Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

28 blank pages

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Alfalfa T. Coleridge Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-03 11:25 PM
Original message
28 blank pages
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt/part4.pdf

In the October 10, 2002 closed hearing, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that he
became aware of some of the facts regarding this issue only as a result of the investigative work
of the Joint Inquiry Staff:
Im saying the sequence of events here, I think the staff probed and, as a result of
the probing, some facts came to light here and to me, frankly, that had not come
to light before, and perhaps would not have come to light had the staff not probed.
Thats what Im telling you. So Im agreeing with you that the staff probing
brought out facts that may not have come to this Committee.
Senator DeWine: But what youre also saying, though, is that that probing then
brought facts to your attention.
Director Mueller: Yes.
TOP SECRET

---------------------------------

28 blank pages. Your tax dollars at work.

Impeach Bush NOW.

ATC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DemoTex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-25-03 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks Alfalfa. Good find. Welcome to DU.
The FindLaw document is not dated (that I could see). The doc refers to October 10, 2002. Any idea of the date of FindLaw's document? I need a date for my archives. Might use this later. Meanwhile I'll assume it to be 10/10/2002.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. This is the Sept 11 Inquiry report:
Here is the FindLaw page describing the document:

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt /

It dates the document as July 24, 2003.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChillEB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. So, was Dewine f***ing with him?
That's pretty hilarious...

SURE would like to see what those 28 pages say. Oh,yeah, AND what the August 6, 2001 CIA briefing entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike IN US" says. You know, the CENSORED one, that not even the Joint Inquiry was allowed to see while investigating the INTELLIGENCE FAILURES that preceeded the attack.

You don't think that JUST MAYBE the FAILURE was not really the INTELLIGENCE of the agencies, but rather that of one particular Chimp-In-Chief?

Oh, and you don't think that either of these documents just *MIGHT* be classified because it would be tremendously DAMAGING to said CIC politically, do you? No! God No!

No, its because if any o' them a-rab terra-ists were to find out that the CIC was getting briefed ALL ABOUT their little scheme to crash planes into buildings on 9/11/01, killing 3,000 people, why, then, they might just be able to crash planes into buildings on 9/11/01 and kill 3,000 people!

I mean, how un-American I must be, demanding accountability from my Pretzeldent! I'm feeling so ashamed for wantonly placing my fellow citizens into harm's way like that! Forget I asked. Sorry. You better burn these documents. And ANY copies. We wouldn't want them to find out that we're ONTO their plans. Otherwise, they'll most certainly succeed, right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrBB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Well let's see now. If the 8/6/01 doc CLEARED them
...e.g., by being an exceedingly general statement about OBL intentions with no specifics as to methods or targets, would they have censored it?

Hm. Let's think.

<Jeopardy music plays>

Nope. I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UpInArms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
4. with the pubs blocking any real investigations
into 9/11 and the war on Iraq, there will be a long delay in getting the truth (if ever)

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07262003/nation_w/78717....

excerpt:

The joint inquiry claimed that evidence pointed to specific sources of foreign support for at least some of the hijackers. But 27 of the 28 pages in that section of the report were censored.

In another part of the report, the committee quotes an unidentified U.S. government official claiming the Saudi government "would not cooperate" since 1996 on matters relating to Osama bin Laden. The next sentence is censored.

The administration's refusal to share the president's daily briefings from Aug. 6, 2001, kept investigators from determining what the White House knew about the threat from al-Qaida, the report concluded.

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice has said the brief did not contain specifics about the time or place of possible attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
R Hickey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. I'd believe Ann Coluter before I'd believe anything Condi Rice says
I have a load of something deep in my bowels, worth more than the word of Condoleeza Rice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alfalfa T. Coleridge Donating Member (18 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-26-03 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. The Saudis are pissed...
"In another part of the report, the committee quotes an unidentified U.S. government official claiming the Saudi government "would not cooperate" since 1996 on matters relating to Osama bin Laden. The next sentence is censored."

The Saudis are livid over this report - one wonders if they doth protest too much. It's time to revive the full-court press on the Carlyle Group/Bin Laden connection. The truth is out there.

Also strange to hear James Baker's name in the press lately.




http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/911rpt /

ATC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 28th 2014, 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC