Cheney Falsely Suggests Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Could Have Prevented 9/11
Cheney Falsely Suggests Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Could Have Prevented 9/11
This is what Vice President Cheney said this afternoon:
Another vital step the President took in the days following 9/11 was to authorize the National Security Agency to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications…If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon. They were in the United States, communicating with al-Qaeda associates overseas. But we didn’t know they were here plotting until it was too late.
Cheney’s claim isn’t true. Any surveillence involving known al Qaeda or affiliates could be conducted consistent with the law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which permits domestic surveillence involving any terrorist group. On Sunday, President Bush confirmed his warrantless domestic surveillance program only targets people speaking to known al Qaeda and affliates:
The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people.
The problem prior to 9/11 wasn’t the law. It was a breakdown of communication. An FBI agent failed to share critical information about Zacarias Moussaoui with the Justice Department. Here’s an excerpt from the Joint Congressional Investigation into 9/11:
The RFU agent told the Minneapolis agents that they had to connect Moussaoui to al-Qa’ida, which he believed was a “recognized†foreign power. The Minneapolis case agent later testified before the Joint Inquiry that he had had no training in FISA, but that he believed that “we needed to identify a – and the term that was thrown around was ‘recognized foreign power’ and so that was our operational theory.â€
As the FBI’s Deputy General Counsel would later testify, the agents were incorrect. The FBI can obtain a search warrant under FISA for an agent of any international terrorist group…
Cheney is out of arguments to defend Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program. So he had decided to prey on Americans’ fears.
UPDATE: The Washington Post agrees:
But Cheney did not mention that the government had compiled significant information on the two suspects before the attacks and that bureaucratic problems — not a lack of information — were primary reasons for the security breakdown, according to congressional investigators and the Sept. 11 commission. Moreover, the administration had the power to eavesdrop on their calls and e-mails, as long as it sought permission from a secret court that oversees clandestine surveillance in the United States.
The bigger problem was that the FBI and other agencies did not know where the two suspects — Cheney’s office confirmed that he was referring to Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar — were living in the United States and had missed numerous opportunities to track them down in the 20 months before the attacks, according to the Sept. 11 commission and other sources.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
187 Responses to “Cheney Falsely Suggests Warrantless Domestic Surveillance Could Have Prevented 9/11”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I think the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing could have helped. If only it was titled something like "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US" and included information on terrorist suspects taking airliner flight school.
Oh wait, it did.
Cheney is an idiot
January 4th, 2006 at 4:54 pmListen, Cheney simply lies.
January 4th, 2006 at 4:58 pmAll the time.
Think of him as "Harry Mudd" (Sp?) from that
Star Trek episode where "everything he says is
a lie" is used to confuse some androids, only
this time Cheney lies to confuse the rubes.
I remember Spock saying something like
"Happiness is a bluebird in a meadow" or
some such drivel and the android's head explodes.
probably true BUT BUSH could also have stopped 911 simply by listening to the CIA and FBI reports ...The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 - David Ray Griffin
Its all in here you knew of 911 and let it happen
January 4th, 2006 at 5:03 pmwhy was WTC fitted with explosives as well .... you could have had BIN LADEN TOO if it was not for BUSH
WOW theres so much spin on this site Im getting dizzy now
January 4th, 2006 at 5:04 pmAnd now back to Cheney's Fear Hour for a whopping good time... heeeee haaaaaaw
Bush - "The NSA program is one that listens to a few numbers, called from the outside of the United States and of known al Qaeda or affiliate people."
Does this make sense to anyone?
January 4th, 2006 at 5:05 pmOff Topic:
January 4th, 2006 at 5:09 pmAriel Sharon had a "significant" stroke.
Great. More strife.
Bob Loblaw,
Here is the rub. Bush and pals would have everyone believe that every terrorist on the face of the planet is either part of or connected to Al Qaida.
So, they just wiretap everybody in the world.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:09 pmSure, you just look them up under
January 4th, 2006 at 5:10 pmknown al Qaeda or affiliate people
on switchboard.com and there they are.
Maybe google too.
BUSH knew of 911 and could have stopped it ...the day it happened I thought how conveinient of Bush to be sitting in a school with little children ...never ever done that before has he
January 4th, 2006 at 5:10 pmCheney lied? Color me shocked! Shocked, I tell you.
Wasn't Cheney in the Nixon Administration? Didn't he learn from Tricky Dick's Errors? Or did he take notes on how not to let it happen again? Get caught, that is.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:14 pmPresidential wannabee George Pataki delivered his final State of New York State address today. He too brought up the specter of Sep. 11. Unlike the abuse that Bush and Cheney make of it... and the overuse by Pataki... at least in Pataki's case when talking about the state of New York State it is appropriate. Those other two should just STFU.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:17 pmBushes Best Friend,
January 4th, 2006 at 5:19 pmMay I ask where you are if not in the US?
And why do you think we are spinning anything?
If you read these posts, we're agreeing with your dislike of this administration.
We are "friend", not "foe".
Cheney said:
If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon. They were in the United States, communicating with al-Qaeda associates overseas. But we didn’t know they were here plotting until it was too late.
My question is: If the terorists were, indeed, communicating with al-Queda associates overseas...isn't this the sort of thing that FISA grants wiretaps FOR? Someone who is not a US citizen plotting terrorist acts through an international phone call? And if so, why bypass it? You can do it, just let FISA know about it!
I admit I can be quite the dullard, so if I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will let me know.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:23 pmSpudge_boy: "So, they just wiretap everybody in the world."
Oh damn, I better get off the phone with my friend Adil then.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:23 pmThe dark prince Darth Cheney and his spins of fear and whoa. It's over Dick so quit looking rediculous, you're an embarassment.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:27 pmIf the terorists were, indeed, communicating with al-Queda associates overseas…isn’t this the sort of thing that FISA grants wiretaps FOR? Someone who is not a US citizen plotting terrorist acts through an international phone call? And if so, why bypass it? You can do it, just let FISA know about it!
I admit I can be quite the dullard, so if I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will let me know.
Comment by slappymagoo
"DING-DING-DING-DING-DING!"
You got it!
Tell 'em what's he's won, Dick!
Sorry for the sarcasm, it was meant in good fun.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:31 pmMy way of saying you nailed it. But will John Q Public ever really know, or will they just go by the Talking Points they are constantly bombarded with?
Impeach the bastard.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:32 pmtwo of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon
Hey Dick, are you sure there were two of them?
January 4th, 2006 at 5:35 pmJust what size 'jet' was it supposed to have been Dick?
Were either one of those two highjackers found alive
and well after they flew the 'jet' into the Pentagon Dick?
What is the Vice President talking about? I thought they did pick up some phone calls that would have helped them stop the 9-11 attacks, but they weren't translated until a couple of days later. Isn't that what happened, or did I overfill the bong that day? If true, then his statement is just a plain old lie.
And, for the record, I have become a fan of David Ray Griffin, too. His second book on 9-11, The 9/11 Commission Report Omissions and Distortions talks about the oral accounts of that day, released after several years. Several people heard explosions from the buildings just before the collapses and others saw flashes ringing the building.
As painful as it is to accept (and I tell you, I have to keep from crying when I think about it), there is more evidence to support the notion that our government knew those attacks were coming and just let them happen then there is to support the "official" finding of the 9-11 Commission.
Another good example (out of many): At the moment Andrew Card leaned down and told the president we were under attack, there were eleven planes still not accounted for. Yet the Secret Service did not act in any way shape or form as if the President was in any danger. Why? Watch the video. I don't think you even see the Secret Service in the picture, which you would expect if "unknown terrorists" might be flying planes into the school where he was. And yet they do not act as if he is in any danger at all. The Vice President, by contrast, was almost immediately whisked out of his office and into a secure bunker (where, apparently, he remained for about three months, or so it seems.)
January 4th, 2006 at 5:39 pmslappymagoo,
"If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."
That is a laugh. Especially when you look at the photographic evidence that shows there was no plane. You hear all the time about people that lost loved ones in the WTC and PA plane crashes, but never the Pentagon plane. WHy is that?
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0203/pentagon.crash.gallery/2.pentagon.burning.jpg
Can you find the plane?
January 4th, 2006 at 5:39 pmWayne A. Schneider,
The other interesting thing is that Bush had a prepared speech about the WTC attacks. He gave that speech about 7 minutes after he finally got up and left the room.
Why did he have a prepared speech?
January 4th, 2006 at 5:42 pm#18 Now, now...none of that "conspiracy" stuff.
The fact that 7 of the highjackers were found alive after 9-11 is just a crazy coincidence, as is Mohammed Atta's presence on one Jack Abramoff's cruise ships several weeks prior to the WTC arttack.
Besides, these aren't the 'droids you're looking for!
January 4th, 2006 at 5:45 pmSpudge_Boy,
From that picture, at that angle, dude, I can't even tell that that's the Pentagon, so it's a moot point.
But for the record, you quoted from my post as I was quoting Cheney. If you are assuming those are my words, they are not.
If however, you are using my quote of Cheney's quote to make the claim that Cheney is lying about a plane hitting the Pentagon, have at it, but it does make it seem like you are quoting me, and you are not.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:45 pmConspiracy theories aside, the facts were that Bush had been briefed on the possibility and failed to do anything. Cheney is trying to once again spin the facts, or in this case lies to cover up the administrations real agenda, seize power.
These guys are dangerous power-hungry facists. They have to be stopped and run out of DC. Write your congresspersons and demand impeachment now!
January 4th, 2006 at 5:46 pmLame, Spudge_Boy. I'm not saying your entire conspiracy theory is discredited, but by the time of the explosion the plane would have more or less have been in the building.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:46 pmSorry, not up on my conspiracy therories....
can someone explain this to me?
I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that the towers fellinward on themselves.
Now no plane at all @ the Pentagon?
I must be watching MSM too much...
January 4th, 2006 at 5:46 pmDick Cheney defends the illegal practice of spying on American citizens; he claims they could have prevented 9/11 had they the ability to eavesdrop. Before 9/11/2001 they already were spying on suspected terrorists; they already knew where some of them were; they had a PDB explicitly stating an attack on America was planned. They failed to follow through, as they failed to follow through on the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden. For Cheney to connect this recent NSA flap to 9/11 is similar to connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11. His words today are similar to his statements that we would be welcomed with flowers in Iraq; and two years later, as we near the third year in Iraq, he said the insurgents are "in their last throes."
January 4th, 2006 at 5:52 pmCheney has lost all credibility and the number of Americans who believe what he says is dwindling every day. That he continues to say these things is only proof that he continues to pander to the Republican base, not that what he says is of any value.
slappymagoo,
I am quoting the same text you quoted from the TP Cheney quote from the thread topic.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:52 pmslappymagoo,
BTW, that is one of the 4 pictures put out by the Department of Defense. Those 4 are the only official pictures of the Pentagon event. That is the parking toll booth out in front of the Pentagon.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:54 pmif cheneys lips are moving......, next he'ss try to tell us spying would have prevented WW I and II....and Mt.Saint Helens.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:55 pmGuys, I have seen videos and read many reports on 9/11. I know people don't want to believe it (and I am not sure I want to face it either) but there is a lot of conflicting information out there from reputable sources that call for a thorough explanation.
January 4th, 2006 at 5:56 pmI hate to think we are going to have another Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory, but there is just too much here to simply pass off.
As much as I detest the slimebag Bushies, could they really have done this? Part of me says they are capable of committing anything -- part of me says they can't be that evil - can they?
SuperEdo,
That is the initial impact picture. That is when the "plane" first struck the fasade of the Pentagon. Here are all four pictures for you.
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0203/pentagon.crash.gallery/1.pentagon.burning.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0203/pentagon.crash.gallery/2.pentagon.burning.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0203/pentagon.crash.gallery/3.pentagon.burning.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0203/pentagon.crash.gallery/4.pentagon.burning.jpg
January 4th, 2006 at 5:57 pmSpudge, these photos are among the reasons why we must have answers from someone. Engineers say the buildings could not have imploded on themselves. Descrepancies in what Bush said, what he did, what the Sec. Serv. did/did not do, that the plane that struck the Pentagon was never "investigated" (particularly baffling since everything at ground zero was filtered and screened), what the F-16s didn't do (recall how quickly they zeroed in on golfer, Payne Stewart's plane).\ Everytime I start thinking about all the questions and missing pieces, I think of the possibilities.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:03 pmSpudge they found both black boxes and eyewitnesses saw the plane come over. There were numerous stories of passengers on flight 77.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:08 pmMarie and Spudge - please continue to imply that your govt did this. It is real winner at the polls. You won't look totally detached from reality and filled with hate when you do it.
It is more scary than sad that people think like you.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:10 pmMy question was a serious one, Spudge.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:10 pmNo plane? Then what? Planned so that we'd be horrified that one of our gvt. buildings were targeted as well as the WTC's?
I've heard of WTC, but not this one.
Wasn't meaning to poke fun or anything.
#34
TJM,
How hard is it for somebody, especially at the Pentagon to drop a black box?
Eyenwitnesses said they saw "a plane" fly over. It was not a passenger plane. It was small.
Link to Flight 77 passenger stories?
January 4th, 2006 at 6:11 pm"Marie and Spudge - please continue to imply that your govt did this. It is real winner at the polls. You won’t look totally detached from reality and filled with hate when you do it.
It is more scary than sad that people think like you.
Comment by Faiz is a Pig"
If they didn't 'do' this, they covered it up. You're so filled with hate against us, that you can't even hold your own party or government accountable for its flaws. You've given up your 'citizenship' and your 'civic duties' in response to partisan loyalty and self willed ignorance. That's truly the scary part, and why 'fascism' always takes hold in a country.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:19 pmTrue Blue,
No offense taken.
I don't believe there was a passenger plane. It was either a small jet or missile.
"Planned so that we’d be horrified that one of our gvt. buildings were targeted as well as the WTC’s?"
Ding ding ding.
The WTC building were horrifying, but they needed something more. As in "OMFG the terrorists attacked our Pentegaon."
January 4th, 2006 at 6:21 pmTrue Blue - See my comments in #38, but to add more here goes. The engines that were recovered at the sites were not of a 767, but rather a 737. It would be very difficult for the average person to determine the difference, but experts have. Also, the plane in Pennsylvania was shot down. The proof is the fact that there was debree, and still being, discovered up to 8 miles away. How can debree fly 8 miles unless it was seperated from the plane at some given altitued?
Look at the towers when they fell, just as you indicated. One of the tops of the towers started to topple to one side. Newtons law states that an object in motion will remain in motion until acted upon. So it THOUSANDS of tons of metal are at a 20 degree angle, how can it stop from falling over and finally end up in the footprint of the building without help?
If you want some interresting links, just ask.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:21 pmWow.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:28 pmThat's all I can say.
I'm so angry that this really could be true.
Excuse me while I go swear for a while.
SpudgeBoy,
Here's a link to a video about what ever hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
Now everyone can ask themselves the same question: What really hit the Pentagon that day, and why won't they release any of the videos of whatever it was.
It may take a moment or two for the video to download, but once it does, it starts running automatically.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:31 pmI'm back.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:36 pmMy computer is 6 yrs old so I won't be able to see the video.
Damn.
If Remove bush could post the links, I guess I could copy them and save it for a better computer...
I'll save yours, too, Wayne.
Thanks.
#38, #39, #41
January 4th, 2006 at 6:36 pmThat's what I mean -- there are too many unanswered questions. Too many things don't compute. I think I will join TrueBlue and go swear for a while.
Maybe we could stick to the topic of the post. There are lots of places to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is about what Cheney said today.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:39 pmThere still should have been some debris just outside of where the "plane" hit the Pentagon--the wings should have sheared off, especially since they had just finished reinforcing that section--how handy!
January 4th, 2006 at 6:39 pmJudd,
We are on topic. Cheney said "If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."
We don't believe it was a plane. So, we are debating what CHeney said today.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:42 pmSorry, Judd! All I can say about Cheney is that he's a lying sack of sh*t!
January 4th, 2006 at 6:47 pmby the time of the explosion the plane would have more or less have been in the building.
Interesting, but not entirely true. The one thing that has alwasy been intriguing is the utter lack of airplane wreckage in any photos of the Pentagon crash site, regardless of what stage, ie, immediately after, during firefighting, etc. Nothing. And the shape and size of the hole in the building would not permit the wings to enter, so there would have to be at least some wreckage outside.
Sorry, visions of grassy knolls, and all...
January 4th, 2006 at 6:47 pmOkay, Judd. Sorry for helping with the diversion. But you know in your heart that we are not crazy. Well, maybe me, but not all of us. And the Vice President did bring it up.
Back on topic: The Vice President is lying. Period. What we need from the MSM is for someone to point out the lies and not pretend that he was speaking truthfully. I can understand having respect for the offices of President and Vice President, and I do try to show some (which is why I rarely refer to either of them by just their last name.) But it has become apparent over the last few years that neither of these gentlemen have any respect themelves for their respective offices, so call a liar a liar.
I would love to hear a reporter play a clip of the Vice President's remarks and then just say, "But that statement doesn't jibe with the facts," and then show the proof.
January 4th, 2006 at 6:48 pmDick seems pretty reasonable...
I mean, how else could you prevent an imaginary plane from hitting the Pentagon if you didn't use a made-up executive privilege to spy on non-existent terrorists?
But seriously, at this point, who in their right mind will believe any theoretical situation posed by Cheney?
The man lies like others breathe, and he's guilty as hell for a number of crimes, chief among them is his role in the planning and execution of 9/11. An event he's personally benefitted from immensely since 9/11 happened...
If he'll lie about WMD and Iraqi nuclear threats, what's to stop him from lying about a 'global terrorist network'? Especially when he needs your fear of said network to achieve the unchecked power he currently enjoys.
If al Qeada exists as Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Condi/et al suggest, and they are just waiting under every rock for America to falter for a single solitary second at which point they'll strike - where were they after Katrina?
There were 5 days (count 'em - FIVE) before anyone in authority showed up in the area - including military personnel. If al Qeada existed they would've flooded into New Orleans with the water and started making everything worse.
The Emperors wear no clothes, isn't about time we all grew up and realized that fact?
January 4th, 2006 at 6:59 pmSorry. Thought it was kinda topical.
(I feel like I was just reprimanded by my Study Hall teacher...!) :)
January 4th, 2006 at 7:01 pmSpudge_Boy to Wayne A. Schneider,
please give a link -- this is the first i've heard of this...
oh and mary, there was no "screening and filtering" of stuff at ground zero. bush blocked any forensic investigation until all evidence was destroyed. the new york fire department is still pissed. but any forensic investigation would have revealed that the metal had been subjected to explosives. hence it was blocked. it is as good as an admission of guilt.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:03 pmThe question is: Can we be assured by the Vice President's remarks that because we haven't been attacked since 911, due what we've been able to garner and act upon
January 4th, 2006 at 7:11 pmsolely from the listening program, we can say,[NOTE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SECRET PROGRAM NOW] that the same exact cirumstances existed before 911 and specifically the plane that hit the Pentagon could have been stopped? So what he is saying is: We don't need a congresssional declaration of war to grant the President these powers. That sounds like the logical defense for them. Remember they have had a whole year to cook this one. Ends justify the means. You all are ON tonight, I do think the Flt. #77 thing is uncomfortable, but very tangent.
I am sure there is some mook hired by Bush/Cheney who called people like John Kerry, Christiane Ammanpour, Michael Moore, Oprah Winfrey and the South Park Guys and siad: "Will you accept a collect call from Al, Al Qaeda".
Then they could say that they have the evidence needed to begin the wiretaps.
Thank God for Bush and Cheney, I have never felt so secure in my life. Dictatorships are very safe. As long as you are not on the wrong side of the the dicatator.
-GSD
January 4th, 2006 at 7:15 pmSure and IF bushy gave a shit about America and American life, we have NOT gone to an illegal war. IMPEACH this bastard before he REALLY F***'s things up!
January 4th, 2006 at 7:16 pmPerhaps a competent set of leaders could have prevented 911 too, but we will never know as we have what we have.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:18 pmoh and one more piece of data -
January 4th, 2006 at 7:24 pmshortly after 9-11 the FBI hired a translator by the name of sibel edmonds. she discovered that other translators investigating 9-11 documents were deliberately mistranslating information and tried to report them. she was fired and served with a gag order. she brought a lawsuit under the whistleblowers act against the FBI. it was referred to Reggie Walton (http://www.antiwar.com/deliso/?articleid=8340) who blocked the case for years. the case went to the supreme court but they refused to hear it. Reggie Walton is the judge who has been assigned to hear the scooter libbey case -- what a coincidence.... the cover up never ends...
"No plane? Then what?"
There are so many things that point to the absence of a plane. It almost seems like it was a guided missle. For example...
1. Compare the sattelite photo from 9/7/01 to the photo from 9/12/01. Take note of the line in the dirt from 9/0/01. The line was the exact trajectory that was taken by the mystery plane that hit the Pentagon. Could this be a system for guiding a missle?
2. Isn't it amazing that this plane was piloted by a novice pilot that managed to keep the plane at a perfect height so that it never even touched the lawn? It's pristine: http://www.govsux.com/images/Pentagon_lawn.jpg
3. When the plane hit the building, why did the wings not shear off? Why don't you see even ONE piece of debris on the lawn?
4. The film footage shows a plane practically skidding across the lawn. Why were the spools in front of the entry point not even touched? (http://www.govsux.com/images/lawn.jpg) This is a computer model of how the plane would have been positioned in order to hit the building where it did -- notice that the engines would have scraped across the lawn - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer/sozen.pentagon.jpg
And it goes on and on - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm
There's more interesting stuff here related to the Twin Towers - http://www.911inplanesite.com/
I hope we can some day put this to rest. There has not been enough information released to the public to make us feel like this is anything but a plot.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:30 pmAll this stuff about the Pentagon, and for the life of me I can't find the photo taken outside the building where an engine was clearly seen resting on the ground. Hmmmm...
The easy one is what happened to WTC building #7?
Or what happened to the conversation that Putin had with Bush when he warned of this kind of attack? Or Egypt? Jodan? Germany?
These things would more clearly and more quickly prove involvement of the Toy King and his Henchmen.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:34 pmThere are no treasures like this on talk radio. Oh and Cheney says the President can seize all the power he wants while the war switch is on.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:35 pmexcuse me are we at war? with whom? we are occupying iraq and the leader is in prison. who are we at war with? terror? pardon my geography - but where is that on a map? how do we send troops?
January 4th, 2006 at 7:38 pmWether or not they planned or allowed 911, it is self evident that these people are liars and theives, warmongers and profiteers. They're kidnappers and torturers, who have trashed the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the Geneva convention. They've ruined the economy and the reputation of our Country throughout the world. They dream of empire but never wake to reality. They don't believe in Science. They preach protection as they fail to protect. They use illegal propaganda, spy on Americans and have worked in every way to legislate corporations above US Citizens.
Their lies are literally "Orwellian". They lie as policy.
They in no way deserve the benefit of a doubt.
They have a terrible sea of blood on their hands.
They must be held accountable.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:39 pm#55
Let me find it. I have the video, but that doesn't help you. It'll take a minute. I remember it was a bitch to find the first time.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:47 pm#64 Victor, here is a link , it is from wickedpedia, seems to be enough info for me. Enjoy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resolution_to_Authorize_the_Use_of_United_States_Armed_Forces_Against_Iraq
January 4th, 2006 at 7:52 pm#55
Let me find it. I have the video, but that doesn’t help you. It’ll take a minute. I remember it was a bitch to find the first time.
Comment by SpudgeBoy
January 4th, 2006 at 7:54 pmpsst... Hey, spudge... just don't let the 'Teach' catch 'ya...
(ref post 54)
pass it on....
sorry,....
I just couldn't hold on to making fun any longer.
My daughter told me not to do it... "It'll hurt Judd's feelings."
My 'Id' overcame my 'SuperEgo'.
January 4th, 2006 at 7:56 pmIt was in fun, Judd.
Tru Blue,
You shouldn't be passing notes in class. ;)
January 4th, 2006 at 7:57 pmThe problem prior to 9/11 wasn’t the law. It was a breakdown of communication. An FBI agent failed to share critical information about Zacarias Moussaoui with the Justice Department. Here’s an excerpt from the Joint Congressional Investigation into 9/11:
no,there WASN'T a break down of communication, intelligence was precise and it was an unqualified success.
this president was given precise intelligence that informed him in no uncertain terms we would be attacked, when it would happen, where, what the targets were, how the attack would be delivered, and who would do it...it is almost impossible to have intelligence more precise then this president was briefed concerning the successful attack on our own soil... the man in office actually stood down
did you hear that?...this president stood down, he enjoyed his vacation, he dismantled the anti terror league headed by Clark and he thought nothing of it, nothing at all.
take page 128 of the 9/11 report, we find that Clinton on was given an almost identical briefing as the one president Bush recieved...in sharp and brutal contrast, president Clinton defended this country with the information he and his ant terror league received, in addition, he created a template for Bush to follow if he couldn't come up with SOME ideas to defend this nation, and there was a template for effective defense against the attack that was sure to come.
this president ignored the template that proved successful and he stood down..ANY other president would have done AT LEAST what was done before to protect this country, CERTAINLY no person with half any kind of military ability would do less.
further, this president was informed in no uncertain terms the kind of threat that al Qaeda posed, he was informed that bin laden and al Qaeda would be the biggest challenge of his presidency.
I can't stand when right wing corporate media actually tries to say that intelligence was inadequate, but I am ESPECIALLY peeved when a progressive source as competent as this one does the same
one more time;
there was NO failure of the intelligence community as it regards the successfully attack on our soil on September Th
January 4th, 2006 at 8:00 pmYeah, Well, You started it!!!
January 4th, 2006 at 8:05 pm(launching a spitball...)
Since they continuously want to invoke 911 911 911 for everything they do, we must get to the bottom of it. And what they tell us happened on 911 doesn't jive with the evidence or the science. 911 looks more like an inside job to me.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:05 pmSince they continuously invoke 911 911 911 for everything they do, we must get to the bottom of it. And what they tell us happened on 911 doesn't jive with the evidence or the science. 911 looks more like an inside job to me.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:06 pm#67 -- now what do you have to do to win a war? catch the leader and put him in jail - done. defeat the army - done. rebuild their country? now there is a new definition of war... i'm sorry, being an occupying force does not constitute being at war. but dont worry, iran is just around the corner... that will be a real war.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:08 pm#55
January 4th, 2006 at 8:15 pmthe only 9-11 speech on whithouse.gov wasn't delivered until 8:30 pm http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html#
but dont worry, iran is just around the corner… that will be a real war.
Comment by Victor
January 4th, 2006 at 8:17 pmNo, please, Victor.
You're going to give me nightmares.
Especially now that Ariel's on a respirator and all.
I am increasingly afraid of the future....
and how much more we're going to have of it as a free country....
what Cheney seems to be saying ; That before 911 we had good intel, and of course right now, but when it came to the Aluminum tubes, WMD, Greeted as Liberators,Last Throwes of the insurgency, our intel was wrong. I'm confused.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:20 pmVP Dick Cheney is a bigger liar than President George Bush!
Cheney is an accomplice in the NSA wiretaps bypassing the FISA Court, so he must be impeached with Bush for that crime! If Dick was smart he would resign by claiming ill health!
Dubya's excuses for the illegal eavesdropping are becoming more and more rediculous, so he should apologize like Nixon did, and then resign in humiliation! Or the House and Senate must impeach him and Cheney, with prison terms for both of them too!
January 4th, 2006 at 8:22 pm#78, No that's not true...... The president addressed the nation right after the kids finished their book and told America that we were under atack.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:25 pmI have written before about my take on Bush's expression re:
January 4th, 2006 at 8:26 pmbeing informed of 9/11 attacks. It didn't seem "right" to me.
Why SIT there?
Spudge's info on the 7 minute/ speech would be helpful.
...not that we're talking about anything other than Cheney....SHHHHH, damn it! I don't wanna be caught again!
;-)
OK, here is some information I found about it... Though it is not a video it does have pictures.
http://www.september11news.com/PresidentBush.htm
January 4th, 2006 at 8:35 pmBack to Cheney.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:50 pmIt is really amazing that he can say things
that are so clearly false.
9/11 was not a single point of failure,
but we know it wasn't FISA that caused the problem.
It might have helped to read PDB dated 8/6/2001,
but the administration was not paying attention.
That does not excuse the communications snafu,
but I bet if Chimpy showed some interest
in the PDB and asked some questions things MIGHT
have gone better.
Think about your own work. You always have too
many things to do. What do you work on?
The thing with the highest priority, right?
Your boss often lets you know, if he/she
is paying attention, but we know Chimpy
just wants to cut brush, now and back in 2001
as well.
9:30 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Ladies and gentlemen, this is a difficult moment for America. I, unfortunately, will be going back to Washington after my remarks. Secretary Rod Paige and the Lt. Governor will take the podium and discuss education. I do want to thank the folks here at Booker Elementary School for their hospitality.
Today we've had a national tragedy. Two airplanes have crashed into the World Trade Center in an apparent terrorist attack on our country. I have spoken to the Vice President, to the Governor of New York, to the Director of the FBI, and have ordered that the full resources of the federal government go to help the victims and their families, and to conduct a full-scale investigation to hunt down and to find those folks who committed this act.
Terrorism against our nation will not stand.
And now if you would join me in a moment of silence. May God bless the victims, their families, and America. Thank you very much.
END 9:31 A.M. EDT
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010911.html
this is as close as i get... not much of a speech -- but all he had said until then was how well the children read my pet goat...
January 4th, 2006 at 8:51 pmIt IS against the law and I AM protected by the Constitution......I guess it's that old "for the greater good" bullshit.
Hmmmm.....I could think of something that would ASLO be for the GREATER GOOD.
IMPEACHMENT!!!!!
A POLITICAL ENEMA!!!
Let's get all the SHIT out of the whitehouse!
January 4th, 2006 at 8:57 pmafterthought,
See post #1.
January 4th, 2006 at 8:57 pm#82 RemoveBush
January 4th, 2006 at 8:59 pmThank you. Sorry to be so demanding... but these speeches don't sound preplanned... i actually don't think whoever is in charge of the government bothers to keep bush in the loop. he's a liability in anyone's book.
these bald faced bas...ds. I say string em up like the days of old. Or better yet take cheney aand Bush up into the hills of Afghanistan and LEAVE THEM THERE!
January 4th, 2006 at 9:01 pmAfterthought,
January 4th, 2006 at 9:03 pmBush has utter HATRED of anything intellectual.
Of COURSE he would dismiss it.
"Oh, you think you're smarter than me?" I can just hear him say.....
Problem is - most poeple ARE smarter than him!!!
IQ of 92???
That's really not good.
What about the effect of all the drugs and alcohol on his system?
Brings him down even further.
Why don't we have "Forrest Gump" run the country?
... Wait, at least he HAD Ethics!!!!
#88
Victor,
Then explain the handy dandy Presidential podium he is standing behind. DO they carry that around in the trunk of the bullet proof limousine. Just in case Bush feels like giving an impromptu speech?
January 4th, 2006 at 9:07 pmA good liar does not appear the liar. A person lying is a like an actor in a play. The scripted lie. The portrayal of a fiction.
Everyone has seen bad actors and liars. Nervous and stiff. Their movements are exaggerated or overly deliberate. The dialog seems wrong somehow. Their presence is a bad fit for the situation. They STICK OUT.
Now imagine there's this King.
He's not really king but he wants to be.
He's got a plan. He's gonna blow up some stuff, blame bad guys and take over. Simple.
He's not a good liar but he has no compassion which helps.
Still, what should he do? What should he say and how should he act? That's the hard part. Not just saying the lies but pulling it off, really. Here's the script. His writers suck too.
So it's the big day and the king has scheduled lots of stuff to do far away from the blowing up stuff. That way no one can blame it on him. He will drive around and go to see little kids because "only nice people see little kids and nice people would never blow stuff up." When he is still far away they tell him things have started blowin up already. That's too soon. That's not in the script. What to do, what to do? "I know, lets go see littl kids anyway. Everyone likes kids." So he goes and sees little kids and they ask silly kid questions. They sang songs too. That was nice. Then they tell him things are all done blowin up. He waits around for a while because it would just look suspicious if stuff blew up and he came flying out of the school. Maybe it's better to stay a while. Oh look, there's a little book right there. "I'll read for a little bit."
January 4th, 2006 at 9:10 pmOkay, back to Cheney.
This is for you Cheney. My favorite moment in 2005.
Dick Cheney getting a taste of his own medicine.
From C&L:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Cheney_090805.wmv
January 4th, 2006 at 9:13 pmHey Spudge,
Yeah, you got him in #1, but I just
January 4th, 2006 at 9:13 pmwon't let the PBD go as it really
reflects the lack of attention this
administration shows to such important
things while obsessing over foolishness.
#90 I'll answer for Victor. The answer would be YES. There was a plan for him to give a speach on education following the reading. Don't you think that for a planned speach that they would bring a podium with the presidential emblem?
January 4th, 2006 at 9:13 pmPower whores, e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e of them.
January 4th, 2006 at 9:14 pmThanks for letting me see that the talk of this being part of the reality based community is just talk.
January 4th, 2006 at 9:21 pmCheney follows the tried and true practice used by this administration - if you say it often enough people will believe it. AND WHO WILL SPEAK FOR THE PEOPLE? Any Democrats willing to protect us from the government spying on us?
January 4th, 2006 at 9:24 pmhere's the tried and true:
"Why of course the people don't want war ...
But after all it is the leaders of the country
who determine the policy,
and it is always a simple matter
to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a
communist dictatorship ...
Voice or no voice, the people can always
be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them
they are being attacked, and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger."
— Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials after World War II
January 4th, 2006 at 9:27 pmNixon bugged some of his opponents and was Impeached.
BUSH HAS BUGGED EVERYONE
January 4th, 2006 at 10:07 pmafterthought,
You got that right.
Cheney makes me wanna:
January 4th, 2006 at 10:08 pmThe staff with Bush & Cheney's wartime profiteering company I refer to as the W, Rove and Co. are experts at fiction. Do we expect more or less from them? Cutting through it to find the truth is always harder than making up new fiction.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:15 pmHey wait one second with the conspiracy talk, man. Are you suggesting that if I send an Internet message with the words "al Qaeda" I might trigger a NSA computer system and this could have something to do with why I get searched in red state airports and am not allowed to print my boarding passes at home?
Because that would be like... Bad. Governance.
Y'know? Am I way off base here?
January 4th, 2006 at 10:38 pmcynical ex-hippie,
Yes
And if we take that and extrpelate a little, it would make since that if you didn't want to get searched, you should make your e-mails sound more republican.
So, you should add some racial slurs, call some Arabs "towel heads" and state "George Bush should be on Mount Rushmore"
That'll get you through those security lines.
Please, they take my Bic lighter everytime I fly, but I can have eight books of matches. I could start a fire much faster with eight books of matches than I could with a crappy ass Bic.
January 4th, 2006 at 10:54 pmThat's really funny, Cynical Ex-
But 'ya know what?
It's also kinda scary.....
(Thank God I'm in a Blue State... at least for now...)
January 4th, 2006 at 10:56 pmSpudge,
You smoke?
Shame!!!
You have a family, right?
...Bad!!!
Sorry, but I got an ash from my parents' butts' lodged into my eye, and removing it was not fun.
I want you around to debate with.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:01 pm(and hurl spitballs at when 'Teach' aint lookin'...)
Please think about it.
Jeez,
I just read my post-
Can you tell I'm a mom?
SH*T
I've turned into my mother.............
(mental breakdown)............
:)
January 4th, 2006 at 11:06 pmYes True Blue, I admit, I smoke. Bad Spudge.
But, it makes me look cool. :/
January 4th, 2006 at 11:08 pm#101 They only come when you say the name three times like ruby slippers from the Wizard of Oz except they have those shiny black shoes and they torture you.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:12 pmMany of the 9/11 websites are bogus to confuse and divide people who are questioning the event. Try http://www.oilempire.us to see the list of the deliberate confusers.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:31 pmQUIP BY HEART ATTACK: "If we’d been able to do THIS before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon."
By "this," I presume he's referring to the administration's inability or unwillingness to respond to the 8-6-01 Presidential Daily Brief entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE WITHIN UNITED STATES." Yes, it certainly was tragic how BushCo was completely unable to do anything about "this" before 3,000 people died. Because we know how Shrub responded to that warning: He blissfully continued his brush-clearing vacation.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:33 pmslappymagoo,
I am quoting the same text you quoted from the TP Cheney quote from the thread topic.
Comment by Spudge_Boy — January 4, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Spudge,
Because you addressed me first, and then added the quote from Cheney without atrtibuting the quote TO Cheney, I just wanted to make sure you, and anyone else reading your post, knew that those were not my words. The post in question is #20. If you read it as if you were not the one who wrote it, I'm sure you could see how someone might assume I originally said those things. Just wanted to clarify. That's all.
January 4th, 2006 at 11:45 pmSpudgeBoy,
January 4th, 2006 at 11:45 pmYou should really give up the weed - gramps smoked from the time he was 16 til he was 96. My aunt is pushing 101 and never touched the coffin nails.
The removal of Kennedy (and later, of his brother on the threshold of his victory in the Presidential campaign) led to the escalation of the Vietnam war, Watergate, the 1980 "October Surprise," the Iran-Contra scandals, BCCI, the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm (1991 war on Iraq), allowing the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, the stolen election in Florida in 2000, 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on the Democrats and the media, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the stolen 2004 Presidential election (to cite a few of the many scandals since 1963).
January 5th, 2006 at 12:07 am"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
January 5th, 2006 at 12:09 am-- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
Who said anything about weed.
I smoke good old fashion amonia injected Marlboro cigarettes. They taste like sh!t, give me bad breathe, are messy and I hate them. But, I have a grand addiction to them.
"Quiting smoking is easy, I've done it hundreds of times."
January 5th, 2006 at 12:10 am-Mark Twain
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process."
January 5th, 2006 at 12:10 am-- President Dwight Eisenhower, farewell speech to the nation, January 17, 1961
When is Cheney going to have his FINAL heart attack?
January 5th, 2006 at 12:12 am"Forcing peace with war and violence, yeah that's the ticket."
Vice President Richard Cheney.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:14 amGeez Dick,
You win a couple of world wars and you think you can do anything you want to, cool down man, get therapy for that addiction to power.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:17 amSpudgeBoy,
January 5th, 2006 at 12:25 am20 times a pack?
#117,
January 5th, 2006 at 12:27 amJust before he crokes.
No, I only smoke about a half a pack. I supply my buddy at work that "doesn't smoke" So, I only end up smoking half of them.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:46 amThis is what Vice President Cheney said this afternoon:
Another vital step the President took in the days following 9/11 was to authorize the National Security Agency to intercept a certain category of terrorist-linked international communications…If we’d been able to do this before 9/11, we might have been able to pick up on two of the hijackers who flew a jet into the Pentagon.
Absolute BULLSHIT! HOW MANY DAMNED REPORTS DID THEY SAY THEY HAD FROM THE CIA WARNING ABOUT HIJACKERS USING OUR PLANES??? HOW MANY DID CONDOBITCH IGNORE??? YOU DON'T NEED WIRETAPPING ON THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS TO GAIN INFO THAT'S ALREADY ON YOUR DAMNED DESK.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:12 amIN ADDITION, let's remember something BUSH SAID HE SAW HAPPEN before he went in to read "The Hungry Goat" to the elementary students in FL.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:19 amBUSH SAID HE WATCHED ONE OF THE PLANES HIT THE TOWER BEFORE HE WENT IN TO READ TO THE CHILDREN. HE SAID "NOW THAT'S ONE BAD PILOT THERE. WHAT A TRAGIC ACCIDENT THAT IS." then he went on in and sat there. After Andy Card came in and told him of the second plane, how much longer did he sit in there with those kids? While people were freakin dying? NOW HERE IS THE INTERESTING DEAL ON BUSH'S "STORY". HE COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY SEEN A PLANE CRASH INTO THE TOWER WHEN HE SAID HE DID BECAUSE IT WAS NOT BROADCAST ON TO ANY STATION ON TELEVISION AT THAT TIME. SO HE OUT AND OUT LIED.
Cheney is an idiot
These dangerous people are anything but idiots.
The idiots are the FOX watchers that buy their swill.
If only someone could drive a wooden stake through their brains or something...
January 5th, 2006 at 8:15 amIf anyone is REALLY interested in the Bushites' "bungling", and suspiciously (treasonous acts) involved in dropping the ball before 9/11 he/she should read:
"The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" by David Ray Griffin
Pay particular attention to the parts about former FBI agent Coleen Rowley, FBI translator Sybil Edmonds, and the Saudi prince who was an intelligence big whig. (All of their stories- though mutually exclusive of each other- placed together in context make for interesting reading... speculation, and supposition) to say the least.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:21 amThe WTC building were horrifying, but they needed something more. As in “OMFG the terrorists attacked our Pentegaon.â€
Comment by Spudge_Boy
spudge #40,
Ist das der Reichstag bldg?
Hitler burned it down just before HE came to power too...
January 5th, 2006 at 9:27 amCheck the "Before 9/11" section:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Warningsbells were ringing for a long time.
Btw, anyone remember the anthrax attacks?
January 5th, 2006 at 9:50 amhttp://bulldogpolitics.blogspot.com/2006/01/anthrax-hello-anybody-home-hello.html
Let's jump back a few trojan horses shall we. What event did Hitler witness that triggered his Gulf of Tonkin at the Reichstag?
January 5th, 2006 at 10:22 amWow ... I can't keep up with all the conspiracy theories floating around ... there are even conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories (the CIA is hosting conspiracy theory websites to divert/marginalize question asking?).
For those of you that think Bush (or Cheney, whomever) was complicit in 9/11 ... what have they gained? Some suppose it was manufactured to start a war over oil, but is the oil now flowing more freely to Americans. Not according to the prices at the pump ... how about lining their own pockets? Bush and Cheney were already uber-rich ... it doesn't make any sense (unless of course you adhere to the idea that Bush puts Hitler to shame, in which case you might want to keep your tinfoil hat on for a couple more years at least)
I agree that there are certainly some weird explanations from 9/11 (I've always thought that the flight in Pennsylvania was shot down by the military) ... but that's a huge leap to it being perpetrated by Bush for his own gain. Heck, if you listen to Plunger it was the Jews ... RemoveBush says it was Bush ... I'm sure someone will bring out a scenario that it was China soon. But at least everyone here can agree that Saddam had nothing to do with it (as to why they believe it more likely was the Jews or Bush is beyond me). ((((((Note - I don't think Saddam had anything to do with it (just to head off those comments))))))
It seems some have a basic lack of trust of any authority and will question anything they're told ... I guess that's all fine and good, except when they're willing to believe wild stories instead of easy explanations staring them in the face. Let me guess, we didn't land on the moon either ...
January 5th, 2006 at 11:25 amCheck the “Before 9/11″ section:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/ project.jsp?project=911_project
Warningsbells were ringing for a long time.
After reading through the section of all of the years of terrorist attack warnings.... all of this intelligence they had it, not only disgusts me, it's outrageous that nothing was EVER DONE to implement a better security or counter terrorism program re: airliners/airports.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:30 amBush and Cheney were already uber-rich … it doesn’t make any sense...
Comment by Giacomo
jagoffmore #133
The uber-rich think in terms of generations, like the Hapsburgs and Windsors...
Dynasties require UNLIMITED wealth and power (strategic alliances and control of key locations in the world)...
Now run along, and don't come back on this adult forum without at least one of your parents...
January 5th, 2006 at 11:33 amGiacomo, I think you could of said your complete argument with just one of your first and one of your last. All inbetween became a regugitation and acknowledgement and repitition of dogma recharges the spewer's contempt.Great points by the way but more to your thoughts, less to the tripe's.
January 5th, 2006 at 11:49 amGiacomo,
For some of us, the "official" explanation offered by the 9/11 Commission doesn't even come close to explaining not so much the actions of the administration, as the inactions. This is especially true if you accept their assertion that no one in our government knew these attacks were coming.
Why did the Secret Service let the President sit in a publicly disclosed location while accounted for planes were still flying around? Did they know he wasn't in danger? If so, how?
Why didn't the Pentagon's anti-aircraft guns on the roof protect the building? Were they ordered to stand down? We may never know the truth about that unless some whistle-blower comes forward.
Why weren't the various videos of the attack that would have clearly showed what hit the Pentagon released? Why were they seized within minutes of the attack?
Then there's all the questions about why the three World Trade Center buildings that collapsed the only three steel-frame buildings in history to collapse due simply to fire? Never happened before or sinice, and there have been several such buildings completely gutted by hotter fires that still stood afterwards.
Lots of questions remain if you accept the "offical" version of events, which is not completely supported by the facts.
Oh, one last thing before I have to get back to work: The head of the Pakistan Intelligence Services (I believe it's known as the ISI) authorized Khalid Sheik Mohammed (I think that's about right) to wire money to Mohammed Atta just days before the attack. That's not whacko conspiracy talk, it's a fact. We had to tell President Musharef to fire him before we could declare Pakistan our "ally" in the "War on Terror." Gotta run before the teacher catches me and makes me stay for detention.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:05 pmPost #137 was me, not my wife, who used my computer last night. I forgot to change the name when I posted.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:07 pmNothing, their plot is unraveling at the seems.
No it is not, see hte first response. Their plan is not working out, because some of us in America are not sheep that will blindly follow.
Oh those prices started to artificially go up after Katrina and the entire country started to bitch, not just us crazy liberals. Once again, Their plan is not going as smoothly as they wanted, thanks to us crazy liberals.
It is not about money, it is about The New World Order. You know, straight up power. Money is nothing. Whe you are uber rich, you need more than just more money.
Nope, just a complete lack of trust in the NeoCon power grab.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:37 pmYeah, if it had been my post, I would have said "unaccounted for" planes flying around. Sorry, honey!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:37 pmHey, Spudge_Boy, glad to hear that Wayne and I aren't the only smokers still around!
January 5th, 2006 at 12:42 pmAs usual, Jane is right. That should have read "unaccounted for" planes. Sorry for the confusion. Now the mystery is more apparent. Thanks, Honey.
January 5th, 2006 at 12:44 pmJudd, Why do you say "President Bush confirmed his warrantless domestic surveillance program only targets people speaking to known al Quaeda and affiliates." Do you believe him? I think it's been established, or at least agreed upon, that the crime is that Bush eavesdropped on American citizens and on conversations that did not originate overseas. If so, he's lying. Are you just giving him the benefit of the doubt?
January 5th, 2006 at 1:17 pmFor some of us, the “official†explanation offered by the 9/11 Commission doesn’t even come close to explaining not so much the actions of the administration, as the inactions. This is especially true if you accept their assertion that no one in our government knew these attacks were coming.
I personally know there's far more to the story than what we've been told ... I'm not willing to conclude that, because of this, an internal conspiracy to commit the actual deed is present. There are plenty of things that happen that the US pop. has no clue about ... perhaps for our own good. Can you imagine if the NSA learned that a nuclear attack was imminent in LA ... do you think they'd broadcast this at first, or try and stop it on the sly. Would more people die in the panic to leave than would in the fallout should the NSA fail in efforts to prevent the attack? Who knows, but the government must consider all the possibilities ...
Our government is empowered by the people to make hard decisions and to act in our best interests ... we leave to them to interpret what that is and how it should be done ... we can disagree about whether this is happening now, of course, but to assume that the cover-up means that we are being manipulated for the benefit of the Bush admin. seems, to me, to be a reach.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:29 pmSpudge, all this about there being no photographic evidence of a plane sticking out of the Pentagon is news to me. I'm with Marie, as much as I believe they are bent on grabbing as much power as possible, I have trouble believing they would kill thousands of Americans as a tactic. Same thing with the Bush/bin Laden relationship. If they really did help them out of the country, and if SA really was behind the attack (one thing is undeniable: the SA society is based on a radical Islam branch, Wahabi, that is in tune with the beliefs of Muslim terrorists), then you have to conclude that we were behind it too. Else why not target the Saudis? Because of the oil partnership? Well, yes, but isn't that almost the same as complicity, i.e. "We have to let them skate, now let's go after Iraq."
Bob Loblaw - No, that Bush statement does not make sense. If they knew calls originated from al Quaeda and associates, why didn't they just trace them and kill them? Okay, they use cell phones, but c'mon. We know who they are? It's all a smokescreen to keep us off the domestic spying trail. Hoover, Nixon, Bush, Cheney, Bush.... it's a traditional practice among the fascist right.
And Spudge, that is an extremely important point: power, not money, is the goal. Even if someone of this ilk doesn't have a lot of money, power is the primary goal. They end up rich as a matter of course. See LBJ, who grew up dirt poor.
January 5th, 2006 at 1:31 pmThe uber-rich think in terms of generations, like the Hapsburgs and Windsors…
Dynasties require UNLIMITED wealth and power (strategic alliances and control of key locations in the world)…
Good point. After all, what are the Bush twins supposed to do, go to graduate school?
January 5th, 2006 at 1:52 pmGood point. After all, what are the Bush twins supposed to do, go to graduate school?
Comment by cynical ex-hippie
ex-hippie #146,
Wouldn't work, after all their reputations have preceded them and all college fraternities and male collegiate athletes are aware of their carnal natures; thus, no new conquests to explore for Jenna and (what's 'er name)...
January 5th, 2006 at 1:57 pmI’m with Marie, as much as I believe they are bent on grabbing as much power as possible, I have trouble believing they would kill thousands of Americans as a tactic.
Comment by Massachusetts Liberal
Massachusetts Liberal #145
Why? They had no problem killing tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans...
January 5th, 2006 at 2:00 pmcheney was head of anti-terrorism task force that met 0 times...
January 5th, 2006 at 2:13 pmparaphrased from al franken today...
#115 - astounding quote from our greatest general since Washington.
big papa: Well, Iraqis and Afghans are not Americans.
Consider this: Someone said we can't know the truth unless a whistleblower comes forward. How many people had to know if the anti-aircraft guns were ordered to stand down? 3? 20? I have no idea. But wouldn't some human being come forward if he participated in the murder of 240 of his colleagues? If not, we're in worse shape than I thought.
January 5th, 2006 at 2:21 pmMass Liberal,
Well then, we may be in worse shape than we thought. What can I say?
It's just very strange to some of us that the military failed so spectacularly that day. Instead of scrambling fighter jets from McGuire AFB (in NJ) and Andrews AFB (in MD), they scrambled them from Otis AFB (Mass.) and Langley AFB (in VA). There has never been a satisfactory explanation for why jets from Andrews weren't scrambled right away, but were hours later, instead. And it's not like intercepting aircraft was such an infrequent thing; they do it over 100 times a year. It appears to some of us that the military was conveniently unavailable to help out on the day we needed them most. In fact, it looks to some of us like they were intentionally unavailable on that one particular day. Very strange. And the military's failure is not the only suspicious thing that happened that day. I'm sure you've heard about some others. (Hijackers turning up alive is a good one.)
As for the "stand down" order, it may have been accomplished as simply as not scheduling someone for that shift (a mandatory training session somewhere, for example). As for me, if I was given an order that (later) appeared to facilitate in such a mass murder, I might start getting the idea that coming forward might be hazardous to my health. Maybe we'll learn the truth years from now when the people who could hurt them are no longer in power.
I don't have all the answers and explanations, and I hate to ascribe motives to them, but the official story of what happened that day is a lie, and of that I have no doubt. And the fact that it conveniently gave them the "New Pearl Harbor" which the neocons said would be necessary to implement their plans certainly doesn't look good for them. And since it gave them everything they wanted to begin establishing a permanent military presence in the Middle East (something that PNAC wanted; that's documented), it's hard to believe them.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:07 pmWayne,
Solid points, thanks. I'm glad you mentioned the surviving hijackers. RemoveBush says that most of them survived. This is all new to me. I'm very well-informed on the JFK assassination, so I'm accustomed to thinking this way, and your logic is good. It's just that it's new to me. What I mean is, I've learned how to be skeptical of the official explanations of catastrophes and killings, but maybe not well enough.
Just tell me, how did hijackers survive? Parachute? Are you talking about the Pentagon plane and you mean that there actually was no plane?
Some of you were said to go off topic here, but this is probably the best thread I've read on TP.
January 5th, 2006 at 3:48 pmMass Liberal,
Just as somebody pointed out earlier, there are a lot of sites dedicated to this topic, but some of them are just filled with crazy looney shit.
There are a lot of descrepensies with the official account.
How about the fact that just about everything was turned into ashes, but the highjackers passports were found. What are the odds that even a single highjackers passport would make it out of the airplane wreckage? Let alone the building wreckage.
How about the fact that we were told that the fire was so hot it melted the steel girders, but there are photographs of people standing in the holes, caused by the planes, waving for help.
How about the Fire Chief who's voice was very calm over the walkie talkie. He said they would only need to hoses to put out the two small fires on the 87th floor, then the buldings collapased. How could tow small fires cause the building to collapse?
How about the fact that WTC 7 is around 300 yards away from the Towers, with building in between WTC 7 and the towers and yet, the other buildings were fine, but WTC 7 collapsed.
This stuff is not made up in people's heads. I am talking about audio recordings, video tape and pictures that were taken.
January 5th, 2006 at 4:12 pmMass Liberal,
I know that Spudge is also a veteran, and I have no doubt that, like me, the idea of our military being used in some way to facilitate the attacks makes him sick to his stomach. It does to me, and I was stationed at Andrews AFB for about a year or so. I used to watch them park Air Force One in the hangar after then-President Reagan was through using it. (The hangar was right outside our dorm.)
I put in a link at comment #43 (addressed to Spudge) that I hope your computer will let you view (someone else had a problem with it.) It may take a moment or two to download, but it starts automatically and runs about three minutes. It's where some of our "good points" come from. There are other sources.
I also check out http://www.911truth.org once in a while to see what the familes have to say.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:33 pmSpudge - Read #116. Carefully. You'll find some good reasons to quit. Quitting isn't that hard, if you're motivated. I know how physically addicting it is, some say worse than coke, but if you "hate them", how hard can it be?
I smoked for 7 years, half pack a day. (My credentials.)
January 5th, 2006 at 5:43 pmMass Liberal,
I'll have to pick this up tomorrow (if the thread is still going). Internet access at work only and my wife and I have to leave. Good night all. Nice talking with ya.
January 5th, 2006 at 5:51 pm#137 - Jane - Love you...but when the administration takes action to protect Americans:
a.) many progs lament because it isn't enough
b.) many progs lament because it is too intrusive
I'm reminded of the clarity of 20/20 hindsight...or the Three Bears (without the adage ..."just right"). Certain progs will never give anyone else credit and are determined to criticize EVERYTHING Repubs do.
I think the weirdest thing I heard a prog say (right here at TP was he would rather see every man, woman, and child go down in flames than to give up any freedoms. (I'm glad one of my favourite war-time presidents, FDR, had more intestinal fortitude than the afore mentioned contributor.)
January 5th, 2006 at 6:38 pmCan one of the no-plane conspiracy theorists please tell me something. If there were no planes, what happened to the actual flights themselves and the passengers on them?
thank you.
January 5th, 2006 at 6:56 pmOh, if only.... What a pile of poop!!! So if they had been able to spy on people illegaly SOONER, they could have saved us from 9/11? What F**king EVER!!!!!! Cause those 50 plus warnings they got before 9/11 were just so vague, is that it? The fact remains that they had PLENTY of warning that a huge problem was headed our way. They couldn't, or wouldn't extend themselves to even have some flunkie look into it. But if they had only been able to illegaly wiretap... it would have been a different story. Uh-Huh, yeah, sure. PUHLEEZE!!!
January 5th, 2006 at 7:18 pmmight aphrodite,
Which action were you talking about. The action where the administration cozied up to al qaaeda, or the action where they let him go and went to war for oil? Or would that be the inaction of ignoring warnings of UBL attacking us, or the one where he lies and uses his failures as an excuse to spy on americans.
The reason people 'lament' is because he's incapable of making good decisions, just as you seem incapable of making good judgements. It is possible to underdo and overdo at the same time you know - or hadn't that dawned on you? It's called 'mismanagement', a term I'm quite sure you must be intimately familiar with.
As for 'hindsight' being perfect, well that's not true either. You guys still think Reagan and Nixon were good presidents, so hindsight only works with people who have their eyes open, just as present site does. Excusing failures of ineptitude with the 'hindsight defense' only works if people aren't paying attention, or are unaware of the job requirements. Clearly you've used the hindsight defense a lot, and probably for the same reason you use them to defend bush - lack of 'qualifications'.
And your either or of going down in flames or protecting misses the 'subtlety' and 'reality' of the world. Dictators and Mismanagers often have in their power the tact of taking away rights and taking down a society in flames - as we witness now. The fact that you pose these as an either or merely shows the lack of skill, imagination or competence of Republicans, it doesn't show the capacity of our nation. Clearly you have a pessimistic view of the world, and the possiblity - I feel very sorry for you and your restricted world.
January 5th, 2006 at 7:19 pmTimeForChange,
We didn't say no-planes. Please don't do the black and white thing. There are clearly video tapes of the WTC buildings being hit by air planes. Also the PA flight that went down was a plane.
If you go back and look at my post number 32. Look at each picture. Now visualize in your head how low a 757 would have to fly to hit the pentagon at such a low point in the building. Somebody else posted a picture of a computer generated 757 at the point of impact on the building.
The 757s engines would have been dragging on the ground. Then take into consideration that the grass out in front of the Pentagon was untouch, until there were orders to cover it with sand.
What this means is that it had to have been something a lot smaller than a 757. A missile. A fighter jet. A Lear jet. I don't know that. I just know that it couldn't have been a 757.
So, nobody here is saying "no-planes" we are say that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a 757.
January 5th, 2006 at 8:43 pmTimeForChange,
I didn't address the passengers.
Where could they be?
Bottom of the ocean?
In a black prison in Syberia?
Beamed up to the mothership? (I just had to)
January 5th, 2006 at 8:44 pm72
Why didn't the Bush administration get warrants for the NSA operations being talked about in the media? There's a 72-hour grace period for acquiring such warrants. So why wasn't it done? I am simply stumped for an answer. Can anyone give me one?
January 5th, 2006 at 9:21 pmSEIXON,
Because Bush is spying on domestic targets and he thinks he is above the law. He really thinks he has "Off with their heads" type of power when the Constitution was specifically written so that no braqnch had anything near that.
January 5th, 2006 at 9:56 pmWhy didn’t the Bush administration get warrants for the NSA operations being talked about in the media? There’s a 72-hour grace period for acquiring such warrants. So why wasn’t it done? I am simply stumped for an answer. Can anyone give me one? SEIXON
Did you read the FISA statute? The spying can begin without the warrant. There's no excuse, other than a disrespect for the law. Just like there's no excuse for defending their actions, other than ignorance or extremism. I'm guessing you just haven't done your homework yet. There's lots of information on this, and it's been in the news for days now. I'm rather surprised that you don't seem to know anything about it, yet that you think you do. Your attempt at irony didn't work, try again with a topic that you do more research on, and it might be funny.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:19 amSpudge - ok fine - no planes, different planes, whatever. The main point is - what happened to those flights that took off that day if they didn't crash into those buildings? Where are those people now? I'll take your joke about the spaceship to mean that you realize the absurdity of these theories.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:00 am#160 - here's one theory. Since each plane only had about 50 people on board, why could they have not placed them all on one plane when they swapped the planes? Not to say this is what happened, but the evidence does show that the parts in the pictures are not from a 757/767. Also, did you know that one of the planes did not have any taxi, take off, or any other documentation for the day of 9/11? However, there were plenty of documentation for the day before for the same plane. ?????
There are 2, ATC personnel who say that they saw blips that were suppose to be 2 of these planes traveling out over the Atlantic and then they were gone. Until the whole truth comes out, we may never know and even then we may never know the whole truth only what they will tell us.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:26 amHay you loser fags did you see unemployment is 4.9, but I'm sure you chumps dont like it because that means less people are on the dole from the government.And everyone knows if its good for the country its baddddddd for the libertroll party.
January 6th, 2006 at 9:46 am169 - these explanations are unacceptable and ludicrous. Actually, come to think of it, you still didn't give any real explanation. The blips disappeared because the Islamic extremeist Al Qaeda terrorists who were piloting the planes disabled the transponders. Please send links verifying what you say about the taxi documenation, etc.
The only possible conspiracy I could believe is that the flight over PA was actually shot down by USAF. The rest is pure BS.
thank you
January 6th, 2006 at 10:05 amTFC
TFC You welcome to your opinion just as I'm welcome to mine. I don't have the information at this moment, but I'm sure if you were to do a search on the intrernet you can find this information just as well as I can.
As far as the blips going off over the Atlantic, did you know that none of the planes went over the Atlantic for their flight plans? Don't you think that the planes can be tracked without the transponder? The blips is all the ATC would see and the would not receive any pertinant information such as air speed and altitude. I guess you don't do you homework and really just are ill informed.
Obviously, you are a believer in all of the events for 9/11 and you don't question anything from King George, but you really should. There are more questions about 9/11 than there are answers. Any investigator would question everything until the questions are answered or ruled out. None of this has been done by and large.
Finally, I did not say that all I have said are facts. I did say that many of them are theories. Perhaps you should look up the word. Many investigations and discoveries are confirmed or disregarded by theory. First you have to have an idea, or ideas, to a reason for something to happen and then you prove or disprove the theory.
January 6th, 2006 at 10:22 amIt’s not that I’m unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government — either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That’s why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government — by demanding, for example, that “Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech.'’
This applies to "human rights also" and the abolition of Death Penalties in Europe
To protect us from evil goverments
January 6th, 2006 at 3:44 pmand to be on topic:
Cheney is only proving my theory I have. Bush&Co learn a lot from Hitler. Hitler said tell a big lie, say it enough, and people will believe it.
so: BushCo tells everyone that there is no elephant in the room 24/7 aka the Fox network, and eventually people believe it. we call these people sheep, which is a euphemism for stupid.
If cheney stands up there and says wire taping is ok, and if we did it before 9/11 it would have never happened and America would be safe and lah de dah, broken record. SOME people will believe it. of course, there are many things, like that whole 72 hour grace period, that make the whole thing just plain unnecissary.
If Cheney really wanted to prevent 9/11, maybe he should have tacked onto the end of "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack US" something like "...and is for gay marriage" or "...to attack Crawford". THEN, MAYBE. Bush might have paid attention to it. how about look at the intel you stupid war-mongering old man? oh wait! NO!
January 7th, 2006 at 2:16 amthats bad for Haliburton. back to golf and my pet goat.
shortman009,
a solid A on your report.
if anyone wants to do more reading, a good list of mainstream media sources can be found at: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html
these are just mainstream media links - no conspiracy theorists...
if you want the really troubling stuff (as if the above isn't troubling enough) try the 9-11 links page:
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
the more you know about 9-11, the angrier you will become when it is used to invoke an assault on our liberties at home, or justify a war with a non-threatening country like iraq. without 9-11, bush is nothing but an AWOL, cheerleading, chickenhawk cowboy who has failed at every single thing he has ever done. i am so sad that he has had these years to undermine and destroy our once great country. he has done so much damage to us that our grandchildren will curse our generation for being such cowards and such fools.
January 7th, 2006 at 11:09 am[...] Posted in Uncategorized at 11:59 pm by daMan how’s this for "Through the Looking Glass"?: now the story is that, if the pResident had the power to illegally wiretap U.S. citizens before the tragic events of the fall of 2001, he might have prevented it… [...]
January 24th, 2006 at 11:56 pm[...] President Bush and other senior administration officials have tried to defend illegal domestic spying by arguing that it could have prevented 9/11. Bush included the argument in his State of the Union address: It is said that prior to the attacks of September the 11th, our government failed to connect the dots of the conspiracy. … So to prevent another attack — based on authority given to me by the Constitution and by statute — I have authorized a terrorist surveillance program… [...]
February 7th, 2006 at 1:04 pmSmall problem: NSA was already monitoring before 9-11. That's the "other program" Gonzalez isn't talking about.
Here's what you can do: Get your local officials to discuss this non-sense. Here's the effort: [ Click ]
Here's a sample success story: [ Click ]
Here's how these local debates will force Congress to vote on impeachment, and commit on their oaths -- giving voters time to evaluate the facts and find new leaders: [Click]
February 7th, 2006 at 5:53 pmAs an update, I reviewed the hearing on Gonzalez and had some other questions about the NSA, 9-11, and the President: Why, if the President knew to tap phones prior to 9-11, didn’t he use the Presidential communications to simply notify people of a problem; and after abuse reports were received from Guantanamo, why didn't the Secretary of defense use the NSA communication system to order the troops to comply with the laws? [ More ]
February 8th, 2006 at 4:36 pmCock Mommy Loves Cock Cocks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 8:24 pmcredentials credit monitoring report service
Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.
March 20th, 2008 at 2:17 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 26th, 2008 at 9:22 amCock Massive Cocks Cumshots Big Gay Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 28th, 2008 at 8:11 amflea traps
Just stumbled upon ur blog & hey wat a great blog u have! Keep up the good job.
March 30th, 2008 at 3:38 amCock Dog Dick In Pussy Sucking Dick
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 4:40 amGay Sex Gay Teen Gay Men Having Sex
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 6:01 amGolf Training Videos
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:37 amJack
Nice work..
April 1st, 2008 at 1:58 amGay Sex Gay Twinks Gay Hunks
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 10:49 amDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 10:55 pmCock Very Young Boy Cock Small Cock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 amHarry Convict
Great work. I am going to pass this along.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pmJack
This is real good info. Thanks for sharing.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:59 pmStewart
Good work. I am going to read some more on this.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:42 pm