadow.
Of or pertaining to the shade or darkness; shadowy; unreal; secluded;
retired.
darkness.** Absence of light; black hole; dark star; dark matter, cold dark
matter. Occultation, adumbration, obumbration; sunless, lightless; dark as
pitch, dark as a pit, dark as Erebus[Lat]. somber, dusky; unilluminated...
* Webster's Dictionary, 1913 [underlining added].
** Roget's Thesaurus, 1911, search results for "somber" [underlining
added].
Now it appears that the somber reaction of President Bush is perhaps more
revealing than at first glimpse. If the President "briefly turned somber"
and "spoke briefly and somberly about the terrorist attacks," then the
reporters were describing both his demeanor and speech as being shadowy,
obscure, dark, unreal, without light, and suspicious. Was this a mistaken
word of description, or were they accurately reporting what they saw and
observed?
These newspaper reports are describing the character and demeanor of the
President as dark, black, and lightless when Andrew Card told him about the
WTC disaster. They did not describe him as becoming sorrowful or concerned,
nor even that he appeared upset. They deliberately chose the word somber to
relay to their readers how President Bush appeared. Watch and observe.
The reporters also used the same word somber to describe his manner of
speech after having had 30 minutes to (perhaps) compose himself from such
tragic news. His manner of speech, nearly a half hour later, was portrayed
with the same descriptions of obscurity, being void of light, suspicious,
unrealistic, and shadowy. This is not the depiction of a man who is upset,
worried, or concerned about a grave tragedy. Watch and observe.
When one learns of tragic news at the first hearing, his reaction is always
described with characteristic words such as shocked, dismayed, worried, awe,
sadness, or upset. This describes how all of us reacted when we first heard
the news of the WTC disaster... that is, all of us except President Bush,
according to the reporters who were watching and observing him.
When one hears of tragic news after he was told it would - or most likely
would - take place, his reaction is described with characteristic words such
as disappointed, angry, remorseful, or somber. Watch and observe.
Either the Sarasota, Florida newspaper and AP reporters were both wrong in
choosing the word somber, or the President just may have been showing us
that he knew what was to happen before he read the goat story to a class of
7 year old children. Either way, be it irresponsible reporting or an
irresponsible President, this is a tragedy in and of itself. However, it's
hard to believe that two or more witnesses separately chose the character
word somber by mistake.
The worst thing we can do is to react to the events of September 11 without
watching and observing first, as this is our first defense against possible
deception. Human reactions are great lie detectors simply for the fact that
they are very difficult to hide. The lies that may surround the WTC
disaster must be exposed. Truth appears to have already been the first
casualty before any airplane was hijacked.
source:
http://209.123.142.199/lawgiver/911.asp
PSI SPIES
Related Articles:
ALICE IN WONDERLAND AND THE WTC DISASTER by David Icke
USA - U.S. Army's Undeclared War on Patriots Worldwide
Urban Warfare - Planned
Related Research Resources:
The Conspirators
America's Secret Establishment ~ Antony Sutton
Philip Dru Administrator - Col. Edward Mandell House
Conspirator's Heirarchy - Committee of 300
World Orders Old and New - Noam Chomsky
Children of the Matrix
The Robots' Rebellion
Lifting the Veil
Back to the Americas Menu
Back Main News Menu
Back to www.davidicke.com
About this Site, Our Parameters and
How to Submit a News Item to us
Notice: David Icke, www.davidicke.com, David Icke E~Magazine, and/or the
donor of this material may or may not agree with all the data or conclusions
of this data. It is presented here 'as is' for your benefit and research.
Material for these pages are sent from around the world. If by chance there
is a copyrighted article posted which the author does not want read, email
the webmaster and it will be removed. If proper credit for authorship is not
noted please email the webmaster for corrections to be posted.
FAIR USE NOTICE. This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use
of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available in our efforts to advance
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.. We believe this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in
section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material
from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must
obtain permission from the copyright owner.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in
receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
United States Code: Title 17, Section 107
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/unframed/17/107.html Notwithstanding the
provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work,
including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other
means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use),
scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In
determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair
use the factors to be considered shall include - (1) the purpose and
character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature
or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted
work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the
potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work
is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is
made upon consideration of all the above factors.
BKLATTY
Agreed a hundred times over. What a crock of shit Guilaini delivered last
night. He made that line up out of thin air. He's thanking God that a guy
that spent the last month before the bombing on an extended Crawford vacation
is president? Give me a fucking break.
Jorge
>Recalling the dark day when the terrorist attack on lower Manhattan
>paralyzed the city and nearly took the life of the former mayor and key
>members of his staff, Giuliani told the delegates he recalled grabbing the
>arm of former city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and saying, "Thank God
>George Bush is president."
That's what I did. I told everyone around me: Thank God we have a
former cheerleader who knows how to use a megaphone. Thank God we
have a draft avoider as commander-in-chief. Thank God George Bush
switched from alcohol to pretzels. And thank God we have a bunker for
him in Nebraska.
lensman1955
I always liked the joke where the two people are watching the news
reports. The wife turns to her husband and says; "You know, I'm glad
George Bush is President right now. He's taking action in a mature,
responsible, decisive way. I can't imagine anyone else handling this
so well."
And her husband said; "Shut up, Tipper!"
Michael Gray
:
>arm of former city Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and saying, "Thank God
>George Bush is president."
:
Oh yes!
Thank an imaginary sky-pixy for giving the world the retarded,
imbecilic, irrational individual that has his finger on the big red
nuke button.
Oh yes. Now every moron bow down in thanks....
The Old Timer
Actually maybe we should be thankful that Bush was President at the time. Just
think what might have happened if we had a clueless moron like Reagan as
President. He might have launched a series of nukes against Afghanistan.
Sid9
Catastrophe"?
Don't forget about our "Catastrophic Victory" or did he say Victorious
Catastrophe"?
BH
Giuliani and Arnold's speeches made the dummycrat convention look like a
birthday party for Saddam, and Laura Bush makes Tersa Ketchup Kerry look
like the bitch she is.
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>lensman1955 wrote:
..
>> I always liked the joke where the two people are watching the news
>> reports. The wife turns to her husband and says; "You know, I'm glad
>> George Bush is President right now. He's taking action in a mature,
>> responsible, decisive way. I can't imagine anyone else handling this
>> so well."
>>
>> And her husband said; "Shut up, Tipper!"
>
>Giuliani and Arnold's speeches made the dummycrat convention look like a
>birthday party for Saddam, and Laura Bush makes Tersa Ketchup Kerry look
>like the bitch she is.
No way, Man!
Tersa is Rockin' like Janet Reno !!!
http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/101771.jpg
George Washington Hayduke
>Recalling the dark day when the terrorist attack on lower Manhattan
Committed by Saudi Arabians, BUsh's long-time family friends.
+--+
|George W. Bush is a deserter: http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm
|Fascist War Criminal to stand trial: http://www.PeopleJudgeBush.org
|Hezbollah endorses George W. Bush: http://www.hezbollah.ws/
|"Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush." -- Michael Moore
|Some information the Bush fascists want to hide: http://rncdelegates.com
+--+
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
The SS JOHN KERRY preppin' for the final assault on Reality.
q
results speak for themselves. I mean, New York's a safer place for him to
be."-On Rudy Giuliani, The Edge With Paula Zahn, May 18, 2000
g w bush
"q" <lif...@beautiful.com> wrote in message
news:GXaZc.26$4P5....@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au...
razzor3k
"Michael Gray" <fle...@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:857bj0d25mopteoiq...@4ax.com...
> Oh yes!
> Thank an imaginary sky-pixy for giving the world the retarded,
> imbecilic, irrational individual that has his finger on the big red
> nuke button.
Heh, that's what they said about Regean. Now we look back and it turns out
he was one of the greatest Presidents in history.
Oh what happened?! I just got you.
The Old Timer
>he was one of the greatest Presidents in history.
Yeah, not bad for an old fart with Alzheimer's who took a nap every day at
noon. While he slept, his wife and her astrologer ran the country, and his
staffers were busy lining their pockets.
But shouldn't you be saying that George 41 was one of the best as well????
-- John
The history of things that didn't happen has never been written.
. - -
- Henry Kissinger
MrPepper11
9/2/04
Fans fawn, but Bush fails as commander
New York City -- The goal of this week's GOP convention is not merely
to nominate George W. Bush for re-election as president of the United
States. Its planners have a far greater ambition, seeking to install
the president in the pantheon of great wartime leaders alongside
historic figures such as Roosevelt, Lincoln and Churchill.
Speaker after speaker, from Arnold all the way to Zell, have come to
the podium to laud Bush's virtues as commander in chief, but the most
remarkable contribution to the cause came from former New York City
Mayor Rudy Giuliani. In his speech Monday night, Giuliani recalled the
horrible moment almost three years ago when he stared up at the
burning towers of the World Trade Center and realized that those
objects plummeting toward him from the sky were human beings who had
hurled themselves from the top. At that moment, he said, he turned to
a colleague and thanked God that our president was George Bush.
However, as critics of the president will point out, Bush himself was
sitting transfixed in a Florida schoolroom in those minutes, clearly
uncertain of what to do next.
So how should the president's performance as commander in chief be
assessed? How well has he met the central challenges that confronted
him and the nation in the aftermath of Sept. 11?
The most immediate of those challenges was to reassure a nation shaken
to its core by the experience of watching thousands of their fellow
Americans die on live television. All but the most virulent of the
president's critics will concede that Bush met and exceeded that
initial test of leadership, exuding an aura of confidence, strength
and compassion in those early days that continues to pay political
dividends for him even today.
The next challenge for the president was to strike and strike hard at
those who had attacked us, both out of justified vengeance and as an
act of self-defense. On this test, the record is mixed. We have
succeeded in disrupting but not destroying the al-Qaida network, in
part because we withheld troops from Afghanistan and hired local
militias to do much of our fighting. It seems fair to say that on
Sept. 12, 2001, most Americans would have been deeply disappointed and
perhaps even shocked if they had known that Osama bin Laden would
still be at large almost three years later.
Capturing bin Laden, however, was not the most important challenge
facing Bush. The attacks of Sept. 11 taught us that there were no
limits on the brutality that terrorists were willing to inflict, a
lesson with particularly grim implications in an age when weapons of
mass destruction have become more widespread. Recognizing that danger,
President Bush publicly identified three rogue countries with the
capacity to develop such weapons -- Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- and
made them targets of U.S. efforts to force them to disarm. He
eventually decided to invade and occupy one of those countries, Iraq,
with consequences that will hound us for a long time.
In an interview Tuesday, Bush told Rush Limbaugh that no American
president should ever take his country to war without first exhausting
every diplomatic option, and he went on to claim that he had been
forced to invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had refused to disarm and
because diplomacy had proved fruitless.
That is, to be kind, a gross rewriting of history, and it does not
become more truthful simply because Bush himself seems to believe it.
Diplomacy had not been exhausted when we chose to go to war. Quite the
contrary, diplomacy, combined with the very necessary threat of
military action, had succeeded and was continuing to succeed. By the
spring of 2003, Saddam had been forced to open up his entire country,
including his precious palaces, to U.N. arms inspectors, and as those
inspections went on week after week, they produced no evidence of
weapons or weapons programs. The inspections ended only when they were
pre-empted by Bush's decision to go to war.
If the inspections had been allowed to continue -- if we truly had
tried to exhaust our diplomatic options -- we would have learned
through peaceful means what we have so far sacrificed almost 1,000
American lives and almost $200 billion to discover: Far from refusing
to disarm, as the president continues to claim, Saddam had actually
dumped his illegal weapons of mass destruction years earlier.
With its initial justification for invasion rendered moot, the Bush
administration has now embraced a larger mission of bringing democracy
to Iraq. At best, it will be a generation before we know whether that
effort will succeed, but the prospect of catastrophic failure is very
real. Max Boot, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an
enthusiastic and early advocate of invasion, asserted Tuesday in New
York that even with all of our setbacks in Iraq, "the odds of ultimate
success are better than 50-50." When the optimistic outlook is 50-50,
that tells you something.
And unfortunately, while we have been preoccupied with Iraq, the other
two charter members of the axis of evil have become more dangerous.
Over the past three years, Iran has made significant progress toward
acquiring nuclear weapons, and North Korea is believed to have
expanded its existing nuclear arsenal. If Bush was correct in stating
that the biggest danger facing this country is the possession of
nuclear weapons by rogue nations, then we are significantly less safe
today than we were three years ago. More chilling yet, because of
Iraq, we may not be able to muster the diplomatic credibility and
military capability we would need to alter the course of events in
those countries.
In other words, if we judge Bush's performance by the challenges that
he set for himself and this nation in the wake of Sept. 11, he must be
deemed a failure as commander in chief. And while his ability to don
the external trappings of strong leadership has shielded him from that
conclusion in the eyes of many, it cannot shield this nation from its
consequences.
....................................................................