Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

DATA DUMP: "9/11 was Clinton's fault"

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 (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:34 PM
Original message
DATA DUMP: "9/11 was Clinton's fault"
The two great myths that have settled across the nation, beyond the Hussein-9/11 connection, are that Clinton did not do enough during his tenure to stop the spread of radical terrorist organizations like al Qaeda, and that the attacks themselves could not have been anticipated or stopped. Blumenthal's insider perspective on these matters bursts the myths entirely, and reveals a level of complicity regarding the attacks within the journalistic realm and the conservative political ranks that is infuriating and disturbing.

Starting in 1995, Clinton took actions against terrorism that were unprecedented in American history. He poured billions and billions of dollars into counterterrorism activities across the entire spectrum of the intelligence community. He poured billions more into the protection of critical infrastructure. He ordered massive federal stockpiling of antidotes and vaccines to prepare for a possible bioterror attack. He order a reorganization of the intelligence community itself, ramming through reforms and new procedures to address the demonstrable threat. Within the National Security Council, "threat meetings" were held three times a week to assess looming conspiracies. His National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, prepared a voluminous dossier on al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, actively tracking them across the planet. Clinton raised the issue of terrorism in virtually every important speech he gave in the last three years of his tenure. In 1996, Clinton delivered a major address to the United Nations on the matter of international terrorism, calling it "The enemy of our generation."

Behind the scenes, he leaned vigorously on the leaders of nations within the terrorist sphere. In particular, he pushed Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to assist him in dealing with the threat from neighboring Afghanistan and its favorite guest, Osama bin Laden. Before Sharif could be compelled to act, he was thrown out of office by his own army. His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats. Despite these and other diplomatic setbacks, terrorist cell after terrorist cell were destroyed across the world, and bomb plots against American embassies were thwarted. Because of security concerns, these victories were never revealed to the American people until very recently.

In America, few people heard anything about this. Clinton's dire public warnings about the threat posed by terrorism, and the massive non-secret actions taken to thwart it, went completely unreported by the media, which was far more concerned with stained dresses and baseless Drudge Report rumors. When the administration did act militarily against bin Laden and his terrorist network, the actions were dismissed by partisans within the media and Congress as scandalous "wag the dog" tactics. The TV networks actually broadcast clips of the movie "Wag The Dog" to accentuate the idea that everything the administration was doing was contrived fakery.

The bombing of the Sundanese factory at al-Shifa, in particular, drew wide condemnation from these quarters, despite the fact that the CIA found and certified VX nerve agent precursor in the ground outside the factory, despite the fact that the factory was owned by Osama bin Laden's Military Industrial Corporation, and despite the fact that the manager of the factory lived in bin Laden's villa in Khartoum. The book "Age of Sacred Terror" quantifies the al-Shifa issue thusly: "The dismissal of the al-Shifa attack as a scandalous blunder had serious consequences, including the failure of the public to comprehend the nature of the al Qaeda threat."

In Congress, Clinton was thwarted by the reactionary conservative majority in virtually every attempt he made to pass legislation that would attack al Qaeda and terrorism. His 1996 omnibus terror bill, which included many of the anti-terror measures we now take for granted after September 11, was withered almost to the point of uselessness by attacks from the right; Jesse Helms and Trent Lott were openly dismissive of the threats Clinton spoke of.

Clinton wanted to attack the financial underpinnings of the al-Qaeda network by banning American companies and individuals from dealing with foreign banks and financial institutions that al Qaeda was using for its money-laundering operations. Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

Just before departing office, Clinton managed to make a deal with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to have some twenty nations close tax havens used by al Qaeda. His term ended before the deal was sealed, and the incoming Bush administration acted immediately to destroy the agreement. According to Time magazine, in an article entitled "Banking on Secrecy" published in October of 2001, Bush economic advisors Larry Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard were urged by think tanks like the Center for Freedom and Prosperity to opt out of the coalition Clinton had formed. The conservative Heritage Foundation lobbied Bush's Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, to do the same. In the end, the lobbyists got what they wanted, and the Bush administration pulled America out of the plan. The Time article stated, "Without the world's financial superpower, the biggest effort in years to rid the world's financial system of dirty money was short-circuited."

This laundry list of partisan catastrophes goes on and on. Far from being inept on the matter of terrorism, Clinton was profoundly activist in his attempts to address terrorism. Much of his work was foiled by right-wing Congressional conservatives who, simply, refused to accept the fact that he was President. These men, paid to work for the public trust, spent eight years working diligently to paralyze any and all Clinton policies, including anti-terror initiatives that, if enacted, would have gone a long way towards thwarting the September 11 attacks. Beyond them lay the worthless television media, which ignored and spun the terrorist issue as it pursued salacious leaks from Ken Starr's office, leaving the American people drowning in a swamp of ignorance on a matter of deadly global importance.

Over and above the theoretical questions regarding whether or not Clinton's anti-terror policies, if passed, would have stopped September 11 lies the very real fact that attacks very much like 9/11 were, in fact, stopped dead by the Clinton administration. The most glaring example of this came on December 31, 1999, when the world gathered to celebrate the passing of the millennium. On that night, al Qaeda was gathering as well.

The terrorist network planned to simultaneously attack the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, a constellation of holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. Each and every single one of these plots, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, was foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. Speaking for the first time about these millennium plots, in a speech delivered to the Coast Guard Academy on May 17, 2000, Clinton said, "I want to tell you a story that, unfortunately, will not be the last example you will have to face."

Indeed.

Clinton proved that Osama bin Laden and his terror network can be foiled, can be thwarted, can be stopped. The multifaceted and complex nature of the international millennium plots rivals the plans laid before September 11, and involved counter-terrorism actions within several countries and across the entire American intelligence and military community. All resources were brought to bear, and the terrorists went down to defeat. The proof is in the pudding here. September 11, like the millennium plots, could have been avoided.

Couple this with other facts about the Bush administration we now have in hand. The administration was warned about a massive terror plot in the months before September by the security services of several countries, including Israel, Egypt, Germany and Russia. CIA Director George Tenet delivered a specific briefing on the matter to the administration on August 8, 2001. The massive compendium of data on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda compiled by Sandy Berger, and delivered to Condoleezza Rice upon his departure, went completely and admittedly unread until the attacks took place. The attacks themselves managed, for over an hour, to pierce the most formidable air defense system in the history of the Earth without a single fighter aircraft taking wing until the catastrophe was concluded.

It is not fashionable these days to pine for the return of William Jefferson Clinton. Given the facts above, and the realities we face about the administration of George W. Bush, and the realities we endure regarding the aftermath of September 11, the United States of America would be, and was, well served by its previous leader. That we do not know this, that September 11 happened at all, that it was such a wretched shock to the American people, that we were so woefully unprepared, can be laid at the feet of a failed news media establishment, and at the feet of a pack of power-mad conservative extremists who now have a great deal to atone for.

Had Clinton been heeded, the measures he espoused would have been put in place, and a number of powerful bulwarks would have been thrown into the paths of those commercial airplanes. Had the news media been something other than a purveyor of masturbation fantasies from the far-right, the American people would have know the threats we faced, and would have compelled their Congressmen to act. Had Congress itself been something other than an institution ruled by narrow men whose only desire was to break a sitting President by any means necessary, we would very probably still have a New York skyline dominated by two soaring towers.

Had the Bush administration not continued this pattern of gross partisan ineptitude and heeded the blitz of domestic and international warnings, instead of trooping off to Texas for a month-long vacation, had Bush's National Security Advisor done one hour's worth of her homework, we probably would not be in the grotesque global mess that currently envelops us. Never forget that many of the activists who pushed throughout the 1990s for the annihilation of all things Clinton are now foursquare in charge of the country today.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/101303A.shtml

==========

... and the shock was subsonic
and the smoke was deafening
between the setup and the punch line
cuz we were all on time for work that day
we all boarded that plane for to fly
and then while the fires were raging
we all climbed up on the windowsill
and then we all held hands
and jumped into the sky ...

- Ani DiFranco, "Self Evident"

I have a small glass of whiskey sitting beside me on the desk as I write this. I have no intention of drinking it - it is not even noon yet, and despite the notoriously dissolute reputation writers carry around, I have no intention of getting sloshed before the sun crosses the yardarm - but I need it to be there for the smell. The smell, you see, is my memory trigger for September 11. I was teaching that day, and shepherded a building filled with children through their own terror while stuffing mine down into my stomach, and walked out of school with my brave face still on, and stopped on the way home for a bottle of Bushmills, and sat down in front of my television with a glass, and poured, and watched, and wept.

The smell still reminds me, and so here sits the glass as I look back down a blood-soaked corridor of four years gone. I remember the day before that awful morning, Monday September 10th, looking forward to the Newsweek cover story that was going to put the bricks to the woeful Bush v. Gore decision. I remember scanning the headlines of virtually every major publication in the country that day, all of which had nothing but hard words for the wild boys in the White House. I remember thinking that things had been pretty bad, but maybe it was all about to turn around. I remember thinking that the country was finally waking up to a hard fact: this administration was thrashing around in the dark, and has no idea what it was doing.

And then, the smell of whiskey. Suddenly, mystically, the Bush administration could do no wrong, they walked on water, they were the exemplar of all that was good and strong and righteous. The flags came out. The double-barreled blast of "How dare you criticize the president at a time like this!" and "No one could have expected such a thing to happen!" drowned out anything but bullhorn blather, and we were off to the races. The bodies started to drop, the press lined up in stalwart support behind the administration and its policies, and a shroud of fearful stupidity descended over our public discourse. Anyone with a question, a concern or a critique was wrapped in plastic sheeting and duct tape, smothered by everyone's knee-jerk need to cling to an image of strength so as to cleanse their eyes and minds of what they had seen on that sun-blessed Tuesday morning.

We've had four years to let this all cook, and the cake coming out of our collective mental oven reeks of failure. The merry-go-round has rolled and rolled, and as we look things over after four long years, we are finding ourselves right back at the spot I found myself on that innocent Monday four years gone: this administration is thrashing around in the dark, and had no idea what it is doing.

Perspective these days is a beast with damned sharp teeth. Four years ago, we got kicked down onto our knees. In the aftermath, all we heard was that there was no way such an awful attack could have been stopped, so there was no fault to be found. Four years later, we hear the same kinds of excuses coming from our elected leadership in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I'm waiting for the moment when some Bush-bot gets on television and says that criticizing the president at a time like this only strengthens the resolve of the hurricanes.

Here's the thing, though. Katrina was the single most anticipated natural disaster in the history of the country. Report after report, study after study, everything and everyone for years and years said that a hurricane making a direct hit upon New Orleans would flood the city out of existence and kill a lot of people. The National Weather Service dipped into dire poetics to try to warn all of officialdom that the ram was coming. Yet despite all this, the catastrophe happened anyway.

Where is the parallel to September 11? Let's see.

In 1993, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it into a company building.

Again in 1994, a pilot crashed a small airplane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building itself.

Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report titled "The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism." This report was prepared for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division, an adjunct of the Library of Congress. The report stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Ramzi Yousef was one of the planners and participants in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef's right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, was captured and interrogated in 1995. During that interrogation, Murad described a detailed plot to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons of terrorism. The primary plan was to commandeer eleven commercial planes and blow them up over the Pacific Ocean. The secondary plan was to hijack several planes, which would be flown into CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, the White House and a variety of other targets.

Ramzi Yousef eluded capture until his final apprehension in Pakistan. During his 1997 trial, the plot described by Murad resurfaced. FBI agents testified in the Yousef trial that, "The plan targeted not only the CIA, but other U.S. government buildings in Washington, including the Pentagon."

Abdul Hakim Murad described plans to use hijacked commercial airplanes as weapons in 1995. Ramzi Yousef's trial further exposed the existence of these plans in 1997. Two reports prepared by the American government, one from 1993 and another from 1999, further detailed again the existence and danger of these plots. The Federal Express employee's hijacking attempt in 1994, the attempted airplane attack on the White House in 1994, and the hijacking of the Air France flight in 1994 by terrorists intending to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower, provided a glaring underscore to the data.

FBI agents in Phoenix issued a warning in the summer of 2001 about suspicious Arab men receiving aviation training in American flight schools. The warning was never followed up. An agent in the Arizona field office commented in his case notes that Zacarias Moussaoui, arrested in August after suspicious activity at one of these flight schools, seemed like a man capable of flying airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from all points on the compass. The German intelligence service, BND, warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plot to use airplanes to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa in June of 2001. This warning was taken so seriously that anti-aircraft missiles were deployed around Columbus Airport in Italy.

In August of 2001, Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms" specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings. In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed U.S. officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.

On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received his Presidential Daily Briefing. The briefing described active plots to attack the United States by Osama bin Laden. The word "hijacking" appeared in that briefing. Shortly after this briefing, George W. Bush departed to Texas for a month-long vacation.

"No one could have anticipated an attack like this," right? Nonsense. Just as with the hurricane, the warnings were there but the disaster happened anyway. The attacks became enveloped in this asinine mysticism, as if they were magic, as if they were some kind of unstoppable bolt from Heaven itself. This was politically expedient, and was also the product of a stunned populace that didn't want to even begin to consider the possibility that their leadership could screw up so catastrophically. In fact, the attacks had been anticipated, feared, described before they ever happened, and warned against. The attacks should have been stopped, should never have happened in the first place. Such is the only available conclusion to be reached once the mystical nonsense is ripped away.

The magical qualities attributed to 9/11 helped the Bush administration to pursue what has since become yet another colossal and bloody disaster: the invasion of Iraq. Had the proper perspective been in place, no one in their right mind would have allowed these fools to pursue an attack of this magnitude after screwing up on 9/11 so badly. Like September 11, like Katrina, this was a scenario that had oodles and oodles of people warning that chaos was in the offing. Like September 11, like Katrina, the Bush administration blew right through the warnings to do as it pleased.

More: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091105A.shtml

==========

The fact is that the Bush administration has labored mightily and long to make sure no such answers are coming. They fought the creation of an independent investigative body because they wanted to be able to choose the chairman. Once they were gifted this privilege, they abused it with the appalling nomination of Henry Kissinger. If you want a fair and open examination of facts, regardless of shadowy loyalties and compromising corporate connections, you do not choose Kissinger. If you want the master of the black bag and the black op, the undisputed heavyweight champion of Washington insiderdom, the gold standard for cover-up and cover-your-ass, you cannot do better than Henry. This choice told us everything we need to know about the Bush administration's desire to get to the bottom of 9/11.

When I ask my question at these talks, someone in the audience always demands an answer. More often than not, I tell them about Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Afghan Trap. In 1979, Brzezinski was serving as Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, and he decided the time had come to challenge the Soviet Union in their own back yard. At this time, Afghanistan was ruled by a communist puppet regime of the Soviets called the People's Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, or PDPA. Brzezinski instituted a plan to train fundamentalist Islamic mujeheddin fighters in Pakistan, and sent those fighters to attack the PDPA. The idea was not to destroy the PDPA, but to make the Soviets so nervous about the stability of their puppet regime that they would invade Afghanistan to protect it. Brzezinski wanted, at bottom, to hand the Soviet Union their own debilitating Vietnam.

The plan worked. The Soviets invaded in 1979, and over the next ten years spent its blood and treasure trying to defeat the Afghan warriors who banded together to defend their country. By 1989 millions of Afghan civilians had been killed, millions more had been internally displaced, and hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops had been killed or wounded. In the process, the nation of Afghanistan was torn to pieces. Worst of all, the United States ? which energetically worked to start the war, and which armed and funded the Afghan mujeheddin once the war was underway ? did absolutely nothing to aid ravaged Afghanistan once the Soviets withdrew. Brzezinski proudly described the Afghan Trap in an interview he gave to a French publication called Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998:

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs <"From the Shadows">, that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

How innocent we were in 1998. How gravely we misjudged the dire ramifications of empowering the Taliban. How profoundly we underestimated the strength of the "stirred-up Moslems" we armed and trained with American tax dollars. What a price we have paid.

You see, the Afghan Trap led to the incredibly vicious civil war in Afghanistan that came once the Soviets withdrew. By 1996, the Taliban ? made up of our secret allies in the Soviet war - had won the civil war and controlled the nation. The Afghan Trap likewise gave birth to a man named Osama bin Laden, who became a demigod to the Taliban and the Afghan people for his service in the war against the Soviets we started in the first place. The combination of our efforts to begin that war, the social annihilation in Afghanistan caused by that war, the Taliban's rise, and the succor they gave bin Laden, led like an arrow to the attacks of September 11 and the dire estate we currently endure.

How ironic that Brzezinski's desire to end one Cold War gave birth to another. Actions, I tell the listeners at these talks, have consequences. You stir up a hornet's nest, best you expect to get stung. Boy, did we ever get stung.

The actions of a Carter administration official in 1979 can hardly be laid at the feet of George W. Bush and his administration, of course. It is telling, however, that no one in that administration has made an effort to put 9/11 into the historical context to which it belongs. Why such an oversight? Perhaps the folks in the administration believe Americans too dull-witted to comprehend the complex Cold War motivations that gave birth to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. Perhaps they are afraid to speak of such things, because it suggests that we inadvertently bought the trouble that came two Septembers ago to find us.

Then again, perhaps the administration was engaged in similar gamesmanship before 9/11. Perhaps they are afraid to address the issue at all. The nomination of Kissinger to the 9/11 committee certainly suggests a desire on the administration's part to never, ever, ever have the facts of that attack come fully to light. They do not want people to know that Brzezinski's actions in 1979, and the naivet頲egarding the potential blowback from his decisions he displayed in 1998, was compounded by the actions of the Bush administration in 2001. Brzezinski asked in his interview what was more important in 1979: Ending the Cold War or creating the Taliban? In the early days of the Bush administration, a similar question was certainly asked - what is more important in 2001: Gaining access to an incredibly lucrative energy supply, or the dangers of threatening the Taliban?

A pipeline project, aimed at exploiting massive natural gas reserves along the Caspian Sea in Turkmenistan, was revived by the Bush administration when it arrived in Washington in January of 2001. The pipeline project, which sought to bring oil and natural gas from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to a warm water port, had been the brainchild of American petroleum giant Unocal for much of the 1990s. After the destruction of two American embassies in Africa in 1998 by Osama bin Laden, the Clinton administration forbade any American companies from doing business with the Taliban, which had been sheltering bin Laden in Afghanistan. Unocal's pipeline project was frozen.

After the Bush administration came to power, reinvigorating the pipeline project became a high-priority matter of policy. Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca was dispatched to Pakistan to discuss the pipeline with Taliban officials in August of 2001. Rocca, a career officer with the CIA, had been deeply involved in Agency activities within Afghanistan. A Pakistani foreign minister was present at the meeting, and witnessed the exchange.

How does this pipeline relate to September 11th? The main obstacle to the completion of the pipeline was the fact that it had to pass through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The project would receive no international support unless the Afghan government somehow became legitimized. In bargaining for the pipeline, the Bush administration demanded that the Taliban reinstate deposed King Mohammad Zahir Shah as ruler of Afghanistan, and demanded that the Taliban hand over Osama bin Laden for arrest. In return, the Taliban would reap untold billions in profit from the pipeline. A central part of the Bush administration's bargaining tactics involved threats of war if these conditions for the legitimization of Afghanistan were not met.

The BBC of London reported on September 18th, 2001 of the existence of war plans on Bush's desk aimed at Afghanistan. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, stated that the war plans were slated for October of 2001. Conditions set by the Bush administration to avoid war involved the Taliban's handing over of bin Laden and the acceptance of King Zahir Shah. Naik went so far as to doubt that America would hold off on war even if these conditions were met.

The result was total disaster. The Bush administration fundamentally misunderstood the Taliban regime, much the way Brzezinski did in 1998. To bring back the King and hand bin Laden over to the West would have been tantamount to suicide for the Taliban. The arrival of Shah would shove them out of power, and handing bin Laden over to the West would have been seen as a high crime to the Islamic world. Instead of acquiescing to the hard-sell tactics of the Bush administration, the Taliban unleashed Osama bin Laden upon America. They were going to lose everything, and chose to attack first in the hope that all-out war would break out in Central Asia and rally other Muslim nations to their cause.

Actions do indeed have consequences. The motivations behind 20 months of silence regarding the cause of 9/11, along with the appalling nomination of Kissinger as chief investigator, become far more clear.

The families of those slain on 9/11 have not taken all of this lying down. They have sued the government of Saudi Arabia for civil damages totaling $1 trillion, accusing them of harboring and aiding the terrorists who took down the Towers. There is profound merit to their claim, as 15 of the 19 terrorists who flew the planes on 9/11 came from Saudi Arabia, as does Osama bin Laden and the Wahabbi sect of Islam that motivates their jihad. The suit seems logical and reasonable. It is disturbing, then, to consider the legal team hired by the Saudi government to defend against the charges. Prince Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, the Saudi defense minister, is being represented in court by the prestigious Houston law firm Baker Botts.

The 'Baker' in Baker Botts is James Baker III, Secretary of State to George Bush Sr. and prime fighter for Bush Jr. in the Florida election brawl. Baker also shares another employer with Bush Sr.: Massive multinational corporation The Carlyle Group, owner of the arms manufacturer United Defense, which is making a gold-plated mint off the war in Iraq.

I'd be gratified if someone could explain all this away. I could sleep at night.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/042203A.shtml

==========

No one anticipated the kinds of strikes that took place in New York and at the Pentagon."
- 'The 9/11 Debate,' Washington Post editorial, 03-24-04 That line from the Washington Post has been repeated ad nauseam by other newspapers, and across radio and television. It has achieved the status of bedrock conventional wisdom, of something axiomatic. These statements are a paraphrase of National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who said on May 17th, 2002, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile - a hijacked airplane as a missile."

This kind of thinking elevates the attacks to something mythical, a magic trick, an act of God that no mere mortal could possibly have interfered with or anticipated. In fact, it was an operation planned for years by men who left clear tracks. As such, it could have been stopped. It should have been stopped. Saying so, however, interferes with the cultivation of a national attitude of vengeful victimhood, an attitude the Bush administration is actively promoting for its own benefit and political protection. Surely we were victims of terrorism on September 11, but was this unavoidable? Are the Washington Post, Condoleezza Rice and others correct in stating that no one anticipated these kinds of attacks?

The facts say no.

Ramzi Yousef was one of the planners and participants in the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. Yousef's right-hand man, Abdul Hakim Murad, was captured and interrogated in 1995. During that interrogation, Murad described a detailed plot to hijack airplanes and use them as weapons of terrorism. The primary plan was to commandeer eleven commercial planes and blow them up over the Pacific Ocean. The secondary plan was to hijack several planes, which would be flown into CIA headquarters, the World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, the White House and a variety of other targets.

Ramzi Yousef eluded capture until his final apprehension in Pakistan. During his 1997 trial, the plot described by Murad resurfaced. FBI agents testified in the Yousef trial that, "The plan targeted not only the CIA, but other U.S. government buildings in Washington, including the Pentagon."

In 1993, the same year as the first World Trade Center attack, a $150,000 study was undertaken by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of airplanes being used as bombs. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department, and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The circulation of the report was timely.

In 1994, a disgruntled Federal Express employee invaded the cockpit of a DC10 with the intention of crashing it into a company building. Again in 1994, a pilot crashed a small airplane into a tree on the White House grounds, narrowly missing the building itself. Also in 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of a terrorist organization called the Armed Islamic Group, who intended to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

The 1993 Pentagon report was followed up in September 1999 by a report titled 'The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism.' This report was prepared for the American intelligence community by the Federal Research Division, an adjunct of the Library of Congress. The report stated, "Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaida's martyrdom battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House."

Abdul Hakim Murad described plans to use hijacked commercial airplanes as weapons in 1995. Ramzi Yousef's trial further exposed the existence of these plans in 1997. Two reports prepared by the American government, one from 1993 and another from 1999, further detailed again the existence and danger of these plots. The Federal Express employee's hijacking attempt in 1994, the attempted airplane attack on the White House in 1994, and the hijacking of the Air France flight in 1994 by terrorists intending to fly the plane into the Eiffel Tower, provided a glaring underscore to the data.

No one anticipated the use of airplanes as weapons before September 11? Given the facts, the claim from Condoleezza Rice, carried forward to today by the mainstream media, seems impossible to believe.

We come, next, to priorities.

A mission statement from the internal FBI Strategic Plan, dated 5/8/98, describes the FBI's Tier One priority as 'counterterrorism.' The FBI, under the Clinton administration, was making counterterrorism its highest priority. The official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Janet Reno to department heads, dated 4/6/00, detailed how counterterrorism was her top priority for the Department of Justice. In the second paragraph, she states, "In the near term as well as the future, cybercrime and counterterrrorism are going to be the most challenging threats in the criminal justice area. Nowhere is the need for an up-to-date human and technical infrastructure more critical."

Contrast this with the official annual budget goals memo from Attorney General Ashcroft, dated 5/10/01, which directly compares to the 4/6/00 Reno memo. Out of seven strategic goals described, not one mentions counterterrorism. An internal draft of the Department of Justice's plans to revamp the official Department of Justice Strategic Plan, dated 8/9/01, describes Ashcroft's new priorities for the Department of Justice. The areas Ashcroft wished to focus on were highlighted in yellow. Specifically highlighted by Ashcroft were domestic violent crime and drug trafficking prevention. Item 1.3, entitled "Combat terrorist activities by developing maximum intelligence and investigative capability," was not highlighted.

There is the internal FBI budget request for 2003 to the Department of Justice, dated late August 2001. This was not the FBI's total budget request, but was instead restricted only to the areas where the FBI specifically requested increases over the previous year's budget. In this request, the FBI specifically asked for, among other things, 54 translators to translate backlog of intelligence gathered, 248 counterterrorism agents and support staff , and 200 professional intelligence researchers. The FBI had repeatedly stated that it had a serious backlog of intelligence data it has gathered, but could not process the data because they did not have the staff to analyze or translate it into usable information. Again, this was August 2001.

The official Department of Justice budget request from Attorney General Ashcroft to OMB Director Mitch Daniels is dated September 10, 2001. This document specifically highlights only the programs slated for above-baseline increases or below-baseline cuts. Ashcroft outlined the programs he was trying to cut. Comparing this document to the FBI's request to the Department of Justice request described above, it is clear that Ashcroft ignored the FBI's anti-terrorism requests. Specifically, Ashcroft was planning to ignore the FBI's specific requests for more translators, counterintelligence agents and researchers. It additionally shows Ashcroft was trying to cut funding for counterterrorism efforts, grants and other homeland defense programs before the 9/11 attacks.

The difference in priorities is clear. The Clinton administration was focusing on terrorism and al Qaeda as its highest priority. This focus was dramatically reversed by senior officials within the Bush administration. The idea that no one could have anticipated the kinds of attacks which came on September 11 comes into sharper focus. It isn't that "no one" could have anticipated the threat. It is the Bush administration itself that could never have anticipated the threat, because they were paying little attention to the existence of these threats.

Then, of course, there were the warnings.

FBI agents in Phoenix issued warnings in the summer of 2001 about suspicious Arab men receiving aviation training in American flight schools. The warning was never followed up. An agent in the Arizona field office commented in his case notes that Zacarias Moussaoui, arrested in August after suspicious activity at one of these flight schools, seemed like a man capable of flying airplanes into the World Trade Center.

Newspapers in Germany, France, Russia and London reported in the months before September 11th a blizzard of warnings delivered to the Bush administration from all points on the compass. The German intelligence service, BND, warned American and Israeli agencies that terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack important American targets. Egypt warned of a similar plot to use airplanes to attack Bush during the G-8 summit in Genoa in June of 2001. This warning was taken so seriously that anti-aircraft missiles were deployed around Columbus Airport in Italy.

In August of 2001, Russian intelligence services notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been trained for suicide missions, and Putin himself confirmed that this warning was delivered "in the strongest possible terms" specifically regarding threats to airports and government buildings. In that same month, the Israeli security agency Mossad issued a warning to both the FBI and CIA that up to 200 bin Laden followers were planning a major assault on America, aimed at vulnerable targets. The Los Angeles Times later confirmed via unnamed U.S. officials that the Mossad warnings had been received.

On August 6, 2001, George W. Bush received his Presidential Daily Briefing. According to reports, the briefing described active plots to attack the United States by Osama bin Laden. The word "hijacking" appeared in that briefing. Shortly after this briefing, George W. Bush departed to Texas for a month-long vacation.

Richard Clarke, former Director of Counter-Terrorism for the National Security Council, has worked on the terrorist threat for the Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. administrations, amassing a peerless resume in the field. He is now a central figure in the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. Clarke has laid bare an ugly truth: The administration of George W. Bush did not consider terrorism or the threat of al Qaeda to be a priority prior to the attacks.

Clarke, along with former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who as a member of the National Security Council was privy to military strategy meetings, indicate that the Bush administration was obsessed with an invasion of Iraq from the day it arrived in Washington. This obsession continued even after the attacks, despite the fact that the entire intelligence community flatly declared that Iraq was not involved.

The attacks of September 11 were not mythical, not a magic trick, not an act of God that no mere mortal could possibly have interfered with or anticipated. The warnings, the data, stretch back all the way to 1993. The Bush administration came into power and absorbed a barrage of warnings about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told Condoleezza Rice that al Qaeda terrorism would be the single most important problem the Bush administration would deal with while in office, and handed her a huge file on the matter. Rice has admitted that she did not read that file until after the attacks of September 11 had taken place.

Of course the Bush administration could never have anticipated an attack like the one that took place on September 11. They weren't paying attention to the threat. Had they done so, the attack could have been stopped. Final proof of this can be found in the events of December 31, 1999. Al Qaeda planned, and put into motion, simultaneous attacks against the national airports in Washington DC and Los Angeles, the Amman Raddison Hotel in Jordan, several holy sites in Israel, and the USS The Sullivans at dock in Yemen. In scope, scale and import, these attacks would have matched the catastrophe of September 11. Each and every single one of these attacks, which ranged from one side of the planet to the other, were foiled by the efforts of the Clinton administration. They were able to stop these attacks because of one simple reason: They were paying attention to the threat.

September 11 could have been stopped. September 11 should have been stopped. The "No one could have anticipated this" excuse is dangerous nonsense.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0403/S00295.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. WOW!
Excellent dump sir! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kierkegaard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #1
46. Now THERE'S a phrase you don't hear every day!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #46
68. That's what Cheney said to DUHbya
after DUHbya took a dump on the Constitution.

News and commentary, left to right
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #1
90. 1 thing missing: "bin Laden on a platter"
Rightwingnuts like to pretend that Clinton was offered "bin Laden on a platter", and no such situation ever existed. That needs frequent debunking, as was in fact done in the 9.11 Commission report.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
treestar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #90
94. And as if Al Zarqawi the number 2 man couldn't have just stepped
up? The RW is so hypocritical it is not funny. 911 could have been prevented just by killing bin Laden. Well then, why aren't they just after bin Laden instead of being in Iraq? If there's going to be another attack, isn't it because bin Laden is still around to plan it?

Morans. And if you challenge them with their contradictions, they just change the subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kuni Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #90
123. Facts that Rebut the Claim that Clinton was offered Osama on a Platter
Things Wingnuts have to believe if they think the Sudan/Clinton Canard is true.

Ive been engaged in the past few days with an assortment of what I can only call fruitcakes, and thats being polite. These guys are fucking bonking nuts, loony tunes, in-fucking-sane. It is like they will discount EVERYTHING, just to cling to the notion that there was some kind of Deal.

I wonder if they have thought through exactly what they have to ignore for them to keep believing. It is mind boggling the mental contortions they must go through.


For them to believe this story, requires them to believe the following.

First they have to believe that the FBI lied to a Republican dominated Congress while giving testimony of what the intelligence said in 96. Then they have to believe that the Republicans in Congress let the FBI get away with this.

Next up are the 5 Republicans on the 9-11 Commission. They have to believe that each and every one of these guys is a liar. And they have to now believe that the Bush Administration is being Silent over these guys lying.


Fred Fielding: Counsel to the President of the United States, as deputy counsel from 1972-1974 and as Associate Counsel from 1970-1972. He also served as clearance counsel during the Bush-Cheney Presidential Transition.

Slade Gorton: Senator for 18 years, from 1982-2000. While in the Senate, Gorton served on the Appropriations, Budget, Commerce, Science and Transportation, and Energy and Natural Resources Committees. He served as chairman of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee (1995-2001), the Commerce Subcommittees on Consumer Affairs (1995-99), and Aviation (1999-2000). He was also a member of the Republican leadership as counsel to the Majority Leader (1996-2000)

Thomas H. Kean: Former governor of New Jersey (1982-1990)

John F. Lehman: Secretary of the Navy under Reagan from 1981 till 1987, and a 25 year naval Reservist.

James R. Thompson: Illinois' longest-serving governor (1977-1991)


Next, add Mansoor Ijaz, the actual source of the details of the negotiations to the list of people they have to call a liar.

And if they want to take each sentence on the Clinton Tape literally; like the They released him sentence; they have to believe that the Sudan had bin Laden in Custody, and there is NO supporting evidence for that, even on Wingnut sites.

Then they have to believe that there is a Mega Conspiracy at the CIA to hide the truth; because none of the, oh so many, off the record leaks or he books written by retired agent, have even hinted that this story is true.

Next they have to decide if Hannity was lying on his Radio Program when he said that the 9-11 Commission had "gathered" evidence "backing up the allegation"; or if he was lying 2 days on Hannity & Colmes when he claimed the commission had "ignored" the allegation. (If they ignored it, they could not have gathered the evidence, lol)


And here are the details from Hannitys source:

http://www.nationalreview.com/ijaz/ijaz200404150832.asp
. . . Rosslyn, Virginia, March 3, 1996. In late 1995, CIA Director John Deutsch withdrew over 100 fabricated intelligence reports on Sudan's alleged terrorist threats against U.S. diplomats, spies, and their children in Khartoum. In January 1996, Secretary of State Warren Christopher ordered the U.S. embassy in Khartoum closed on the basis of that bad intelligence over the objections of US Ambassador Tim Carney. On March 3, 1996, Sudan's defense minister El Fatih Erwa secretly met Carney, State Department official David Shinn, and a senior CIA Africa officer at a Rosslyn, Virginia, hotel. After receiving a list of eight demands from the CIA, of which providing detailed intelligence data and assessments on bin Laden and his al Qaeda followers was number two, Erwa reiterated Sudan's offer to extradite bin Laden to Saudi Arabia. Carney had received a similar proposal during his Khartoum exit interview with Sudan's foreign minister a month earlier. President Clinton, hoping the Saudi king would take bin Laden back and swiftly behead him, called Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, Prince Turki bin Faisal, to vet the proposal. The Saudis said no, again. Erwa asked for a second meeting five days later.

Alexandria, Virginia, March 8, 1996. With only Erwa and the CIA Africa officer present during the second meeting, Sudan first offered to increase surveillance and hand over intelligence on bin Laden and his associates. Deemed insufficient to reflect the hard line Washington wanted to take with Sudan, Erwa made another offer. He told the CIA officer that if the U.S. could show cause through an indictment that bin Laden was complicit in or guilty of committing terrorist acts against Americans and the Justice Department was willing to try him on U.S. soil, Sudan would hand him over to U.S. authorities. The CIA officer's account of this meeting matches Erwa's and has been recounted in Richard Miniter's New York Times bestseller, Losing Bin Laden. There is no question that a prima facia offer was made. The question is how was it handled by the U.S. government's various organs once it was made.

Where is the gap of understanding in what the commission reported to the American people and what really happened? Nothing less than the very failure the commission was charged with trying to uncover, understand, and prevent in the future. An intelligence officer of the U.S. government received the offer, not a political official from the Clinton administration. The CIA officer was neither empowered to respond, nor inclined to take a controversial, perhaps not believable proposal from the representative of a pariah state to his superiors whom he knew were engaged in a war of words with the Clinton White House at the time. The offer was, quite literally, left on the table in that Virginia hotel room. . .




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:43 PM
Response to Original message
2. K&R for later perusal n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nam78_two Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. k&r
Wow too much info. to read through right now but thanks for the info.!
Will definitely read it at night...
The whole Dems are responsible for 9/11 is a strawman that needs serious tackling.

(I have been trying to figure out for a while btw-what is that image in your sig. ;)? Am I betraying serious pop-culture ignorance here :)?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:47 PM
Response to Original message
4. Will,
can you post this in the September 11 topic forum as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Done
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cooley Hurd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
6. Kicking and recommending...
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 12:54 PM by Cooley Hurd
:kick:

Also:

http://www.cnn.com/US/9607/30/clinton.terrorism /

President wants Senate to hurry with new anti-terrorism laws

July 30, 1996

Web posted at: 8:40 p.m. EDT

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton urged Congress Tuesday to act swiftly in developing anti-terrorism legislation before its August recess.

"We need to keep this country together right now. We need to focus on this terrorism issue," Clinton said during a White House news conference.

But while the president pushed for quick legislation, Republican lawmakers hardened their stance against some of the proposed anti-terrorism measures.


Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, doubted that the Senate would rush to action before they recess this weekend. The Senate needs to study all the options, he said, and trying to get it done in the next three days would be tough.

One key GOP senator was more critical, calling a proposed study of chemical markers in explosives "a phony issue."

<snip>

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, emerged from the meeting and said, "These are very controversial provisions that the White House wants. Some they're not going to get."

Hatch called Clinton's proposed study of taggants -- chemical markers in explosives that could help track terrorists -- "a phony issue."

"If they want to, they can study the thing" already, Hatch asserted. He also said he had some problems with the president's proposals to expand wiretapping.
</snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
63. Hatch was most likely
in a rush to get together with Jeff Gannon and couldn't waste time with trivial matters like terrorism and national security. Is Hatch light in the loafers? Time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
7. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hemperor Donating Member (46 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
8. excellent... long read... 9/11 was
a failure of the entire intelligence and defense community, a system and policies that had been built over many different presidencies... to lay the blame on a single past one is foolish... and if a president HAS to be blamed, it should be the one who was in office when it happened, correct? but in the grand scheme of things, FDR isnt (usually) blamed for pearl harbor, and I dont think bush should be blamed for 9/11.. what happened after is a different matter for both examples... but as for the act i view them in the same light
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 04:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
44. Failure of intelligence community? I think not. There is simply too...
many damming stories about Cheney and his (Rummy's) "Office of Special Plans" not only cherry picking data favorable to their agenda, but quashing evidence to the contrary. Valarie Plame is just a very public example of this. Casting 9/11 in the same light as Peal Harbor is simply not supported by the evidence and is, I feel, a foolish mistake that many make.

A quick perusal of Google shows Mother Jones with a very good article about this, The Lie Factory. Of course, there are many more to be found such as the damming facts of whistle blower FBI agent Cathleen Rowley or the quashed testimony of FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. These are just off the top of my head. Do a google and enjoy!

You conflate past Presidents policies and unproven to-this-day rumor-mongering of FDR and Pearl harbor (very well refuted, BTW) into this gang of criminals' increasingly documented damming actions at all our peril! The facts keep on pointing ever closer to one conclusion: conspiracy to commit treason.


P.S. A very good refutation of the FDR/Pearl Harbor can be found here at Churchill and Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance. Now can you ever disprove FDR had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor? Of course, not, you cannot disprove a negative. Yet, given that he is one of our country's greatest presidents, along with Lincoln and Washington, I'll take the chance of supporting him and giving him the benefit of doubt. Contrast that with anyone, at this point with all we have been through so far, that gives Bush and Bu$hitCo a free pass, however minor, would simply be a fool to do so!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
105. buh-bye, moran
Edited on Fri Aug-25-06 11:16 PM by me b zola

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Supersedeas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
121. PDB: Bin Laden determined to hit the US - Condi says is JUST historical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sal316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Wow, that's a buncha great stuff!
The thing that burns in my craw, to this day, is that before the fires were out, before the bodies were cold....... the GOP began laying the blame on Clinton.

This article speaks volumes:

CIA Officials Reveal What Went Wrong Clinton to Blame

Christopher Ruddy
Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2001



Of course, it's obvious why the media doesn't want any finger pointing.

Guess who ran the U.S. government and was responsible for our national security for the past eight years?

Yes, you got it: Bill Clinton, Hillary's husband.


Every time I come across this, it makes me want to vomit.

So, if those GOP bastards EVER whine about "Bush haters" and the "Blame Bush Crowd", take this article and shove it right down their f***ing throats. Less than 24 hours after that tragic day, they were already looking for a scapegoat to protect the boy king.

Do I blame Bush?

Hell yes I do.

Not only did the Aug. 6th PDB spell it out, but OBL telegraphed his move in late May/early June in an interview.

Nobody could have imagined.....my ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. Love you.
Thank you for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
11. Leads to only two possible conclusions, neither looks good
BushCo either wanted and allowed it to happen, or they are dangerously incompetent.

Either way, they do not deserve to be in power, they are a very real threat to the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
napi21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Personally, I think it's that they're dangerously incompetent!
I don't believe they intentionally allowed it to happen, but Ido believe they hated Clinton sooo much that when they finally got into office, theycompletely ignored, disregarded, and found fault with everything Clinton thought or planned!

I also believe there is a small group in this admin who were so determined to attack Saddam, they were gleeful when they found 9/11 to use as an excuse!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #20
32. no doubt that 9/11 was the best thing for them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
53. What you are saying does not sound like incompetence...
it sounds like conspiracy to take anything and everything to further their agenda. At the very least, LIHOP which leads to treason, as I pointed out in another post here.

Label these criminals incompetent at your own peril!! They've gotten almost all of what they wanted thus far for the short term, and the long term. Sounds like brilliance to me, as evil as it may be, not incompetence!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 09:54 AM
Response to Reply #53
87. You're reading my mind...I only USED to think "they" were stupid
Now I know, with the exception of the chimperor, they are doing exactly what they have wanted and planned to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #87
96. Yes.... chimpy is just the puppet face for the these evil wizards...
behind the curtain. He does a good job for them as he projects the meme of rigid ideological asshole rising to the level of incompetence. He also plays the Jesus crowd as a bunch of suckers really well!!

I do believe that Bush is an intellectually incurious sociopath, and a bit of an idiot; brain damage probably from too many drugs and his obvious continuing alcohol problems. Still, I also believe that chimpy knows what's occurring and it is all fine with him, being a privileged self-entitled sociopath who has had every mess cleaned up by others and never suffered any real consequences for his poor judgement and rephensible actions.

If anyone really believes that Bush is a Christian, speaks to God ("the higher Father"), cares about this country and its people, or knows what he is doing when it comes to the United States' best interests, they need to pull the crack pipe out of their ass and let the fog clear from their brains! Idiots, fools and suckers, one and all.

As Friedrich Schiller once said: Against stupidity the very gods Themselves contend in vain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #11
52. They're not mutually exclusive, CP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
12. "No one could have anticipated this".....where is the media attention?
They've been given an enormous pass by almost everyone because it's just too "sensitive", and we're all paying the price for the lack of scrutiny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stepnw1f Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
13. I'm Glad We Have Your Talent on Our Side
Thanks, Will. Nominated!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biscotti Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
14. Wow
Thanks Will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
poverlay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
15. Great work. Thank you so much. K & R nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:38 PM
Response to Original message
16. Like a sitcoms' clip show
Nah, I'm just kidding yah. I only refer to the vague recall I had of some phrases from past articles.

Even just this one compilation shows how the "official" story of that day is just a load of bullshit. Knowing what you know to the detail that you've been compelled to learn, I'm surprised you aren't drinking that Scotch before noon. I personally think that they LIHOP. I think 9/11 and Iraq is all going to plan. It's not even a secret plan but most people don't know because of the media supressing the truth. The bloggers are our best hope.

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
17. Golly, too many words. Time for a CNN JonBenet Ramsey update
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ourbluenation Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. fucking a - mandatory reading. well done pitt.
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 02:37 PM by ourbluenation
K and R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamahaingttta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 01:47 PM
Response to Original message
19. I am going to start spitting on Republicans...
...right in their smarmy fucking faces.

They are all, each and every one of them, complicit in all of this.

They deserve nothing better than my saliva dripping from their blind, ignorant eyes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orleans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #19
29. (isn't there a law against that? i believe it's called the anti-saliva law
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
toymachines Donating Member (782 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. hell yes
My eye caught this post and I agree entirely. "It's just that these people have debased themselves to the point where I barely recognize our species similarities anymore. "
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
21. K & R I remember well the "Wag the Dog" comparisons
and I can't count how many times I've read that the Clinton administration told the incoming assholes about the #1 threat facing us, and how they were ignored.

It may not be fashionable to pine for the Clinton days, but how can one not miss the relative peace and prosperity we had then? Just having an intelligent man who could actually read, write, and speak English, and make intelligent decisions seems so long ago now.....the bar has certainly been lowered for future contenders.

I must admit though, if not for George Bush I would probably still be apolitical. It was kind of nice to be ignorant and blissful. It's not something we can afford to be anymore, although many people still are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sui generis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
22. nuance on Sharif vs. Musharraf
"His replacement, Pervez Musharraf, pointedly refused to do anything to assist Clinton in dealing with these threats."

That's because Clinton unfortunately took a public stance of condemnation of the coup and initially refused to recognize the new government.

The very last weeks in Pakistan under Sharif were gruesome to say the least. His government turned a completely blind eye to "moral" killings, to inter-party assassinations, to crime against westerners, and to the growing establishment of police brutality and other inter-cultural strife that was building at the time, and most particularly in Quetta province and even in Karachi.

I can't tell you the number of times I opened the Dawn newspaper and saw page after page of gruesome torture pics and horrible stories about police "bribery" and torture scandals, motorcycle assassinations, the "beggar's mafia", and "summary extra-judicial executions", i.e., the military taking over both the function and remedy of civil court.

I think that "pointedly refused" was actually a bad timing issue, and perhaps mischaracterizes the situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
misternormal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
23. Read it all... Great Work, Sir... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stop the bleeding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
24. FUCKING ASSHOLES
FUCKING ASSHOLES RUNNING OUR COUNTRY INTO THE GROUND




sorry people just have to vent after reading that wonderful history lesson in a whiskey bottle.

Thanks Will
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sugar Smack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
25. I drank what?
:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
26. That was some dump - and bookmarked.
to be thrown in the face of morans when required...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FighttheFuture Donating Member (748 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
27. Great work! I will go one step further and say what many cannot, do...
not want to admit: at the very least, they allowed it to happen! Yes, I know I will keep the "Tin Foil Hatters" working overtime. To start admitting that this is a possibility would be too much a shock for many, still. Rather, much better to preserve their illusions of civility and self imposed limits to evil and label them incompetent. Just fools marching to their conservative agenda, ignoring anything else, rather than say what must be said: Conspiratorial Criminals in our own government at the highest levels committing what can only be described as Treason!

Incompetence can be forgiven, as you throw the assholes out of power. Cheap selling of votes and silence for shekels can be understood as you throw the assholes in jail. Even the common business as usual of making money and the "what's good for business is good for America" meme, however misleading and untrue, can be accepted. However, Treason cannot be forgiven, it must be addressed with the harshest response possible for the act at hand: the subversion and eventual destruction of the United States of America for other ends.

Conspiracy and Treason are scary words to some, but with understanding they become powerful tools to taking back your country, setting wrongs right, and reaffirming its founding Liberal ideas of, for and by the people.

As always, thank you Mr. Pitt! Regardless of what you believe, you constantly provide well written articles organizing many facts that just keep pointing to something really wrong, really horrible, almost too much so to acknowledge. Almost!


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #27
88. I'd like to know how people who feel the way we do are dealing
with this. I feel like I'd get many half-serious answers from people who are half serious about their suspicions of LIHOP or MIHOP. I have no doubt whatsoever...to deal with it, I drink about 3-4 beers and a glass or 2 of wine at least EVERY evening and I can barely stand to be in the company of anyone who doesn't get it. I'm not in denial about what these criminals are capable of, I'm just in denial that most people haven't figured it out yet. How do you deal with it? My neighbor says, if she chose to believe it and allow herself to think about that reality everyday, she'd have to commit suicide. So she chooses instead to HOPE it isn't true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RadiDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:13 PM
Response to Original message
28. Another great work! thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
30. OMG! Excellent! It is great to see counterpoints like
this. The pugs will almost assuredly try to blame President Clinton for 9/11 by saying that he was lax on national security and that if the American people vote Democratic they'll get a president that is also lax on security.

BULLSHIT! I am going to memorize this stuff so that when some dick repug tries to debate this point, I'll shove it down his/her throat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pa28 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
31. Needed to be said and it needs to be repeated.
Failed to listen when alarm bells were going off all around. Failed to catch Bin-Laden.

Time to call Bush to account and challenge him on what he thinks is safe ground.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
33. a lot of great material
posting so I can find later.

Thanks

Recommended.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
intaglio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
34. How about people try and put a new term for traitor into circulation?
You know like "Benedict Arnold"

The word is "Dubya"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
35. On a quick read but K&R for later read through & slow digesting. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bklyncowgirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
36. Excellent work. Right now I'm so angry I could....
Well I don't know what I can do except pound my keyboard and send this around to a few people I know.

It's well documented and a surprisingly easy read.

You didn't even use some of the more inflamatory but less provable stuff like the story that Bush told the CIA official who have him that infamous personal daily briefing something like "...now that you've covered your ass...." and went flitting off to Crawford like he'd earned the greatest vacation ever.

I hope you got to take that shot of whiskey. I was at work that day watching the smoke from the World Trade Center--I could see it from where I work--and desperately trying to contact my husband who when last heard from was standing a block away from the twin towers when the second plane hit. He saw the explosion and called me immediately. At that moment I knew it was a terrorist attack--apparently quite a few minutes before the leader of the free world--of course I had an eyewitness on the ground with a cell phone. He only had the most advanced telecommunications system in the world--and besides--he had a book to finish. Hey, I'm a librarian--I can relate to that.

Thanks for putting this all together and tying it up into a nice neat package. If these people do not face justice on earth I sincerely hope that there is a God so that they can rot in hell for all eternity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jeanarrett Donating Member (813 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
38. Bookmarked.
For those bastards that blame Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Historic NY Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 03:40 PM
Response to Original message
39. We need this back in a couple of weeks.............
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 03:41 PM by Historic NY
well down smackdown of the many lies propagated to make * out as the hero,truth is he is a zero. 9/11 should have never occurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
40. Ive always had a profound liking of the way Bill Clinton
handled his job. Sadly enough he took office when i was 6 and I only got a taste of what it was like to have him as the leader before this current dipshit took over. When people ask me my political views, since 2000 ive responded saying that I am a clintonian democrat. .and this article is one of the many reasons why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mugsy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 03:56 PM
Response to Original message
41. Remembering Clarke's words (video)
Remember Richard Clarke's famous 60 Minutes interview when he talked about how he couldn't get any of the Prinicpals together to discuss terrorism in Bush's first few months in office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyAUsWSLIUE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
42. I'm not sure here, but didn't Clinton have a program named....
cyprus or something similar that tracked people who overstayed visas or something like that. I thought I read about it a long time ago. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poiuyt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 04:06 PM
Response to Original message
43. The best article about the run up to 9/11 that I've read
There's no way that anyone should consider Bush strong on national security.

I was under the impression that Bush received the August 6 PDB while he was in Texas and not just before he left. Isn't that where Bush told the briefer "All right, you've covered your ass."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Horse with no Name Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
45. I have been a fan for a long time
and without a doubt, this is the absolute most important piece you have written. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ObaMania Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
47. Well, that's great and all.. but so what?
What's it going to do for us and our country? You can write about the right's hypocracy and lies and all it does it makes for an interesting read on forums and blogs.

Nothing's ever gonna come of any of this. Hasn't to this point and probably never will.

Meanwhile, our country's going farther to hell in a handbasket and all we can do is write grauitous assertions that can be gratuitously denied by the right. Oh, and they always win, BTW..

Next!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. So fuck off and quit
Right? Why even bother to respond?

Information always serves a good purpose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. Indeed, you are correct - and a crazy idea
(btw, excellent series of articles you posted!)
Information educates people, and as it is circulated more and more become aware of the issues. People read it on blogs, talk about it at work, and the truth slithers out and get's noticed.

What we need to do is some creative re-writing to incorporate religion in this in such a way that church pastors might take notice (like a title: "From Carter to W: God's plans unveiled through history, how satan used our government and islam in terrorism"). Dump this into 'bible tracts' and leave em in bathrooms, just in time for the 2006 elections :)

Throw in some prophecy, bible quotes, and all this awesome research and see if we can't get the right to make a left turn....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hissyspit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #54
73. Here's the story of me predicting 9/11...
a month before it happened... WHILE ON MY FUCKING VACATION.

Anyone who thinks the Bush administration couldn't have stopped 9/11 is delusional. They didn't stop it because they didn't want to. Period.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Awesome, thanks!
Bookmarked it for later too. Will give you a kick on it, and thanks for sharing this!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EVDebs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #50
56. Have you heard about Triple Cross ? And the dustup over documentary ?
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 06:20 PM by EVDebs
This is like the 'smoking gun' taking into account the Ptech and wargames materials that whistleblowers have revealed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
51. Why not just surrender, then?
If that's how you feel, why do you bother to read DU and post?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikelewis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
57. 36% and climbing...
Pieces like this increase the number of people who look into the truth behind 9/11. While I firmly believe this was an inside job painted to look like "muslims did it", I definitely appreciate excellent 9/11 exposure. Anything that gets people thinking about 9/11 analytically is more desirable than sewing the seeds of fear. No matter how firmly I hold to the belief that this was homegrown terrorism, I know I don't have all the facts. All I want is an independent commission to look into the events of that day and maybe reach a little truth. If Will is right and it was merely gross negligence and extreme incompetence or if I'm right and it was an impossible plot contrived by wishful "terrorists" and carried out by U.S. Intelligence Operatives on orders of the President, the truth will come out in an independent investigation. No matter how the events of the day shake out, we need to know and over 100 million people now agree that we should take a second look at the most heinous crime in U.S. history. With exposure like this, maybe more will take a second look on their own and come to the conclusion that a real investigation needs to be conducted into the events of that day. Right now it's 36% of the U.S. population and climbing, imagine when the number is over 50% or over 75%... What then, can they still ignore the call for accountability? Though I don't agree with all of Will's conclusions, I appreciate his report and I appreciate knowing where he stands on the issue. Who knows, maybe one day he'll write a piece that we can't talk about in this forum, maybe he'll see something that pushes him even closer to my camp and he'll share a space next to mine in the dungeon. But until then, the more Will talks about 9/11 the more chances we have to talk about that day and get the word out that there is most definitely more to this story than we were originally told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevedeshazer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #57
64. Very well said
Every mention of this subject helps incrementally in creating a tide of understanding and truth.

Each sentence, paragraph, essay, and book that records this period provides a window into the past for those who will follow.

What if Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and the great writers of that day had not put pen to paper?

Information is power, folks. Get it. Spread it.

It's like money and manure...if it sits in a pile unused, it stinks. If you spread it around, everyone benefits.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
vixengrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
48. Damn fine post--it's just breathtaking when you see
all this information in one place, and staggering when you consider there's some people who just don't grasp it at all--the current Administration simply fell down on the job. These weren't brand-new supergenious diabolical mastermind villians--they were terrorists our intelligence community were aware of. It wouldn't have required any brand-new special executive powers to go get'em--terrorists have been successfully thwarted before (and since--like the recent lot in the UK) by fine old lawful measures we already have in place. Egads! Before Bush began asking for new legal tools against terrorism (or not asking and just breaking the law and violating people's rights anyway), maybe he and his folks could've showed some competence with what they already had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
agincourt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 05:37 PM
Response to Original message
49. What always got me is that immediately after 9/11,
Is that they had talking pigboys on every channel to spin it on to the previous administration. We didn't even have a full bodycount yet and they were blowing "Clinton destroyed the CIA!", "Clinton had 100 chances to kill Osama" shit on every channel. That should have been the tip-off for all Americans of LIHOP or MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
55. Damn
Too much to digest at one sitting-- Bookmarked and appreciated!
I've already run into situations where I need this information for certain arguments.
And for certain arguments I'm planning on having.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
58. 2004: An Open Letter to Condoleezza Rice
Edited on Thu Aug-24-06 06:34 PM by Raster
Re: 9-11 investigation and Commission testimony ... You knew. You kept silent. They died.

by Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I


Hon. Condoleezza Rice
National Security Advisor
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

April 9, 2004

Dear Ms. Rice:

I am writing to communicate four points regarding your testimony yesterday under oath before the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

Point #1: You are a liar.

Attorney General Ashcroft sits on the National Security Council. Warned by his FBI security detail, the head of law enforcement for the United States knew to avoid commercial airlines on September 11, 2001.

It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people who flew on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175, United Airlines Flight 93 and American Airlines Flight 77 had the benefit of the same warnings as those they paid to protect us.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

You had numerous warnings of the risks of 9-11 sufficient to let the American people know and use their best judgment as to how to protect themselves from a possible attack. It was your job as National Security Advisor to make sure that the people in the South Tower of the World Trade Center had the knowledge they needed to evacuate their building upon seeing the North Tower hit by a plane.

You knew. You kept silent. They died.

Point #2: Your motives are transparent.

The World Trade Center is in the heart of New York City one of the great financial capitals of the world. The Pentagon is in the heart of Washington -- the appropriation and accounting capital for the US federal budget and credit and the US Treasury the largest issuer of securities in the world.

Unlike many other terrorist attacks, these attacks killed people whose family, friends and neighbors understand how these financial systems work. Victim families, friends and the residents of the communities directly harmed can calculate who made money on 9-11 profiteering. They can trace the flow of money into the 2004 Presidential campaign coffers from the profits your supporters made as a result of 9-11 profiteering. They can calculate how 9-11 profiteering connects to the financing and silence of corporate media.

Those personally impacted and the global researchers they network with have the intellectual power and personal courage to ask and answer, Cui Bono? (Who Benefits?) They understand that your success as National Security Advisor is as a direct result of your failure to stop 9-11. They can see how your lies about 9-11 made money for the investment syndicate that put you in power and for the buyers of US Treasury securities who are so richly paid to finance the US military, intelligence and enforcement apparatus and the defense contractors and oil interests it serves.

All the campaign ads in the world can not now convince the American people that you have their best interests at heart.

Point #3: You are going down.

The richest and most powerful people in the world pay for performance. They pay you to make the US governmental apparatus look legitimate while they use it to centralize economic and political power. That means they need liars who are better at lying than you.

The myth that you had no idea that Americans deserved to be warned about the risks of flying or planes being used as weapons is now in the dust heap with the notion that the United States attacked Iraq and our soldiers are dying to protect us from Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Your lies of 9-11 like your lies about the Iraqi war have been profitable for the military-banking complex you represent. These lies, however, have not misled the crowd. The American people and global citizens are looking for the truth. We demand the changes that will give meaning and honor to those who died on 9-11 and in the ensuing wars. We demand an end to further bloodshed. We demand a refund of all that you and your backers have stolen from those of us who remain alive.

Point #4: You are guilty of criminal gross negligence.

If you want to catch a terrorist today, you need look no further than your own mirror.

Many Americans gather this weekend to give thanks that Jesus died for our sins and gave us the covenant of grace. In the spirit of our Lord's crucifixion and resurrection, may God have mercy on your soul.


Sincerely Yours,

Catherine Austin Fitts
Former Assistant Secretary of Housing, Bush I
President
Solari, Inc.
PO Box 157
Hickory Valley, TN 38042
731.764.2515
catherine@solari.com



Letter Submitted:

White House Webmail: https://sawho14.eop.gov/PERSdata/intro.htm
E-mail cc to:
President George W. Bush: president@whitehouse.gov ;
Vice President Richard Cheney: vice.president@whitehouse.gov ;
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Tel: 202-456-1414

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407
(202) 331-4060
info@9-11Commission.gov

Background Articles:

Ashcroft Flying High
CBS News
Washington DC, July 26, 2001
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/07/26/national/main...

A Historical Whitewash?
by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine, November 24, 2003
http://www.insightmag.com/news/565658.html

If the World Was Talking, Why Didn't We Listen?
by Kelly Patricia O'Meara
Insight Magazine, November 24, 2003
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm?include=detail&story...

9-11 Profiteering
by Catherine Austin Fitts
Scoop Media, March 22, 2004
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0403/S00244.htm

A Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal
by Catherine Austin Fitts
Scoop Media, October 6, 2003
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0310/S00038.htm

Where is the Money?
http://www.whereisthemoney.org
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:56 PM
Response to Reply #58
62. One REALLY superb point: Always ask - WHO BENEFITS?
Especially when it involves your suspicion that one of these Dark Siders is up to something.

It's as important a question to answer as is the advisory to "Follow the Money."

"WHO BENEFITS?"

And unfortunately, in the case of 9/11, we ALL know who benefitted most.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StClone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:02 PM
Response to Original message
59. Dude, this would make an awesome
Documentary refuting the rabbit hole It-Was-Clinton's-Fault defense of the Cons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sweet Freedom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:32 PM
Response to Original message
60. FYI: I added a link to this thread in the DU Debunker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 07:44 PM
Response to Original message
61. Kicking this...
Great resource, Will!

:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maestro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
65. Long read but
worth it. Scathing!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onehandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
66. What isn't Clinton's Fault? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:16 PM
Response to Original message
67. Great stuff...
I have nothing intelligent to add - just wanted to thank you for your hard work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
civildisoBDence Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
69. Some presidents' reputations grow over time
and others' shrink.

Clinton and Nixon will probably be remembered as historic presidents whose personal mistakes hurt them badly in the short term.

DUHbya will probably be remembered as one of the worse, if not THE worst, president in American history.

It's posts like Pitt's that shape the reputations of presidents. Keep on truckin', man.

Satire as thick as a president's skull
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
70. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Lay off the kool-aid, dude...it makes people ignorant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
72. Well worth reading the entire article
good work. The information you cite has always been out there, but in bits and pieces. Those of us who make it a point to know, already know these things. This is one of the few articles I've ever read since 9/11 that pulls it all together in a way that shows Clinton did far more than Bush will ever even consider doing about terrorism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkyisBlue Donating Member (617 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
74. Incredible! Clear and insightful articles.
I've already had a Bushie tell me, "9/11 was Clinton's fault. He didn't do anything after the 1993 WTC bombing." Here's some great info. regarding what really happened (though most Bushies wouldn't read this, too long).

What I remember during the period Clinton was in office (aside from peace and relative prosperity) was how much Republicans hated him. They were out to get him any way they could, even stooping so low as to call his daughter a "dog" (Rush Limbaugh). I truly admired how stoic the Clintons were. That whole impeachment thing was such a sham. The more Clinton was attacked, the more I liked him. I remember he shot off some rockets and the media said it was just his way of taking attention off of Monica Lewinski. Never did the media attempt to educate the American people about terrorism or what was happening in the world. This article is the first time I have heard a lot of this info.

I also remember that shortly after Bush and Co. moved into the White House, there was a lot of media coverage stating that the previous occupants had trashed the offices; however, it was later (barely) reported that this was untrue and all a fabrication. More attention should have been paid to these early Bush lies.

It appears that Bush, Cheney, et. al. want to be in charge but don't want to govern. They seem to believe that being in charge is simply changing tax codes, appointing activist judges, altering laws to suit your own needs, etc. They are unable (or unwilling) to handle the daily responsibilities of governing a nation. When a crisis occurs, as it inevitably does when basic responsibilities are not taken care of, they are totally flummoxed. All they know how to do is blame someone else.

Thank you for providing this information. I wish people would open their eyes to the truth. We are in the clutches of an evil regime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-24-06 11:25 PM
Response to Original message
76. None of my GOP acquaintances blame Clinton
They really don't.

They blame the evil Muslims who do not worship the correct job, and DO say "Thank God Gore wasn't President!" which makes absolutely no sense to me, but truly they don't mention Clinton much. I think even they are embarrassed about how good the 90's were to them to even go there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Festivito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #76
84. Gore wrote the book on anti-terrorism and clearly would have stopped 9/11.
GOPers remain ignorantly arrogant.

They foolishly thank God that Gore, who wrote anti-terrorism regulations for the airline industry lost to Bush, a multi-time business loser who campaigned making humor of efforts to kill Osama binLaden before 9/11.

Calling Republicans scum, insults scum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MaraJade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
77. This is INCREDIBLE work. . .
This must be continuously kicked to the TOP!

The attack was more than anticipated by the Clinton administration, and ignored for political
reasons by the current pResident.

As usual, a great essay!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Senator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:40 AM
Response to Original message
78. Clarification of "pointing a gun" at the Taliban (it was in July '01)
It is not made clear above or in the BBC report that this was an actual, transmitted threat to the Taliban, and that moreover it was made in July of 2001.

The implication is there but here are the specifics.

--
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
79. Hi, new poster here...I'll just jump in...
Theres this organization named PNAC (Project for the New American Century). Its pushes neo-cons foreign policys and is financed by energy and defense companies. PNAC was put together by Cheney in the 90s. Its all about America ruling the world (honestly). I read recently that PNAC published RAD (Rebuilding Americas Defense) in September 2000. RAD was a 90 page document explaining PNACs plan for regime changes in unfavorable governments. ...Like I said, this was published in September 2000. I once read that the hijackers started flight school a year prior to September 11, 2001; that would mean all plans for 9-11 were put into motion after RAD was reveled, and right after GW accepted his candidacy at the Republican Nation Convention.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. I was among the first
Edited on Fri Aug-25-06 01:47 AM by WilliamPitt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
whistle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Thank you William for posting these links and a special thanks
....for the link to your speech of August 10, 2003 "We Stand Our Ground".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just-plain-Kathy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #81
103. Wow William,
You do great work!! ...I'm familiar with your writings. Links to your pieces are sometimes posted on a small political chat board I participate on. ...Ive been reading DU for a couple of weeks now, always a bit shy to lend my two cents. Im in no way as informed as most of the people here, but I want to be. ...Thank you for the welcome :) ...Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #79
89. We are all fairly well versed here on PNAC. Welcome to DU!
:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:13 AM
Response to Original message
80. The Al-Shifa bombing was absolute bullshit
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The rest of the data dump needs to be spread around periodically.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 03:47 AM
Response to Original message
82. Useful links
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoSheep Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #82
91. Thank you! Those are useful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oc2002 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
85. I think Clinton was an @ss, but he was on top of terrorism. Unlike Bush.
Edited on Fri Aug-25-06 09:18 AM by oc2002
the complicity of the media dumbing down to republican talking points is complete.

and it certainly has not helped that the democrats are too stupid to point this out goes to show how incompetant the leadership is or has been, or that they are a farce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
86. Same story debunks "It's the CIA's fault"
Although quite possibly there are elements within the CIA and other intel agencies who did help the Bush admin to 'forget' about all the warnings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Prophet 451 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 11:06 AM
Response to Original message
92. Bush Vs. Clinton
Clinton: Had his problems, not least womanising but generally, did a pretty good job. Bush: Has yet to find something he's good at, even his table manners stink, on every single issue has picked the absolute worst solution possible in a way that by now has passed beyond incompetance into malice.

Hmmm, the old-fashioned rake or the aggressive dry-drunk with the messiah complex. Think I'll take Bubba thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lochloosa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
93. K/R and emailed to some people that will never take the time to
read this.

Thanks WilliamPitt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spazito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
95. Excellent work!
Thank you for this. Bookmarked.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tekla West Donating Member (270 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
97. First Rate
Darn liberals, using facts and not name calling. You will ruin politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
98. Brilliant, Will.
I would like your permission to quote from your article in my letter to an editor.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Happily granted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
im10ashus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #99
100. Excellent!
And many thanks for a concise and well-thought article. If I could nominate this more than once I would.

:yourock:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
erknm Donating Member (86 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
101. How could 9/11 have been stopped?
I asked this question of republicans who went through the records of planning that started during Clinton's term. Their simple minded position was that since the planning occurred during Clinton's term, it was Clinton's fault. I repeatedly asked the same question.

If we know:

1) the method of attack,
2) the national origin of the attackers,
3) not of course the exact date, but the quarter of the attack and
4) the intended targets,

what can we do to stop the attack?

IMHO, surprisingly little.

Regarding item 1), knowing the method, this puts is in the position of shooting down a hijacked commercial airliner before it gets to a populated region. I challenged my would be debate opponents at the time to be honest with themselves, there is no way the administration, be it Clinton, Gore, Bush, Reagan, etc. would have had the political will to shoot down a commercial airliner in advance of a potential attack the sort of which had never occured before. Thus knowing the method of the attack does not really help. It may help in a Flight 93 type scenario, in which everyone has seen this type of attack occur previously and has confidence that it would happen again. Then regardless of what we do, once a hijacking has occurred, we know at a minimum that the passengers are as good as dead.

As far as item 2) is concerned, this smacks of racial, ethnic or religious profiling. Unfortunately, we have seen since the attack that our nation does not have the stomach to engage in this type of behavior. Frankly, I personally think that profiling can be a very effective tool, but there are too many "hand-wringers" in our society to allow it. If we do not want to engage in profiling post 9/11, then who can honestly, with a straight face, claim that we should have done it prior to 9/11?

Knowing the approximate date of the attack, (item 3) say within a few months, may help. But we have already seen politicians respond to voters apathy regarding airport security concerns. What would we do, when post attack, our patience for increased airport security is still on the ADD level?

As far as item 4, once again, what would the monday morning QB's have had us do, have fighter jets on constant deployment circling the usual suspected targets?


Fact is, I am amazed that we are now seeing the same rationalization from the left that I recall seeing ad-nauseum from the right back in the election season of 2002. Specifically, I do not buy into the idea that Clinton gave W the tools to control the finances of terror in his last minute bill. This was one of many 11th hour signatures that Clinton did not have the political will to make earlier in his term. We this such a popular program, and so usefull, Clinton should have developed it earlier in his term. He only had eight years, seven of which came after the first attack on the WTC.

Do I think W holds some responsibility for 9/11? Absolutely, but I also think that Clinton does as well. As for arguing whose share is larger, this is an argument for smaller minds than mine. The fact remains, we, the general population, have to take responsibility. We have to recognize that security comes at a price, the greatest being freedom. Many people want to have it all, but we cannot. As you read this and contemplate flaming me, honestly ask yourself a few questions (be so kind as to not volunteer the answers to me)

Did you think that the W administration timed the arrests in London to coincide with the Lieberman defeat?

Do you support racial, ethnic or religious profiling at airports?

Given the authority, would you have really given the order to shoot down the first plane on 9/11, before any such attack had occurred?

Are you willing to give up personal information, freedom and autonomy in exchange for security?

I think there are alot more questions we as individuals need to be willing to answer, honestly. Some are scary (profiling) as such programs could provide alot of power to whatever administration exists at the time.

FH
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. Let's see
1) Don't be Phil Gramm and kill Clinton's terror-funding tracking in the 1996 terrorism bill because your friends at Enron are laundering their money through the same offshore accounts;

2) Don't ignore the myriad warnings that came across the wires in the days, weeks and months before the attacks;

3) Don't be Condi Rice and ignore the massive budget of data given over regarding OBL and al Qaeda simply because you think everything from Clinton's time is contaminated.

#1 would have severely disrupted terror cells' abilities to move freely, ravel, make plans, etc. #2 and #3 would have, if heeded, increased airport security in such a way that the names of the hijackers - they used their real names- would have raised flags, and the implements they carried aboard would have been confiscated.

As for your questions:

Did you think that the W administration timed the arrests in London to coincide with the Lieberman defeat?

No, and this has nothing to do with the matter under discussion. This is what we call a 'strawman.'

Do you support racial, ethnic or religious profiling at airports?

No. Timothy McVeigh was the whitest man in America.

Given the authority, would you have really given the order to shoot down the first plane on 9/11, before any such attack had occurred?

No, because before the first attack the FAA thought it was a simple hijacking. This is, again, a strawman. The issue under discussion has to do with thwarting the attacks before the planes ever left the ground.

Are you willing to give up personal information, freedom and autonomy in exchange for security?

I have been doing so for my whole life, as have you. The NSAs ability to read our mail didn't start with Bush. Searches at the airport didn't either. Background checks for certain jobs aren't new, nor are the broad powers of surveillance enjoyed by the police thanks to the War on Drugs. The PATRIOT Act has very little new stuff in it; it just beefs up what has been on the books for decades as we fight the demon cocaine. I do not support limitless powers, of course, but to say that we have all been truly free agents in this country until now is absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zorra Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #101
104. Clinton was long gone from the WH on 9/11.
Bu*h had been appointed Commander-in-Chief by the Supreme Court and was already in office for 9 months before 9/11.

No matter how hard Bu*h apologists try to spin it, 9/11 occurred on his watch - not on President Clinton's.

And that is the bottom line. Every real leader accepts full responsibility for the events that occur under their leadership - a real leader knows that the buck stops with them, and that it is their full responsibility to protect their people. If they fail, they acknowledge their failure, and do not pass the blame onto others.

But, of course, Bu*h is not a real leader. He is a sniveling, childish wuss that has never accepted responsibility for anything.

9/11 was not in any way the fault of President Clinton.

It was appointed Commander-in-Chief G. W. Bu*h's responsibility to protect America, and he failed.

Therefore it was Bu*h's fault.

No matter how much kool-aid you drink, it won't change this fact.










Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
me b zola Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-25-06 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
106. Will, this is perhaps the most important piece that I have read from you
I was unaware of the counter-terror measures that Clinton was striving to enact--no suprise, just like you said that info never made it through the CM's filter.

To your post :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

and to you, Will :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-26-06 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
107. Thanks for posting William
Kicked too late to recommend


:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
108. K and R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnaries Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 12:07 PM
Response to Original message
109. KEEP THIS KICKED! Especially since ABC is doing a docudrama
or a "mockumentary" that they claim is based on the 9/11 Commission Report but is really based on John Miller's "The Cell" trying to blame Clinton for 9/11.
The writer is the same guy who wrote "The Day Reagan Was Shot" - "The Path to 9/11":

http://abc.go.com/specials/pathto911.html


Read this review from Horowitz's website:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID...

Nowrasteh: ... I also expanded my research beyond the commission report, which only goes back to 1998, concluding that I needed to go back to the first attack on the WTC in '93 and tell this story over six hours...

This miniseries is not just about the tragedy and events of 9/11, it dramatizes "how we got there" going back 8 years to the first attack on the WTC and dealing with the Al Qaeda strikes against U.S. embassies and forces in the 90s, ... It also dramatizes the frequent opportunities the Administration had in the 90s to stop Bin Laden in his tracks -- but lacked the will to do so...
The 9/11 report details the Clinton's administration's response -- or lack of response -- to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack on the U.S.S. COLE in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing.


And this one:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID...

This is the first Hollywood production Ive seen that honestly depicts how the Clinton administration repeatedly bungled the capture of Osama Bin Laden...
The episode is a perfect example of Clinton-era irresponsibility and incompetence...
The miniseries also has a scene in which the CIA has crucial information identifying some of the 9/11 hijackers in advance of 9/11, but refuses to share the information with the FBI because of the wall put up by certain Democrat officials to prevent information sharing between government agencies...
"The Path to 9/11," by honestly depicting the unfolding of events over eight years, makes it clear that most of the conspiracy leading up to 9/11 was hatched during the seven years of the Clinton administration, and that since Bush was in power for only eight months when 9/11 occurred, he can hardly be blamed for the entire disaster.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eccles12 Donating Member (385 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #109
118. I hope there are Dem spokespeople who know this info and who
can speak with clarity and authority about the facts. They must prepare to destroy this PR and to call the media into accounting but then they need the media to do this. But there places like Democracy Now and PBS where this can be done. Two people I can think of who really need to read this info to keep them awake at night are Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XOKCowboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 12:42 PM
Response to Original message
110. I just want to add my thanks also and kick it back up. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chat_noir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
111. kudos for the research!
You should create a threat in the DU Research Forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

(I wouldn't, however, use the same title.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DesertRat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 12:57 PM
Response to Original message
112. Kick!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Imagevision Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 01:17 PM
Response to Original message
113. Richard Clarke; "your government failed you -Rummy; there are better
targets in Iraq - Condeleeza Rice; "August 6, 2001 The Presidential Daily Briefing to Bush titled; "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"

Clinton; "I should have done more with Bin Laden"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WePurrsevere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
114. ! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generic Other Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
115. Why not blame Gore for not being in the WH on 9/11?
It makes about as much sense as the GOP arguments against Clinton. They never will admit their own culpability in anything.

IMO, every member of the GOP leadership is an unindicted co-conspirator who supports the destruction of this country.

And they have the gall to act like liberals are to blame for the sorry state things.

Their all-consuming obsession with Clinton never ends. Thanks for putting it into perspective here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duppers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Aug-27-06 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
116. Brzezinski
Does anyone have the time and energy to clean up Wikipedia's entry on Brzezinski?

They've made statements such as...
>>
He is a foreign policy realist, and considered to be the Democrats' response to Henry Kissinger, also a realist, who served under President Nixon.<1>
>>

Kissinger as realist?!

Sorry, I'm too tired tonight to edit the entry.

Thanks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. Argh
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young_at_heart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 10:45 AM
Response to Original message
119. Has this been sent to ABC?
One has to wonder what Disney's motive is....someone's pocket is involved I'll bet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WilliamPitt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
120. Up
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
122. This thread should be kicked daily and never archived.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kuni Donating Member (89 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-28-06 07:06 PM
Response to Original message
124. We need to compile links to all this stuff.
We need to compile links to all this stuff.

For example the claim that:

Texas Senator Phil Gramm, chairman of the Banking Committee, killed Clinton's bill on this matter and called it "totalitarian." In fact, he was compelled to kill the bill because his most devoted patrons, the Enron Corporation and its criminal executives in Houston, were using those same terrorist financial networks to launder their own dirty money and rip off the Enron stockholders.

needs to be documented more with a link to the actual Bill and to the Senate Record containing Gramms actual quote.


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 Mon Jan 20th 2020, 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) 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