WeAreChange confronts Joe Biden

Great job by Luke & Matt in trying to get the slippery Biden to

explain why the Pakistani ISI supplied money to the hijackers, and the ISI were never held accountable!

It is known that General Mahmood Ahmed, head of the ISI, had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta! Why did our gov't never pursue this obvious, crucial lead??? Why is it still being covered-up???

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Great Editing

Luke and Matt, you gave Biden a chance and he could have had a better answer. It's surprising how arrogant our politicians are. It's a reminder how little choice we have to vote for.


Once again it looks like New York We Are Change have not learned a damn thing about being diplomatic. Now, you might say being diplomatic will get the movement nowhere, but you would be wrong. Antagonizing someone like Biden who is in a position to support a real investigation, and all the more so if he becomes elected, is no way to convince him he should. We are suppose to be looking for allies, not making enemies.

I'm sure my comment will be voted down by those in favor of "in your face" activism, but I hope folks will ask themselves if this type of "in your face" activism has any payout. What does it accomplish besides alienating those in positions of power who would be needed if Congress ever did decide to re-investigate?

Biden was asked some months ago, politely, by a young truther if there was more to be investigated concerning Able Danger. His response was, yes, there is more to be investigated. He was asked a question in a respectful manner, and drew a respectful, honest answer. Alienating him while he is campaigning in the manner depicted here doesn't serve the cause. It is disrespectful, it is unproductive, it is self-aggrandizing.

These guys are zealous, but their zeal is misplaced , and not helping. Putting pressure on a guy like Biden in this way does nothing. Less than nothing as it drives him away. You can tell by his early statement, "watch these guys with cameras..." he is not interested in what WAC has to say. And why should he be? Forcing yourself and your opinion onto someone else by sticking a camera in their face and asking pointed, complex, loaded questions is not a tactic that will win the heart and mind of the target. If you were negotiating the release of some hostages, you think that tactic would have any effect on the kidnappers? You don't think it would antagonize the other party and kill negotiations? Especially if they hold all the cards, and you rely on their cooperation?

Learn diplomacy, or give it up. These guys are not helping.