|
Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11? (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Simple typo, genius. "Retributive".
I doubt the word is that foreign to you that you couldn't still figure it out.:crazy:
How about answering the question now? |
Despite whatever you might want to think, this thread isn't about you, donny - it's about the U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11. Stick to the topic or go back to the COR where you belong. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
9/11 Coverup Commission
By Ben Johnson and Lt. Colonel Gordon Cucullu
FrontPageMagazine.com | August 15, 2005
“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
” – St. Matthew 10:26
Recent revelations about covert “Able Danger” operations are forcing certain people to deal with subjects that they had thought swept under the rug. Despite apparent attempts to conceal the fact, the 9/11 Commission has had to admit it was informed that government agents knew of Mohammed Atta’s affiliation with al-Qaeda two years before 9/11, that Clinton-era policies prevented intelligence officials from sharing that information with the FBI, that the amended time frame would allow Mohammed Atta to have made contacts with Iraqi intelligence, and – most damningly – that it kept all this out of its final report.
Rep. Curt Weldon, R-PA, has done praiseworthy work in drawing attention to the recently released “Able Danger” report. Former CIA operative and terrorism expert Wayne Simmons has described the “Able Danger” operation as “one of our best covert operations” run by the intelligence community. The operation, he continues, was expert at “using open source intelligence,” including data mining techniques, “to locate and identify Islamic terrorists,” specifically al-Qaeda operatives in the United States. This operation identified 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta and three of his fellow hijackers as members of an al-Qaeda cell located in New York City (and codenamed “Brooklyn”) in 1999. We can only surmise that a gold mine of information lies yet unrevealed.
Weldon noted with exasperation that this information had been delivered to the 9/11 Commission in at least two separate briefings, possibly three, proving the incredible ineptitude of the commission. Weldon says staffers of the 9/11 Commission did not share – and Commissioners did not request – information about these “Able Danger” reports. This would have been indispensable to uncovering how 9/11 happened and what could be done to prevent a repeat performance, allegedly the commision's task.
Faced with these revelations, commissioners first claimed Rep. Weldon was not telling the truth, that the 9/11 Commission had never been presented with this vital information. Early last week, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said, “The name ‘Atta’ or a terrorist cell would have gone to the top of the radar screen if it had been mentioned.” Former Congressman and commissioner Lee Hamilton, D-IN, echoed Felzenberg, saying last Monday: “The September 11 commission did not learn of any U.S. government knowledge prior to 9/11 of surveillance of Mohammed Atta or of his cell. Had we learned of it obviously it would’ve been a major focus of our investigation.” The New York Times notes that just a few days later, “Mr. Felzenberg said the uniformed officer who briefed two staff members in July 2004 had indeed mentioned Mr. Atta.” Hamilton, too, quickly “readjusted” his initial comments to admit that, indeed, the commissioners heard of Atta after all. Felzenberg acknowledged the commission had been briefed on this information but rejected the testimony of a uniformed officer on the grounds that his evidence did not match their preconceived timeline; it indicates Atta was active from February-April 2000, whereas the commission believed Atta entered the United States for the first time that June.
There are several factors – none flattering to the Commission – that might explain this appalling lapse. John Podhoretz neatly summaries them: “So was the [9/11 Commission] staff a) protecting the Atta timeline or b) Jamie Gorelick or c) the Clinton administration or d) itself, because it got hold of the information relatively late and the staff was lazy?”
The really upsetting issue is contained in Podhoretz's first note. It requires a deeper reading because understanding it fully opens the entire mindset of the hard Left toward terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Podheretz notes that the Commission was “protecting” its interpretation of Mohammad Atta's international and domestic U.S. travels. Key in this “interpretation” in the minds of Clinton supporters and Bush haters of all stripes is the necessity to deny all ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al-Qaeda. After all, in the endless cacophony of criticism against the Iraq War, the two steady drumbeats have been the failure to find WMDs, and the assertion that there were no links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the September 11 attacks. Until now the Left has issued a series of deliberate misinterpretations of a series of reports – including that of the 9/11 Commission, and WMD reports by David Kay and Charles Dueffler. However the unimpeachable “Able Danger” report was at first denied by 9/11 spokesman Al Felzenberg, then was reluctantly confirmed to be correct. Felzenberg said that “the information that [the “Able Danger” briefing officer] provided us did not mesh with other conclusions that we were drawing.” (Emphasis added.)
And here we get to the crux of the matter. The movements of Atta prior to the terrorist attack as detailed by “Able Danger,” if acknowledged, would support statements by the Czech Republic that link Atta, and hence the al-Qaeda attack on America, irrefutably to Saddam's covert intelligence operatives. This is something that surfaced shortly after 9/11. A former Czech deputy foreign minister, later ambassador to the UN, gave statements that he personally expelled a high raking Iraqi embassy official in Prague for being a covert foreign intelligence agent after the latter was discovered to have met with Mohammed Atta in the international lounge at the Prague airport in August 2001. There the Iraqi transferred a large amount of cash to Atta, sufficient to fund the completion of the September 11 attack. Despite cruel pressure from mainstream media, the hard Left, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA, the Czechs insisted that their report was correct. Former Congressman John LeBoutellier was furious at the Bush administration for bowing to CIA pressure to discount the Czech report because it verified a vital deadly connection within the covert terrorist community. Now it appears as if the Czechs – and those who supported their account – were right.
This Atta-Iraqi meeting did not track well with some of the 9/11 Commission's pre-ordained agenda and had to be firmly discounted. They were able to accomplish this through a lame credit card receipt that could have been signed by any of Atta's cell. But a report with the weight of the Department of Defense and highly credible intelligence operatives behind it would expose the flimsy nature of the evidence that Atta was in the States. Hence, as Flzenberg said, with unflappable arrogance, “if we missed anything we will say so, but we doubt that we did.”
The possible motives of protecting Commissioner Jamie Gorelick and her former employer, President Bill Clinton, are also closely related. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft testified at the 9/11 Commission’s grandstanding hearings that one of its own commissioners, former high-ranking Clinton Justice Department appointee Jamie S. Gorelick, had been the prime architect of one of the problems for which the commissioners regularly denounced the Bush administration: the wall between intelligence agencies. Her infamous 1995 “wall” memo produced much of the harmful lack of intelligence coordination that the Commission then used to criticize the Bush administration. As FrontPage Magazine’s Jean Pearce wrote last May, the intelligence wall Deputy Attorney General Gorelick put in place smothered ongoing investigations into Chinese contributions to Bill Clinton’s presidential campaigns. Specifically the Department of Defense and the CIA were prohibited from exchanging relevant information with the FBI.
Not all were happy at the time with Gorelick's action. Gutsy New York City-based U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White was appalled by the Gorelick directive, sending two of her own memoranda back to Janet Reno and Gorelick protesting, “The most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating.” Her recommendations were ignored. According to the New York Post, White was so incensed by their actions that she wrote a second, scathing memorandum warning that the “wall” hindered law enforcement efforts to combat terrorism. “It will cost lives,” she reportedly warned. This second memo is still kept secret.
Her prophecy proved accurate; in 2000, members of the Department of Defense knew of an al-Qaeda operative in the United States, but the DoD – hands tied by Gorelick’s policy – declined to alert the FBI, a step that might have prevented the 9/11 attacks. At this time, al-Qaeda had already, either directly or through its affiliates, killed American soldiers in Somalia, detonated the Khobar Towers, and bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. In the summer of 2000, they attacked the U.S.S. Cole.
This inaction seemed to fall into line with the Clinton administration’s general disregard for terrorism. Although the discredited former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke presented President Clinton as an anti-terrorism warrior, former intelligence officer Ralph Peters tells a much different story. “Admitting that [terrorist] threats were real.threatened to destroy the belief system the Clintonites had carried into office,” Peters detailed. In regards to the entire terrorist network, methodology, and ideology, the Clintons were “a textbook case of denial.” It was bad enough, as the “Able Danger” reports indicate, that the Clintons were willfully ignorant of the threat but their criminal negligence was compounded by a sleazy attempt to pass the buck on the Bush administration. Bill Clinton never made any serious retaliation for any of these provocations, nor the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, emboldening these terrorists, assuring through his “intelligence wall” that 9/11 terrorists could not be properly identified and apprehended, and passing the blame for the inevitable outcome of his policies to the nascent Bush administration.
If there was, in fact, covert direction from the top of the Commission to key members of its staff to cloak any link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, to obfuscate evidence tying the Iraqi regime to al-Qaeda and Mohammed Atta, and to paint the most positive possible picture of the Clintons as implacable terror-warriors, then “Able Danger” had to be ignored and covered up. It fits the pattern of revisionist historical interpretations that seems to be the only authentic legacy from the Clinton years. Further, in Washington staffers tell their bosses what the latter want to hear. They are not rewarded for initiative. As Peters says, when told to think outside the box by a superior, a subordinate knows his job is to “come back with fresh reasons why the in-house position was right all along.”
By acknowledging the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties, not only to terrorism in general but to the September 11 attack, the war becomes completely justifiable as exactly what the Bush administration claimed it was: a defensive, if preemptive, war to protect the United States from a regime with cordial ties to anti-American terrorists. This outcome is so repugnant to the hard Left that it will justify even the most extraordinary suppression of evidence or promulgation of an outright lie in order to achieve its ends.
This is a critically important story that demands public attention. It will not be seriously investigated by many reporters, because the mainstream (read: leftist) media is not interested in exposing how its favorite president in decades enabled terrorists to pull off the worse act of domestic terrorism in U.S. history.
Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine. Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu is author of Separated at Birth, an in-depth profile of North and South Korea.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Article...le.asp?ID=19129 |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
You posted a link to a my space profile that's supposed to be me. You brought it up, not me. I think I have a right to ask what the purpose of it was.
Secondly; I think the conspiracy topic is VERY MUCH worth side-tracking!
Lastly; What is COR? |
|
|
| skot_e |
What I don't get about the 9/11 Commision is that if the claims being made are true (ie its biased) how can the citizens of USA sit back and allow a process like that to occur. In OZ we have govt Inquiry which is I think bi-partisan meaning both sides of politics are represented, it is not just a bunch of the Prime Ministers mates from down the pub, and in the case of death (which is what this would investigate) there would be a Coronial Inquest to find the exact details of what occured. This would be held by the Coroner and would have absolutely no political interference whatsoever.
how can a democratic country be run like that? |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
Ashcroft may face prison over 9/11 cover-up, says Daniel Ellsberg
by Fintan Dunne, Editor
BreakForNews.com,
15th June, 2004
Two whistleblowers stood side by side before a courthouse in Washington, D.C. on Monday. Veteran of the Pentagon Papers scandal, Daniel Ellsberg was backing a protest by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, against a court gag order which has silenced her revelations about the September 11th, 2001 attacks.
The whistleblower pair were protesting yet another delay by Judge Reggie Walton of the District Court of Columbia in determining whether Edmonds' closed session testimony to Congressional inquiries can be declared state secrets by U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft.
In a statement, Edmonds called Ashcroft's legal moves anti-freedom of speech and anti-due process.
Ellsberg's common cause with Edmonds is founded on his own battle to make public a top secret study of US decision-making in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers.
In an exclusive interview with BreakForNews.com he said that Ashcroft's legal actions against Edmonds were: "clearly intended to keep her from bringing out in public information that could lead.... to criminal indictments and possible convictions of major political figures."
Ellsberg says that if Edmonds' allegations are confirmed, the current Attorney General could be judged obstructive and share the fate of A.G. John Mitchell --who in Ellsberg v. Mitchell famously tried to squelch Ellsberg's 1971 revelations, and served prison time over the affair.
"John Ashcroft may well sleep eventually in the same cell as John Mitchell," Ellsberg said.
In a recent interview with BreakFornews.com, Sibel Edmonds alleged that the US State Department had blocked investigations showing links between criminal drug trafficking networks and the terror attacks on 9/11.
"Certain investigations were being quashed, let's say per State Department's request, because it would have affected certain foreign relations [or] affected certain business relations with foreign organizations," she said.
Edmonds also indicated that the FBI's intelligence translation service had been penetrated by a criminal, semi-legitimate intelligence group --not linked to any government. Her measured words hinted at politically explosive connections between non-terrorist criminal networks and the 9/11 attacks.
Since October, 2002 Edmonds has been bound by provisional gag orders while awaiting an opportunity for a full hearing and a definitive ruling. The recent moves in the case arose from a government bid to exclude her testimony from a class action lawsuit by families of 9/11 victims.
Judge Walton had scheduled Monday as the first ever hearing at which Edmonds was to be allowed counter the state secret privilege assertion by Ashcroft. But after an in camera presentation last week by the government side, he called off the hearing. Unofficial reports say a new date may be set for early July.
Talk of US government interference in 9/11 investigations, and the considerable volume of online analysis discounting the official conspiracy theory, resonate with Ellsberg.
"I'm not an expert on all this," he admits. "But I am increasingly open to the explanation that people in the administration did see this coming... and may have indeed reduced some obstacles.., or opened the door, in effect. I haven't been absolutely convinced on that, but it does seem to me to be an open question that deserves investigation."
"Now beyond that... it seems to me quite plausible that --plausible, that's all I'd say-- that Pakistan was quite involved in this, and that many Saudis were well informed on this," says Ellsberg.
"And to say that. To say Pakistan-- is to me, to say C.I.A. Because I think the relations between the Pakistan I.S.I. [intelligence service] and CIA were very close from the beginning. And it's hard to say that the I.S.I knew something that the CIA had no knowledge of."
"So if you say, do I accept confidently, and do I rely on the official interpretation? Certainly not. But, I wouldn't say that I have been yet been thoroughly convinced by any alternative."
"I can add one thing though -from my own experience, that's relevant."
"Is it possible... that an American president could have... welcomed an attack on America that he would interpret [as] justifying an invasion of another country?"
"Well, that's more than possible, that happened --under a president that I served. Lyndon Johnson did put American destroyers in harms way, deliberately provoking an attack.. in the Tonkin Gulf. Not only in August of '64, but in February of '65. ...There was an attack on August 2nd, and that was not unwelcome to the United States at that point."
Sibel Edmonds has already become somewhat of a flag-bearer for the diverse 9/11 truth movement, which ranges across advocacy groups, families of victims, individual investigators and a host of online web sites --all disputing the official 'Al-Qaida conspiracy' theory.
But an article today by Scott Loughrey on the Baltimore Chronicle online, alleges that Edmonds is offering a limited hangout version of events, and accuses her of "repeating the propaganda of the state."
Loughrey writes that Edmonds blames intelligence failures, rather than more sinister explanations, for the failure to prevent the attacks.
That's misleading and unfair. Yes, the superficial reports of her claims in the mainstream media focus mainly on intelligence failures. Yes, Edmonds was coy in her early public statements --out of defenence to the sensitivity of her information and the gung-ho public sentiment at the time, no doubt.
But in closed session testimony to Congressional inquiries, Edmonds has given a much fuller account of her concerns. So dangerous an account that Ashcroft seeks to retrospectively cloak that testimony with state secret privilege
And as a disillusioned Edmonds has seen her evidence disappear unremarked into the black hole of those inquiries, she has blown the whistle publicly --as unreservedly as the gag order allows:
She says the pre-9/11 US intelligence system had been penetrated by a drug-linked, semi-legitimate criminal intelligence network, operating with seeming impunity inside the FBI.
The post-9/11 intelligence 'failures' included the willful quashing by the government, of investigations tracing those criminal networks.
The 9/11 terror plot itself, intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a "crystal clear" picture of what was going on --to quote Edmonds.
If that's a limited hangout, God help us. The truth must be awful.
If it's true, as Edmonds asserts, the official line is a shallow sham.
Fintan Dunne, Editor
http://www.breakfornews.com/Sibel-Edmonds1.htm |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Despite whatever you might want to think, this thread isn't about you, donny - it's about the U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11. Stick to the topic or go back to the COR where you belong. |
I dont think you ever really answered this..
Do you honestly beleive the Bush administration orchestrated the 9.11 attacks? or do you feel that did not orchestrate them but are covering up key elements?
In other words...do you beleive the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own citizen on purpose? Just answer those questions and nothing else for me please |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by skot_e
What I don't get about the 9/11 Commision is that if the claims being made are true (ie its biased) how can the citizens of USA sit back and allow a process like that to occur. |
Because our country has been brainwashed to think that anyone who entertains the notion that there was a cover-up is helping the terrorists. Well, that and the fact that people are self-policing (i.e. - donnybrasco) and are highly intolerant of any opposing viewpoints.
Simply by looking at donny's desperate attempts to derail this thread you should be able to get a good idea of how ignobly immature people can get when presented with evidence that contradicts the official storyline. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
I dont think you ever really answered this..
Do you honestly beleive the Bush administration orchestrated the 9.11 attacks? or do you feel that did not orchestrate them but are covering up key elements?
In other words...do you beleive the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own citizen on purpose? Just answer those questions and nothing else for me please |
Why are you so concerned about what I think? Does my opinion really even matter to you? How come you guys are so focused on me rather than the subject matter itself?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot...
| quote: | An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem |
|
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
As long as people keep responding to this thread it will always garner some votes. This is in no small part on the count of people who keep it alive by offering their opinions whether for or against complicity.
This thread has seen more action in the last month and I owe it all to those that responded.
Thanks guys you have shown this thread life rather than it just fading away into obscurity. By giving this thread validity it has offered some worthwhile information from both sides. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Why are you so concerned about what I think? Does my opinion really even matter to you? How come you guys are so focused on me rather than the subject matter itself?
Oh yeah, I almost forgot...
|
because i am curious....can you answer...do you think the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own people? |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
How come you guys are so focused on me rather than the subject matter itself?
|
Because the subject is absurd...and yet, you believe it. I think it's stopped being a thread about conspiracy theories so much and more about how people who believe this stuff get to this point.
And Tiesto, he can't answer your questions...I mean, he could, but then, he'd have to kill you cause you know too much! :stongue:
Hey, he didn't answer mine either, so don't feel left out...come to think of it, I think I smell a conspiracy! :nervous: |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by tiesto14
because i am curious....can you answer...do you think the Bush administration killed 3000 of its own people? |
I'm inclined to believe that they may have let it happen, but I'm not 100% certain in regards to their actual complicity - I need more evidence before I can make that judgement.
Cheney was the one who was in control of the drills that day, but good luck with getting him to testify on anything.
| quote: | Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation
By Mike Hersh
Oct 24, 2002
Democrats keep pressing for a full hearing into the massive failures which left us open to terrorist attacks. What caused the breakdown in intelligence and national security? What happened to the Clinton Administration plans to combat Al Qaeda? Have Bush and Cheney cured the flaws in the system? If not, why not? Why are Bush and Cheney still blocking a public 9-11 investigation?The Washington Post, NY Times, and
Others Ask: What Are They Hiding?
George Bush is blocking a full public inquiry into 9-11. Richard Cheney threatens Democrats to keep quiet. "Press the issue, Cheney implied, and you risk being accused of interfering with the [war on terrorism]." The Battle Back Home, Newsweek Magazine: 02/04/02. Note: article also available from Newsweek archives.
Senate Leader Tom Daschle said "I can tell you on January 24th, first, and on January 28th second, and on other dates following, that request [by Cheney and Bush not to conduct any Sept. 11 inquiry] was made." Daschle: Bush, Cheney Urged No Sept. 11 Inquiry, Reuters News Service: 5/26/02. Strangely this story is no longer available on the original site, but echoes remain on the web.
Cheney admitted "he would advise President Bush not to turn over to Congress the August intelligence briefing that warned that terrorists were interested in hijacking airplanes, and he insisted that the investigation into Sept. 11 should be handled by the Congressional intelligence committees, not an independent commission." Cheney Moves to Block 9-11 Probe, The New York Times: 5/20/02. Months later, the chairperson of the 9/11 investigation confirmed Cheney had carried out his threats.
Bush and Cheney keep undermining Democrats' efforts to protect us from a repeat of 9/11. Undaunted, Democrats demand a public inquiry. Daschle said: "Intelligence is just a piece of it. People need to know what happened." Senator Bob Torricelli added: "We do not meet our responsibilities to the American people if we do not take an honest look at the federal government and all of its agencies and let the country know what went wrong." Bush Seeks To Restrict Hill Probes Of Sept. 11, The Washington Post: 1/30/02. And Bush Asks Daschle to Limit Sept. 11 probes, ALLPOLITICS, CNN : 1/29/02.
Joe Conason reported: "Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle - along with most of his fellow Democrats and a handful of prominent Republicans, notably including Arizona's John McCain" support an independent investigation into 9/11. That hope "is dead, at least for the moment." The Republicans "quietly set aside legislation that would establish an independent commission to investigate the terrorist attack of Sept. 11, 2001." Putting "Today" before tomorrow's security Salon.com: 06/22/02.Key Questions Remain: Why Didn't
Our FBI, CIA and Military Protect Us?
President Clinton ordered two attack submarines to stand watch over the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorists. Bush ordered the subs to stand down. See: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden: Broad Effort Launched After '98 Attacks, The Washington Post: 12/19/01. Clinton warned the Taliban he would hold the Taliban leadership personally responsible for any attack by bin Laden against Americans. Bush lifted that decree. See: Clinton's War on Terror: The Covert Hunt for bin Laden, The Washington Post, 12/20/01. But Bush eliminated these safeguards.
Bush sent $43 Million to the Taliban. His administration supported negotiations with terrorists on behalf of his campaign contributors. These included corporations seeking to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. These multinational special interests employed his father and former Bush administration officials including James A. Baker III, the man who led Bush's efforts to wrest the White House from Al Gore.
British media report that Bush ordered national security agents to "back off" the bin Laden terrorists. A former CIA agent appeared on BBC TV saying: "We were just told, 'You get caught spying on the Saudis or looking into their affairs, and you will lose your head!'" FBI And US Spy Agents Say Bush Spiked Bin Laden Probes Before 11 September, The Guardian (London): 11/07/01. Transcript: Did Bush Turn A Blind Eye To Terrorism? BBC Newsnight: 11/06/01. -- On Demand Video.
Intelligence agents reveal Bush turned a "blind eye" to terrorism by ordering our CIA and FBI to "back off" Saudi terror suspects - including Osama bin Laden's brothers - operating in the US. See: Call it 9-11Gate, American Politics Journal: 5/17/02. Because of Bush's orders, top FBI officials ignored warnings efforts to investigate and arrest the terrorists who later hijacked and flew our planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
A Gulf War vet, Lt. Colonel Steven Butler says "Bush knew" about the impending terrorist attacks, but did nothing to prevent them. Butler was "suspended for writing a letter in which he called President Bush 'a joke' and accused him of allowing the Sept. 11 attacks." News sources quote Butler's letter: "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. His daddy had Saddam and he needed Osama." DLI official removed for criticizing Bush, the Monterey County Herald: 6/3/02.
Colonel Butler, a veteran with 24-years of Air Force service added: "His presidency was going nowhere. He wasn't elected by the American people, but placed into the Oval Office by the conservative Supreme Court...the economy was sliding into the usual Republican pits and he needed something to hang his presidency on." Air Force colonel suspended after bad-mouthing Bush, The Associated Press, 6/4/02.
FBI Special Agent and Minneapolis Chief Counsel Coleen Rowley wrote: "The Minneapolis agents who responded to the call about Moussaoui's flight training identified him as a terrorist threat from a very early point." Rowley's memo confirms the FBI knew enough to arrest the terrorists before 9-11. Rowley fears a cover-up is underway: "I feel that certain facts ... have, up to now, been omitted, down played, glossed over and/or mischaracterized ... perhaps even for improper political reasons." Agent Claims FBI Supervisor Thwarted Probe, Washington Post: 5/27/02. And Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller, Time Magazine: 5/21/02.If McKinney is wrong, why are Bush and Cheney
Still Blocking a Full, Public 9-11 Investigation?
When Former Representative Cynthia McKinney asked, "Why then does the administration remain steadfast in its opposition to an investigation into the biggest terrorism attack in history?" the White House ridiculed her. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer laughed: "The congresswoman must be running for the hall of fame of the Grassy Knoll Society." McKinney's statement today on her comments, the administration, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/12/02, And McKinney draws fire for Bush remarks, Atlanta Journal-Constitution: 4/13/02.
Newsweek Magazine reports, "Dick Cheney played a behind-the-scenes role last week in derailing an agreement to create an independent commission to investigate the 9-11 attacks. Last month the White House endorsed the formation of the panel. But on Thursday, hours after congressional negotiators hailed a final deal over the scope and powers of a 9-11 panel, Cheney called House Intelligence Committee chairman Rep. Porter Goss [to block] an independent commission to investigate 9-11." It worked. Goss told a closed-door conference committee he couldn't accept the deal, citing instructions from 'above my pay grade,' sources say." Cheney: Investigators, Keep Out, Newsweek Magazine: 10/21/02.
Cheney is taking a huge risk just before the critical midterm elections. Why is Cheney exposing himself and his party by covering up the causes of 9-11 so close to 11-5? This smacks of desperation. There's a lot the top Republicans don't want Americans to know. 9-11gate, Halliburtongate, Harkongate, Enrongate, Votergate -- the list of Republican scandals keeps growing.
Asking these questions and demanding answers is our duty as Americans. It's the height of patriotism. Especially on the eve of an election. Especially with our national security at stake. We have the right to know what went wrong. You can help. Use the links below to: Support our efforts. Keep yourself informed. Voice your views. Call Congress and the White House. Contact the media. Demand a public investigation into 9-11.
http://www.mikehersh.com/Bush_and_C...tigation_.shtml |
|
|
|
|
|
