|
|
|
U.S. report on 9/11 to be ' explosive'…or...?
I figured as this point of interest had popped up on an alternate thread, and in light of this recent story, the following may it be of interest to some.
According to a story in the Miami Herald (10/07/03) on the long-awaited report on the 9/11 attacks: "Former Rep. Tim Roemer, who served on the House Intelligence Committee and who has read the report, said it will be ''highly explosive'' when it becomes public." Chief amongst the allegations contained in the report are: -More information on ties between the Saudi royal family, government officials and terrorists. -The FBI may have mishandled an investigation into how two of the Sept. 11 hijackers received aid from Saudi groups and individuals. A coherent narrative of intelligence warnings, some of them ignored or not shared with other agencies, before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The report will show that top Bush administration officials were warned in the summer of 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorist network had plans to hijack aircraft and launch a ``spectacular attack.'' The final report was completed in December. Since then a working group of Bush administration intelligence officials has ''scrubbed'' the report, objecting to additional public disclosures." *************** HH |
|
|
|
|
|
As per an alternate thread on an alternate topic
Two simple questions on 911
1) Did the FAA fail to inform NORAD, within regulated/mandated time frames as per procedure? 2) If yes, why did the NORAD not scramble the intercepts within regulated/mandated time frames as per procedure? If one looks at the history of intercepts re planes off course etc... prior to 911, the reaction times for intercept were very quick compared to the sluggish "reaction times" on 911. The undue delays in getting the jets up on 911, particularly in light of the multiple planes that were hijacked in a short space of time, have yet to be adequately explained. This is a pretty good time line of the events and examines the above questions somewhat. http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...restingday.html |
|
|
|
|
|
HH,
You cite the Center for Cooperative Research as your source. A closer look and you'll see that this is just a fancy title for an Anti-Cheney lobby group . . . . "send us money. etc |
|
|
|
|
|
VP
Dispute the facts/article/opinion of the authors, not the messenger please.
"Anti-Cheney lobby group" and with good reason, IMHO. Futher: look at this list of sources, just one of several from this Org. Impressive! http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/r...treflist4.html HH |
|
Last edited by Hammer Head; Jul 11, 2003 at 03:32 PM.
|
|
|
|
HH,
I'm not impressed. I am suprised the Common Dreams isn't cited there. VP |
|
Last edited by Viper Pilot; Jul 11, 2003 at 03:42 PM.
|
|
|
|
VP
You are entitled to your opinion, thanks for posting.
HH |
|
|
|
|
|
<The report will show that top Bush administration officials were warned in the summer of 2001 that the al Qaeda terrorist network had plans to hijack aircraft and launch a ``spectacular attack.''>
I wonder if the report will be fair and report that the previous administration was also privy to this, and that the administration wasted their only window of opportunity to kill him? Repeated requests for a go/no go were turned away by a president who didn't have the <ahem> "gravitas" to do his job when it mattered. The election is just around the corner..... Dave |
|
|
|
|
|
I bet its full of modals such as may, might, could, should etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hindsight is 20/20 is my only thought here.
DUH! that we knew something was up. Something is up RIGHT NOW and we know about it. There are probably 10000 threats A DAY to the the U.S.A. If any of them come true we can certainly point fingers, but remember that the other 9999 were foiled. JEEZ, let it rest. It is impossible to predict everything that happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone really believe that intelligence received that an attack was to be made on the U.S. could have been acted on? Unfortunately we don't live in a Hollywood movie where the hero figures out within 90 minutes what is going to happen and then stop it.
If the intelligence didn't include the names of the killers and the flight numbers then I don't think anything could have been done. These guys had box cutters, for God's sake. Nobody was checking for box cutters. I just love how we are self-destructing our country through political agendas. Can we imagine how great we could be if we could work together for the common good? (Sounds like an old Saturday Night skit - "Nay, filibustering is more fun!") |
|
|
|
|
|
<Does anyone really believe that intelligence received that an attack was to be made on the U.S. could have been acted on? >
The majority of the time it's not possible. Had the President done his duty, we may not have lost the world trade centers. One might ask what was done with intelligence from these terrorist acts: WTC Bombing (1993) Khobar Towers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Attack on the USS Cole Also, Al Qaeda's backing in Somalia (BlackHawk Down) In every one of these instances, the events occurred during the same administration, it was shortly thereafter concluded and later proven in the court trials that Al Qaeda was involved, yet 'we' did nothing about it. If you are an Osama Bin Laden, wouldn't a lack of response on the part of your victim compell you to hit harder and harder until you got the response you desired? The object is to TERRORIZE, and if he wasn't able to scare soccer-moms up to that point, he HAD to up the ante. What I wrote above is common knowlege, doesn't take any depth of privileged information to summarize the above events and resultant court trials. Given that Al Qaeda was PROVEN to have been involved in those events, and that we did NOTHING to prevent these things happening again-the conclusion *I* draw is that William Jefferson Clinton is at least partially responsible for the events that happened on Sept. 11, 2001. Not that I needed any reinforcement of that belief, I just read a book called Deriliction of Duty. This is a book written by the man (Lt. Col. Robert B. Patterson) who carried the nuclear suitcase during President Clinton's second term. He was never far (feet) from the president for the two years he served under him. This is a man trustworthy enough to not only be placed next to the POTUS, but trusted with the power to destroy the world as we know it. He is also a decorated combat pilot. This is a guy who doesn't screw around. His book is not glamorous, not an expose, and not partisan. I believe him when he writes: "I opened the PDB to rearrange the notes and noticed the heading "Operation Bojinka". I keyed on a reference to a plot to use commercial airliners as weapons and another plot to put bombs on U.S. airliners. Because I was a pilot, this naturally grabbed my attention. I can state for a fact that this information was circulated within the U.S. intelligence community, and that in late 1996 the president was aware of it." There is a lot of good information in this book. If you ever wanted to *really* know what it's like in the White House, this book gives it to you straight up, dry, and without any extra sensationalism. Regardless, it will open your eyes a bit-it did mine, and I'm the mistrusting/cycnical type when it comes to government. Dave |
|
|
|
|
|
Sooo,.... I guess you guys only want to talk about how the "Bush" is responsible? I figured that someone would have replied.
I know it's powerful ammunition for the coming election, but it's not going to be at all produtive for us to pick apart an administration for a situation he inhereted from people not responsible enough to handle the job. The king was a Fink, and now he's dead and gone. RE Iraq: Were there embelishments? Very Likely. Did the administration play fast and loose with the facts? Probably. The job still needed to be done. What I want to know is where were the outcries for investigation when we bombed aspirin factories in Sudan and cruise missled afghanistan-on the eve of President Clinton's impeachment? Why is it OK for one president to use military force, LETHAL force, in Kosovo without asking anyone's permission, and where there were no WMD's present, but it's NOT ok for President Bush? Dave |
|
|
|
||
|
Quote:
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
Here is a link from Noam Chomsky regarding Clintons' crimes in Sudan and elsewhere, there was a lot of outrage at the time as well.
http://www.counterpunch.org/chomskyhitch.html You can find lots more like this with a GOOGLE search. By the way, it was more than an "aspirin factory". The plant supplied most of the medicine for a nation that could ill afford it's loss, many people, perhaps thousands died as a result of this criminal act. I think the point that some people are trying to make regarding 9/11 is that it happened on Bush's watch and while yes there were attacks while Clinton was in power he was not in charge at the time. I also can't help but notice that when GWB comes under fire (and sometimes rightfully so) a lot of his supporters start yelling "yeah, but what about Clinton". And while Clinton was a crook, liar and who knows what else Clinton is gone, Bush is in charge. Bush is responsible for what happens on his watch. End of story. T.D. |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, if one is inclined to seriously consider the implications of this "work", there are only three possible conclusions;
A) Bush 43 and/or his people allowed and even encouraged the 9/11 attacks and the subsequent loss of lives and dollars to further an unknown "Agenda". B) Bush 43 and/ or his people were so incompetant on their administration of the Government that they were not capable of responding to the threat in the way that is prescribed by national doctrine. C)The system as designed experienced a mode of failure due to the natural complacence that pervades every system after a period of time with no serious tests to it's effectiveness. This is not without precident, Pearl harbour being a ready example. Since the first two seem far fetched to the point of unbelievability, the application of Occam's razor would lead most reasonable people to believe that conclusion "C" is the probable reality, unless further evidence comes to light. And Noam Chomsky? Puhlease. Disident to the point of deviant. Whatever truthes he is capable of speaking (and there are quite a few) are lost in his innability to see any viewpoint but his own. He is the original facist liberal, using his grasp of language and considerable intellect as a bludgeon to destroy those with whom he disagrees "Our zeal works wonders when it seconds our propensity to hatred, cruelty, ambition, avarice, detraction, rebellion." - Michel Eyquem de Montaigne |
|
|