Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Have I become a conspiracy nut?

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:23 PM
Original message
Have I become a conspiracy nut?
This morning I woke up and everything seemed to have fallen into place with a clarity.

I have been reluctant to accept the idea that some people in our Government actually wanted the 9/11 attacks to happen. Here to fore this notion had been so monstrous that I dismissed it and those who espoused this MIHOP and LIHOP idea.

But not anymore.

We know that the PNAC felt it would take a "Unifying Event" on the scale of the Pearl Harbor attack to start the U.S. on their vision of a new world order under American Leadership. Anyone who has read the PNAC manifesto should have a clear idea of the game plan and what was required to get it going.

We know that the Bush Admin is filled with Members of the PNAC and that outside supporters are manifold and have control of some powerful media outlets.

We know there were warnings that went unheeded. Part of this was due to incompetence, part due to policies and perceptions of policies, but part has to be due to an unwillingness to do anything to prevent this 9/11 attack from taking place.

The Bush Admin says that had they known the precise nature of the attack they would have stopped it. Well, yes, they would have had to. This makes perfect sense. What if specific details of a plot to attack the U.S. were discovered? Then they would have to stop it, and wait for another opportunity. They made sure they knew as little as possible of the nature of the attack so that they would not be forced to prevent it.

After all, what if the plot had been foiled? A few suspicious characters would have been rolled up and detained, only to be released later for lack of evidence. A small news item. Even then, many would barely believe that somebody would actually do such a thing. As it was we were amazed that somebody would actually do such things. It was not until the Patriot act that we could have detained anyone for "plotting" and even then they would have to help us with a full confession.

What would preventing the attack have done? It would have forced Al Qeada to come up with a new plan, but very little would have actually changed to prevent them from carrying the plan out. But why wait?

I think that people in the Bush Administration and the PNAC have been genuinely surprised and dismayed at the ferocity of the attack and are appalled at the loss of life and damage as we all are, but they cannot very well come out and say that they would have preferred something not quite so spectacular.

What is really bizarre is Bush touting his War against Terrorism, while in fact, Osama bin Laden is a useful idiot to Bush and this PNAC Cabal.

While we may think that we will solve everything by having an honest election in which Bush loses, we may have more in store. You have to hand it to a group of people who want to have a coup d'etat in the United States. It's a special situation. It's not easy and you need a lot of help. The best help comes from those who have no clue what that are actually helping to achieve.

I have no way of knowing what we have in store. If another attack prior to the election will happen and the election is canceled or delayed or what, I don't know. What I do think is a possibility of a Bush impeachment and resignation following a Bush election win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:28 PM
Response to Original message
1. welcome to the real world
These guys are willing to kill 700 and counting American soldiers, 10,000-plus foreign civilians, and destroy our nation's economy in order to further their aims. They don't care a whit for 3000 civilians.

MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adadem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
2. You are not alone
Your excellent post mimics by daily thoughts on the subject. Though I've tried to remain open minded in regard to them lihop I becoming more convinced, day after day, that they did.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keithyboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. You are calirvoyant
Congratulations!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bacchant Donating Member (747 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
4. Someone here at DU commented
that those who buy any of the official explanations are the real conspiracy theorists.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. I didn't want to think it was possible either
but this administration has done too much in some ways, (the coup, for instance...no wonder they *had* to win)

and so little in others (all the *missed* intelligence, all the Pnac invasion of Iraq plans at the expense of our real national security),

and after reading the information at unansweredquestions.org I had to admit that there were reasons to think they might have been willfully negligent.

then I read about Leo Strauss and Michael Ledeen's views, and saw that these are the same people who lied to Congress and the American people about Iran/Contra, the same people who aligned with Klaus Barbie and willfully engaged in genocide...

then I learned about Operation Northwoods, and realized that people at the highest levels of power in this nation had already entertained just such a scenario in the midst of a fiasco in Vietnam (which was also based upon lies)...

and I guess I grew up and realized that son of a bitches don't care about a few thousand nameless, faceless people when they have geostrategic goals they want to achieve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snoggera Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. People have asked for decades
How could the German populace allow these atrocities to happen?

It took awhile, but the answers are now right before the face of every American citizen right now, if they are willing to look the monster in the eye.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. You're almost there...
I think that people in the Bush Administration and the PNAC have been genuinely surprised and dismayed at the ferocity of the attack and are appalled at the loss of life and damage as we all are, but they cannot very well come out and say that they would have preferred something not quite so spectacular.

Sorry, I have to disagree. Remember they needed a "new Pearl Harbour".

If you want the truly "nutty" line you have to think in terms of "Al Qaeda" being a CIA constructed and commanded "asset". Next think about the "Al Qaeda" attacks that have happened over the years.

They tried fairly big (but not big enough - 93 WTC bombing) they tried big but overseas (embassy bombings) they tried direct attack against the military (Cole) nothing worked - the public just did not get whipped up into a frenzy - it had to be a "new Pearl Harbour", an attack so audacious and unsuspected, so deadly and destructive that Americans would be rocked to their very core.

That is when they came up with the idea - fly passenger airliners into a target. Suddenly out of nowhere we had talk of such attacks including at Genoa.

But they didn't want to waste this on an overseas target - they were going ALL OUT. They didn't care how many people died, so long as it was enough to get what they wanted, but not so much as to cause Americans to actually address the problem.

Think about it. The WTC usually contained upwards of 50 THOUSAND people during a work day. The terrorists would know this, but decided to target the building first thing in the morning when far fewer people were likely to be there. Why? To limit the loss of life, yet still make a huge impact?

Terrorists wouldn't, but the Bush Cabal would. Remember they still had to try and govern after the attack - they didn't want people immediately demanding to know why THEY had failed. Look at the outcry when just under 3,000 died. Imagine the turmoil if it had been closer to 50,000.

Bush would have been facing impeachment with weeks. No, they needed a Pearl Harbour (something to start a war) - not a Hiroshima (something to end it).

How many died in the Pearl Harbour attack? Wasn't it something like 2,800? Very close in fact to the WTC numbers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. You're not a conspiracy 'nut'.
You're just beginning to wake up to what is actually going on around you. It is difficult at first to acknowledge to yoruself that everything you believed to be true or real may be false. But we all need to wake up, layer by layer, and we'd better do it fast.

These people are driving us strategically toward global war. That is what they want--a redrawing of the political map of the Middle East--and they need the blood of our sons and daughters to achieve that aim. And if it means nuking one of our own cities and subsequently putting the whole country under martial law so they can 'retaliate' in kind with impunity, then so be it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
corker Donating Member (175 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
9. part of the answer is the ....
Carlyle group. they get very little attention from the press here is a great vid about them..http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
25. Hi corker!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
piouspete Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:10 PM
Response to Original message
11. Unfortunately, I must say yes
You have become a conspiracy nut if you truly believe that the Bush administration intentionally blinded itself to induce attack, thus giving themselves the justification needed to go to war. I'm new here, but from what I've read so far, the prevailing wisdom alternates between believing that Bush is an evil genius and that he's a chimp. You can't have it both ways. If they were this clever and subversive, don't you think that they would have also planted weapons in Iraq to complete the charade? This theory is exactly as valid as believing that Clinton launched tomahawks to get Monica off the front pages. Our government was blind, but it wasn't the intentional doing of one administration that had been in power for less than a year. It was the result of decades of beaurocratic inertia. I feel that too many in this party have become blinded by rage, and ruled by anger, as a result of recent republican successes. It's gotten to the point where it's self defeating. God know's that I don't like Bush's domestic aganda, but I DO NOT believe that he did, or even has the ability to, blind us that severely. I also believe that he, like everyone else in America, does care about the lives lost on 9-11, and the lives of our soilders. It may come as a shock to many of you here, but it is possible that Bush is guided by noble intentions, however misguided his actions might be. Before we relegate ourselves to permanent "Conspiacy Nut" status, I suggest stepping back and taking a fresh look. If you're going to make claims like this, you better have the goods to back it up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Welcome to DU
What if Bush wasn't in the loop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piouspete Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. OK, i'll go with that, but
Let's go on the assumption that he's a chimp, not in the loop. Don't you think those controling the situation still would've planted weapons in iraq to complete the charade?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. It's possible
We'll have to see. I do believe they are capable of trying it. That they didn't accompish this yet doesn't take away my suspicions of LIHOP. The absence of WMDs didn't seem to sway too many people that the Iraq War was unneccessary. Unverified rumors have it that their efforts at hiding them have been detected.

I suspect LIHOP, but will admit it could be just incompetence.

Remember, President Bush was informed of the first WTC plane in Sarasota, arguably either before or just after he arrived at the school. He had to know by that time that other planes were hijacked (and if he didn't, why didn't he? Hijacked planes were reported by 8:30, I believe, and mutliple hijacked planes by 8:48 at the latest.) He had spoken with Rice and had his situation room manager with him). With all of the warnings about Al Qaeda coming to light, why didn't anybody connect this with terrorism (besides Tenat and most of our country's citizens?) By the time Card whispered into Bush's? ear that a second plane had hit and that our nation was "under attack" I don't think even Bush could have doubt. Our nation was under attack.

So, did Bush jump up and take control? Nope. He sat there. Our nation was under attack and our leader just sat there for 15 minutes. He looked surprised to me ("Gee, Dick told me it would only be a simple hijacking"). A real leader would have jumped up and taken control immediately. Unless he know something. Unless he was told not to (Ari was holding up a sign that said "Don't say anything yet."). Or unless he really is not a leader. I'm not much of a leader, but if I were President sitting there in that classroom and if I heard our nation were under attack, I would have been up out of that seat in a flash.

Secret Service let him sit there while our nation was under attack. Planes weren't scrambled in a timely manner and then when they were scrambled, they apparently flew at half speed.

There's a lot more.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
piouspete Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #21
32. First of all...
Thank you for the welcome. I neglected that in my last epistle.
Second, what is LIHOP?
Third, I agree that the sequence and timing of events on the morning of the 11th leave some interesting questions. I've gone under the assumption that this was just the result the chaos and disarray of our government being unprepared, and unwilling to entertain the idea that we could really be attacked. All day I kept saying "where the hell is the president." I wanted to see him on TV telling us things were under control and that we would promptly be delivering a severe ass whipping to the appropriate parties. If he'd had any inkling of the catastrophe ahead of time, I don't believe he would've taken so long to address the nation. I leave open the possibility that I could be wrong.
I'll look into the "new pearl harbor" book that was mentioned earlier.
I am curious though, If you believe they let this happen, do you think that only Bush and the neocons are capable of this sort of treachery? A very similar case could be made against President Clinton for the first Trade center attack, the Bosnian campaign, and the launching of tomahawks on the day that Monica's grand jury testimony came out. Do you think Clinton is guilty as well?
Our government is so huge, and 99 percent remain in their positions no matter what party comes into power. There are thousands and thousands of bureaucrats that are there observing all the time. It makes it hard to believe that anyone could pull off the conspiracy theories put forth at the beginning of this thread.
Let me know what you think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
teach1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #32
36. LIHOP = Let it happen on purpose
MIHOP=Made it happen on purpose. There are pages and pages on MIHOP, and there are compelling arguments for it, but I think an action of this magnitude would be very hard to keep hidden. LIHOP doesn't necessarily involve too many actors. I lean toward thinking that someone in the Bush administration thought the 9/11 action would be simple hijackings and, if allowed to happen, would be a great way to advance their agenda. Bush was not doing well in the polls at the time.

Do I think any other President was capable of this? Yes. Johnson (Gulf of Tonkin) and Roosevelt (Pearl Harbor) are alleged to have done so. The Sinking of the Battleship Maine comes to mind as well. I don't know about Clinton. As the 9/11 commission releases info, the actions the Clinton administration took against those involved with terror suggest he didn't wag the dog.

On top of reading the PNAC documents, Google "Operation Northwoods", a plan formulated by top Pentagon officials in the 60s to fake Cuban terrorist strikes on the U.S.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&q=opera...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goddess40 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. I've felt that way since 9/11
Standing in the hallway looking into my son's classroom (before school started) watching over the teacher's shoulder at the pictures on the TV screen. My first thought was "what has he done now."
It was a gut, first instinct feeling that chilled me to the bone. I still hate to think that someone could be so vile. If you look into history you know it has happened before in other countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. again, nobody in the mihop camp is claiming that bush is the brains..
just a willing tool. I would urge you to read "The New Pearl Harbor" for facts and timelines surrounding the events of 9/11.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Minstrel Boy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
13. I wasn't always this way, but when there are so many dots to connect that
they blacken the page, what else is there to do?

Some things are too horrible to be true, and yet are.

A great read:

"Paranoid Shift" by Michael Hasty

...for most of the next 30 years, even though I was a radical, I nevertheless held faith in the basic integrity of a system where power ultimately resided in the people, and whereby if enough people got together and voted, real and fundamental change could happen.

What constitutes my personal paranoid shift is that I no longer believe this to be necessarily true.

In his book, "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower," William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of "conspiracy theory" an immediate "object of ridicule." This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling classfor example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls "the media's most effective toolsilence." But in case somebody's asking questions, all you have to do is say, "conspiracy theory," and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention.

On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth.

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. To deny all conspiracy theories is to deny all history.

Conspiracies have been throughout history a major way of guaranteeing political change. In fact, I would say that most plitical change has been due to conspiracies.

The russian revolution.

The french revolution.

The american revolution.

All started with conspiracies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #17
35. Nobody denies 'all conspiracies'...
...as you are defining them.

Groups of men get together and make secret plans. Of course, that happens.

It's very rare that events actually follow the plans.

-Conceivably- some group within the Bush Administration got together and discussed the possibility of a major terrorist attack and (even) took action that might make such an attack more probable.

What is -not- conceivable is that solid, specific, information about an attack was passing through the bureaucratic channels of the FBI and CIA and that the decision was made to allow the attacks to happen. That's just institutionally impossible.

If 'Bush Knew' the date and time of the attacks, the decision was already out of his hands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. Bollocks!
What is -not- conceivable is that solid, specific, information about an attack was passing through the bureaucratic channels of the FBI and CIA and that the decision was made to allow the attacks to happen. That's just institutionally impossible.

And yet it is institutionally possible for "solid, specific, information about an attack" to pass "through the bureaucratic channels of the FBI and CIA" and have nothing done to stop it through incompetence?

Sorry Tom but YOUR version is far less conceivable.

In fact there is plenty of evidence that what you claim is inconceivable actually happened - for example the first ever denial of a FISA warrant (denied by HQ who refused to even put it before the judge) resulted in one missed opportunity, and many field agents who felt something big was in the wind, also felt that someone at HQ was deliberately trying to thwart their investigations.

This is NOT incompetence, this is deliberate interference.

If 'Bush Knew' the date and time of the attacks, the decision was already out of his hands.

You're assuming that the Bush Cabal knew the date and time of the attacks because of CIA and FBI counter-terrorism actions. They could just as easily have known about the date and time through Bush Cabal contacts in the Bin Laden clan. In fact they could have known about it because they ordered it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheepyMcSheepster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. you are no nut.
what really kind of seals the deal for me is that these people in charge obviously have a different outlook or perception on the world and its people. they are the decision makers, they are the head honchos, they are in charge of the fate of the earth, so it seems easy for me to believe that someone in that position, especially coming from a wealthy powerful background, would beleif that they would be justified in allowing the attack to happen because it would allow them to further their "well-meaning" agenda and help to accomplish whatever goals they feel are justified. they are not normal people, they don't work on the same rules that you and I do. this is a game to them, some kind of crazy strategy game that they think will benefit them or they united states.

i haven't figured out which one i believe though. on one hand i could see some over zealous "patriots" beleiving that they are just for trying to get a foothold in the middle east in order to secure access to resources in the future. but i can also believe that these guys know stuff is going to fall apart so they are making a big grab now in order to insure that they and their "friends" have enough money/power to continue to live comfortably when the whole oil shortage surfaces.

who knows, either way i don't trust them for obvious reasons. this war on terror gives them an excuse to make the government more clandestine. we need a transparent governemnt. for the people by the people.

one poster on here put it nicely by saying that he/she felt it was a combination of intentions that helped this all come together. you have the military-industrial complex types who see war as a way to make big money and you have the relegious zealots who want to see war in the middle east to bring about end time scenarios or because they strongly back Israel. Also, you may have W and his strong belief that it is his duty to spread democracy. who knows what these people belief.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
16. 911 and Pearl Harbor
I love the Pearl Harbor analogies. First, Pearl Harbor was not on US soil at the time of the Japanese attack. Hawaii became a US state in my lifetime, and I'm not that old. Second, in, I believe, 1995, Congress finally "officially" admitted that Roosevelt et. al. goaded Japan into the attack to justify entering the war in Europe to a very isolationist population. Pearl Harbor was MIHOP plain and simple. And that's "Official", not tinfoil hat.

Yes, in some ways, 911 and Pearl Harbor are very similar.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beam Me Up Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. PNAC: "short of a catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:37 PM
Response to Reply #18
40. "catastrophic and catalyzing" actually
-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
porkrind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Have you a link to that?
I'd like to read about it. I had no idea. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yella_dawg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. No. Sorry...
There was a major discussion here on DU with all the links. Somebody here will know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:09 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. You can find it here

It's from page 51 of the PNAC paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" and available on PNAC's web site at:

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.p...

Note that it is a PDF file which means you need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view it

The United States cannot simply declare a strategic pause while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and allied interests. A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further,the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. (my emphasis /jc) Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise investment. Thus, this report advocates a two-stage process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming decades.


If you are not familiar with PNAC check out this thread from the archives at DU.

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=sh...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. Thanks for these great links
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 08:30 PM by Turbineguy
I went through the information some years ago and was working from memory, hence the inaccuracy "Unifying Event" which should have been "Catalyzing Event".

Thanks again to all for the responses. I did put in some effort. I am flattered and honored.

I have found myself reacting to the daily losses of American (and coalition) soldiers as if they are personal friends. The terrible price that the Iraqis are paying is beyond words. Maybe this is some sort of guilt for not having served in Vietnam. But I have a stake in this too. My son is in the Marine Corps (although he's not in Iraq).

We all have to have a thorough understanding of what is really going on in this country. We have to tell anyone who will listen.

Everyday I see that little red number of DU Mmebers go up and it is good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:25 PM
Response to Original message
24. No, but.....
No, you're not a Nut, but,

you're not describing LIHOP/MIHOP.

Your are suggesting that some of the people in the administration may have felt that a terrorist attack of manageable scale would advance their cause, and that these people passively obstructed anti-terror efforts. That's consistent with much evidence; but, short of signed confessions or secret tapes, we are unlikely ever to know for sure.

LIHOP asserts that 'the Bush administration' had -detailed- information and -explicitly-, -actively- prevented the agencies from stopping the attacks. As you point out, that's impossible--if the bureaucracies had that information, there would be no way to stop a response and no way to avoid having the information leak out of they tried.

-THERE- is the threshold of lunacy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Remember Coleen Rowley ????
Coleen Rowley all but stood on her head trying to get a FISA warrant and was turned down.

5) The fact is that key FBIHQ personnel whose job it was to assist and coordinate with field division agents on terrorism investigations and the obtaining and use of FISA searches (and who theoretically were privy to many more sources of intelligence information than field division agents), continued to, almost inexplicably,5 throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis' by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear. HQ personnel brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.6 In all of their conversations and correspondence, HQ personnel never disclosed to the Minneapolis agents that the Phoenix Division had, only approximately three weeks earlier, warned of Al Qaeda operatives in flight schools seeking flight training for terrorist purposes!

Nor did FBIHQ personnel do much to disseminate the information about Moussaoui to other appropriate intelligence/law enforcement authorities. When, in a desperate 11th hour measure to bypass the FBIHQ roadblock, the Minneapolis Division undertook to directly notify the CIA's Counter Terrorist Center (CTC), FBIHQ personnel actually chastised the Minneapolis agents for making the direct notification without their approval!


More..

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomNickell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #26
34. Yes, I remember her.
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 08:50 PM by TomNickell
Her information was not blocked because of orders from above--unless the entire FBI hierarchy was part of the Conspiracy. There is a very well-supported story that the FBI was very badly organized and managed--not to mention computer-illiterate. During the '90s the FBI director was more interested in 'getting Clinton' than in doing his job.

Vigorous action from the very top--shaking the trees, as Clarke put it--might have got her story heard. That never happened, and should have. It is fair to speculate on the motives.

Rowley, Clarke, Joe Wilson, et al illustrate the limits of Conspiracies. You can't go -too- far before you run into an honest man. And you can't tell who that is until it is too late.

Again, the 'theory' breaks into lunatic fringe territory when it requires the cooperation of whole bunches of ordinary people.

The assumption that whole bunches of Gov't employees actually did their jobs on time is only -slightly- less improbable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
37. I read her whole memo, I saw the Senate hearings and I read...
portions of the Senate conclusion. I'm sorry, but I still don't think we've gotten to the bottom of this one. And remember that all the Senate conclusions were written before we knew how many alarm bells were going off at the time the FISA application was refused.

And it's probably one of the most important questions "out there" because, if the current mainstream theory stands, we'll probably get an MI5 type of domestic spy agency out of this whole scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Oh, and I agree about the "honest (wo)man" part....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but several have come forward already. If, or perhaps when, the story breaks big enough, watch as dozens turn state's evidence to save their skins.

As you may know, I'm a Players Got Played kind of guy. I think 9/11 turned out far bigger than anyone imagined. If I'm right,inadequate plans for containment would have been made, and so intimidation would have to be used as backup. And intimidation only works as long as the intimidator remains in power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:49 PM
Response to Reply #34
44. What?
Her information was not blocked because of orders from above

Yes it was! In fact that is EXACTLY what happened!

unless the entire FBI hierarchy was part of the Conspiracy.

Bull. You only need ONE person with enough authority to shut down an investigation. Are you suggesting that FBI agents would go running to the press if a senior FBI official turned down a warrant?

Now THAT is lunacy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
9215 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. In the end all the Bushies had to do was let the attacks
happen, that would require standing down the air force response. IMO Globalhawk was used to fly the planes remotely. This insured that there would be no "pilot error" with the potential for incriminating evidence to surface. A March 2001 Fox show called the "Lone Gunman" aired precisely this scenario. The Bushies are now stopping, by one means or another, most important lines of investigation into the hijackers and the circumstances leading up to the event. But the inquiry continues and IMO people in large numbers are starting to think the unthinkable: LIHOP/MIHOP

Another way of looking at it is if the plot was too complicated for the Western intelligence community to pull off then how did a group of Afghan cavedwelling terrorists do it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #24
29. Thanks to all for the responses
Going from your definition of LIHOP/MIHOP then no, my position is somewhat below that. Fortuitous incompetence or something. As is also suggested Bush was not involved. This is again plausible, but does not absolve him of culpability.

I do think that the PNAC has completely subverted this administration to its own ends.

There are only so many hours in the day and you can only do so much. If those around you who vie for your ear keep you from focusing on the real and serious issues, that is a problem.

Clearly this new Presidency had its own agenda and did not want to simply continue the previous Administration's course. This is common and to be expected.

But there are a lot of unexplained issues and the resistance to providing information suggest that the administration has something to hide.

Interestingly enough, it would seem that early on after the attack people were by and large willing to give this administration the benefit of the doubt. People intuitively understand how Government agencies work and how such a thing as this could happen. We knew that the Millennium Plot was busted partially due to pure luck. But I think the stonewalling, the spin and plain dishonesty have taken away the benefit of the doubt.

Add this to the inescapable fact the Bush wanted to throw Saddam Hussein out of Iraq all along and you get to where we are.

I really do not believe in some vast conspiracy that the planes actually had bombs on board or that there were explosives pre-positioned in the WTC. There does however seem to be some credible evidence of Israeli Intel knowledge or "connecting the dots" but not letting the Americans know. This too would not be the first time as they seem to have known in advance about the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing but neglected to inform the U.S.

Bush, and every one else in this administration understandably does not want to be held responsible, but that's not how things work.

One of the things that we have is that the policies and projections of the PNAC are definitely not panning out. Either Bush is going to have to come forward and disavow the PNAC, fire Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney and a few others and clean up his act or risk going down with them.

But even if he should dump the PNAC, it's too late for him to resolve the mess in Iraq. That has to be done by a new Administration that has not created enemies of nearly every one and squandered its goodwill and trust.

In any event Bush will have to say he had it wrong and that may be the hardest part of all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:43 PM
Response to Reply #24
42. Sorry, but you are grasping at straws...
if the bureaucracies had that information, there would be no way to stop a response and no way to avoid having the information leak out of they tried.

Bollocks. For example Moussaoui was arrested in advance of the Sept 11 attack. Supposedly on his computer was enough evidence to have him charged as the "20th hijacker". The Sept 11 Commission even says had his case been publicised it is possible the entire attack would have been called off or delayed - possibly giving enough time to track down and arrest the conspirators.

Yet, when the agents involved - including one who directly said that he thought Moussaoui was plotting to fly planes into the WTC - applied for a FISA warrant to search the computer, someone at FBI HQ turned them down. In fact that person did everything in their power to ensure the warrant would not be given, including rewriting the application to be incorrect.

Now, to support your line of reasoning you have to manipulate the evidence by saying that the information about the attacks was gathered by the CIA/FBI and then transmitted through the ranks to the Bush Cabal - who then ordered that it be ignored.

What you are overlooking (intentionally or otherwise) is the fact that the investigations that WOULD have gathered the evidence were what was supressed, NOT the response to the gathered info. The Bush Cabal knew about the attacks NOT through official channels, but through their own back channels to the Saudi's and the Bin Laden clan.

They knew BEFORE the CIA and FBI knew, and they intentionally prevented the plan from being discovered by supressing any investigation that might have found the truth BEFORE it could do so.

In fact this is why I believe in MIHOP. They knew about the attack BEFORE the CIA or FBI could figure it out, so they must have had contacts with the people involved - the kind of contacts that would result in a "accessory" charge were it to involve any normal crime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SarahB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 08:02 PM
Response to Original message
30. I prefer to view myself as a conspiracy realist.
:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:42 PM
Original message
Dupe (n/t)
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 11:43 PM by Hippo_Tron
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hippo_Tron Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
41. I say, as long as you hate Bush with a passion, then it doesn't matter
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 11:43 PM by Hippo_Tron
It's not those who believe in conspiracy theories I'm worried about, it's those who are clueless and intend on voting for Bush in November that I am worried about. For those people, it doesn't matter to me if they believe that 9/11 was incompetence or LIHOP, as long as they don't intend on voting for Bush then that's all that really matters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
linazelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:43 PM
Response to Original message
43. A conspiracy proven is not a theory but a fact--Randi Rhodes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Must_B_Free Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Apr-18-04 11:49 PM
Response to Original message
45. Here's why it's MIHOP, not LIHOP
Edited on Sun Apr-18-04 11:49 PM by Must_B_Free
Key parts of the plan had to be implemented / unblocked from the inside.

Planes told to stand down.

Reg flags ordered to be ignored.
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 Thu Jul 31st 2014, 07:26 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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