An opinion poll in the UK has placed Prime Minister Tony Blair at his second highest approval rating ever since he originally took office.
The figures have surprised analysts who felt that Blair would bow out as leader as early as 2006, passing the torch to his finance minister Gordon Brown. However, figures like this may keep him around until 2008.
Although those surveyed felt that the UK Iraq policy has made them more vulnerable to terrorist attack, they were very impressed with his victory over Paris for the 2012 Olympics, his work at the G8, and his measured and firm response to the attacks.
I am waiting for the friggin conspiracy Theories that say he masterminded the bombing to improve his approval ratings. you know like Bush did with the trade centers. <severe sarcasm>
"I'm waiting I am waiting for the friggin conspiracy Theories that say he masterminded the bombing to improve his approval ratings. you know like Bush did with the trade centers. <severe sarcasm>"
i wont go that far but i will say it was the major if not sole cause for this, very similar to what happened in the US immediately after 9/11, although since then bush's approval ratings are consistantly below 50%, i'd say this speaks poorly of the president domestically in addition to him already looking horrible globally.
and yes i know polls are to be held in a high regaurd in terms of their accuracy but they do give a good indication when consistant.
Actually I was more referring to the conspiracy whackos, like the ones who say Bush Masterminded 9-11 to happen, to push his agenda. I am sure something along that line will pop up with Blair and the bombings. Kinda like all those phony moon landings.
As for Bush domestically he isnt doing too bad. I enjoy having him around alot more than our previous president, Hillery Rodam Hussien (come on you dont really think Bill made any of the calls do you?) That is except for the religious right factor, that is pretty scary.
Hilary probably arranged that whole Monica Lewinsky thing, just to gain some leverage on Bill so she could use him as a puppet to carry out her master plan...to make fake moon landings and install radio chips in the teeth of schizophrenic civilians.
It makes me chuckle to read comments by ppl who seem to believe that there is no such thing as a conspiracy, as if things just 'happen' and the official line is the genuine one. I could offer you plenty of conspiracies which have been real and have been conceiled (eg. the Nazi burning of the Reichstag) and others which ppl generally accept are cover-ups (eg. the shooting of JFK). While theories about 9/11 and other recent terrorist attacks may (or may not) be real, I wouldn't be so narrow minded and gullible to write off the concept of a conspiracy.
with regard to 9/11, whether you suspect foul play or not, Bush has done himself no favours by virtue of the web of ties with the Middle East, family interests and strange coincidences. Here are just a few proven facts - tell me whether you whiff possible corruption, conflict of interest or possible conspiracy:
1. younger brother Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company called Securacom (now changed to Stratesec) that was responsible for providing "electronic security" to the World Trade Center right up to 9/11/2001.
2. the Bush family have long-standing business ties with the Bin Laden family and various other Middle Eastern families of influence.
3. on the day of the 9/11 attacks, a fullscale exercise, headed by Dick Cheney, was being carried out. The context of the exercise? Civil aircraft being hijacked by terrorists and being flown into the WTC. Consequently, when genuine calls were send over radios, etc, everyone assumed it was for exercise.
4. the Bin Ladens were the only ppl allowed to fly immediately after the attacks. While the whole of the nations airspace was cleared, with all aircraft grounded, ppl who could (and should) be treated as suspects were allowed to leave the crime scene.
5. Tower 7 of the WTC complex mysteriously collapsed on the same days as the twin towers even though it wasn't hit and buildings closer to the twin towers remained unscathed and still stand today. When interviewed, the owner (an insider) said on film that the building was pulled, ie. demolished.
I could go on and on but with so many unable to contemplate a conspiracy, whats the point. You stick with your world of secure normality.
January 2001 – George W Bush Takes Office. FBI NY Counter-Terrorism Chief John O'Neill is ordered by the White House to back off all investigations of Al-Qaeda and the Bin Laden family while pipeline negotiations are underway with the Taliban. (46% Fox) January 2001 to August 2001 - “News coverage has pointedly stressed that W.'s month-long stay at his ranch in Crawford is the longest presidential vacation in 32 years. Washington Post supercomputers calculated that if you add up all his weekends at Camp David, layovers at Kennebunkport and assorted to-ing and fro-ing, W. will have spent 42 percent of his presidency ‘at vacation spots or en route.’” Charles Krauthammer, “A Vacation Bush Deserves,” The Washington Post, August 10, 2001. (April 56% NBC) July 2001 — Phoenix FBI agent Kevin Williams writes a memo warning of al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes. The warning is ignored. US attorney John Ashcroft stops flying on commercial airlines. He also pulls 200 FBI agents off counter-terrorism duty and puts them onto drug and child pornography cases. George W Bush appoints Robert Mueller as new FBI director. (56% Gallup) August 2001 – Bush announces decision to allow human embryonic stem cell research. (50% PEW) September 2001 – 9/11 America is attacked by Al-Qaeda. 3000 people die in NY, PA, and Washington DC including John O'Neill, who quit the FBI out of frustration with the Bush administration. (90% Gallup) October 2001 - US invades Afghanistan. (84% Fox) There's more below the fold. Bush Administration </section/Bush_Administration> :: :: December 2001 - The 'War' in Afghanistan is 'over', but Bin Laden has mysteriously disappeared. Enron officially goes broke, after bankrupting employees 401k's while executives cashed out for $650 million. (85% NBC) June 2002 — G W Bush refuses to sign the Homeland Security Bill. He warns that he will veto ANY Homeland Security Bill that doesn't include strong anti-union legislation. (69% Zogby) July 23, 2002 – Downing Street Meetings (see May 1st 2005) (65% PEW) September 2002 – President Bush addresses UN regarding Iraq. Stating that if the UN did not act then the US would. (68% Gallup) November 2002 — Bush signs HR 5170, the Homeland Security Bill, with the anti-union legislation intact. The bill provides protection from lawsuits to all insurance, pharmaceutical, defense and security contractors, while taking away the public's ability to sue for injury or death. (68% Fox) March 19, 2003 — Unable to receive international support for an illegal war and occupation of Iraq, the US and UK act unilaterally and begin their invasion of foreign soil. (54% Zogby) May 2003 - President Bush declared an end to major combat in Iraq. 174 US Soldiers lost their lives during the “War*”. (62% NBC) July 2003 — When questioned about the fact that not a single WMD has been found in Iraq, Bush shifts focus, and insists that evidence of weapons "programs" will be found. The Bush administration finally admits that Bush's statement in January, that Saddam was seeking Uranium from Africa, was an outright lie. BBC reports that the Bush administration knew 10 months prior to making the claim that the information was false, but used it anyway. Valerie Plame is identified in an article by columnist Robert Novak. Saddam Hussein’s son’s, Uday and Qusay, were killed in a gun battle with US Troops. (59% Fox) September 15, 2003 — Business week reports that since Cheney took office, Kellogg Brown and Root has received $8.2 BILLION in contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan, much of it in no-bid contracts. (55% Pew) October 2, 2003 — David Kay's Interim Report on Iraqi WMD is delivered as Oral Testimony, confirming that absolutely no evidence has been found of weapons, or even weapons programs, in Iraq. (52% Fox) December 13, 2003 - U.S. soldiers captured Saddam Hussein in a raid. (57% Pew) February 7, 2004 - Bush Names Panel To Investigate Iraq intelligence. (48% Pew) July 22, 2004 – 9/11 Commission released its public documents regarding the investigation surrounding the attacks on September 11th, 2001. (48% NBC) November 2004 – Bush Reelected to a second term. (53% Gallup) March 2005 – Bush states 60-day nationwide Social Security tour. (45 % Pew) April 2005 – Bush meets with Saudi Prince to discuss Oil Prices. (48% Gallup) May 1, 2005 – Downing Street Memo leaks out within the UK Press. (46% Zogby) July 2005 – Karl Rove is confirmed as one source of the Valerie Plame leak from July 2003. (47% Fox) *The President declared the war in Iraq "mission accomplished" in 2003. But the number provided on the above entry does not reflect any casualties since that date. Since the President declared an ending to the war we have suffered an additional 1567 casualties. Also at this time we have suffered more than 13190 wounded soldiers.
Everyone I've heard speaking about him hates Tony Blair. We all know it's his fault that the terrorists are in this country in the first place, most of whom were receiving benefits, his fault for taking us to war in Iraq despite vast public disapproval, his fault for taking so many police up to G8 to tuck him in at night leaving everywhere else with reduced numbers. Opinions polls? No, not an opinion poll at all if it's anything like the Casino one I was polled for a year or so back (I said I'd have no interest in visitting a casino, which was one of the options, so they said "Oh, we can't ask you then". Yeah, that's polling peoples opinions isn't it? No doctoring of statistics there oh no. )
It is nice to be able to tie things together, but I always find a lot of these correlations flimsy at best. That said, I always consider the conspiracy theories, but unless there's strong evidence, I won't subscribe to them. Here, while there's certainly corruption evident in George W. Bush's actions, I have my doubts about 9/11 conspiracy.
"1. younger brother Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of a company called Securacom (now changed to Stratesec) that was responsible for providing "electronic security" to the World Trade Center right up to 9/11/2001."
Knowing the size of the companies connected to the Bush family, they likely covered secuirty for hundreds if not thousands of buildings. Furthermore, I don't really see how the 9/11 attacks could have been affected by electronic security equipment.
"2. the Bush family have long-standing business ties with the Bin Laden family and various other Middle Eastern families of influence."
In all fairness, they likely have ties with a lot of high-profile families around the world. Some of their affiliates are likely even worse than the Bin Ladens or Saudi royals. What this points to is the roots of corruption.
"3. on the day of the 9/11 attacks, a fullscale exercise, headed by Dick Cheney, was being carried out. The context of the exercise? Civil aircraft being hijacked by terrorists and being flown into the WTC. Consequently, when genuine calls were send over radios, etc, everyone assumed it was for exercise."
Now, was this the first and only exercise of this kind? Unless it can be shown that they only did this one exercise on this one day, this could easiy be chalked up to coincidence.
"4. the Bin Ladens were the only ppl allowed to fly immediately after the attacks. While the whole of the nations airspace was cleared, with all aircraft grounded, ppl who could (and should) be treated as suspects were allowed to leave the crime scene."
This would seem to indicate corruption, not necessarily conspiracy, again. Bush knew that his friends were likely to be targetted for investigation, so he let them leave. It's still a very shady thing to do, of course, that should say something about where his allegiances actually lie (his country versus his business cronies).
"5. Tower 7 of the WTC complex mysteriously collapsed on the same days as the twin towers even though it wasn't hit and buildings closer to the twin towers remained unscathed and still stand today. When interviewed, the owner (an insider) said on film that the building was pulled, ie. demolished."
This building could easily have been of shoddier construction, affected differently by debris, or simply shaken differently by the ground beneath it. There are any number of reasons why this building could have been beyond salvage while others were not. As for the order the man gave, I have heard his quote on the radio, and I remain unconvinced. AS I recall, the comment was something like "The building can't be saved, pull it." or something even more vague. Frankly, I doubt he was choosing his words carefully, and it didn't sound so much like an order to do something as proactive as destroy a building you own. He could have been referring to a rescue effort within, attempts to extinguish fires or otherwise save the building, or any number of things. I've heard the claim made that to "pull" is an insider term for "demolish," but it's also a very common word in the English language. Also, why that building?
"I could go on and on but with so many unable to contemplate a conspiracy, whats the point. You stick with your world of secure normality."
While secure normality may be the safe harbor of many, I'd say that they're just as foolish as those who sail right for the falls of exciting conspiracy. I, for one, am content to float in the open sea, observe the horizon, and get the best of both worlds. While everything may not be A-OK, the only alternative isn't a world rife with conspiratorial corruption. Just plain corruption, with the accompanying saelfishness and stupidity, will often do just fine for an explanation.
At the risk of sounding like a suck-up I must say that for the short time I've been here, your posts always seem the most reasonable and well thought out.
That is the kind of thing my mother would say. A poll is a poll, if you poll a reasonable random group of people you can extrapolate how the general population thinks about an issue. We all know the relative shortcomings of such methodology so why point it out?
Here is some additional info one may want to consider on some of the proposed subjects:
1. Marvin Bush's security contract ended on 9/11.
3. Interesting note: Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, which bills itself as a 'crisis management' advice company, told BBC 5 that "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."
5. It takes weeks of planning to initiate a controlled demolition of this size. The WTC 7 demolition occurred just hours after the other buildings were destroyed.
Other closer buildings around the WTC complex did receive damage including as fires yet never fell or were never demolished. WTC Building 7 along with every other destroyed WTC building was leased by Larry Silverstein, the same man you heard saying "pull it", witch was signed 3 months before the attacks.
Motive? With an initial investment of 616 million dollars, Larry took out a 7.2 billion dollar insurance policy on the complex and collected. More information can be found here: http://globalfire.tv/
I understand your rationale. I too prefer to think corruption, bad management or human error when it comes to conspiracy theories and concerning 9/11 my jury is still out, but there is overwhelming evidence of at least corruption, bad management or human error and a full independant investigation is needed (but will never happen).
Regarding the national exercise that was going on the day of 9/11, it was not a routine exercise. Dick Cheney had previously been given overall power, removing it from the military, which I have heard is why the fourth aircraft got shot down - the military got the order out after seeing the previous three failures to prevent aircraft from hitting buildings (btw I am completely convinced that the fourth aircraft, Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, was either blown up or shot down since an engine was recovered too far away from the main crash site). You'll have to do some research if you need more info since far better ppl than me have looked deeply into the whole thing.
As I said, I do not as yet believe in a full-on conspiracy, but if only 10% of the plausable accusations are correct then you can draw your own conclusions. Plus the fact that the Pax Americana group declaired in the 90's that a Pearl Harbour type attack was needed to galvanise the nation in order to go into the Middle East does little to ease my suspitions. If you need a motive, that is it.
Thanks for the information. I think its pretty important for ppl to at least read this stuff (and a lot of detailed investigation is available on the internet carried out by highly respected engineers, military ppl and others). At the very least the US political process needs a comprehensive review since there seems to be far too many opportunities for ppl of responsibilty to have massive conflicts of interest - how can a leader of a superpower be allowed to make decisions relating to, for example, the oil industry, where his decisions directly affect his personal wealth and powerbase, and that of his close political associates? If members of the US administration are whiter-than-white (as they shoukld be, bar low-level corruption such as expense-fiddling, extra-marital affairs, etc) it should be demonstrable but as the various unexplained and uninvestigated 9/11 details show we really cannot prove that at all. Ppl on both sides of the conspiracy fence cannot say for sure either way and that is the problem.
The other twoer was completly shielded by a another tower. Its virtualy impossible that any material from the twin towers could have damaged, certainly not enough to knock the building down. I'd have a look at what used to be in that toer, and what records were "lost" when it "fell over"
i appreciate your skepticism. i think its healthy. but your reasons for why building 7 could have collapsed are simply idiotic. its disgustingly arrogant to believe your "common sense" debunks all of that evidence in a few short paragraphs. is that how you would react to this evidence if you were a juror in a trial against bush admin? i freakin hope not.
I wouldn't brand anyone an idiot for instinctivly dismissing the conspiracy theory since I and many others did when we first heard about it simply because to think the US government was involved in 9/11 in any way is a big accusation and not one to be taken lightly. I still have an open mind about it all, even the Tower 7 part of it, but, as I said earlier, there are a lot of serious unanswered issues which, until cleared up, will keep me wondering. They have the motive - the benefits for the neo-cons are massive - and for me it boils down to 'would they be so unhuman and warped to do such a thing?'. My theory is that they may have let the attack happen after having prior knowledge of the plans and possibly made additional preparations to make sure that what happened was catastrophic enough to galvanise public support for their offensive foreign policies. They said in 1998 (I think that year is right) that such an event was needed to allow them to go after Iraq and whoever else they wanted. The 'pulling' of Tower 7, if it was a demolition, must have been preplanned since it takes at least 2 weeks to demolish a building like that. There is no way they could have organised the demolition, or 'pulling' of Tower 7 in one day, especially on a day such as 9/11. Plus a demolition company is well documented as being prominantly involved in the operation to clear up the WTC site right from within days of the attack. I think they were in charge of collecting all the Twin Tower remains and having it immediately shipped to Japan for melting down (before investigators had the chance to look over the wreck btw - usually such remains would have been closely looked at and treated as evidence).
All I would say to ppl such as MoC is to suspend your disbelief and patriotism for an evening and look at the many websites offering the generally 'accepted' theories, which are often backed up with various verifiable 'proof'. Anyone who looks at it seriously is likely to find at least a few strands of the theories given to be at least plausable and worthy of official explanation. Your comments would be welcome here I think.
because F 9/11 has done so much damage to so many people. Bush had nothing to do and knew nothing about Bin Laden's and other various people flying out after 9/11. It was all George Tenet's doing. He made the call and he did it on his own. Thanks to Michael Moore and people like him, it is believed that Bush and his White House Crew were behind this, but it was in fact George Tenet...a man Moore has praised in the past.
Mannumber3: Your praise of skepticism is hollow, as you do nothing but attack it once you've gotten the lipservice out of the way. My skepticism is idiotic? Since you've provided no information to prove why it could only have been demolitions that brought down tower 7, my only response is a derisive chuckle. You have no grounds for namecalling when all that's being debated are ponderances largely unburdened by conclusive proof. Note the word "conclusive" there, it's important. This is not a closed case. Of all the stories in which I've made arrogant comments, this is certainly not one of them. All I've done here is rationally debate the points supporting conspiracy, making no claims of debunking anything. All I've said is that I am unwilling to reject the common explanation until an alternative seems as viable. You, on the other hand, show supreme arrogance in labelling that discussion as "idiotic," while giving a patronizing pat on the head to contemplation of all possible theories. Flashby makes a good case for such ideas, you only turn people away from them.
Flashby: "They have the motive - the benefits for the neo-cons are massive - and for me it boils down to 'would they be so unhuman and warped to do such a thing?'."
There's certainly no argument that they had the motive. PNAC and their ilk had been talking about needing a Pearl Harbor to get people behind them - this much is common knowledge. People do strange and terrible things when they believe that they are "right." Thousands of American lives are a small price to pay to get America back to "The way things ought to be," especially in a blue state like New York. They had the means, they had the motive, and these are the folks for whom "the ends will justify the means." That still leaves the question of whether or not they did it.
"The 'pulling' of Tower 7, if it was a demolition, must have been preplanned since it takes at least 2 weeks to demolish a building like that. There is no way they could have organised the demolition, or 'pulling' of Tower 7 in one day, especially on a day such as 9/11."
I still want to know what was supposed to have been in that building. Domo seems to claim that there's no way that debris could have taken it out, and since I've not had the chance to read the most recent website linkes, I also have to wonder what the official cause of its collapse was reported to have been. Apparently I'm an idiot for pondering reasons other than demolitions, but humor this idiot for a moment.
"Plus a demolition company is well documented as being prominantly involved in the operation to clear up the WTC site right from within days of the attack."
Is that common practice in an incident such as this? It would stand to reason that such people would be experts in dealing with structurally compromised buildings, so they'd be the ones to call in. They'd certainly be experts in the cleanup of blasted buildings. Was this, or the speed with which they acted, out of the ordinary (moreso than the events of the day would warrant)?
"I think they were in charge of collecting all the Twin Tower remains and having it immediately shipped to Japan for melting down (before investigators had the chance to look over the wreck btw - usually such remains would have been closely looked at and treated as evidence)."
Any links on this? The 9/11 cleanup was such a mess that it'd be hard to say what was proper or even if what was proper could even have been reasonably expected to be adhered to. There may have been things that should have been done, but if they were not, we need to root out who did things differently and why before we assume the worst. Doing so is critical before adopting these theories, because if you don't, you stop considering all the possiblities and only looking at those which confirm the theory. I say this in defense of skepticism, I've made no decisions for or against such ideas.
"All I would say to ppl such as MoC is to suspend your disbelief and patriotism for an evening..."
No, make no mistake, no kneejerk disbelief and certainly no patriotism cloud my view here. I do not disbelieve theories out of hand simply because they lead to unpleasant answers. I am well aware that government officials have done great wrong in the past which have killed countless people, and that the US is no exception. I have considered these 9/11 theories for some time. My basis for skepticism is that no theory has emerged which overturns the official explanation so dramatically as to debunk it.
"...and look at the many websites offering the generally 'accepted' theories, which are often backed up with various verifiable 'proof'. Anyone who looks at it seriously is likely to find at least a few strands of the theories given to be at least plausable and worthy of official explanation. Your comments would be welcome here I think."
As I've said, I've not had the chance to check the most recently pos
As I've said, I've not had the chance to check the most recently posted websites, but from thowse I've seen before, it seems that most are highly polarized. Just like people who argue the issue here, some condescendingly dismiss the alternative theories and some, such as Mannumber3, condescendingly dismiss any questioning of those theories. Both do a great disservice to debate and the ideas they defend - when someone tells me to stop thinking a certain way, I become skeptical of them and their ideas.
Gnaglor: Who else was allowed to fly out of the US on 9/11? All I know of is the Bin Laden family, and I knew about that well before I saw F9/11. The bigger question - why would George Tenet do that? Did he randomly flip through his Rolodex, happened upon Bin Laden, and phone in a "Get Out of Jail" free card? I see no reason why He would have been behind that, and since the CIA seems to be the whipping boy for this administration, I am doubly skeptical of this claim.
Tower 7 housed the offices of the CIA, FBI and the Secret Services, as well as a $15 million bunker underneath. The full inventory of occupants are as follows:
Floor Tenant 46-47 Mechanical floors 28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB) 26-27 Standard Chartered Bank 25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS) 25 Department of Defense (DOD) 25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS) 23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM) 22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York 21 First State Management Group 19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group 19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) 18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 14-17 Vacant 13 Provident Financial Management 11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission 9-10 US Secret Service 7-8 American Express Bank International 7 OEM generators and day tank 6 Switchgear, storage 5 Switchgear, generators, transformers 4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear 3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage 2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear 1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear
The only thing I'm saying about Moore is that he leads people to believe it was Bush and his White House administration that made the call.
"MM has never claimed it was Bush that did but he has said they failed to protect the country."
I've seen the movie and he specifically says the White House when mentioning who authorized the Bin Laden's to fly after 9/11. Yes, he does not say out right that Bush made the call, even he can't lie that outright, but I never said that he did either. If you reread my posting you'll see that my comment is not BS.
I've found what could be a good summary of the main conspiracy theories in the form of a movie at http://www.pacinlaw.org/ I've not watched the hour-long video yet but it looks like it could be of interest.
BTW - if the webpage scres up the link, check for missing letters in the 'html' part of the link.
