|DERELICT DEM:||BAD PARENT:|
On the morning of 9/11, there was NO broadcast TV coverage of the first (1st) WTC impact. The one and only known video of the 1st WTC impact was shot to tape, and not available for broadcast that morning. CNN did not receive the video before midnight, which is why they have always had it on their web site dated 9/12.
Yet George W. Bush has repeatedly, publicly admitted that he watched the 1st WTC impact on TV before he entered that Florida classroom that morning!!! IOW,Bush has voluntarily revealed what he knew, when he knew it, and how he knew it! (DoD FOIA response)
Is Bush the only person in the world who forgot how he learned about the ‘surprise’ attack, and was vividly recalling something that did not occur? Or has he revealed the existence of some other/unknown video, one which ought not to exist if 9/11 was truly a "secret terrorist attack" - after all, who had cameras and a network in position, ready to go, in "anticipation" of the secret attack?
These are important questions, and it seems to us that all government servants who are paid, and who have sworn an oath, to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, are duty-bound to ask them. (I mean, how do We know that Bush has not slipped up and twice implicated himself in high treason?)
Remember that Nixon resigned under the mere threat of impeachment. Now we have Queen of Collusion Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi running interference for Bush. Pelosi’s (and Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s, like his predecessor Tom Daschle’s) inexcusable failure/refusal to question Bush is emblematic of the lack of checks-and-balances and separation-of-powers that once characterized Our (former?) Constitutional republic.
HONEST DEM TEST: Will you(r candidate) question Bush’s 9/11 confession statements that indicate prior knowledge of 9/11 (whatever it was) at the highest level of the U.S. government?
Hal Bidlack won't.
In 2008, when we heard that Hal Bidlack would be seeking our votes, we decided to contact him. He is listed in the phone book, so we called. His answering machine said to "leave a message and I’ll call you back", so we did. But Hal didn’t.
So, after days, we left another message, but still did not hear back from Hal. Was he too busy to retrieve his messages? Was his answering machine broken? The following week, we tried again…
Eventually contact info for a campaign office appeared on the campaign web site, and so we called there. Hal wasn’t there, but we were asked for full contact info, to be placed in his database, so he could return the call.
When Hal called, he was a mealy-mouthed slick weasel regarding questioning George Bush’s self-incriminating 9/11 statements. (see column on left)
Hal changed the subject. He talked about how he was personally shocked and awed by 9/11; that he’d picked up pieces of wreckage at the Pentagon. When asked about the fact that the only view of the Pentagon attack came from the government itself, and that that imagery contradicts the government’s claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon, Hal once again changed the subject:
Hal then said that because of repeated messages left on his answering machine, his daughter was terrified(!?), and unable to sleep without pepper spray by her bed! Then he said to not call again.
Now, what kind of father would repeatedly neglect the common courtesy of returning phone calls, to his own daughter’s detriment?
And if it was such a big deal, and Candidate Bidlack so badly wanted the calls to cease, why did that only come to our attention after we’d once again taken the initiative to contact him? And why was it not the first thing out of his mouth?
Is a candidate who would play the politics of fear against his own daughter, while ducking calls of an important political nature, fit to represent anyone in the U.S. House of Representatives?