interesting

"goofyfooter" ?

There’s nothing "really cool" about that site, unless you think that rambling left-wing conspiracy theorist propaganda is cool.  It’s just another "we hate Bush" website that someone hacked together.  From my cursory glance at it, the first thing I see is that they’re whining about how "BUSH LIED!  WAH!!", which is a prerequisite for any conspiracy-theorist-lunatic in training.

There is a transcript of President Bush explaining his reaction to the events of 9/11, and in this transcript, he says this:

I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There’s one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn’t have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America’s under attack."

Now these conspiracy theorists say that Bush lied because he claimed to have seen the first plane hit the tower, and there was no video footage of that event.  They are wrong because 1) there is video footage of that event, and 2) Bush didn’t claim to have seen the first plane hit the tower.  He said he saw a plane hit the tower.  He saw it briefly, before being "whisked off" into the classroom.

Andy Card then said to him, "A second plane has hit the tower."  This doesn’t prove that what Bush had seen before was the first plane, nor that he thought it was the first plane.  Absent baseless speculation, the only things one can deduce with certainty from this transcript are: 1) Bush saw a plane strike a tower on TV, and 2) sometime thereafter, Card told Bush that "a second plane" struck a tower.

When one claims to present a fact, one must provide the logical framework of other facts that support this new "fact."  Logically speaking it is false that Card’s statement about "a second plane" proves that Bush claimed to have seen "the first plane."  If someone who understands the concept of logical implication can show me a path from the former that proves the latter, I’d love to see it.  As it stands, the evidence does not support this assertion.

Regarding whether Bush is a Christian, he has stated that he is, so that’s why I believe it to be the case.  I’ve no reason to doubt that, but then again, I’m no conspiracy theorist, so my criteria for doubt are admittedly a little different than theirs.  If you’re a conspiracy theorist, then when you come across any evidence that contradicts your worldview, you must loudly proclaim that it’s a lie.  But if on the other hand you are a rational person, then you require evidence for a lie before assuming a lie was told, and "it contradicts my worldview" does not count as evidence.

Did you only look at what they said about Bush on the site? There were many interesting archives. I wouldn’t believe someone was a christian just because they stated they were, I think actions and fruit are important.