Dean's 9/11 bait may cause showdown next week!

[JackRiddler]

There's another thread running about Doctor Krauthammer's diagnosis of Howard Dean as "delusional" in the Washington Post today, but I don't think enough people realize the significance of what is going on.

This isn't just about another hard-right attack on the Democratic frontrunner. This isn't even about Dean! This is about the perpetual elephant in the room: 9/11.

Whether he knows it or not, Krauthammer's use of 9/11 as a cudgel is forcing Dean into a showdown over the ongoing Sept. 11 coverup. What follows is likely to decide both the fate of Dean's campaign, and whether or not we will ever get credible disclosure about what really happened on Sept. 11.

THE 9/11 COVERUP HAS BEGUN TO BREAK. ARE YOU READY?!

For more, read this article:

Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean in a radio appearance last Tuesday demanded the White House release its pre-9/11 intelligence reports. He asked if Bush received a Saudi warning in advance of Sept. 11, calling it an "interesting theory." Several extreme-right commentators picked up on this and called Dean crazy, notably the professional psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer in today's Washington Post.

"The Delusional Dean"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37125-2003Dec4.html

Dean will no doubt be called on to clarify his position and find himself in a new media showdown next week. By coincidence, Monday brings us the next meeting in Washington of the National "Whitewash" Commission under Tom Kean. The Commission still has no replacement for the removed Max Cleland

(As we saw in the previous chapter of this saga, Bush last week mysteriously appointed Cleland to direct the Export-Import bank, forcing him to leave the Kean Commission, immediately after Cleland objected to a deal under which the White House can keep its documents under wraps.)

Another big story, by David Kubiak, requires no introduction from me. -NL (www.911truth.org)

9/11 WIDOW'S BUSH TREASON SUIT DISAPPEARS FROM MEDIA

By W. David Kubiak 12-5-3
http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html.

"The decision 'not to do the story' appears to be multiplying all over the nation." -- Fred Powledge, ACLU

"Whoever said 'no news is good news,' was BADLY misinformed." -- Dan Rather

Think you're already amazed, alarmed or appalled enough by the state of US journalism today? Chew on this a while and think again.

Grieving New Hampshire widow who lost her man on 9/11 refuses the government's million dollar hush money payoff, studies the facts of the day for nearly two years, and comes to believe the White House "intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen" to launch a so-called "War on Terrorism" for personal and political gain.

She retains a prominent lawyer, a former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania, who served with distinction under both Democrats and Republicans and was once a strong candidate for the governor's seat.

The attorney files a 62-page complaint in federal district court (including 40 pages of prima facie evidence) charging that "President Bush and officials including, but not limited to Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ashcroft and Tenet":

1.) had adequate foreknowledge of 911 yet failed to warn the county or attempt to prevent it;

2.) have since been covering up the truth of that day;

3.) have therefore abetted the murder of plaintiff's husband and violated the Constitution and multiple laws of the United States; and

4.) are thus being sued under the Civil RICO (Racketeering, Influence, and Corrupt Organization) Act for malfeasant conspiracy, obstruction of justice and wrongful death.

The suit text goes on to document the detailed forewarnings from foreign governments and FBI agents; the unprecedented delinquency of our air defense; the inexplicable half hour dawdle of our Commander in Chief at a primary school after hearing the nation was under deadly attack; the incessant invocation of national security and executive privilege to suppress the facts; and the obstruction of all subsequent efforts to investigate the disaster. It concludes that "compelling evidence will be presented in this case through discovery, subpoena power, and testimony Defendants failed to act and prevent 9/11 knowing the attacks would lead to??| an 'International War on Terror' which would benefit Defendants both financially and politically."

Press releases detailing these explosive allegations are sent out to 3000 journalists in the print and broadcast media, and a press conference to announce the filing is held in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia on November 26th (commemorating the end of the first futile year of the independent National 9/11 Commission).

Imagine the world-churning implications of these charges. Imagine the furor if just one was proved true. Imagine the courage of this bribe-shunning widow and an eminent attorney with his rep on the line. Then imagine a press conference to which nobody came.

(Well, more precisely, imagine a press conference at which only FOX News appears, tapes for 40 minutes, and never airs an inch.)

Now imagine the air time, column inches and talk show hysteria that same night devoted to the legal hassles of Michael, Kobe, and Scott Peterson, and divide that by the attention paid to our little case of mass murder, war profiteering and treason. (OK, this is really a trick question because no number divided by zero yields any answers whatsoever, which evidently in this case is the result preferred.)

When you present documented charges of official treachery behind the greatest national security disaster in modern history and the press doesn't show, doesn't listen, doesn't write - just what in fact is really being communicated? That despite all the deaths, lies, wars, and bizarre official actions that flowed from 9/11 there's actually nothing there to be investigated at all? That addressing desperate victim families' still unanswered cries for truth is not a legitimate journalistic concern? That news will now be what the corporate media say it will be, so drink your infotainment Kool-Aid and kindly shut up?

(While the 9/11 blackout is the most flagrant sign of current media dysfunction, it hardly stands alone. Where, for example, was our free and fearless press when Pentagon powerbroker Richard Perle confessed to a London audience last month that yes indeed, our war on Iraq was illegal as hell? He calmly explained that "in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing??| would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone, and this would have been morally unacceptable."

(Guardian/UK, 11/20/03) And what news have we seen of the thousands of Depleted Uranium deaths and birth defects now desolating Afghanis, Iraqis and our own Gulf War troops? And whose looking into the $1.2 trillion the Pentagon admits is "missing" or the half trillion in laundered funds now propping up our banks? And how many times have you seen it reported that unbid Iraq contracts have pushed the worth of VP Cheney's 433,333 Halliburton stock options to $26 million plus? But to return to 9/11, the funny business has just begun. If you thought press performance after JFK's death was a cynical farce, you ain't seen nothing yet.)

A few years back Harold Evans of the London Sunday Times, observed that the challenge facing American newspapers "is not to stay in business -- it is to stay in journalism.'' As corporations' authoritarian, profit-driven consciousness comes to dominate both media and governance, you can expect a lot more serial celebrity scandals and even less news on the way things work or anything that really counts.

There is a clear method and message in this obscurantist madness. All this media consolidation and tightening control is strategically aligned with deregulation, privatization, social program-gutting deficits and free trade regimes. They are all convergent tactics to enforce corporations' full spectrum dominance over democratic humankind. If your progressive or conservative instincts bid you to arise against this coup, standing with our 9/11 widow is a good place to start. Her name is Ellen Mariani, her lawyer is Phillip Berg and their complaint is now online at

http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html.

Ellen Mariani and Philip Berg were interviewed for an hour on the Mike Malloy show yesterday -- the show can be heard at the White Rose Society archive:

http://homepage.mac.com/benburch/MalloyShow-(4-12-2003).mp3

[cthrumatrix]

1. there is no way that Dean will be given the microphone to beat

the 911 question drum...it would be a disaster for shrub & co. If it starts, I'm afraid of either an attack (to distract) or something to remove this from discussion.

Perosnally..a showdown between Dean and * would be desired.

[caledesi]

2. I just posted yesterday about the 9/11 deal because Randi Rhodes

said two days ago that something "big" was coming down, and she spent yesterday mostly discussing the Mariana suit.

Also, Mike Malloy interviewed E Mariana and her lawyer last night. 9/11 is not going away.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=826333

Edit: forgot stuff

[AntiCoup2K4]

3. Wow... Chuckie Krauthammer (PNAC) doesn't want Dean talking about 9-11

What a shocker, huh?

[JackRiddler]

4. Actually, Chuckie Krauthammer

is stupid enough to be DRAWING ATTENTION TO IT.

Charles K. is apparently so low on the PNAC pole that he's going to be the last of them to figure out that 9/11 was according to PNAC plan. He still doesn't know this is a different year, one in which you can't just burn McKinney at the stake for even mentioning 9/11. He thinks he's damaging Dean, but of course if he and his crew keep pushing it, they will force the confrontation that undoes Bush.

Go, Dr. Chuck, Go!

[slinkerwink]

10. Damn, the Repubs keep shooting themselves in the foot, don't they?

;-)

[radfringe]

55. slight variation

they keep shooting their mouths off and hitting their foot

[Gore1FL]

58. But unfortunately

There is plenty of collateral damage to the USA too.

[asjr]

5. Dean

Just one of the reasons I like H. Dean. He is OUT THERE. He is going for broke. He knows the media has no taste for the truth and will force it on them. The media are treasonous for not giving us all the news everyday. The right wing must have a solid hold on them. It is an injustice to the country.

[Upfront]

38. Highest Respect

I have the highest respect for the Dr. He has balls, back him democrats. If you want your country back, now is the time to fight!

[onecitizen]

65. I'm with you........

when I heard Dean say this the first time my jaw dropped. But then, I decided that the guy is right. He's very, very smart. He knew what would happen when he said it. So I know he must know something I don't know. He had to have a very good reason to say this (I mean we know some of the reasons for sure but there must be something else we don't know) and start this storm that's about to hit like a hurricane. Go get 'em Dean!

[alfredo]

6. Somebody needs to call Bush out. How do we know if Bush is in the

clear on this if he keeps stonewalling. Dean should force their hand on this, without saying he subscribes to the theory, but just to get bush to deny it. when he denies it, then he should be challenged again to disclose the briefings in their entirety to the commission.

did those 20 minutes buy enough time for the crime to be completed?

[Old and In the Way]

25. This is a national security issue and all the Dems should be

in lockstep on this.

Without a complete and open airing of all the facts pertaining to the 9/11 event, how do we know that this administration is not culpable for letting it occur? If they are, then they will do whatever is necessary to keep this information from seeing the light of day...including actions that could affffect our national security.

If there is a criminal basis for charging this administration for neglecting the oath of office, we need to understand that they will compromise this country in an effort to save their miserable asses.

I'd like to see the Democrats put a halt to the 9/11 charade and tell the American people that a real investigation will be the focus of the Democratic platform in 2004. Bush/Cheney cannot use "national security" as the reason to hide the truth from the American people.

[Scott Lee]

26. Sorry, but I don't think the other Dem candidates would DARE

Yeah yeah, they've been critical of Bush on the war and terror and all, but this is a whole different creature right here. If Bush failed to do anything about 9/11 when he had the warnings, and if it was indeed to touch of a powerdown on rights here at home, that means he is making war on the American people. There is a name for that charge: Treason.

This actually has me fearing for Dean's life somewhat....

[Old and In the Way]

28. That's why we need to be rock solid on this issue.

We can't let one person take the point on this issue. A single candidate is exposed. A united leadership lessens the chance that an "accident" or a "tragedy" will occur to an individual candidate.

And this isn't politics as usual. This issue effects all Americans regardless of political persuation. If the same event and his actions had applied to CLinton, I'd be making the same case. The fact is, the 2500 people who died on 9/11 were not Republicans or Democrats first, they were Americans.

If there is gross negligence, benign acceptance, or active efforts that allowed 9/11 to happen, justice mist be served. Because if we don't understand what happened on 9/11, we are all at risk for future events to occur under the people who currently control the reins of this government - and that event could dwarf horror we all experienced on that day.

[Pastiche423]

34. One small correction

The almost 3,000 people that were murdered on September 11, 2001, were from 62 countries. They were not all Americans.

[Old and In the Way]

39. Well, you are correct, but I assumed 2500 of the 3000+ were Americans

to make my point about the citizens of this country should wonder what the threshold is for a real , no-holds-barred investigation.

Do 10,000 need to perish? 50,000? 100,000? 1 Million?

What if it were their mother, father, brother, sister, lover? Why can't we fundementally all agree that this event transcends personal politics and confront the root cause so we can take the appropriate action necessary to assure that we understand the root cause of world terrorism.

Hint: it's not this administration's definition.

[Hep]

7. MORE IMPORTANT:

Will the other D's back Dean up?

[Closer]

11. are you kidding?

[CityZen-X]

18. Concerted Effort

You could be correct by your comment, which states that most of the Dem's we have in power are a spineless, self preserving bunch of traitors.
But if somehow enough of them are struck with a guiding light of truth and honor, and a concern for this country and it's peoples. A concerted effort in bringing this 9/11 issue to the fore front can destroy this Boat of Bu$h*t and it's criminal party.

[Hep]

20. Right

I was saying that if it came to a face to face showdown about 9/11, will the other D's stand back and let Dean fight it, or will they stand shoulder to shoulder with Dean and fight?

My guess is SOME would SOME wouldn't. Kucinich would fight, Kerry would wait and see how the chips fell.

[mrgorth]

8. Word up on Dean

even if he doesn't get the nom. he is gonna bloody the shrub's nose. He won't even know what hit him.

[montanacowboy]

9. Dean should pledge

as so should all the Dem contenders that the first thing they will do as Pres. is to hold open indpendent public hearings on 9/11 and supoena everyone and anyone - let it even be televised on CSpan, call the scum out, lift up the rocks, let them scatter like the crawling centipedes they are -
This is what has to happen to defeat the BFEE and their ilk once and for all.

[Gloria]

22. I may be wrong, but I thought Clark has touched on finding out

what about what really happend on 911. Please correct me if I am mistaken, or if I'm correct, add more details. I simply have it stuck in my mind that I thought I heard him on this...

I do know about his talking about how he heard about other planned invasions, so I might be mixing that up.

However, in NH the other night at the school, he did say that he now doesn't see any further actions because things are so screwed up in Iraq.

[TacticalPeek]

30. Real real close.

Published on Thursday, October 30, 2003 by the American Prospect
Wesley Clark's Gutsy New Tack: Blame Bush for not Preventing 9-11
by Michael Tomasky

Wesley Clark, speaking on Tuesday to a liberal foreign-policy conference sponsored by the Prospect, the Center for American Progress (John Podesta's new outfit) and The Century Foundation, could have gone in any of several directions in attacking the Bush administration's foreign policy. The $87 billion, so unpopular with voters, would have been the obvious target. The lack of a postwar plan, a close second. The intentionally failed diplomacy in the run-up to hostility, a pretty clear bronze medalist.

He didn't ignore those issues entirely, but the heart of his attack came in the form of "a blistering review" (The New York Times' words) of the administration's actions prior to September 11. Clark, assaying pre-9-11 intelligence failures, said that responsibility for those failures can't be fobbed off on "lower-level intelligence officers," and he came within a few inches of saying outright that the Bush administration was responsible for the attacks having happened.

"Shocking" might be putting it too strongly, but certainly it was surprising that Clark chose to reopen that temporarily sealed can of worms. Politicians don't often say something you don't expect to hear, and when they do, you wonder why. Clark either took a major risk here to breath some life into a campaign that nearly every Washington insider thinks is melting (which probably means it's just fine, thanks) or he knows something the rest of us don't.

more
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1030-02.htm

[TacticalPeek]

27. "so should all the Dem contenders"

Not a bad idea, montanacowboy.

:toast:

[Eloriel]

41. And sign his own death warrant?

He's already made himself the most dangerous man in America, and that's before he talked about 9-11.

Eloriel

[mistertrickster]

12. I h8 Krauthammer--here's the e-mail I sent the rascal

You never saw an Israeli bulldozer you didn’t love, and our fearless leader is making the world safer for democracy. The Israelis have more violence than ever with the “iron fist” policy and the United States is hated more than ever because of our reckless, unjustified foray into Iraq, but facts are stupid things to the faith-based believers of the radical right wing.

If Mr. Bush has nothing to hide, why doesn’t he turn over the reports to the 9-11 commission, unredacted and without threat of subpoena? You know as well as I do that those reports are full of warnings about terrorist hijackings: the Russians and the French have repeatedly told media that they in fact were frantically warning the Bush people of exactly this kind of attack in the months leading up to September. Our media isn’t saying it, of course.

A lot of good evidence leads to the conclusion that Bush and Co. had numerous and sundry warnings that 9-11 would occur. The French foiled an attempt by Al-Qaeda to fly a big jetliner into the Eiffel Tower just a few months before 9-11 happened. John Ashcroft was warned not to fly on commercial airliners since the end of July for instance. At least one N.H. 9-11 widow has joined forces with a well-respected Pennsylvania state prosecutor to file suit against Bush for ignoring warnings, a move which ironically you right wing radicals cleared the way for by pushing for the Paula Jones ruling against Bill Clinton.

Anyway, I realize there is no point arguing with the likes of you—you’re a true believer and your faith requires you to force it down your readers’ throats for their own good. As C. S. Lewis writes of the pre-enlightenment English Renaissance, "no man claimed for himself or allowed to another the right of believing as he chose. All parties inherited from the Middle Ages the assumption that Christian man could live only in a theocratic polity which had both the right and the duty of enforcing true religion by
persecution." It wasn't the right to burn dissidents that was in dispute but on what grounds dissent should be defined, so "those who were burned as heretics were often (and, on their premisses, logically) eager to burn others." English Literature in the 16th Century-Excluding Drama, Oxford: Claredon Press, 1944, 696 pages

You can’t burn us heretics—yet—but with just a little more tweaking of the Patriot Acts and we’ll be back to public floggings and hangings in no time.

By the way, the war in Iraq is of huge benefit to the logging industry. How do you think they’re building all those temporary shelters and mess halls over there for hundreds of thousands of troops and NGO’s? With American lumber. The Iraq war has siphoned off so much plywood for example, contractors are having a hard time getting enough and the prices have risen dramatically. Oh but I forgot, being a true believer means never having to check your facts . . . And you also don’t strike me as someone who spends much time on the business end of a hammer.

Xxxx Xxxxxxx

Wichita, Kansas

[JackRiddler]

13. unintentionally cruel

"And you also don’t strike me as someone who spends much time on the business end of a hammer."

You probably are unaware that Krauthammer has been a quadriplegic since his accident 20 years ago, so this is definitely an indecent thing to write to him. Ass though he may be.

[mistertrickster]

15. No, I didn't know that . . .

Hmmm . . . so he's someone who has taken full measure of our health care system but wants to cut it off for others. Nice.

[maggrwaggr]

16. there is no such thing as "too cruel" for these criminals

These people are killing thousands upon thousands of innocent people throughout the world, and you're worried that somebody's "unintentionally cruel"?

Fuck that. Let him boil in his own piss.

[JackRiddler]

23. let's just say...

I wouldn't intentionally write about using a hammer to K personally for reasons similar to why I wouldn't support the death penalty, even for a mass murderer. You've got to fight the individual's action, or the system in it, not the human being in it, however pathetic he is. Or, "seriously, hate the sin, not the sinner." Guess you can call me a Christian (finally made it, my mom will be so happy!).

[maggrwaggr]

24. I'll kill someone if it's in self defense

and it could be argued that we've gotten to that point

[caledesi]

31. Great letter! nt

[NashVegas]

14. I Wonder if This is Why Kerry's People Have Been Saying Dean Is Gonna Sink

Somone posted not too long ago, something to the extent of, "look for Dean to implode in two weeks or so."

It looks like they're going to try to draw him out and make him appear to be a major flake.

Gonna be interesting.

[mrgorth]

17. If that happens

then so be it. None of us worry about that. It's the double secret reverse psychology charges that drive us nuts.

[Hep]

21. You know that someone

was tucker carlson, right?

[proud patriot]

19. I just Called the white house to let the president know

That Americans Know he is complicit in allowing
911 to happen and profits off the blood of Americans .

I also mentioned How Ironic it was that he appointed
James Baker as envoy to Iraq's debt considering
how he represents the Saudi Royals vs. the 911 victims
families .

[RedSock]

29. my take

Krauthammer writes that Dean is suffering a "plague" known as "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and adds "When Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) first broached this idea before the 2002 primary election, it was considered so nutty it helped make her former representative McKinney."

First, McKinney was careful at the time to say that she had no evidence of foreknowledge. And note that Dean merely calls it a "theory" which "can't be proved." Putting aside the veracity of the claim, who would deny that the Bush Administration being warned of 9/11 ahead of time is not one of the "more interesting" theories floating around?

Of course, the Bush Administration has admitted it WAS warned one month before 9/11 that Osama bin Laden was planning to hijack commercial airliners for attacks inside the US. Indeed, it was only a few weeks after McKinney was ripped for her statements that the New York Post front page blared: "Bush Knew". The Daily News, another conservative Gotham tabloid, shouted: "Bush Had Osama Hijack Warning."

The Bush Administration could put all these theories to rest once and for all by complying fully with the 9/11 Commission and releasing all it knew about the terrorists, any possible warnings and the attacks themselves, but to date it has instead done everything in its power to avoid any investigation.

[caledesi]

32. OMG! PP, you are too much! nt

[proud patriot]

33. Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death

I ain't fucking around ... I love this Country
and all of you .

[Minstrel Boy]

35. some of the warnings which leave Krauthammer unfazed

Leaving aside what US intel gathered via Echelon; the July meeting with bin Laden; the expediting of al Qaeda's visas through Jeddah into the US by the CIA, and their training at US bases. Leaving all that and so much more aside, here's some of the unheeded warnings we know:

"Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/04/national/04WARN.html

"A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11."
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0222/ridgeway2.php

"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115

"When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001."

http://www.iht.com/articles/58269.html

"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."
http://www.sundayherald.com/24822

"Israeli intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$52PMOXQAADW5PQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/09/16/ixhome

A warning from Moroccan Intelligence: a secret agent, Hassan Dabou, had penetrated al Qaeda for two years, breaking cover the summer of 2001 to warn of "spectacular" attacks in New York in the summer or autumn of 2001. "Secret service chiefs are said to have taken seriously the tip from one of its veteran informants and immediately passed on the details to Washington."
The Times of London, June 12, 2002

"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/907379.asp?0cv=CB10

"An FBI supervisor, sounding a prophetic pre-Sept. 11 alarm, warned FBI headquarters that student pilot Zacarias Moussaoui was so dangerous he might 'take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center,' a congressional investigator said in a report Tuesday."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=512&ncid
=716&e=4&u=/ap/20020924/ap_on_go_co/attacks_intelligence

"US intelligence agencies received many more indications than previously disclosed that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network was planning imminent "spectacular" attacks in the summer of 2001 aimed at inflicting mass casualties."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36754-2002Sep18.html

An Iranian man known as Ali S. in a German jail waiting deportation repeatedly phones US law enforcement to warn of an imminent attack on the WTC in the week of September 9-15. He calls it "an attack that will change the world." After a month of badgering his prison guards, he is finally able to call the White House 14 times in the days before the attack. He then tries to send a fax to Bush, but is denied permission hours before the 9/11 attacks. German police later confirm the calls. Prosecutors later say Ali had no foreknowledge and his forebodings were just a strange coincidence. They say he is mentally unstable. Similar warnings also come from a Moroccan man being held in a Brazilian jail. Deutsche Presse-Agentur, 9/13/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01, Sunday Herald, 9/16/01

And then there's David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the Clinton impeachment:

Schippers received information from "impeccable" US intelligence sources, including FBI agents, that a massive attack was being planned by terrorists targeting the financial district of lower Manhattan. (He went public with this two days after the attack in an interview with WRRK in Pittsburgh.) He said he had tried warning Ashcroft and other officials six weeks before the attacks.

"According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information. At least two weeks prior to 11th September, the FBI agents again confirmed that an attack on lower Manhattan, orchestrated by Osama bin Laden, was imminent. However, the FBI command cut short their investigations into the impending terrorist attacks and those involved, threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicised information pertaining to their investigations.

"The agents subsequently sought the council of David Schippers in order to pressure elements in the US government to take action to prevent the attacks. Schippers warned many Congressmen and Senators, and also attempted to contact US Attorney General John Ashcroft without success, managing only to explain the situation to a lower-ranking Justice Dept. official who promised a return call from Ashcroft the next day. The Attorney General did not return the call despite the gravity of the situation. Schippers is now legally representing one FBI agent in a suit against the US government in an attempt to subpoena their testimony, so that he can legally speak about the blocked investigation on public record." (From The War on Freedom, PG 107)

And FBI Special Agent Robert Wright "…an active FBI Special Agent filed a complaint last week concerning FBI/Justice Department interference in and mishandling of terrorist investigations. The FBI Special Agent, who wishes to remain anonymous at this time, alleges that he was retaliated against when he continued to push for and pursue certain terrorist investigations over the objections of his FBI and Justice Department supervisors." (Judicial Watch Press Release, Nov 14 2001.)

[JackRiddler]

36. kickeroo!

Meanwhile, has everyone called Daschle's office about appointing a 9/11 family steering committee member to the Commission?

WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?!

Here we go with some STILL relevant older material...

Bush bribes Max Cleland to shut up?
- Action to get a 9/11 family member on the Kean Commission -

Call/fax Tom Daschle's office and the media today!
800 numbers for Tom Daschle: [phone] and/or [phone] - more below!

Fri., Nov. 28, 2003

Dear colleagues, associates and friends,

a month has passed since former Senator Max Cleland, member of the National Commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks (the Kean Commission), told the New York Times that the White House and President Bush's re-election campaign had reason to fear what the commission was uncovering in its investigation of intelligence and law enforcement "failures" before Sept. 11.

"As each day goes by," Cleland said, "we learn that this government knew a whole lot more about these terrorists before Sept. 11 than it has ever admitted." (New York Times, Oct. 26, 2003 at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/national/26KEAN.html?pagewanted=print&position= )

In the meantime, the Kean Commission has accepted a deal to radically limit their access to the White House documents detailing just what high-level administration officials knew in advance of the attacks - the Presidential Daily Briefings or PDBs, including the one we know was entitled "BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN U.S." and that warned of imminent hijackings (Aug. 6, 2001).

The only two delegates of the Commission who will be allowed to see *pre-edited* versions of these documents both have obvious conflicts of interest: Philip Zelikow has advised the Bush administration and wrote a book with Condoleeza Rice last year; whereas Jamie Gorelick is a former high-level adviser to President Clinton, whose PDBs will also come under scrutiny. The other commissioners will know only what Zelikow and Gorelick report back to them, based on their notes, which the White House will also be allowed to "edit."

Cleland and commission member Tim Roemer, a former congressman, both objected to the deal. "A majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal," Cleland said in a stunning interview, reproduced below, in which he invokes the sorry history of the Warren Commission. "It is a national scandal... the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that..."

Cleland pulls no punches about the possible darker implications of the White House's secrecy fetish: "Let's chase this rabbit into the ground here. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war." (See below for more.)

Last week came the news that Bush suddenly appointed Cleland to the board of the Export-Import Bank, as a result of which "he will have to leave the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks." So far only The Washington Times has reported details of this story; the rest of the media have completely ignored it. (See http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031123-091108-4750r.htm)

Just when the White House invokes a Nixonian "executive privilege" in the struggle to keep its secrets, how is it possible that Bush can simply act to remove the most outspoken member of the Kean Commission by means of a cushy appointment? What other inducements were applied to Cleland to get him to leave the Commission?

This is tantamount to a confession that Cleland is right - the White House has serious dirt to hide! And Cleland is hardly the first high-level representative to pose these questions. I shall cite just two examples: For asking, starting in March 2002, what the Bush administration may have known in advance of Sept. 11, Georgia congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was attacked from all sides and run out of Congress on a wave of millions in Republican campaign contributions.

Later that year, Senator Bob Graham headed the congressional joint investigation into Sept. 11. Despite its highly limited purview, the congressional investigation was still subjected to heavy executive censorship in its final report, including the deletion of an entire 28-page section that apparently details connections between Saudi Arabian elites and Qaeda (and possibly of the Bush family and Bin Laden family businesses). During his brief run for the presidency this year, Graham said the most important facts about 9/11 have yet to be revealed to the public.

Let us leave aside the rich and disturbing history of how the White House has otherwise obstructed the 9/11 investigations for more than two years, and return to the present:

Now, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle is expected to nominate Cleland's replacement on the Kean Commission. Other than Cleland, every other member of the Commission has had previous close ties to the national security establishment, oil companies, airline companies, or all three. These are obvious vested interests! Given these vested interests, isn't it about time there was someone on the Commission who has an obvious vested interest not in maintaining secrecy, but in full disclosure?

Until now, the work of the Commission has been tracked by several groups including the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, a group appointed by relatives of people who died in the attacks. They have been among the most outspoken advocates of disclosure. Shouldn't a member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee be appointed as Cleland's replacement?

Now is the time for all who support the principle of open government and disclosure, without which democracy is impossible, to make their voice heard. Forward this mail to everyone you can. Call or fax Daschle's office today to urge that he appoint a member of the Family Steering Committee as Cleland's replacement. (See below for information on contacting Daschle.) Write and fax your media contacts to cover this story.

Do it in your own words - and be insistent!

And what if this doesn't work? What if the only supposedly independent investigation into the events of Sept. 11 completes its descent into farce? Then the time will have come for citizens to take this into their own hands; if the government isn't going to let us know what it already knows about Sept. 11, then we the people have the right to sit in judgement on that government, and to establish our own citizens' truth commission.

Nicholas Levis
www.911truth.org

Appendices:

--Contact info for Daschle's offices
--Cleland interview with Eric Boehlert

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

Contact info for Daschle's offices

PLEASE call ALL of Dascle's offices (4 calls, 1 to each) to make SURE he gets the message, AND also fax him and email him as well, see below.

DC - [phone]
Aberdeen: [phone]
Rapid City: [phone]
Sioux Falls: [phone]

800 numbers for Tom Daschle--
[phone] and/or [phone]

Fax: [phone];
or E-mail by visiting: http://daschle.senate.gov/webform.html

Selected quotes from Cleland in an interview with Eric Boehlert:

"A majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal."

"It is a national scandal."

"I say that decision compromised the mission of the 9/11 commission, pure and simple. Far from the commissioners being able to fulfill their obligation to the Congress and the American people, and far from getting access to all the documents we need, the president of the United States is cherry-picking what information is shown to that minority of commissioners. Now this is ridiculous. That's not full and open access.

"If you trust one commissioner you should trust them all. I don't understand it. You can say, 'I'm not going to show anything to anybody, and take me to court.' At least that's consistent. But it's not consistent at all to say we're going to parse out this information and we determine how many members of the commission get to see it."

"It's all about 9/11. This is not a political witch hunt. This is the most serious independent investigation since the Warren Commission. And after watching History Channel shows on the Warren Commission last night, the Warren Commission blew it. I'm not going to be part of that. I'm not going to be part of looking at information only partially. I'm not going to be part of just coming to quick conclusions. I'm not going to be part of political pressure to do this or not do that. I'm not going to be part of that. This is serious."

"Let's chase this rabbit into the ground here. They had a plan to go to war and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war. They pulled off their task force in Afghanistan, their Predator assets, and shifted them over to the war in Iraq. They took their eye off the 9/11 ball and transferred it to the Iraq ball. And that's a very strategic question that ultimately has got to be answered. I'm focused on 9/11 and the administration is not focused on it. They don't want to share information, and they didn't agree with the commission in the first place."

[proud patriot]

43. Calling right now

:hi:

[JackRiddler]

45. bravo!

Do I have another customer?!

[Melinda]

50. 12/05: New York Times reports Cleland's apointment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=254015

[RBHam]

53. Kean and Hamilton - the fix is in

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=835780

[maggrwaggr]

44. Good Lord! Great list, and not a trace of tinfoil anywhere!

This is so amazing, WHY WHY WHY are these people still in power, when they should so obviously be in JAIL?

[rumguy]

37. excellent post

I'm bookmarking this thread

[Lorien]

40. Kick

:kick:

Some great information here. Kudos to the activists amoung us! :toast:

[oasis]

42. Kick the chimp out of the White House. (eom)

[JackRiddler]

46. & KICK this thread if you understand the ratio of SIGNAL to noise...

9/11 Truth is the Key to the Doors of Perception for Majority America

[DemBones DemBones]

59. Kicking to INCREASE SIGNAL.

First I've seen of this thread. It must not die! It must stay on the front page.

[Toucano]

47. "He ain't crazy, he's my brother"

Keep the fire on 'em Howard! Their lies can't stand up in the light of the truth.

[oasis]

48. 9/11: We demand the answers. Cheney and Bush fess up.

[RBHam]

49. Be careful!

Silverhair might call you an "extremist"!

[RBHam]

51. We Better Hurry

If the heat gets turned up to high, Cheney might set in motion 9-11 Part Two...

The “war on terror” and American democracy—some ominous warnings
By Patrick Martin
27 November 2003
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/nov2003/warn-n27.shtml
Excerpt:
“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world—it may be in the United States of America—that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Frank remains a fervent supporter of the Bush administration, describing Bush as “a very thoughtful man,” and declaring, “Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”

But according to Franks, it may be under the administration of this “hero” that “the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

The retired general placed the responsibility for this possible turn to dictatorship on “our population,” and was silent on what role the military leadership or the Bush administration would play in its establishment. The American media has apparently failed to ask him anything about it since.

(snip)
Rothkopf outlines the possibility of a terrorist campaign of suicide bombings during next fall’s election campaign that leads to a full-scale military mobilization. “History suggests that striking during major elections is an effective tool for terrorist groups,” he writes.

As a representative of the Democratic wing of the ruling elite, Rothkopf is clearly concerned that such an event would profit the Bush administration. He cites examples such as the Israeli elections in 1996, when suicide bombings contributed to the victory of right-wing Likud candidate Binyamin Netanyahu, and the 2000 Russian elections, won by Vladimir Putin after a series of bombings in Moscow and other cities—attributed to Chechen terrorists but widely believed to have been carried out or at least permitted by Putin’s KGB.

Rothkopf notes the politically symbiotic relationship between the terrorists and the hard-liners: “Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their methods.” He could have added that the terrorists are a godsend for the hard-liners, providing a pretext for dictatorial methods.

More important than his argument—essentially restating the Democratic appeal for a more coordinated international approach to terrorism—is what Rothkopf reveals about the expectations in official Washington and corporate America. At one point he notes: “Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues. Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004. A similar number predicted that the assault would be greater than those of 9/11 and might well involve weapons of mass destruction. It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush.”

(snip)
Here, then, is a glimpse of the real state of affairs in the United States on the eve of the 2004 election year. Ruling circles widely anticipate a massive terrorist strike that would boost the flagging political standing of the Bush administration or even lead to a suspension of the elections and the establishment of military rule. The US military is actively preparing for this possibility by readying troops for use in domestic policing and by assembling a database of likely political opponents.

The obvious question is: given the expected consequences, is it not in the political interests of the Bush administration or sections of the military/intelligence apparatus to engineer such a terrorist attack? Or at least to insure that it takes place, by looking the other way, on the model of September 11?

[Hailtothechimp]

52. "national security" is really a code word for "bu$h-inal security"

I am heartened by my own experience with LIHOP/MIHOP. At first it seems too outrageous to be true, but once it takes root in the mind, it opens a pandora's box of questions that have no good answers.

For some this step will never happen. But many, many people can be reached, especialy if the Kean Commission digs up some good stuff and then releases it.

[JackRiddler]

54. I have to agree with the others...

who think the Kean Commission is a dog & pony show.

However, it will fail to satisfy its own standards, and this will be obvious.

That will bring clarity & mobilization to this effort.

MEANWHILE...

if you want it to amount to something, CALL DASCHLE'S OFFICE TODAY TO LOBBY FOR A FAMILY MEMBER ON THE COMMISSION!

(see above for details.)

[frank frankly]

56. kick

way to go, Dr. Dean!

:hi:

I did an informal poll at a gathering saturday. I asked 7 people if they thought LIHOP was possible. ALL SAID YES.

Keep on fighting and we will win.

[slinkerwink]

57. thanks for the kick!

[RainDog]

60. UNITED FRONTAL ATTACK by DEMOCRATS NOW POSSIBLE

This is so important...not for Dean, but for democracy, and for every single one of the dem candidates.

they can disagree with each other, but they should unite on this for a frontal assault on Bush's stonewalling on this issue...and of course, so many others....but this is the issue with which they can bring his lies and incompetence and worse to the forefront of the American public.

KERRY- can bring up the fact that he was called a crazy conspiracy theorist when he insisted on investigating BCCI...and in the process inform the American public that this was, in fact, the largest bank fraud in American history which was used to fund terrorism and which was also used by North and Secord to funnel drug money to pay for arms for hostages in the Iran/Contra scandal...and THEN bring up that Feith was meeting with Ghorbanifar in Dec. 2001 in Rome, along with Ledeen AGAIN.

---this can also lead him to ask Bush about Khalid bin Mahfouz' funding of Harken energy, as well as serving as a big wig with BCCI...

CLARK- can again question Bush's competence in handling 9-11...he can ask about the readiness of our forces in America...why weren't those planes scrambled? Why wasn't there a commander in chief, rather than a figurehead reading "The Pet Goat" and possibly endangering schoolchildren when the president knew our nation was under attack????

DEAN- can ask those questions we all want answered...why has Bush stalled an investigation for so long...why did Bush only budget 4 million to investigate this event, while Republicans were more than willing to fork over 70 million of our taxpayer dollars trying to pin something on Clinton via Whitewater?

All can ask why the 9-11 comission's term cannot be extended past the May deadline since Bush has worked so hard to stall an investigation.

If the dems don't unite to once and for all put an end to the lies of Bush and Rove over Bush's "heroic" response to 9-11, then do they deserve to run for the presidency??

If the dems don't rally behind all of us in America, and especially the families who have lost loved ones in that attack, who will speak for the American people?

[maddezmom]

62. good post ~we all need to unite on this one

Thumbs up to Dean for talking about it on FAUX. Maybe some of their viewers will take notice. Not all the folks that watch FAUX are repubs...some watch to see what the other side is thinking and doing.

[juajen]

61. This is horrible!

I read yesterday some of the transcripts from the police on 9/11. It brought back all the horror I felt that day. Every American was traumatized by this event, and this administration needs to be held accountable. This brand of secrecy is that of a banana republic.

:kick: :kick:

[asthmaticeog]

63. kick

Lots of great info here - should probably bookmark this page...

[SpiralHawk]

64. Mark Twain once wrote:

"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce and brave man (or woman - .ed), hated and scorned. when his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain

[9215]

66. Dean said he was going to take off the gloves

If he can get this topic out in the mainstream this will be dynamite. He starts listing the facts and asking why no one in the Bush admin has been fired and......