Other news [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

hcap

04-14-2004, 08:09 AM

Tom"What's next? Bush causes cancer????
Judging from how this country and a good portion of the rest of the world is being screwed, I would argue hemmoroids.

Did anyone happen to see the rare occuring "live" press conference of the preznit last night?
Still think the man is in command?

"Perhaps my opinions of the man and his record are too set in stone for me to provide an objective take. But, even setting aside the awkward moments where the president couldn't think of any mistake he'd ever made on foreign policy since 9/11, what I saw was a man with a quiver of cliches and a few simple stock arguments. Whatever the question, he grabbed a handful of those and tossed them back.

It's become a bit impolitic in Washington to question whether the president really knows what he's doing or whether he has any sort of a detailed handle on what's going on on his watch.

I saw a man on autopilot, and a pretty crude autopilot at that."
-- Josh Marshall

QUESTION: Mr. President, why are you and the vice president insisting on appearing together before the 9-11 commission? And, Mr. President, who will we be handing the Iraqi government over to on June 30th?

BUSH: We'll find that out soon. That's what Mr. Brahimi is doing. He's figuring out the nature of the entity we'll be handing sovereignty over.

And, secondly, because the 9-11 commission wants to ask us questions, that's why we're meeting. And I look forward to meeting with them and answering their questions.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE) I was asking why you're appearing together, rather than separately, which was their request.

BUSH: Because it's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9-11 commission is looking forward to asking us. And I'm looking forward to answering them.

Bush looks nervously around the room trying to find a friendly face.
He finally finds a safe reporter... from the "Moonie" Washington Times.

Let's see. Hold on for a minute. Let's see. Oh, Jim.
BUSH: I've got some must-calls. I'm sorry.

Interestingly enough though Bush again jokes that the press conference was scripted.

Near the end of the conference Bush took a question;

John?

QUESTION: In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.

You've looked back before 9-11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9-11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?

Anyone who watched the TV footage witnessed the embarrasing sight of Bush pausing for at least five seconds and saying absolutely nothing. Bush's admonition that the question should have been written 'ahead of time' (like the rest) makes you wonder if this was an impromptu question in an otherwise carefully scripted briefing.

BUSH: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.)

John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/images/april2004/140404bush.jpg

And before anyone asks, yes indeed not only do I dislike this administrations' policies, I also dislike this admininstrations' figurehead. In fact I find it difficult to watch the peznit for any lenght of time. Embarrasing
So was the live meet the press interview

linrom1

04-14-2004, 08:50 AM

"Despite what LJB would have you believe, the economy is doing so much better these days infact, that many now think the Fed will be RAISING interest rates sooner rather than later...."

The expected rise in interest has nothing to do with improving economy, but everything to do with declining dollar and the massive financial scam that this administration has perpetrated on the American public. To ensure Bush’s re-election the Fed has been pumping money at historically unprecedented levels, which doesn’t only show up in massive deficits and Federal debts but also in the balance of trade. The fed is not raising rates; the corrupt and manipulated bond market is finally waking up to reality of potentially explosive inflation.

ljb

04-14-2004, 08:54 AM

I must agree the press conference, while well scripted, was a miserable failure.

Lefty

04-14-2004, 12:21 PM

lbj, of course you left out that 9-11 was an event that took a might toll on the economy and jobs and yet here we are with positive figures. We are fighting terrorists in Afghanistan, waging war in Iraq, freed over 500,000,000 people and we still have a good economy that's actually growing.
This Pres deserves immense kudos and not the whining of the left.

Tom

04-14-2004, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by ljb
I must agree the press conference, while well scripted, was a miserable failure.

The only worse PC I could imagine would be Kerry describing his plan to fight terroism. Scare them away with his flip-flopping?

Lefty

04-14-2004, 12:24 PM

linman, who's doing all this manipulating and how? Have you been listening to that nut, Chuck Harder? Poor "ol" Chuck's been coming on with this stock mkt manipulating crap since the Reagan days.

Tom

04-14-2004, 12:32 PM

Ljb....that photo of Bush above looks like he is pondering you Survivor thread poll! :eek:

Tom

04-14-2004, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by ljb
I must agree the press conference, while well scripted, was a miserable failure.

I am reminded of those immortal words in a previous interview..."I did nothave sex with that women, Miss Lwinsky!"
He delivered that with forcefullness, passion, confidence, hand gestures, the whole nine yards of powerful speaking.
And it was a bald faced lie.
You just cannot judge the message by the vessel that delivers it.

ljb

04-14-2004, 12:38 PM

Tom,
Could be he is pondering the poll. I really don't know as I wasn't in his foursome.

Lefty

04-14-2004, 12:44 PM

The left loves their phonies so much and is taken in by flowery words, phony lipbiting so much, they don't recognize a genuine man of action, and a genuine man when they see him. Bush said, "When I say something, I mean it."
What you see is what you get. You don't have a phony parsing words. With Bush, you don't have to wonder what is, is.
Kudos to a REAL man.

JustRalph

04-14-2004, 01:42 PM

those questions were designed to provide John Kerry with a sound bite for a campaign ad. Bush knew that.......he refused to give it to them. You can call it what you want. He got his point across. Those reporters were trying to get Bush to admit to doing something wrong.......which he didn't.....and he basically told them to go to hell. Good for him. Those reporters were a room full of willing accomplices to the Dems. The Bushies know that. The press conference was a message for those enemies of our country. End of story. If you see it as anything else.......you are deceiving yourself. If you can't understand that, you have lost your objectivity. End of story.

ljb

04-14-2004, 02:03 PM

Lefty and JR,
I assume you two are just trying to put a positive spin on the fiasco we witnessed last night. Otherwise one would think you are both naive beyond comprehension. Now please don't be offended by this post. We all recognise what you are doing and understand your party loyalty.
No one actually believes you but, that should not deter you. Carry on fellows.

Lefty

04-14-2004, 03:31 PM

JR, exactly!
lbj, no one blves us? You mean maybe a few don't blve us. You think anyone that looks at the numbers objectively actually blves the economy is bad?
Besides using non-specific words like fiasco would you care to explain what was wrong with the Press Conference?

ljb

04-14-2004, 03:36 PM

Basically the press conference was a well scripted Bush campaign speech. If you recall he had a list of reporters to call on with their pre-written questions. When reporters tried to be recognised from the floor Bush said he had a list to work from. Like I have said before. "Get Real" Oh and I think it went poorly even though it was scripted. Bush basically said he was going to remain stubborn in his ill-concieved plans. Meanwhile more young Americans are being killed daily and the cost continues to rise.

Lefty

04-14-2004, 05:16 PM

Like I said, he can't win with you libs. First you try to pin 9-11 on him for not doing enough and now that he's no doubt preventing terror by Saddam, well, you don't like that either. Too damn bad.
GW, didn't fall for the trap set by lib journalists, as JR cogently pointed out.

ljb

04-14-2004, 05:19 PM

Lefty,
Gw's invasion of Iraq set us back in our efforts against terroism. His lack of attention to the forewarnings of 9/11 did us no good either.

PaceAdvantage

04-14-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Gw's invasion of Iraq set us back in our efforts against terroism. His lack of attention to the forewarnings of 9/11 did us no good either.

Says who? Where is the scientific evidence of this theory?

Lack of attention to the forewarnings? What forewarnings? Stuff that's been known since at least 1997?

Whatever....

Lefty

04-14-2004, 07:04 PM

lbj, you and your ilk slay me. It was the Clinton adm that separated Criminal and intelligence agencies that prevented the 9-11 dots from being connected.
Bush didn't pay att to the forewarnings of 9-11, you say but now that he has podssibly forestalled any such thing by being mounted by Saddam it's a "bad thing" . But if he hadn't went into Iraq and Saddam had unleashed some germs on us you'd want Bush investigated for that. The Pres can't win; not with you.
You libs constantly "shoot from the hip" and hot nothing.

hcap

04-14-2004, 08:01 PM

Bush says---

" A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure. A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change . . . "

from http://www.juancole.com/

"This premise is not necessarily true. Turkey has had relatively democratic elections since 1950, but this development had no resonances in the rest of the Middle East. Iran went theocratic in 1979, and Khomeini expected everyone in the Middle East to follow suit. No one did. Saudi Arabia is among the world's richest monarchies, but it has not spread monarchy in the mainly republican Middle East. Middle Eastern countries are often fairly insular with regard to politics, and every tub is on its own bottom. There is no guarantee that a "free" and democratic Iraq will have any real influence on the rest of the region.

At the moment, moreover, Iraq is a poster child for dictatorship. Any Egyptian who looked at what has transpired there in the past year might well decide that the soft dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak is altogether preferable to taking the risk of opening up the system and possibly causing a similar social breakdown!"

Another question for our preznit---
Q Mr. President, thank you. You mentioned 17 of the 26 NATO members providing some help on the ground in Iraq. But if you look at the numbers -- 135,000 U.S. troops, 10,000 or 12,000 British troops, then the next largest, perhaps even the second largest contingent of guns on the ground are private contractors -- literally, hired guns.

Your critics, including your Democratic opponent, say that's proof to them your coalition is window dressing. How would you answer those critics? And can you assure the American people that post-sovereignty, when the handover takes place, that there will be more burden sharing by allies, in terms of security forces?

THE PRESIDENT: John, my response is, I don't think people ought to demean the contributions of our friends into Iraq. People are sacrificing their lives in Iraq, from different countries. We ought to honor that, and we ought to welcome that. I'm proud of the coalition that is there. This is a -- these are people that have -- the gut leaders have made the decision to put people in harm's way for the good of the world. And we appreciate that sacrifice in America. We appreciate that commitment.

More From http://www.juancole.com/

"Bush then proceeds for another 5 paragraphs with some gibberish about other foriegn leaders. Not one comment about the fact that the second largest "coalition" member in Iraq is the mercenary force - the number of which do not factor into our official troop tallies. It's called information hiding, abstraction."

This is why Cheney is testifying in unison with our great leader--to pull bushs' feet out from Bushs' mouth.
Anybody got a better explanation??

TomYou just cannot judge the message by the vessel that delivers it.
But can you judge how empty the vessel is? Bushisms are no longer cute, nor endearing. And cliches are not cutting it. Maybe Cheney will sit beside him at the presidential debates.
I'm sure Karl Rove is already planning it

Secretariat

04-14-2004, 08:53 PM

Originally posted by ljb
Lefty and JR,
I assume you two are just trying to put a positive spin on the fiasco we witnessed last night. Otherwise one would think you are both naive beyond comprehension. Now please don't be offended by this post. We all recognise what you are doing and understand your party loyalty.
No one actually believes you but, that should not deter you. Carry on fellows.

Don't worry lbj. I saw it too. As long as he's got prepared material he's comfortable. As soon as he has to think for himself out there, the true man shows. Probably the most unconfortable President I have ever seen at a press conference. now I see why he doesn't have too many of them. Continual stumbling, not having answers.

And as to the questioners JR, hey the ones with real questions are generally relegated to the bakc of the room like Helen Thomas. Frankly I thought he was handed a bunch of poweder puff questions, and he flubbed on those. If I was there I would have asked this one?

"President Bush, Geroge Teent has confirmed today to the 911 commission that he was unable to meet you once in August. How do you justify taking a vacation longer than any President in our history away from Washington after reading a PDB such as was handed to you in August saying Bin Laden determiend to attack in US?"

Tom

04-14-2004, 09:14 PM

Are we reading the same PDB?
I do not ge the sense of any urgency from the one I saw.
If you got the impression, my question to YOU is,
"Mr. Presidnet-basher and sore loser, if the contents of the PDB are true and as urgent as you seem to thing, how do you justify YOUR president, Billy-bob, taking off more time for hummers in the oval office than any president in history while ignoring the growing threat of Al Qeada, which, BTW, was not even classified as a terrorist organiztion for 10 years after it was formed? Could it be that YOUR guy's filleting of the intellignece community and the gutting of the military prevented him from doing his job, or was it just the fact he could only fire his missles after Monica
wiped her chin?
I guess the Republicans are really responssible after all. Had they gone after Billy-job-bob more agressively for impeachement, he might have had to resort to launching nukes to divert the headlines away from his vile patheic perveted term of office.

BTW, please show me the scientific evidence that correlates the abilty to be a good public speaker to job perfomrance. Your critique of W's speaking abilities have zero to do with his abilites to govern. ACtions speak louder than words.

Bush -

Afghaniztan freed,
the Taliban ousted
Husseins reign of terror ended,
Lybia toeing the line,
Khadaffy-duck's WMD off the market,

* * * *
Billy-knob-bob-

Got the stain out with tonic water

hcap

04-15-2004, 08:22 AM

The man in the white hat.
This proves he's the good guy, in case the faux news challenged can't figure it out

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/1/123125/123063/2093471/2098129/040414_Bush_Vacation.jpg

More from our preznits' press conf.

"This has been tough weeks in that country."

pronounced "instigated" as "instikated" in his fourth sentence.

said Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of State.

calling credibility "incredibly important."

"before 9/11 "we assumed oceans would protect us."
-Ever since the Russians built their first ICBMs fifty years ago, the oceans haven't protected us.

"I also have this belief, strong belief that freedom is not this country's gift to the world. Freedom is the Almighty's gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the earth we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom."

Is religious war part of official US military doctrine?

Bush droned on for about 18 minutes-- Then the questions started. It seems clear that this was all a delay tactic to cut into the time he'd have to answer questions.

How many times and how many ways can you say "the evildoers hate our democracy," or "we will stay the course," or "things have been tough but we are committed."-- they are bad, we are good, we will stay the course.

More about DUH PRESS CONFERENCE

from http://www.rense.com/general51/ifo.htm
--For Immediate Release From 9/11 CitizensWatch.org

During his press conference the President said that if he had had "an inkling" that people would hijack planes into buildings he would have moved "heaven and earth" to prevent it. However, the public record strongly suggests that the President had far more than inkling. In fact, it was just such a threat that the President says led him to request the August 6th PDB.

Note these press reports: July 2000, US intelligence reports another spike in warnings related to the July 20-22 G-8 summit in Genoa, Italy. The reports include specific threats discovered by the head of Russia's Federal Bodyguard Service that al-Qaeda will try to kill Bush as he attends the summit. [CNN, 3/02] The reports are taken so seriously that Bush stays overnight on an aircraft carrier offshore, and other world leaders stay on a luxury ship. [CNN, 7/18/01]

Two days before the summit begins, the BBC reports: "The huge force of officers and equipment which has been assembled to deal with unrest has been spurred on by a warning that supporters of Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden might attempt an air attack on some of the world leaders present." . July 20-22, 2001, the G8 summit is held in Genoa, Italy. Acting on previous warnings that al-Qaeda would attempt to kill Bush and other leaders. Italy surrounds the summit with antiaircraft guns, keeps fighters in the air, and closes off local airspace to all planes. No attack occurs. US officials at the time stated that the warnings were "unsubstantiated" but after 9/11 claim success in preventing an attack. Distorting information about Genoa keeps the public and the airlines uninformed about the seriousness of the current terrorist threat. (Los Angeles Times 9/27/01).

Another reason high level officials at least should have known of warnings specific to this method of attack ('planes as weapons') is that some were passed on to U.S. intelligence from overseas agencies and heads of state. In June 2001, German intelligence, the BND, warns the CIA and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists are "planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture." (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 14, 2001).

According to Russian press sources, Russian intelligence notified the CIA that 25 terrorist pilots had been specifically training for suicide missions. In August 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin orders Russian intelligence to warn the U.S. government "in the strongest possible terms" of imminent attacks on airports and government buildings. (MS-NBC interview with Putin, September 15)

Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code-named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan has backed away from it. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02].

In today's hearings Ben-Veniste also referred to Operation Amalgam Virgo '02. NORAD leadership had initiated this plan in 2001, to run an exercise to prepare for the use of planes as weapons flown into the Pentagon by suicide. A drill exercise for this possibility was conducted at the Pentagon in October 2001.

Also revealed today, according to "an email obtained by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), members of the U.S. military Special Operations Group, "trained to think like terrorists " and responsible for defending America's airspace were in fact[b]concerned that a terrorist group would 'hijack a commercial airline [sic] (foreign carrier) and fly it into the Pentagon.' Officials at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) in April 2001 - five months prior to 9/11 - wanted to develop a response in the event that a terrorist group would use an airliner as a missile to attack the Pentagon." (POGO, (202) 347-1122 or email beth@pogo.org).

This clearly suggests that there was awareness and concern, at least on the part of the President NORAD "Special Operations" planners that planes might be used as weapons here in the United States. "All of this suggests that the known possibility of planes being used as weapons by suicide pilots was not only one possibility among many, but the specific scenario that led President Bush to take special preparations at the Genoa summit in July and to request the PDB in August. This threat also led to extensive exercises and preparations being made by both NORAD and the Pentagon from 1999 up to the day of the attack, which makes the lack of response on 9/11 all the more inexplicable," said Kyle Hence, co-founder of 9/11 CitizensWatch.

One more item about the 911 investigation
from http://slate.msn.com/id/2098861/#ContinueArticle

The official story about the PDB is that the CIA prepared it at the president's request. Bush had heard all Tenet's briefings about a possible al-Qaida attack overseas, the tale goes, and he wanted to know if Bin Laden might strike here. This story is almost certainly untrue. On March 19 of this year, Tenet told the 9/11 commission that the PDB had been prepared, as usual, at a CIA analyst's initiative. He later retracted that testimony, saying the president had asked for the briefing. Tenet embellished his new narrative, saying that the CIA officer who gave the briefing to Bush and Condi Rice started by reminding the president that he had requested it. But as Rice has since testified, she was not present during the briefing; she wasn't in Texas. Someone should ask: Was that the only part of the tale that Tenet made up? Or did he invent the whole thing—and, if so, on whose orders?

ljb

04-15-2004, 09:30 AM

Recent post by PA
quote:Originally posted by ljb
Lefty,
Gw's invasion of Iraq set us back in our efforts against terroism. His lack of attention to the forewarnings of 9/11 did us no good either.

Says who? Where is the scientific evidence of this theory?

Lack of attention to the forewarnings? What forewarnings? Stuff that's been known since at least 1997?

Whatever....
Pa, you are either ignorant or just a blinded follower. You make the call.

Secretariat

04-15-2004, 10:11 AM

Wow Hcap.

That information is unbelievable. Thank you for the detailed research.

Of course the answer here will be that it is all Clinton's fault.

Show Me the Wire

04-15-2004, 10:13 AM

ljb:

Fair enough you post the scientific evidence for your theories too.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

Show Me the Wire

04-15-2004, 10:16 AM

Sec:

Can we agree on this about Clinton. Clinton treated terrorism by foreign nationalists as domestic crimes against the United States and not as a threat from a foreign regime or group?

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

Lefty

04-15-2004, 12:21 PM

SMTW, that's right, the criminal arm and the intelligence arm were not allowed by law to communicate. How unbelievable is that? The woman who was responsible for that is actually on the 9-11 commission. How unbelievable is that?
Clinton did not take Bin Laden when he was offered.
Clinton was in 8 yrs and there were several terrorist attacks against us.
Bush was in 8 mos when 9-11 happened. A goodly part of these 8 mos was taken up in transition because the Clinton adm would not help in the transition. I don't recall this ever happening before.
This Pres doing more to fight terrorism than any other president. So when they run out of ammo, what do they the left do? They make fun of how he pronounces words. Unblveble!

Secretariat

04-15-2004, 01:12 PM

SMTW and Lefty,

According to Clarke's book Clinton had daily meetings (early according to him and Tenet - not domestic terrorist agencies) rather than spending most of his time in Crawford Texas vacationing during crisis like someone we all know. So I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion of treating foreign terrorists with onyl domestic agencies.

Personnaly, I've said this numerous times on this board that I was not a big fan of Bill Clinton and voted against him in 96, primarily because of NAFTA and his gutlessness in really pushing National Health Care. I also was not too fond of his service record (zilch!), but the same could be said for Cheyney and Wolfowitz. They have no record and yet are significant players in this decision on Iraq. I got questions on Bush's service record as well ,but that's been discussed ad infinitum. The latest tact appears to be to blame Gorelik for this intelligence memo from 96, and I understand that's where Ashcroft is going. Kind of amusing that he made no changes to that directive upon becoming Attorney General, but I will research this more.

What has bothered me on this board is that the Bush administration incompetence is always pointed backwards towards the Clinton years with a childlike argument - hey since they didn't do anything, that absolves us. That's just BS. Bush standing in front of the nation and can't remember one thing he did wrong. My God, talk about the hubris of this administration. Soldiers getting killed everyday, world opinion against us, 3000_ Americans dead from the WTC, and Gee, Duh, I can't think of anything I did wrong. This isn't the leadership America deserved when this man was appointed President.

Read this on Businessweekonline today. Seems this op-ed writer kind of hit the nail on the head.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/bw/20040415/bs_bw/nf200404150640db009

Steve 'StatMan'

04-15-2004, 01:28 PM

I didn't get the impression GW didn't feel he did anything wrong or could not have done anything better. The question was more on the order of 'what is your biggest regret' or 'what was the biggest thing you did wrong, etc.'. Nothing in particular stood out. But I really don't think any good leader admits mistakes in office - there are plenty of people who are more than happy to point them out, and the historians will write their ultimate answers.

This reminds me of one of those trick questions from job interviews - 'what are your weakness'. Man, how bad do you want to mess up your chances of getting hired?! I try to turn it around with another strength - 'I care too much about my work sometimes, and it'd be easier on me if I could relax and let stuff go, but that's just not the way I am'. (True about myself, even though I have other weaknesses. I just know not to talk about them in interviews.) ;)

Show Me the Wire

04-15-2004, 01:33 PM

Sec:

Nice answer to a question I did not ask.

If you answer my question, I will discuss my opinion with you if you want.

In my original question I did not blame Clinton and I did not say you supported Clinton.

I asked you about the policy implemented under Clinton.

Do you agree or not? A yes or no would suffice.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

ljb

04-15-2004, 05:10 PM

smtw,
Briefly:
If we had not spent most of our resources invading Iraq, we could concentrate on the real villians, namely Osama and his gang. Instead we are bogged down in Iraq while Osama continues to poke fun at us and build more sleeper cells throughout the world. The cells main goal of course is to kill Americans.
The 9/11 commission hearings are showing us how much attention the Bush administration paid to the warnings re/9/11. Bush stayed on vacation and went out for a round of golf. (I don't know what he shot as I wasn't in his foursome.)

Tom

04-15-2004, 06:21 PM

Still waiting for your evidence, Ljb....or is this just like all your other little troll dances - all talk, no walk?

Secretariat

04-15-2004, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Sec:

Nice answer to a question I did not ask.

If you answer my question, I will discuss my opinion with you if you want.

In my original question I did not blame Clinton and I did not say you supported Clinton.

I asked you about the policy implemented under Clinton.

Do you agree or not? A yes or no would suffice.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

The problem with Yes or No implies that I was in on principal meetings which I wasn't. Former CIA Director James Woolsey would say Yes, and Madeline Albright would say No and I beleive Clarke would say No.

However, looking at some of the links from 1996 after the Oklahoma bombing, one can see the battles Clinton fought with a recalcitrant Congress over how to combat terrorism (This particular incident was an American terrorist action - McVeigh, and not al Quada)

The first link is Clinton's words himself in 96 and the others deal with newspaper articles and op-eds at the time.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/august96/clintonspeech_8-6.html

http://www.angelfire.com/rant/sstewert/News/clintonbill.html

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/page1/96/07/29/clinton1.html

Again, I hate wasting too much time defending Clinton or getting into a symantic argument about what was his policy toward terrorism in 93, as opposed to 96, or 98, or 00, because I am not a fan of him as I've listed before, however, I just see Repubs trying to deflect their own man's mistakes onto Clinton, and I think the Bush administration was grossly lacking in preparedness despite repeated warnings. Their focus since election has been Iraq, and they got what they wanted, ...at a pretty hefty cost.

hcap

04-15-2004, 09:25 PM

I don't trust any government to tell the truth.

It should now be obvious the "official story" of 911 is full of holes. IN FACT the conspiracy theories making the rounds on the internet sound more plausible.
The only sort of mainstream explanation
that might be acceptable is incompetance. In my view, gross incompetence.

The conspiracy theories btw are divided into 2 main categories

1) LIHOP- let it happen on purpose.
2) MIHOP- MAKE it happen on purpose.

Number 1 is becomming the leading view, considering the neocon goals spelled out by those same neocons constituting the majority of top officials in the Bush admins., over 10 years ago.

Number 2 is too extreme for even me.
Although there is some convincing arguments pointing to that.

The BIG problem, the elephant in the room, no one is at the moment is exammining publicly, is WHERE WERE OUR planes.

Unbelievable that planes were dispatched from Boston and traveled at 1/3 their normal speed to NYC.
Or no planes from Andrews-10 miles from the pentagon. Or from a dozen other military bases much much closer than Boston.

According to existing rules of engagement, after the FAA notifies Norad, fighters are sent to fly next to a suspicious or out of control aircraft automatically. No presidential order is REQUIRED!! to shadow the aberant flight, it is only needed for a shoot down command.

Remember Payne Stewart. Planes were investigating, trying to get the pilots attention within 25 minutes of losing contact. And this was in and over cornfields in the midwest. Not one of the most heavily traveled air cooridors-
Not like the northeast.

Royal foul up or what???

Some history lessons.

from http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0414-03.htm
Howard Zinn

"After a year of fighting in Iraq and an occupation fraught with violence, surely it is not rash to suggest, given the debacle over missing "weapons of mass destruction," that it is a good general rule to treat any official rationale for war with skepticism.

This conduct would be a healthy departure from the tendency of both Congress and the major media to assume, as was clearly done on the eve of this war in Iraq, that the government is telling the truth. And such skepticism would certainly be a prudent approach to any supposed candor coming from presidential press conferences, such as last night's, during an election campaign.

A bit of history might have suggested skepticism. It might have been recalled that President James Polk took us into war with Mexico in 1846, and William McKinley took us into war with Spain in 1898, and Congress authorized war in Vietnam in 1964, all based on deceptions.

Another suggested principle: When a calamity occurs - such as the killing of soldiers on the Mexican border, or the sinking of the battleship Maine, or the blowing up of the Twin Towers, should Congress, the media and the public not be wary that the calamity might be made an excuse for going to war, with the real reasons concealed from the country?

History might be useful here. Is it too embarrassing to suggest that oil is the real reason for virtually anything the United States has done in the Middle East? The real reason for war with Mexico was to take almost half of its territory. The real reason for war in Cuba was to replace Spanish control of that island with U.S. control. The real reason for war in the Philippines was the markets of China. The real reason for the Vietnam War was to take another piece of real estate in the Cold War game of Monopoly with the Soviet Union.

Another general principle, buttressed by history: Military interventions and occupations do not lead to democracy. I would cite the long occupations of the Philippines, Haiti, the Dominican Republic. Also: the military action in Vietnam on behalf of a corrupt and dictatorial government, and the many covert actions - Iran, Guatemala, Chile - leading to brutal dictatorships.

More conclusions, from both history and our experience in Iraq: that all wars have unintended consequences, usually bad ones; that military occupation is corrupting to the occupied country and also to the occupiers; that the casualties of a military adventure are not just the immediate ones, but continue far beyond. Think of the tens of thousands of suicides of Vietnam veterans, the 160,000 medical casualties of the Persian Gulf War.

A final lesson from past and present: The American public cannot depend on our much overrated system of "checks and balances" to prevent a needless and costly war. Congress and the Supreme Court have proved to be no check for an executive branch hell-bent on combat. Only an aroused citizenry can provide the check on unbridled power that a democracy requires.

Tom

04-15-2004, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by hcap
[B]I don't trust any government to tell the truth.....
./B]

But yet you will believe any, and from the looks of things, ALL crap you find posted on the internet!?! Ok, yup, uh huh. Gottcha.
Whoa boy!
:eek:

hcap

04-15-2004, 10:01 PM

Tom

After watching duh press conference, I will believe almost anything, except what we are being told. He is covering his ass. and exactly how culpable he is, I admit is still open for debate

PaceAdvantage

04-15-2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by hcap
Remember Payne Stewart. Planes were investigating, trying to get the pilots attention within 25 minutes of losing contact. And this was in and over cornfields in the midwest. Not one of the most heavily traveled air cooridors-
Not like the northeast.

You may want to research this incident again. I too thought about this and looked up the official report on the Payne Stewart incident, and as I recall, it took much more than 25 minutes to get fighter jets up there to look into things. Make sure you take into account the change in time zone when looking at the timeline. If I remember, I will look back into it myself.

And I still wonder where our fighter jets were on 9/11

PaceAdvantage

04-15-2004, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by ljb
The 9/11 commission hearings are showing us how much attention the Bush administration paid to the warnings re/9/11. Bush stayed on vacation and went out for a round of golf. (I don't know what he shot as I wasn't in his foursome.)

Since you think I am ignorant (I can assure you I am not a blinded follower), indulge me a moment:

What were the clear warning signs pre-9/11?

Do these signs include the first bombing of the WTC under Clinton's watch? And what did Clinton do in response to such OVERT warning signs?

I assume you think that Clinton was a much better President then Bush in all regards, so if we use Clinton as the model for response, just what is it that Bush should have been doing to prevent 9/11 in a way that Clinton could NOT prevent the first WTC bombing, nor subsequent terror attacks worldwide?

What did you want Bush to do?

But before you answer that, it would help if you would detail to this ignorant soul (ME) the SPECIFIC warning signs that President Bush blew off in favor of golf.

After you list the specific WARNING SIGNS that pointed to SIMULTANEOUS attacks on WASHINGTON and NY, I want you to tell me what Bush should have done to PREVENT these attacks that were FORWARNED (according to you).

Thank you.

Show Me the Wire

04-15-2004, 11:32 PM

I could be ill-mannered and say: "Don't hold your breath PA waiting for a responsive answer", but I will not.

It gladens me, seeing most of us asking for facts and proof of these vague generalized statements generated by poster with a certain agenda.

The requesting of facts and evidence angle really seems to throw them off their game.

It must be they are not use to other people thinking for themselves and then refusing to be swayed solely through catchy phrases and sayings.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

hcap

04-16-2004, 06:39 AM

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

A Case for Comparison

An example of how the air defense network normally responds to domestic emergencies is illustrated by the well-reported 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet. When the golfer's jet failed to respond to air traffic controller communications, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne's stricken Learjet starting about 20 minutes after contact with his plane was lost.

This contrasts with the long periods of time apparently hijacked planes roamed the skies of the Northeast on September 11th without any interceptions. 83 minutes elapsed between the time that Flight 11 veered off course and the Pentagon was hit, and 112 minutes elapsed between the time that contact was lost with Flight 11 and Flight 93 crashed. According to the official story, not a single fighter was scrambled in time to intercept any of the four jetliners. At least 28 air stations were easily within distance to protect New York City and Washington DC.

None of them did. Note that, if anything, intercept times for the four jetliners should have been far shorter than for Payne Stewart's jet:

* Stewart's jet merely failed to respond to communications. Each of the four jetliners, in addition to going silent, veered dramatically off course and switched off their transponders.
* Stewart's jet went off course in the South, which has fewer air defense stations than the NorthEast corridor.
* Air traffic controllers more carefully monitor large passenger aircraft in crowded air corridors than small private aircraft.
* Stewart's jet went off-course at 45,000 feet, 10,000 feet higher than jetliners fly.
* After the first hijacking, the air traffic controllers, the FAA, and NORAD should have been prepared to respond immediately to subsequent off-course aircraft.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=payne+stewart&events=on&entities=on&references=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=+Go+

"The scrambling (sending into the air) of fighter aircraft at the first sign of trouble is a routine phenomenon. During the year 2000, there are 425 “unknowns”—pilots who didn't file or diverted from flight plans or used the wrong frequency. Fighters are scrambled in response 129 times in cases where problems are not immediately resolved. After 9/11, such scrambles go from about twice a week to three or four times a day. [Calgary Herald, 10/13/01] Between September 2000 and June 2001, fighters are scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/13/02] General Ralph E. Eberhart, NORAD Commander in Chief, says that before 9/11, “Normally, our units fly 4-6 sorties a month in support of the NORAD air defense mission.” [FNS, 10/25/01] Statistics on how many minutes fighters take to scramble before 9/11 apparently are not released."

“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists…when: … There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any... aircraft.” [FAA regulations]

“Pilots are supposed to hit each fix with pinpoint accuracy. If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They'll call the plane, saying ‘American 11, you're deviating from course.’ It's considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart's incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched.” [MSNBC, 9/12/01]

“A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft. When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile.”

“In October [2002], Gen. Eberhart told Congress that ‘now it takes about one minute’ from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters ‘within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States.’” [Slate, 1/16/02]

The commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force, Anatoli Kornukov, says the day after 9/11: “Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday…. As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up.” [Pravda, 9/12/01]

Supposedly, on 9/11, there are only four fighters on ready status in the Northeastern US, and only 14 fighters on permanent ready status in the entire US. [BBC, 8/29/02] However, any number of additional fighters could be in the air or ready to fly at the time the 9/11 attacks begin, but exact numbers are not known.

Additionally, the Air Traffic Services Cell (ATSC), an office designed to facilitate communications between the FAA and the military, had just been given a secure Internet (Siprnet) terminal and other hardware six weeks earlier, “greatly enhancing the movement of vital information.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology 6/10/02]

September 14, 2001

The Director of the Air National Guard explains why jets failed to scramble towards the hijacked aircraft for so long. He says that before 1997, 100 bases defended the US, but since then the number was reduced to seven, with only two fighter planes at each base defending the entire country from external threats. [Dallas Morning News 9/16/01]
However, numerous air force bases on the East Coast alone, including bases in Westfield, Massachusetts, Syracuse, New York, Hartford, Connecticut and Andrews, Virginia, claim they have battle ready fighters on alert 24 hours a day. All of these bases were better positioned to respond to the hijacker airplanes than the bases ultimately chosen.[b] Some of these bases have websites that get changed after 9/11, erasing claims that they have battle-ready fighters on alert (for instance, see the DCANG Home Page before and after the change.

In 1999, when golfer Payne Stewart's plane went off course, fighters were scrambled from four different bases (none of the official seven) and reached his plane in under 10 minutes. [ABC News, 10/25/99] There are numerous other examples of fighter scramblings since 1997 that seem to contradict the “only seven bases” story.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/reynolds5.html

"Not one employee at the FAA, Defense, WMCC, NORAD or any other culpable civilian or military branch of government has been reprimanded or dismissed for incompetence. The official fable is that indecisive employees, both civilian and military, stood around and dithered, wondering what to do, thereby creating an unprecedented systemic failure. Turning off a transponder is illegal, much less calls from flight attendants at 8:21 a.m. confirming the hijack of Flight 11, fully 25 minutes before that first collision with a WTC Tower at 8:46 a.m., plenty of time to intercept it far from New York City."

"the paramount fact about 9/11, namely, there was an 80-minute "outage" in standard response. Airliners or, indeed general aviation, running around willy-nilly are a threat to public safety. So flying in authorized "channels" was strict policy before 9/11, not just after. FAA regulations had instructed air traffic controllers that an aircraft emergency exists when "there is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with…any aircraft…If…you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency." Any deviation from plan and non-response is considered a real emergency.

The FAA manual specified what happens at the intercept of an totally unresponsive plane, quoting Griffin: "Rocking wings…conveys the message: ‘You have been intercepted.’ The commercial jet is then supposed to respond by rocking its wings to indicate compliance, upon which the interceptor performs a ‘slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading.’ The commercial plane then responds by following the escort." Non-response, according to standard procedures, risks a shoot down. Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman, told the Boston Globe that NORAD's "fighters routinely intercept aircraft" and explained, "Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane’s path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."

According to military regulations, a hijacking meant that the National Military Command Center "will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exceptions of requests needing an immediate response…forward requests for DoD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval." Immediate response means that many people in the line of command would have had the authority to prevent AA Flight 11 from slamming into WTC North. Anybody who believes that highly-trained military commanders, the guys in the killing and maiming business, sit around and dither over a potential loss of civilian life during a military emergency, paralyzed, even with well-established procedures in place, needs to get back in touch with planet earth.

"The Secretary of Defense was at the Pentagon the morning of 9/11, busy discussing terrorism with Congressman Christopher Cox, pleading for more money and impressing him with his predictive powers. At 8:44 a.m., according to AP, Rumsfeld said, "There will be another event. There will be another event." Two minutes later, AA Flight 11 slammed into WTC North. Watching television at 9:35 a.m., Rumsfeld wowed Cox again by saying, "Believe me, this isn’t over yet. There’s going to be another attack, and it could be us." A few moments later, at 9:38, the Pentagon was hit. Attacks in New York? No fighters were put over Washington."

Also--

A few minutes after the 8:46 WTC crash, CIA Director Tenet is told of the crash while he is eating breakfast with former Senator David Boren. Boren says Tenet is told that the WTC has been attacked by an airplane: “I was struck by the fact that [the messenger] used the word attacked.” Tenet then hands a cell phone back to an aide and says to Boren, “You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it.” [ABC, 9/14/02] Why is Bush supposedly under the impression the crash was an accident well after Tenet has been told it was an attack? Does Tenet try to communicate with Bush at this time?

hcap

04-16-2004, 07:14 AM

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0415/mondo10.php

"Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator, who is openly challenging the agency's veracity in the 9-11 investigation. Attorney General John Ashcroft has put a gag order on Edmonds by making her internal complaint to the inspector general secret. Soon after she came out publicly, Edmonds was fired."

hcap

04-16-2004, 07:33 AM

Book: Bush Secretly Ordered Iraq War Plan

"WASHINGTON - President Bush secretly ordered a war plan drawn up against Iraq less than two months after U.S. forces attacked Afghanistan and was so worried the decision would cause a furor he did not tell everyone on his national security team, says a new book on his Iraq policy."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/breaking_news/8446501.htm

ljb

04-16-2004, 08:36 AM

PA said
" After you list the specific WARNING SIGNS that pointed to SIMULTANEOUS attacks on WASHINGTON and NY, I want you to tell me what Bush should have done to PREVENT these attacks that were FORWARNED (according to you)."
This is the same response given by Dr. Rice and Rummy to the 9/11 commission.
All the testimony to date has clarified the fact that the terroists were ramping up for something big. The title of the Aug. 6 PDB was very clear. OSAMA determined to attack US. This alone should have recieved a response other then a round of golf.
The administration seems to be saying. Well if they had told us they were going to hijack airplanes from logan airport and crash them into the 82 floor of the WTC at approximately 8:45 am on september 11, we would have stopped them. Well DUH! The basic fact is the administration had their sights set on Saddam and nothing was going to deter them from there goal. They were so focused on Saddam that they overlooked the obvious situation developing with Osama.
Oh and thanks for clearing that up, I didn't think you were of the blind follower group.

Secretariat

04-16-2004, 09:31 AM

Anyone who does not research this man is severely limiting their knowledge to the run up to the WTC.

You can review the whole PBS report and video which aired on Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/

or read the short version of O'Neill and the run up to WTC here:

http://www.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=7479

Show Me the Wire

04-16-2004, 09:56 AM

THERE IS NO COMPARISON Let's say the fighter were scrambled to intercept the planes, then what. Totally, different scenario with Payne Stewart and 9/11.

If fighters are launched at that time it was not our policy to shoot down planes, the purpose is to determine if the pilot is in distress and why communication has been severed. In the case of Payne's plane it was determined all the occupants were dead and the fighters escorted the plane until it crashed. Even with all the occupants believed to be dead American fighters did not shoot down the plane. It simply was not the policy then.

On 9/11, even if the controllers did their job and notified the air defense, what could we have done under then current policy? Ask yourselves, would you want American fighters to shoot down passenger planes with living innocent American hostages, including children, American flight crews, on planes owned by American companies.

You are asking for an American fighter to kill innocents to pre-empt a strike from an unknown enemy. The enemy knew our behavior and our ethics took advantage of our ethics concerning innocent hostages.

Hell put it into context, during the invasion of Iraq, American forces at their own peril put the safety of Iraqi civilians at a premium.

This is now and that was then. I do not want to see another 9/11 and I am mentally prepared for an American fighter to kill innocent American hostages to stop an attack from foreign enemies. On 9/11, I could not make that statement.

I only could imagine what ljb, sec, Amazin, etc would be saying about Bush the murderer of innocent hostages if under presidential order our fighters shot down those commercial jets.

Looking back, I am glad those fighters were not present as that decision did not have to be made. Adecision to kill innocents to save unknown innocents.

Once, the magnitude of the attack was uncovered the pilots, I believe were given orders to shoot down our own innocent hostages.

Looking back, no matter what we did, 9/11 was a losing proposition for us and Bin Laden knew that. Even now we have people in the U.S. that refuse to believe Bin Laden is waging a war against us. He confirmed his war by offering peace to Europe.

Offering peace is only done in times of war and hostility. His words of peace offerings to Europe should resound through American ears with Bin lade and his ilk's intention to wage war against us and we should act appropriately. Engage him and his supporters with our military might.

If our fighters shot down those commercial planes on 9/11, we Americans would be hearing cries of Bush the murderer of innocent Americans, form ljb and his like-minded thinkers.

I believe ljb or hcap whom posted the air defense article will come on this board and say President Bush should have American fighter pilots kill innocent civilians without knowing what really was happening on 9/11.

Hcap’s point is not failure of intelligence, but his post is about failure to take action with fighter pilots as was done in other different scenarios. Hcap, I know you would not have been in favor of policy change at that time and date without sufficient information to murder innocent hostages.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

ljb

04-16-2004, 05:07 PM

I don't believe American fighter pilots should have gone airborne on 9/11 and shot down the hijacked flights. I believe we should have stopped the hijacking before they took place.

Secretariat

04-16-2004, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
THERE IS NO COMPARISON Let's say the fighter were scrambled to intercept the planes, then what. Totally, different scenario with Payne Stewart and 9/11.

If fighters are launched at that time it was not our policy to shoot down planes, the purpose is to determine if the pilot is in distress and why communication has been severed. ... It simply was not the policy then.

On 9/11, even if the controllers did their job and notified the air defense, what could we have done under then current policy? Ask yourselves, would you want American fighters to shoot down passenger planes with living innocent American hostages, including children, American flight crews, on planes owned by American companies.

You are asking for an American fighter to kill innocents to pre-empt a strike from an unknown enemy. The enemy knew our behavior and our ethics took advantage of our ethics concerning innocent hostages.

....

I only could imagine what ljb, sec, Amazin, etc would be saying about Bush the murderer of innocent hostages if under presidential order our fighters shot down those commercial jets.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

Well SMTW...all I can say is you're wrong. Both Cheyney and Bush admitted shortly after 911 that the order to shoot down those plans WAS IN FACT GIVEN.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/39169_shoot17.shtml

So much for policy.

Reading the article. IF I have to choose between the death of thousands and the poor unfortunates of those people in the planes, I'm actually going to have to agree with Cheyney on this one from the article. Perhaps a first on my part.

Show Me the Wire

04-16-2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Well SMTW...all I can say is you're wrong. Both Cheyney and Bush admitted shortly after 911 that the order to shoot down those plans WAS IN FACT GIVEN.

I am not wrong. I am not wrong in stating that it was not our policy to shoot down planes prior to the attacks of 9/11.

Policy changed during the attack. I know after we figured out it was an attack the order was given to shoot at other off course jets if the pilots did not respond. Like I said it was a no win situation for any president kill innocent living hostages prior to knowing why these commercial jet liners were off course or let them kill other innocent people.

No matter what you say there is no comparison to any other intercept by a fighter plane prior to 9/11.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

Show Me the Wire

04-16-2004, 06:55 PM

ljb:

I agree with you. I would have wanted to stop the attacks prior to them happening. Our intellegence and communication systems failed. That is not solely the fault of a new president, the system that was in place prior to him failed.

A main reason is how the terrrorists were veiwed by our country accounted for our lack of preventive actions along with the greed of some people.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

percpetion is reality

JustRalph

04-16-2004, 08:03 PM

Most of the planes that helped in the Payne Stewart case were already in the air or on excercises nearby. That is why they were able to provide and escort in a minimal time frame. They just passed them off after that. Jesus....you guys are so far off base it is not worth discussing.

this is from the FAA on the Payne Stewart Case:

9:09 a.m. Plane leaves Orlando, Fla.

10:08 a.m. ''FAA requested emergency escort.'' F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.

10:52 a.m. ''Aircraft jumped to 44,000.'' (Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the plane was ''porpoising,'' fluctuating between 22,000 and 51,000 feet. This may be because it was on auto pilot.)

11 a.m. ''Emergency track has five souls on board. Still no contact.''

11:14 a.m. Responsibility for escorting plane is transferred from Southeast Air Defense sector to Western Air Defense sector.

11:25 a.m. ''Lear 35 tail number N47BA.''

11:44 a.m. Escort fighter from Eglin heads to Scott Air Force Base, Ill., for refueling.

11:59 a.m. FAA reports that four F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., and a refueling tanker (KC-135) are ready to help escort. (Bacon said these F-16s never got closer than 100 miles to the Learjet).

12:03 p.m. Northeast Air Defense sector scrambles two F-16s from Fargo, N.D. (Bacon said an AWACS radar plane on an exercise north of Chicago was diverted to provide additional radar coverage in the event the plane crossed into Canada.)

12:13 p.m. Learjet estimated to have one hour of fuel remaining. ''Flight path on 320 (degrees) heading over mostly sparsely populated area.''

Tom

04-16-2004, 09:02 PM

Originally posted by ljb
I don't believe American fighter pilots should have gone airborne on 9/11 and shot down the hijacked flights. I believe we should have stopped the hijacking before they took place.

Same reason I supported the invasion of Iraq. I prefer to stop WMD befreo they are used agaisnt us. That we haven' fouind them YETY, is not at issue here. What is at issue is that the common belive amoung everyone for years what that he had them. And he had previously used them agains his own people. And previously invaded Kuwait. And previously set the oil wells on fire. And was currently firing upon US airplanes in the no-fly zone. And had clearly violeted the conditions of the cease filre from the Gulf War.
o, L, did we not have clear list of danger signals before we went in? You condemn Bush for going in under the guise it was immenently a threat and we could not wait.
Well, on far less information in Augist 2001, he waited to formulate his repsonse and actually had a plan agreed to by his principle on 9-10-01 and now you condemn him for waitnig for something not so obviously immenent.
You are waffling-please be consistent.

PaceAdvantage

04-16-2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by ljb
The title of the Aug. 6 PDB was very clear. OSAMA determined to attack US.

So you are trying to tell me that this is the FIRST time anyone ever realized that Osama bin Laden had the desire and determination to attack the United States? bin Laden's name has been on the FBI watchlist and IN THE PUBLIC eye WELL BEFORE August 6, 2001.

bin Laden has been around along time....you can't for a minute think that nobody had considered he wanted to attack the US until this PDB in August of 2001?

There is nothing even remotely specific or "New" in that PDB to even hint at what was to come on 9/11. This is nothing more than the President's adversaries trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill, and dare I say politicize the tragic events of 9/11....they are quite the hypocrites, considering they blasted Bush for bringing up 9/11 in a campaign ad....

PaceAdvantage

04-16-2004, 11:58 PM

PaceAdvantage

04-17-2004, 12:20 AM

Hcap, is it possible your sources are quite mistaken when it comes to the Stewart crash? I know they are trying to fervently make the point that 9/11 was some grand conspiracy, but the following facts seem to disprove that angle, at least as it pertains to the late Payne Stewart.....

The following is taken DIRECTLY from the NTSB Website Report (http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm#P66_7141) concerning the Payne Stewart incident....please note the times and the time zones listed:

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,(7) a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

Now, what to make of this? At 9:33 EDT it was first realized by ATC that contact has been lost.

The next entry we see in this log is at 9:52 CDT when a test pilot was sent to investigate. If this time is accurate, doesn't it mean almost an hour and 20 minutes have past?

9:52 CDT = 10:52 EDT.

There is a footnote to the 9:52 CDT entry, and it follows:

(7) About 1010 EDT, the accident airplane crossed from the EDT zone to the CDT zone in the vicinity of Eufaula, Alabama.

Now you tell me what I'm missing here? The way I read it, it took almost an hour and a half before fighter jets got to the plane after ATC realized something might be wrong.

This makes sense, considering the plane took off from Florida and crashed in South Dakota. This lear jet has a cruising speed of about 500 MPH. It is approximately 1800 miles between Florida and South Dakota, where Stewart's jet crashed, so the flight would take close to 4 hours.

Again, what have I missed in this report? Do conventional time zone applications get thrown out the window just to make a point?

JustRalph

04-17-2004, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
Do conventional time zone applications get thrown out the window just to make a point?

No, they just ignore relevant facts that might expose the total idiocy of some of their positions.........

BTW.......there were no combat Air patrols in the U.S. on 9-11. There were over 200 alert aircraft stationed inside the U.S. when George Bush 41 left Office. During the Clinton Years this number dropped to 27 after defense cuts in the guard and reserves. I haven't heard anybody bring that up when they complain about our Air Forces not being able to react on 9-11.......

Tom

04-17-2004, 09:57 AM

PA and Ralph....ever vigilent watchdogs of the truth! :D
Good points. Those damn facts again. Nothing gets in the way of a good conspiracy like facts. Shame on you both! :rolleyes:
Facts are to liberals as DNA was to OJ.

Actually, I was driving from Grand Rapids to New State that day and listened to coverage of the entire indicent both on the news and on Rush's show. It was an all day event, bascially.

PaceAdvantage

04-18-2004, 09:58 PM

I'm anxious to hear hcap's response to my post about the Payne Stewart accident, so I am bumping this to the top....

PaceAdvantage

04-20-2004, 01:13 AM

Come on, where did Hcap go?

hcap

04-20-2004, 09:00 AM

Pa

The Payne Stewart case may not be an aproropriate comparison. But there are still some questions concerning the NTSB Website Report.

This is what was reported from various sources shortly after the incident

from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.htm
10/30/99-

Chronology of events
By The Associated Press

A preliminary chronology developed by the Air Force of events surrounding the crash Monday of a Learjet who passengers included professional golfer Payne Stewart. Material in quotations is verbatim from the chronology. All times are Eastern.

9:09 a.m. Plane leaves Orlando, Fla.

10:08 a.m. ''FAA requested emergency escort.'' F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.

Here in 2 reports there is mention of a jet(s) from Tyndall Fla. being diverted to intercept-not mentioned in the NTSB Website Report.

from http://www.poncacitynews.com/NewsArchives/1099folder/lo102599.html
October 25, 1999

An Air Force F-16 fighter jet from Tyndall, Fla., was diverted from a routine training flight to check out the Learjet, Air Force officials said. Two F-15 fighters from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., then took over to follow the Learjet, and they later handed off the monitoring to two Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla.

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm
Tuesday, October 26, 1999;

"Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft and stayed with it from 11:09 a.m. to 11:44 a.m., when the military fighter was diverted to St. Louis for fuel.

So I guess even if the NTSB Website Report is correct we can see how the comparison of the Stewart case to 911 came into being.

If you do use the NTSB Report the times work out I think as follows

"At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response."

9:33:38 +4.5
Earliest notification to Air force=9:38

Latest time Air force could have been notified-Some assumptions

10:52edt-9:38= 1:14 (74 minutes) to actual intercept

If the Eglin jets were on the ground
-10 min scramble
~200 miles from eglin to Eufaula, Alabama @500 mph --
(the approx speed the 2 jets from Boston "cruised" to NYC on 911)

=@ 24 min

24+10=34 min

74-34=40 min
Latest time Air force notified within 40 min

From
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline_flight _aa_77

8:25 a.m.
Boston flight controllers notify other flight control centers of the Flight 11 hijacking, but supposedly they don't notify (NORAD for another 6 or 15 minutes (see 8:31 a.m. and 8:40 a.m.). [8:25:00, Guardian, 10/17/01] Why isn't NORAD also notified at this time? Note that this means the controllers working Flights 77 and Flight 93 would have been aware of Flight 11's hijacking from this time. [Village Voice 9/13/01]

8:43 a.m.
NORAD is notified that Flight 175 has been hijacked. [8:43, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:43, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:43, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:43, AP, 8/19/02, 8:43, Newsday, 9/10/02] Apparently NORAD doesn't need to be notified, because by this time NEADS technicians have their headsets linked to the FAA in Boston to hear about Flight 11, and so NORAD learns instantly about Flight 175. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] Note that this means the controllers working Flight 77 and Flight 93 would have been aware of both Flight 175 and Flight 11's hijacking from this time.

9:38 Flight 77 crashes into pentagon
9:38- 8:43 a.m.=

approx 55 minutes.
Where were the planes from Andrews?
Ten miles from the pentagon?

from http://www.unansweredquestions.org/topic.php?tid=45
"How can our air defense protecting Washington, D.C. remain on the ground AFTER the WTC has been hit by two airplanes and air traffic control is showing two more commercial jets off course with one of them heading towards the nation's capitol?

"Andrews Air Force Base is a huge military installation just 10 miles from the Pentagon. On 11 September there were two entire squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews. Their job was to protect the skies over Washington D.C. They failed to do their job. Despite over one hour's advance warning of a terrorist attack in progress, not a single Andrews fighter tried to protect the city. The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed." If the FAA is required by law to notify the US government of a reported hijacking, as they did before the first hit at the WTC, why then, with well over half and hour before the attack on the pentagon, were no preventive military actions taken by Andrews Air Force Base?

The second WTC tower and the Pentagon were hit 18 minutes and 35 minutes after the first WTC tower (8:45am local time), respectively. A 9:06 am NYC Police broadcast was quoted as saying "This was a terrorist attack. Notify the Pentagon." (New York Daily News, 0/12/01). The American Forces Press Service reported that Pentagon workers worried they might be victims of an attack as well: "'We were watching the World Trade Center on the television,' said a Navy officer. 'when the second plane deliberately dove into the tower, someone said, 'The World Trade Center is one of the most recognizable symbols of America. We're sitting in a close second.'" (Defenslink News, 9/13/01) If it these any many other sources prove that the attack on the first tower presented a known clear and present danger to the Pentagon and the US government as a whole, and divisions of the armed forces at Andrews Air Force Base and other locale have divisions with constant states of readiness to intervene in such situations, why did the US government not take any offensive or strategic responses to prevent the attack on the Pentagon within the over half an hour period they had to do so?

WHY HAVE THE "AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS" ON DUTY 9/11 NOT BEEN INTERVIEWED BY OUR "FREE PRESS" AS TO WHAT THEY OBSERVED AND WHEN, TO WHOM THEY REPORTED AND WHAT THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO DO?

Sorry Pa I don't have more time to cover the jets "scrambled" from Boston
to NYC. Will post more soon

hcap

04-21-2004, 08:42 AM

Some disturbing points.
Conspiracy? or just plain foul ups and incompetance?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline_flight _ua_175

(8:40 a.m.)

Major Daniel Nash (codenamed Nasty) and Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy (codenamed Duff) are the two F-15 pilots who would scramble after Flight 11 and then Flight 175 . Nash says that at this time, a colleague at the Otis Air National Guard Base tells him that a flight out of Boston has been hijacked, and to be on alert. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] NEADS senior technician Jeremy Powell also later says that he telephones Otis Air Base and tells it to upgrade its readiness posture. [Newhouse News, 1/25/02] Duffy also says he is told in advance about the hijacking by the FAA in Boston. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Nash and Duffy put on their flight gear and get ready. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] They are already halfway to their jets when battle stations are sounded. Duffy briefs Nash on what he knows, and, About 4-5 minutes later, we [get] the scramble order and [take] off.[Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] If this is true, why isn't the order to scramble given when the FAA called the pilots, instead of six minutes later? And even stranger, why does it take another six minutes (8:52) for the fighters to take off, if they had been given a heads up warning to get ready? Had the order to scramble been given now, there would be plenty of time for these fighters to reach New York before Flight 175.

8:52 a.m.

Two F-15s take off from Otis ANG Base, six minutes after being ordered to go after Flight 11, which has already crashed. [8:52, NORAD, 9/18/01, 8:52, CNN, 9/17/01, 8:53, Washington Post, 9/12/01, 8:52, Washington Post, 9/15/01, 8:52, ABC News, 9/11/02] This is 38 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with the plane. They go after Flight 175 instead. According to Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, one of the pilots, before takeoff, a fellow officer had told him This looks like the real thing. He says, It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way. A NORAD commander has said the planes were stocked with extra fuel as well. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Full-blower is very rare it means the fighters are going as fast as they can go. An F-15 can travel over 1875 mph. [Air Force News, 7/30/97] Duffy later says, As we're climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us. He says his target destination is over Kennedy airport in New York City. [ABC News, 9/11/02] According to Major Gen. Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, The pilots [fly] ˜like a scalded ape", topping 500 mph but [are] unable to catch up to the airliner [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01] ABC News later says, The fighters are hurtling toward New York at mach 1.2, nearly 900 miles per hour. [ABC News, 9/11/02] NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold says they head straight for New York City at about 1100 to 1200 mph. [MSNBC, 9/23/01 (C), Slate, 1/16/02] â€œAn F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in 10 to 12 minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman. [Cape Cod Times, 9/16/01] At an average speed of 1125 mph, they would reach the city in 10 minutes 9:02. So if NORAD commander Arnold's speed is correct, these fighters should reach Flight 175 just before it crashes. Yet according to the NORAD timeline [NORAD, 9/18/01], these planes take about 19 minutes to reach New York City, traveling less than 600 mph.

(9:03 a.m. and After)

Flight 175 hits the WTC south tower at 9:03.

The minute Flight 175 hits the south tower, F-15 pilot Major Daniel Nash says that clear visibility allows him to see smoke pour out of Manhattan, even though NORAD says he is 71 miles away. However, he says he can't recall actually being told of the Flight 11 hit. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] He isn't told about the danger of Flight 175 until after it too has crashed and he is 60 miles away. [ABC, 9/14/02] And instead of being ordered to New York City, the two F-15s are ordered to hover in a 150-mile chunk of air space off the coast of Long Island. Nash states neither the civilian controller or the military controller knew what they wanted us to do. But then a few minutes later, they receive orders to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they do that for the next four hours. At no point are these pilots given permission to shoot down any airliners. Nash points out that even if he had reached New York City before Flight 175, he couldn't have shot it down because only the President could make that decision and he was indisposed at a public event. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02] The pilot of the other fighter, Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, says that after Flight 175 has crashed, at that point they [say] the second aircraft just hit the World Trade Center. That was news to me. I thought we were still chasing American 11. [ABC News, 9/11/02] Why are the pilots not being told of their targets? Why are they being sent out into the ocean? Why is Bush reading a book about a goat when all this is happening?

By the way, here are some bases closer to DC than Otis.

Again, even if WTC intercepts were impossible (questionable) , the pentagon intercept WAS not

1. Andrews AFB [11 miles SE of DC].
2. Bolling AFB [3 miles south of US CAPITOL].
3. Dover AFB [3 miles southeast of Dover, Delaware]
5. Langley AFB [3 miles north of Hampton, VA]
6. McGuire AFB [18 miles southeast of
Trenton,NJ]

Secretariat

04-21-2004, 10:40 AM

I don't understand why these questions aren't being asked at the 911 comission meeting. If, in fact, it is to prevent this type of thing from occurring in the future, why isn't this even be discussed? The failure to stop these planes timely is probably one of the major issues of the whole damn thing. Why aren't these pilots being questioned? The flight controllers? The NORAD principals.

Cheyney has already stated the order to shoot down was given, so the question is why the delay in getting into those planes and why the delay in arriving?

You can argue the rightness or wrongness of the decision, but why this timeline delay. The more I watch the commission the more I feel it is becoming about politics and policy which is argumentative rather testimony with the actual people involved in stopping those planes. It seems the questioning should have started with the pilots of NORAD, the flight controllers, first, and worked its way back to policy.

hcap

04-21-2004, 08:34 PM

New info---

The Bushites apparently made plans that altered the Clinton administrations approach to terrorism. One of them was to strip commanders in the field, within the USA, of any authority to act. All that authority was placed directly upon the Secretary of Defense. The head of that department is Donald Rumsfeld.

It should be remembered here that Rummy spent the duration of the attacks on 9-11 in his office at the Pentagon.

This order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff). The responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" may rest directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued to provide "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded the old policy 3025.15

The new CJCSI states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:PcpUyOKYpXAJ:www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf+Joint+Chiefs+of+Staff+Instruction+CJC SI+3610.01A+&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

" Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. "

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) --The old policy under the past administration
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:-YHdB9GemQcJ:www.dtra.mil/news/deskbook/full%2520text%2520documents/Agencies%2520Documents/DODD-3025.15.pdf+Department+of+Defense+Directive+3025&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

"Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."

--which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense.

Again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion is taken from the commanders in the field and given directly to Rummy!
Do we trust Rumsfeld? I have serious reservations based on his "wiggle quotent"

Not definitive, but it appears Rummy dropped the ball thru incompetance or on purpose. Legal military examination of these documents should be thoroughly examined by the 911 commission.

Maybe this stuff is being investigated. But will it see the light of day?----

Commission on 9/11 Attacks Issues Subpoena to the F.A.A.

By PHILIP SHENON (NYT) 769 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 16 , Column 1

ABSTRACT - Federal bipartisan commission investigating 9/11 terror attacks says it has issued its first subpoena, to Federal Aviation Adminsitration, after discovering that agency withheld variety of tapes and documents 'highly material to our inquiry'; commission also warns that it is considering subpoenas for material from other executive branch agencies; says resulting delays could force it to extend its investigation beyond May; this worries Bush administration, since it could mean public release of potentially embarrassing report in heat of next year's presidential campaign.

"Government officials with knowledge of the commission's work said the panel and its staff were particularly alarmed by the discovery that they had not been provided with detailed transcripts and other information about communications on Sept. 11 between the the F.A.A. and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad, the unit of the Pentagon that is responsible for defending American air space.

The panel has been studying whether the aviation agency, Norad and other agencies reacted too slowly on the morning of Sept. 11 after four passenger planes had been hijacked."

-hcap

Secretariat

04-21-2004, 09:12 PM

Thanks Hcap.

Let's hope that the FAA and Norad info is provided to the commission and we can get some testimony from people who were actually trying to do something that day.

JustRalph

04-21-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Secretariat
Thanks Hcap.

Let's hope that the FAA and Norad info is provided to the commission and we can get some testimony from people who were actually trying to do something that day.

You guys kill me.......you act like you have uncovered the formula for coca cola..... or maybe Original recipe KFC. This info can be had here at Pace Advantage but not by the 9-11 commission? Now that is funny! Keep pluggin along.........

PaceAdvantage

04-21-2004, 11:37 PM

Back to Payne Stewart....you think all those 9/11 conspiracy websites that like to mention that his plane was intercepted within 20 minutes of losing contact just plain forgot to take into account the change in time zone in the reports?

What a zinger that would be??!! LOL

Well, I guess if one staple in a conspiracy theory is shot to hell, might as well make up....err...I mean 'uncover' another!

hcap

04-22-2004, 07:06 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts38.html

A Country Destroyed
by Paul Craig Roberts

"Once there was a time when American conservatives defended their country from government. No more. Today conservatives defend Bush’s warmongering neo-Jacobin government at all costs.
In a recent column, "Feeling a Draft" (April 15), I reported that the US has now killed more Iraqi women and children than Saddam Hussein."

Please check out the rest of this article for documentation to support this CLAIM from a conservative, from a conservative website

Lefty

04-22-2004, 11:43 AM

hcap, this article is pure unadulterated crap. It says war breeds brutality. What happens when you do not stop a man like Saddam? He killed hundreds of thousands of his own people.
He says it's clear our "boy" had no reason to go to war? I guess he forgot about the 17 sanctions that were violated, not to mention our airplanes that were being shot at? This joker can call himself anything he wants, but he's no conservative.
What good does an article do anyone? We're there; we're in deep, and even Kerry is starting to say we must stay and get the job done. In my view, articles like this serve no purpose but to demoralize the troops and hearten the enemy.

ljb

04-22-2004, 06:09 PM

Hcap,
Thanks for posting the link. It is nice to know there are some conservatives that are not so thick skulled that they fail to see the mistakes they have made. There may be hope for this country after all !! :)

JustRalph

04-22-2004, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by hcap
]In a recent column, "Feeling a Draft" (April 15), I reported that the US has now killed more Iraqi women and children than Saddam Hussein."

Now that is crap.......the estimates are that Saddam may be responsible for 300k to 3 million since he took over the country depending on who you believe.

Tom

04-22-2004, 07:37 PM

Ralph,
Don't be too hard on our liberal friends. They are not that good with math because the attend those outcome-based school systems where they learn niffy things like cutting and pasting.

Secretariat

04-22-2004, 09:34 PM

Some interesting fact checking on Rice's 911 testimony:

Claim vs. Fact: Condoleezza Rice's Opening Statement

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44887

Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44918

Tom

04-22-2004, 09:45 PM

"The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational ......Every day we challenge conservative thinking that undermines the bedrock American values of liberty, community and shared responsibility."

I can cut and paster too. Sounds like this is NOT a bi-partisan website. Clearly, they are anti-conservative. Lie #1 in the very first sentence. See, you guys are used to dealing with short-term focus that typifies liberal thinking. By saying this in the first line, then attacking conservatism several paragraphs later, your average liberal will not make the connection I did. It is not your fault, it is tha damned Outcome Based Education. Liberal wallow in it, conservatives go out of their way to fight its effects by actually thinking and formulating thier own ideas. It is the conservative version of cut and paste
So now, anything written on this site is hereby discredited so there is no point in reading it, unless you like comic books and your local dealer is sold out of Spiderman....

knuck knuck knuck woowoowoowooowoo!:D

Secretariat

04-22-2004, 10:10 PM

So even when the actual researched documented links are provided by the research organization, you trust only the extremely partisan op-ed ravings of Coulter and Hannity.

I had hoped you'd have attempted to refute the Claims and Facts presented in the links.

Let's see the Claims are Rice's own words, and the Facts are researched and documented so one can examine for themselves, but, of course, you choose not to examine those.

No real surprise.

Lefty

04-22-2004, 10:24 PM

It also was proven Clarke lied about a few things . So what good is all this but to point fingers? We on this board who gamble on horseraces, of all people should realize how difficult it is to predict the future. You know how we can always assimilate the right data after the race is over? This 9-11 commission is a lot like that.
The only thing left before us is to decide who do we want in charge of the war on terrorism: The weakling who would run to a corrupt U.N. or the real leader who stepped up realized who our enemies are and is fighting this war on their turf?

Tom

04-22-2004, 10:35 PM

Of course not. It dosen't matter. If she lied, so what?
You seem to be obsessed with looking backwards instead of forward. The commission if a politcal hack job and is serving no real purpose anymore. The dems on it have taken over the steering and driven off a bridge and in to the river, an irony not lost considering Teddy Kennedy is one of the hackers.
The focus should be forward-what will we do NOW not what should we have done then.
No matter what Bush is doing that you don't approve of, he is the guy on the hot seat and he is sticking to his guns, unlike your lying coward how ran out of Viet Nam as fast as he could after he got his third paper cut. Some war hero. I just cannot take your obsession with the commission seriously.

Tom

04-22-2004, 10:56 PM

But let's look at the first "fact" listed. Bush stopped flying the drones. Yes. He did. He had them being re-tooled to put arms on them so that they could be used to kill Bin Laden when they spotted him again. Clinton's policy was to observe and not act. Bush, rightfully, adjusted that policy. Links to newsweek are not impressive and certainly not the whole truth. Selective facts do not make a case.
If it makes you feel better, I will conceed to you that Bush might not have done everything he could have to prevent 9-11. Neither did Clinton. The whole damm government failed us. Like at Pearl Harbor. Did we blame Roosevelt and toss him out of office for letting happen on his watch? Of course not. Was his performance during WWII satisfactory? Then he died in office and his successor had the choice to make of dropping the BOMB to save hundreds of thousand of lives. He did it. The war ended.
Grow up and come into the real world. Everyone has warts. No one is perfect and mistakes will be made and then rectified. And escalted violence sometimes works and saves lives even though it takes many innocent civilians in the process. We do what we can when we can do it. And learn from it.

Secretariat

04-22-2004, 11:10 PM

Originally posted by Tom
....No matter what Bush is doing that you don't approve of, he is the guy on the hot seat and he is sticking to his guns, unlike your lying coward how ran out of Viet Nam as fast as he could after he got his third paper cut. Some war hero. I just cannot take your obsession with the commission seriously.

Were you ever in combat Tom? I hope you read what Mr. Kerry did while in Vietnam below, because your comments do disservice to a man who has saved other men's lives in actual combat. Please read this carefully and think about it.

Late January through Early March, 1969 – Starting in late January 1969, this crew completed 18 missions over an intense and dangerous 48 days, almost all of them in the dense jungles of the Mekong Delta. Kerry's crew included engineman Eugene Thorson, later an Iowa cement mason; David Alston, then the crew's only African-American and today a minister in South Carolina; petty officer Del Sandusky of Illinois; rear gunner and quartermaster Michael Medeiros of California; and the late Tom Belodeau, who joined the crew fresh out of Chelmsford High School in Massachusetts. Others rotated in and out of the crew. The most intense action came during an extraordinary eight days of more than 10 firefights, remembered by Kerry's crew as the "days of hell."

February 20, 1969 – Kerry and crew involved in combat; Kerry receives second combat injury – Kerry earned his second Purple Heart after sustaining a shrapnel wound in his left thigh.

February 28, 1969 – For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 28 February 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three-boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Cung River, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less than fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers. The daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. The PCF gunners captured many enemy weapons in the battle that followed. On a request from U.S. Army advisors ashore, Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry ordered PCFs 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats again were taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF-94; with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. The extraordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

March 13, 1969 – For heroic achievement while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong communist aggressors in An Xuyen Province, Republic of Vietnam, on 13 March 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94, one of five boats conducting a SEA Lords operation in the Bay Hap River. While exiting the river, a mine detonated under another Inshore Patrol Craft and almost simultaneously, another mine detonated wounding Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry in the right arm. In addition, all units began receiving small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks. When Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry discovered he had a man overboard, he returned upriver to assist. The man in the water was receiving sniper fire from both banks. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry directed his gunners to provide suppressing fire, while from an exposed position on the bow, his arm bleeding and in pain and with disregard for his safety, he pulled the man aboard. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry then directed his boat to return and assist the other damaged boat to safety. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry’s calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service. Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry is authorized to wear the Combat “V”.

March 17, 1969 – The policy of Coastal Squadron One, the swift boat command, was to send home any individual who is wounded three times in action. After sustaining his third wound from enemy action in Vietnam, Kerry was granted relief under this policy.

btw...some of his awards are as follows:

The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving in any capacity with the United States Armed Forces, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force, or while serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party. The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree than that required for award of the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction. Soldiers who received a citation for gallantry in action during World War I may apply to have the citation converted to the Silver Star Medal.

The Purple Heart is awarded in the name of the President of the United States to any member of an Armed Force or any civilian national of the United States who, while serving under competent authority in any capacity with one of the U.S. Armed Services after 5 April 1917, has been wounded or killed, or who has died or may hereafter die after being wounded

(1) In any action against an enemy of the United States.
(2) In any action with an opposing armed force of a foreign country in which the Armed Forces of the United States are or have been engaged.
(3) While serving with friendly foreign forces engaged in an armed conflict against an opposing armed force in which the United States is not a belligerent party.
(4) As a result of an act of any such enemy of opposing armed forces.
(S) As the result of an act of any hostile foreign force.
…..

(2) A wound is defined as an injury to any part of the body from an outside force or agent sustained under one or more of the conditions listed above.

4) Examples of enemy-related injuries which clearly justify award of the Purple Heart are as follows:

(a) Injury caused by enemy bullet, shrapnel, or other projectile
created by enemy action.

Please tell me how Mr. Bush's qualifications in actual combat qualify him more than Mr. Kerry's experience in real time combat...

I'd stop listening to Rush (who got out of the war 4-F, even though his father fought in WW II willingly with the same condition), and Cheyney, (who never was in the service), and Wolfowitz (who never was in the service) and Rice (who was never in the service) and Bush (who never faced any real combat). Almost forgot Newt who got out of Vietnam as well, and Tom De Lay, and the list goes on from all these hawks who never served.

I have long believed that the President (the Commander in Chief) is someone who understands what war is. This man does not. And yes, neither did Clinton. And he should not have been President either.

When you denigrate a man who has won the Silver Star and had three Purple Hearts and has this kind of war record as a "lying coward" you better look in the mirror at the current Republican party because I'd rather have John Kerry on my flank in battle than any of the assholes above.

Lefty

04-22-2004, 11:28 PM

But sec, it was your esteemed Mr. Kerry who, back when Clinton was running said we should not be asking who served in Vietnam and who did not. He may be a war hero but he's a "meelymouth" who may be fit to serve but not fit to lead.
9-11 happened, it's over, we can't go back in time. We can only go forward. I want to go forward with a leader and not a guy like "Kerry" who'd rather kiss the world's ass; among them, our enemies.

JustRalph

04-23-2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by Secretariat
I'd rather have John Kerry on my flank in battle than any of the assholes above.

Hey Sec..... some Republican Assholes have taken bullets and rescued people. Does that mean you would vote for them?
I doubt it.........

I have taken fire....I have been shot......right here in this country. I have rescued people. I have taken on a 19 year old thug with a Mac 10. I had a 9mm pistol. I have kicked down doors and dragged people out of burning buildings. And these are just a few highlights. I have several times had to decide whether or not to kill a man. I have negotiated via cell phone with suicidal types (in a gun store of all places) and hostage takers. All with good outcomes. I spent 5 years in the military, yet you ignore my views and clamor about those who haven't served. But I am not on your team. I don't qualify.......as one who might have a valid opinion.

I don't have the Military medals that Kerry has, my military time was the 80's and there were no major conflicts. I have some of those bullshit suck up to your boss in Peace time medals that do nothing but adorn a uniform at the next funeral. They aren't worth a damn. I know some great guys who have silver and bronze stars and I used to help them home from the VFW when they had a little too much to drink. You respect them for their actions but you don't base an entire election or the control of the free world on a damn medal earned 30 years ago.

When the individual who wears those medals is party to your agenda you hoot and holler about how great a man it makes him.
There are all kinds of men and women out there who have done notable and great work. It doesn't make them qualifed to be our President. It is a small piece of the puzzle.

There are some good reasons why civilians run the military and make the ultimate decisions on when to use force. They are not clouded by the haze of their memories or the influence of time on their personal feelings toward what they lived through. Sometimes it can get in the way. We need them, such as Colin Powell, to provide perspective and guidance. But those who have been in battle are not ultimately always going to be the best person to decide whether there needs to be a new battle. Think about it. In my experience they are either a little gun shy, or Gung Ho. Either way, they make good advisors but maybe not the ultimate authority. That is why the system is the way it is. It works. There is a long history of having War hero types as President. It is not always bad. But this is a new age and the battles are not the same. It is not an automatic qualifier. It all depends on the man. Look at Ike. He is regarded as a good President. Now, from the same War and era....think about Patton. Not just the movie either.....if you have ever read about him...you know what I mean.....I don't think I would have chosen him to be President. No matter what a great man he was. No matter what a great General he was. JFK is another example. He used to be considered a great President and admired because of the way he handled the Cuban Missile crisis etc. He was a pretty good Naval Officer and damn sure a hero in the same vein as Kerry. We now know that he was addicted to pain killers (watch it you Rush Limbaugh haters) had a Secretary that accompianed him full time as a professional fellatio artist and openly consorted with Organize crime figures. He cheated on his wife that he paraded around the country like a Princess and ultimately is more remembered for his relationship with Marilyn Monroe than Jackie Kennedy. Many believe that his organized crime buddies put him in the grave. Whatever the reason, the ultimate result was he was a failure. He didn't live long enough to leave a legacy of good that can overshadow the bad. But he was a war hero!

hcap

04-23-2004, 08:06 AM

Their Beliefs are Bonkers, but they are at the Heart of Power
US Christian Fundamentalists are Driving Bush's Middle East Policy
by George Monbiot
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0420-03.htm

This will lead you to
http://www.raptureready.com/rr-antichrist.html

Where you will find the following about maybe Barney is the antichrist

"Barney the Dinosaur Because John, the writer of Revelation, would never have known what a dinosaur looked like, it's logical to assume he would have identified any vision of Barney as one of a dragon. Taking this into consideration, you might find the following Scriptures quite revealing: Revelation 12:3, "And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon…,"
Revelation 13:4, "And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?"
Revelation 20:2, "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years."

http://www.buzzflash.com/bradenton/04/04/images/16favoritewarprez.jpg

Also see Cheneys' favorite website
http://www.cornellpublications.com/ventriloquism/

http://www.cornellpublications.com/ventriloquism/caricature.jpg

ljb

04-23-2004, 08:28 AM

Hcap,
Keep up the good work, you have the rightys in a fuss. Seems the truth is starting to nip at their heels again. :D

Secretariat

04-23-2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Lefty
But sec, it was your esteemed Mr. Kerry who, back when Clinton was running said we should not be asking who served in Vietnam and who did not. He may be a war hero but he's a "meelymouth" who may be fit to serve but not fit to lead.
9-11 happened, it's over, we can't go back in time. We can only go forward. I want to go forward with a leader and not a guy like "Kerry" who'd rather kiss the world's ass; among them, our enemies.

Yes, Lefty, and I disagreed with Kerry’s support of Clinton. I believe military service, while not required by the Constitution to become the Commander in Chief, certainly lends credence in times of war, and I belive that is one reason General Washington was given the title by the framers.

As to only looking forward after 911, of course, we all want to look forward, but one can only look forward after learning about the mistakes of the past, AND the victims of those atrocities and the soldiers dying for that cause deserve the right to hold those negligent leading up to that day held accountable.

You mention Kerry as "meely-mouthed" (as you wrote above), and I notice this is something you put in quotes. Was this from a Bush speech? I am just curious because he spelled it wrong (mealy-mouthed). But then again I know Bush is not much for elitist intellectuals, especially since he managed to get into Yale with an SAT under 1000 - now that's a pretty amazing feat.

Secretariat

04-23-2004, 08:54 AM

JR,

You missed my point. I said miltary service is one criteria I place on the office of President, and yes, actual combat is one of the things I consider. That is why I voted for Bob Dole even though many of his policies were anathema to me. I weigh that service with other things like all of us, but in times of war (such as we live in today), it is even more important.

I admire your service to your country. I truly do, and I respect your civil actions as well. I don’t respect those of Limbaugh and Cheyney and Wolfowitz. I’d trust you in the White House than any of those idiots for that reason alone. Now as to your other policies you’ve promulgated on this board I disagree (as I’m sure you do mine). For those who did not serve I look at the character they’ve displayed by their actions. That is one reason I did not vote for Clinton as well, and one reason I could not support Cheyney for anything. They don’t get much lower than him and he is one bullet away from the Presidency. I don’t agree that service in the military makes one a little gun shy or gung ho as you state, but someone who understands what war really is like and can weigh the gravity of that decision for what it is and not some game. Again I never said service was an “automatic qualifier”, but a very important consideration for me.

As to your last few points, I thought Ike was a pretty decent President, but disagree with your assertion that Kennedy was not.

Why I wrote this whole thing was that Tom asserted that Kerry was a “lying coward”. If John Kerry’s actions qualfy him as a “coward” then we’ve reached the ultimate in partisan politics.

ljb

04-23-2004, 10:28 AM

Sec,
Carry on sir. One thing I would like to clear up. Bush refers to them as "fancy pants intellectuals".
Not sure if this has any link to the above but, Bush like Rush, does seem to appeal to those with limited learning abilities. ;)

Lefty

04-23-2004, 11:45 AM

Quotes are used for more reasons than to quote someone. You guys better check up on the use of quotes. In this instance I used it because it is a figurative, not a literal statement. I.E., he doesn't actually have meal running from his mouth. So no, it's my statement and not Bushes or anyone else you might hate.
"I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it" Many quotes like that make him a "mealymouth" or "meelymouth" whatever...
He has been on so many side of this war it's hard to keep up and he has made no bones about the fact that he actually thinks he can turn the world around to our side. The same world that has their own profit driven agenda and who are now being investigated for making illegal deals with Saddam. How will Kerry turn them around? Will he promise to look the other way?
I don't want the U.N. calling the "shots" for America. I don't want a guy who changes his position every ten minutes. I want a no nonsense, what you see is what you get kinda guy. I want GW Bush. And I blve I will get him. I see him winning the election pretty darn handily even though Hollywood now planning on coming out with many propaganda films against him.
Don't vote for a "mealymouth" vote for GW Bush. Thank You.

ljb

04-23-2004, 12:21 PM

From Lefty,
I don't want the U.N. calling the "shots" for America.
You may want to contact your leader, Bush is trying to get the U.N. to clean up the mess he has made in Iraq right now!
Sorta like throwing the brick and hiding the hand, don't you think ?
Also, I think the Bush gang is going to get spanked come November.

Lefty

04-23-2004, 01:13 PM

lbj, how can you be wrong so much, so often? Bush asked for UN cooperation when we first began. They resisted because Russia, France and Germany had their own illegal deals going. He's making overtures for them to participate and not call the shots. We are in charge. Iraq is not the mess you libs make it out to be. They have an interim constitution. Iraqui businesess proliferate. They have their own bank and currency.
The fact that Al Quaeda and some Iraqui rebels are fighting so furiously now illustrates their fear of Iraq becoming a democracy.
Woth all the b.s. being hurled at Bush right now he's still climbing in the polls. And that's the truth nippong at YOUR arse.

ljb

04-23-2004, 01:48 PM

Nice spin Lefty, WRONG but nice.

Secretariat

04-23-2004, 08:16 PM

Hopefully, below ends a pretty sorry saga in the lows of just how far politics can go.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040423/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_military_records_3

JustRalph

04-23-2004, 08:53 PM

I would like to have a dollar for every service guy who has a "minor urinary tract infection" in his med. records...........

Let me just say...... I applaud him!

Lefty

04-23-2004, 08:54 PM

lbj, would you care to point out where I was wrong? What statement that you say is wrong is not a fact? Huh, huh, huh?

sec, you're right. I tire of a man exploiting a war over 40 yrs ago for political gain. He's told us what he's gonna do, now i'd like to hear some specifics.

PaceAdvantage

04-24-2004, 02:26 AM

Originally posted by ljb
Hcap,
Thanks for posting the link. It is nice to know there are some conservatives that are not so thick skulled that they fail to see the mistakes they have made. There may be hope for this country after all !! :)

How arrogant.

ljb

04-24-2004, 07:24 AM

Lefty, this is where you were wrong.
lbj, how can you be wrong so much, so often? Bush asked for UN cooperation when we first began. They resisted because Russia, France and Germany had their own illegal deals going. He's making overtures for them to participate and not call the shots. We are in charge. Iraq is not the mess you libs make it out to be. They have an interim constitution. Iraqui businesess proliferate. They have their own bank and currency.
The fact that Al Quaeda and some Iraqui rebels are fighting so furiously now illustrates their fear of Iraq becoming a democracy.
Woth all the b.s. being hurled at Bush right now he's still climbing in the polls. And that's the truth nippong at YOUR arse.

hcap

04-24-2004, 09:01 AM

Pa"And I still wonder where our fighter jets were on 9/11"
My objections to the NTSB Website Report as I mentioned earlier bring some doubt that it should be considered definitive-but for the sake of argument I will thro out The Payne Stewart comparison

What about ALL the information other than Payne Stewart-which I may agree is not apllicable to the "stand down" theory?

Is there anything you see as raising serious questions about inconsistencies in the official story

Also, have you researched the WTC buildings collapse?
Particularily WTC 7?

hcap

04-24-2004, 09:12 AM

If you think back to the origins of the 911 commission, you realize the preznit wanted Henry Kissinger as one of the chairmen.
After everyone and his grandmother OBJECTED bush relented. Of course this was PRECEDED by the administration doing everything they could to BLOCK its existence!

Here is some wit and wisdom from Henry

In their December 1975 Foreword to "The Final Days", Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein state that the book is based on interviews and re-interviews with 394 people, concentrating on the last 100 days of Nixon's administration.

Here is the FULL KISSINGER QUOTE verbatim from the bottom two lines of page 194 to line 14 of page 195:

====================
[paragraph]
In Haig's presence, Kissinger referred pointedly to military men as "dumb, stupid animals to be used" as pawns for foreign policy. Kissinger often took up a post outside the doorway to Haig's office and dressed him down in front of the secretaries for alleged acts of incompetence with which Haig was not even remotely involved. Once when the Air Force was authorized to resume bombing of North Vietnam, the planes did not fly on certain days because of bad weather. Kissinger assailed Haig. He complained bitterly that the generals had been screamin for the limits to be taken off but that now their pilots were afraid to go up in a little fog. The country needed generals who could win battles, Kissinger said, not good briefers like Haig.

[paragraph]
On another occasion, when Haig was leaving for a trip to Cambodia to meet with Premier Lon Nol, Kissinger escorted him to a staff car, where reporters and a retinue of aides waited. As Haig bent to get into the automobile, Kissinger stopped him and began polishing the single star on his shoulder. "Al, if you're a good boy, I'll get you another one," he said.

---Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein
The Final Days
second Touchstone paperback edition (1994)
Chapter 14, pp. 194-195

Actionable Intel----

http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW04-21-04.gif

Tom

04-24-2004, 12:14 PM

Sec...OK, I will admitt after reading your post about Kerry in Viet Nam I will now admitt publically that John Kerry IS in fact, fit to live in the jungle after all.

Ljb....so what, are you now a groupie or what? Your posts are showing signs of nipping at you feet! Shake it off, man...you know you can do better.

Hcap...come up for air-you have sunk far too low for safety's sake.

George W Bush.....keep on truckin'......the better you do, the longer their posts get. Heheheh.

Lefty

04-25-2004, 01:16 AM

lbj, you're kidding, right? The statements you said were wrong are all absolutely true. Bush did go to U.N. for help before the war. He was turned down. The dissenters were Russia, Germany and France. They are being investigated for making illegal oil deals with Saddam. Iraq has its own bank and currency as well as an interim constitution. Iraqui business is flourishing. So where the hell do you get your news; liberal la la land?

Tom

04-25-2004, 10:19 AM

Lefy,
He get "All-Jibeerish" on his dish.

ljb

04-25-2004, 11:27 AM

Lefty said " Bush did go to U.N. for help before the war."
Bush went to the U.N. to try to convince them invading Iraq was a must do. The U.N. said not now. The U.N. was right in their assesment , Bush was wrong. We now have a mess/quagmire in Iraq. Bush is now going back to the U.N. with his tail between his legs asking for help. I could go on but, explaining this to you is like explaining evolution to a bible thumper. Some just refuse to see the truth and are constantly being bit in the arse by it!

ljb

04-25-2004, 11:29 AM

Tom,
The nice thing about these bulletin boards is, even if you have nothing to say you can say it! And you are doing so with reckless abandon. Carry on, carry on.

Lefty

04-25-2004, 11:50 AM

The U.N. made their assessment on the fact that there were bribes to 3 or more major countries. An investigation will be held. Why don't you get that? I guess these facts do not fit with your agenda of Bush hating, no matter what. How many resolutions would have been broken by now if Bush hadn't acted? How many more terrorists might have acted because Saddam was paying their families? How many more Iraquis might be in those mass graves?
And then if Saddam had hit us, you would be hollering for a commission to investigate Bush, and use all the info about all the Dems citing the dangers of Saddam that you now choose to ignore. So matter what Bush had done, you wouldn't be satisfied. That makes any opinion profferred by you, suspect at the very least.

Lefty

04-25-2004, 12:07 PM

lbj, BTW, I notice you did not prove me wrong on ANY of the statements that you said were wrong. All you did was offer an opinion that the U.N. was right. An opinion that omits the U.N. corruption.

So let's say it together: LEFTY, YOU'RE RIGHT AGAIN!

Lefty

04-25-2004, 12:28 PM

lbj, I do want to get this straight: The FACT that Iraq now has an interim constitution and the FACT that Iraqui business is flourishing, and the FACT that they now have their own bank and currency, and the FACt that Saddam is gone, and the FACT the terrorists are fighting more desperately than ever to prevent democracy, then this somehow proves that Bush was wrong? WOW!

As far as evolution vs creation: I think both sides could be right.

hcap

04-25-2004, 05:04 PM

Anybody remember Eleanor Hill?

Joint Inquiry Staff Statement, Part 1
Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff
September 18, 2002
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/hearings/911hearing-hill-sept18.htm

From her testimony

"Many people instantly associate the term "Intelligence Community" with the Central Intelligence Agency. When we use the term "Intelligence Community" we are referring to the group of fourteen government agencies and organizations that, either in whole or in part, conduct the intelligence activities of the United States Government:

• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
• Department of Treasury;
• Department of Energy;
• Department of State;
• Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA);
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);
• National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA);
• National Reconnaissance Office (NRO);
• National Security Agency (NSA);
• U.S. Air Force Intelligence;
• U.S. Army Intelligence;
• U.S. Coast Guard Intelligence
• U.S. Navy Intelligence; and
• U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence."

---Now take a look at this---
Map of flights and military bases

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-bases-flightpaths.jpg

Considering the huge sum all these fourteen government agencies are given, and the fact that the hijacked flights flew over these military bases, and that major FAA installations are concentrated in the northeast air corrider---what happenned to at least intercepting the pentagon flight???

hcap

04-25-2004, 05:14 PM

Joint Inquiry Staff Statement, Part 1
Eleanor Hill, Staff Director, Joint Inquiry Staff
September 18, 2002
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/hearings/911hearing-hill-sept18.htm

• In August 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. The information was passed to the FBI and the FAA.

• In September 1998, the Intelligence Community obtained information that Usama Bin Ladin's next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it; this information was provided to senior U.S. Government officials in late 1998;

• In March 2000, the Intelligence Community obtained information regarding the types of targets that operatives in Bin Ladin's network might strike. The Statue of Liberty was specifically mentioned, as were skyscrapers, ports, airports, and nuclear power plants;

• In August 2001, based on information it had in its possessions at the time, the CIA sent a message to the FAA asking the FAA to advise corporate security directors of U.S. air carriers of the following information: "A group of six Pakistanis currently based in La Paz, Bolivia may be planning to conduct a hijacking, or possibly a bombing or an act of sabotage against a commercial airliner. While we have no details of the carrier, the date, or the location of this or these possibly planned action(s), we have learned the group has had discussions in which Canada, England, Malaysia, Cuba, South Africa, Mexico, Atlanta, New York, Madrid, Moscow, and Dubai have come up, and India and Islamabad have been described as possible travel destinations." While this information was not related to an attacked planned by al-Qa'ida, it did alert the aviation community to the possibility that a hijacking plot might occur in the U.S. shortly before the September 11 attacks occurred.

After September 11, 2001, the CIA belatedly acknowledged some of the information that was available regarding the use of airplanes as weapons. A draft analysis dated November 19, 2001, "The 11 September Attacks: A Preliminary Assessment," states:

"We do not know the process by which Bin Ladin and his lieutenants decided to hijack planes with the idea of flying them into buildings in the United States, but the idea of hijacking planes for suicide attacks had long been current in jihadist circles. For example, GIA terrorists from Algeria had planned to crash a Air France jet into the Eiffel Tower in December 1994, and Ramzi Yousef - a participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing - planned to explode 12 US jetliners in mid-air over the Pacific in the mid-1990s. Likewise the World Trade Center had long been a target of terrorist bombers."

So much for "we never imagined using commercial airliners as weapons"

Pa

You never responded to my questions.

"What about ALL the information other than Payne Stewart-which I may agree is not apllicable to the "stand down" theory?

Is there anything you see as raising serious questions about inconsistencies in the official story?

Also, have you researched the WTC buildings collapse?
Particularily WTC 7?"

Tom

04-25-2004, 08:16 PM

The weather's nice in 2004. C'mon and join us here. :D

PaceAdvantage

04-25-2004, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by hcap
"What about ALL the information other than Payne Stewart-which I may agree is not apllicable to the "stand down" theory?

Is there anything you see as raising serious questions about inconsistencies in the official story?

Also, have you researched the WTC buildings collapse?
Particularily WTC 7?"

Haven't I been pretty much in agreement with you in our shared concern as to why nothing more proactive was done in response to these hijacked airliners on September 11, 2001? I've posted more than once that I wonder what happened to our air defenses.

Just because I debunked the Payne Stewart example doesn't mean I don't agree with you in principle when it comes to the lack of response.

As for WTC 7, most of what I've read to date does not support the perfect collapse of that building. As a matter of fact, from what I've read, WTC 7 was pretty much untouched when the two towers fell. The only thing going with WTC 7 prior to the collapse was that there were some fires going on inside the building.

Here's a nice little web page that pretty much sums up much of what I've read on the matter from alternative media sources:

http://www.media-criticism.com/World_Trade_Center_7_2003.html

JustRalph

04-25-2004, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by hcap
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-bases-flightpaths.jpg

Considering the huge sum all these fourteen government agencies are given, and the fact that the hijacked flights flew over these military bases, and that major FAA installations are concentrated in the northeast air corrider---what happenned to at least intercepting the pentagon flight???

Now wait a minute. Just because there are planes and equipment parked on an Airfield, it doesn't mean they are ready to fly and armed. I have some experience in this area. U.S. Air Force Aircraft are not left sitting on a flight line "Armed" in fact they carry no weapons when just parked. I have already explained that we went from 200 Armed Aicraft in the U.S. to less than thirty during the Clinton years. The Air National Guard and Reserve are charged with most of the protective missions around the United States. This duty is what President Bush was trained for during his military time. There used to be many alert aircraft in the country. They mostly flew missions intercepting Soviet Aircraft who were probing our air defenses all over North America and northern Europe. But on Sept. 11 there was nobody available to do it. The planes that were directed to the area were just too far away. What don't you understand about that? What good does it do you to post this bulls$%#? Do you think that on every military installation there are weapons just laying around? It doesn't work that way. There are very few individuals armed and ready to engage anyone on a moments notice. This is true overseas too. Those that are armed are the Security Forces (Military Police etc) and all the other weapons are secured in an Armory or bunkers (missiles etc) and it takes an act of God (A Colonel or similar) to get them released. This shows how little you understand about the military. You are not qualifed to make a declaratory statement that asks a rhetorical question on why these military installations couldn't have done anything. The FAA doesn't have any control over military forces btw......they are basically civilians who do admin stuff related to the nations air system, including Air Traffic Control. But their locations are not germane at all. You don't know what you are talking about.........what's new.....

hcap

04-26-2004, 06:36 AM

Ralph

THE PENTAGON?
How come no intercept?

Maybe WTC2 was not stopped due to whatever, but the pentagon should have been.

1-Andrews AFB 11 miles SE of Washington D.C.
2-Bolling AFB 3 miles south of US Capitol
Dover AFB Dover, DE
3-McGuire AFB 18 miles southeast of Trenton, NJ

04-26-2004, 06:48 AM

Andrews AFB, Airlift base, home of Air Force 1, no fighters.

Bolling doesn't even have a runway.

Dover - Would you like a C5 to shoot it down, because that is what resides at Dover.

McGuire, another Airlift Command base. When I was station there it was C141s, probably have some C17s now as well.

hcap

04-26-2004, 06:51 AM

Not only is Andrews Air Force Base a few miles from the White House, the Pentagon, the Capital building and the CIA, but it is also the official airport of the US government.

The President flies out of Andrews. Other top US officials fly out of Andrews. Foreign diplomats and national leaders may arrive and depart from Andrews at any time.

Let's say that as it took off from Andrews Air Force Base, Tony Blair's plane was attacked by a hostile jet. Would his pilot have to radio the attackers and ask them to kindly postpone their attack until US fighter jets arrived from Langley Air Force Base, 129 miles away?

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reported that it 'suspected' Flight 11 out of Boston had been hijacked by 8:20 Eastern Time. So when Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center, of course the FAA knew this was a terrorist act.

Vice President Cheney said on MEET THE PRESS September 16th that the FAA had open lines to the Secret Service as soon as Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. So the Secret Service was in the know no later than 8:45 Eastern time.

"Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary, said today that the Pentagon had been tracking that plane and could have shot it down if necessary; it crashed about 35 minutes after the Pentagon crash." ('N.Y. Times, Sept. 15, 2001)

If they "could have shot" down the fourth plane, why did they not shoot down the third? Once they knew these were suicide hijackings - and surely they knew that by around 9:00 am - why would they wait?

And why, if they really were confused about what to do, why, after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd plane flew towards Washington?

"During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do." ('N.Y. Times,' Sept. 15, 2001)

According to CBS, three F-16s scrambled from Langley at 9:30 and arrived in Washington at 10:00. The distance from Langley Air Force Base to the Pentagon is 129 miles - not 150, as CBS stated. If these F-16s took half an hour to get to Washington they were flying at 4.4 miles per minute, 258 mph. That's less than half their cruising speed. It's a fifth of the maximum speed for these F-16s, 1500-mph.

04-26-2004, 07:13 AM

You are reaching big time. Like Ralph said, do you think these planes are sitting around with weapons warmed up and ready to go? This isn't a Toyota you can jump in and be out of your driveway 30 seconds later. Stick to things you know about please. You obviously know nothing about Air Force bases as your post a couple above this one proved.

hcap

04-26-2004, 07:24 AM

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/16/wcia16.xml

"Deep inside the Pentagon, in the hardened bunkers of the National Military Joint Intelligence Centre, senior officials were said to be "stunned" by the terrorists' achievement.

Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."

'The Denver Post,'
11 September 2001 Tuesday 2D Edition, page A-2,
"U.S. capital faces terror on own turf,"
by Bill McAllister, Denver Post Washington Bureau.

" WASHINGTON - There was a slight murmur in the audience at the Postal Service headquarters when the board chairman announced that two planes had hit the World Trade Center in New York.

A few moments later an audible gasp went up from the rear of the audience as a large black plume of smoke arose from the Pentagon. Terrorism suddenly was at the doorstep and clearly visible through the big glass windows overlooking the Potomac River. Overhead, fighter jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base and other installations and cross-crossed the skies amid reports that more hijacked planes were bound for the Capitol on suicide missions."

'NBC Nightly News,' "Attack on America,"
6:30 PM ET, 11 September 2001,
"Tuesday President Bush returns to White House on Marine One,"
Anchor: Tom Brokaw, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI reporting:
"It was shortly after the attacks occurred on the World Trade Center that the Pentagon went into a crisis mode. They were trying to establish exactly what additional threats there may be, and then it was just about, oh, 28 minutes after that that the airplane hit here. It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC. It was something straight out of a war zone, Tom. One Air Force officer standing next to me looking up into the sky at the F-16s said, 'My God, we're flying cover on the nation's capital.'

cj--
Watch something other than FOX
Thesre reports were either on 911 or shortly after. There were fighters at Andrews.

If they could scramble from Otis within 10 minutes why couldn't they scramble from Andrews within 30?

BTW---

Before 911 archived indepently
http://web.archive.org/web/20010205074600/www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/hq/index.htm
Feb 02, 2001 *
"DCANG MISSION

To provide combat units in the highest
possible state of readiness. We will support
the Air Force and other DOD agencies. We
will provide operational support to our
local communities whenever possible."

Right after 911 they changed their mission stateement. WHY?

http://web.archive.org/web/20010914183708/www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/aboutDCANG/mission.htm
Sep 13, 2001

"Headquarters Mission
Be the premier State Head Quarters in the Air National Guard, Critically linked to our units and influencing the future of the DCANG."

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2004, 11:58 AM

CJ,

Unless this is something new after 9/11, I know for a fact that there are fighter jets and fighter pilots armed and ready to go into the air within minutes of a call (less than 5 minutes). These guys have cots practically right next to the figter jet. Am I misinformed?

04-26-2004, 12:25 PM

PA,

I wouldn't say misinformed, but 5 minutes is a stretch. Even so, it would be 5 minutes after given the go ahead. How long that can take would be anyone's guess. After 19 years in the military, I know that NOTHING is done that fast.

I'm not pretending to know everything, I was stationed at Andrews, but I only knew about the Active Duty roles. We don't really get involved with the Guard or Reserves very often.

I didn't really want to get involved, but when hcap listed Bolling AFB as nearby, I couldn't help but laugh.

There are things out there to knock the President for, but this is not one of them. How incredible is it that the very same people who are outraged about the loss of life in the War have no problem shooting down an aircraft full of civilians. No way anyone could know for sure the intent of whoever was piloting that plane. It was not a decision I would want to make, therefore I won't criticize the one made by President Bush.

JustRalph

04-26-2004, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
CJ,Unless this is something new after 9/11, I know for a fact that there are fighter jets and fighter pilots armed and ready to go into the air within minutes of a call (less than 5 minutes). These guys have cots practically right next to the figter jet. Am I misinformed?

PA..........after 9-11 they changed. I can tell you that I personally was assigned to two different alert units, one with Nukes in Maine, one in California that was assigned the very task that we are discussing. 5 minutes to 7 minutes is the launch time on an alert unit. And that is if everything goes right. Not to mention they are flying the oldest aircraft in the inventory etc. The guard and reserve always get the old stuff. It tends to break down.

What HCAP seems to not understand is, there were no alert units close enough to intercept. The alert units were cut to less than 30 in the entire country.......and some of them are what are called "stand-by units" where they are tasked with a one hour to 3 hour launch time. They are mostly used for training the guys who are actually on alert. Here is a little tidbit for you......most of those guys on alert........also are flying your airliner for one of the big airlines..........they are weekend warriors. HCAP you are wrong on this...like CJ said......you don't know what you are talking about.

PaceAdvantage

04-26-2004, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by cjmilkowski
How incredible is it that the very same people who are outraged about the loss of life in the War have no problem shooting down an aircraft full of civilians. No way anyone could know for sure the intent of whoever was piloting that plane. It was not a decision I would want to make, therefore I won't criticize the one made by President Bush.

On this point, I totally agree.

Tom

04-26-2004, 11:22 PM

Shooting down an airplane full of civilians flying over populated areas is not exactly something you do lightly.

Bush-wrong for not jumping into actin against Al Qeada as soon as he took office.
Bush-wrong for not shooting down civilain airplanes on a minute's notice.
Bush-wrong going into Iraq as quick as he did (Quick? Two years after 9-11 and after we took out the Taliban- 8 years after no cooperation from Hussein for UN sanctioned inspections).
No wonder these guys like Kerry-flip flopping is in this year!

hcap

04-27-2004, 07:54 AM

http://tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=60&mode=&order=0&thold=0

"Kyle Hence, cofounder of 9-11 Citizens Watch, who said in a widely distributed email that Edmonds told him "if what she knows is revealed, it could lead to charges of treason being leveled against officials at top levels of the U.S. government."

Hence added, "If that is the case, then all those who have been involved in keeping this information from getting to the public are complicit in this treason."

"Press host Tim Russert had to quote from the London Independent the following Sunday because major U.S. newspapers and television news stations had still not reported Edmonds’ new charges that Ashcroft had offered her a raise and a full-time job if she would not go public with her allegations. All this in front of a huge press contingent and multiple television cameras.

ljb

04-27-2004, 09:07 AM

Hcap,
Keep up the good work. Righty's hate it when the truth comes out!

Lefty

04-27-2004, 12:17 PM

lbj, you don't know the truth. I posted some truths and you said they were lies. I came back with facts, you came back with opinion. And then didn't offer ANY proof that my facts were wrong.
All this crap aside, the question is: Who do you want in charge? Kerry or Bush? Seems obvious the answer is Bush. They keep catching Kerry in lie after lie. He has no plan except turn us over to the U.N. and raise taxes. No thanks.
There ya go.

ljb

04-27-2004, 01:12 PM

Lefty,
I see the Taliban are rearing their ugly heads in Afgahnistan again. Just another case of:
Bush gang bungling. Why can't they finish a job?

Lefty

04-27-2004, 01:33 PM

lbj, didja ever kill roaches? Impossible to get em all but you can keep the population from getting completely out of control. Have you been paying attention at all? We are constantly foiling their plans around the world. At least Bush is in the fight. Like it or not, fighting terrism is gonna be a never ending task.
But I do notice my post that you said were all lies, that you haven't responded with any proof that they are lies. Would you care to recant?

ljb

04-27-2004, 01:43 PM

Lefty,
Bush does not want control, we had that in Iraq before his illconcieved invasion. Bush wants obliteration. You yourself have said it is not possible, perhaps you could convince the Bush gang of this.
You will not admit it but the world is in much more danger now then prior to the Bush gang taking charge.

Lefty

04-27-2004, 01:57 PM

lbj, where do you get this stuff? Obviously from moven and libs like that. It's the ENEMY that wants obliteration. Bush wants democracy. He doesn't want any more 9-11's. How do you come to the conclusion that we had any control in Iraq when Saddam kept violating the resolutions; kept shooting at our planes; kept leading the inspectors around like 5 yr olds on a camping trip.
The world and the U.S. is safer with Bush. That's been proved. We have arrested cells, foiled plots, took down many bank accts.
Yet you still do not respond to my post you called lies. Guess the truth bit your old arse, eh?
But you guys all alike. When you are proven wrong and have no comeback, you disappear a couple of days, then come back with a totally diff post.

04-27-2004, 02:02 PM

Lefty,

I don't know how you can possible say we are safer. I mean, what about all those terrorist attacks since 9-11? ;)

ljb

04-27-2004, 02:54 PM

Lefty, Lefty, Lefty
You have to stop believing that propagana put out by the right wing fanatics. Bush wants democracy. Bush wants someone to bail him out of the quagmire he has got us in in Iraq. He is at the U N begging for help.
And I don't remember which post you called lies. Could have been any one of your posts.;)
cj, I am glad you feel safer, too bad you can't spread that feeling to the rest of the world.

Lefty

04-27-2004, 05:57 PM

lbj, you have a most convenient memory. Most libs do. Look at all the memory lapses John Kerry is having about his SUV's and his Medals.
Anyway, I cited that Iraq has their own bank and currency. I stated that they have an interim constitution. Iraqui bus. is flourishing and Saddam is gone.
You said it was all untrue. I'm waiting for you to prove the facts wrong instead of you just ranting and changing the subject.

Tom

04-27-2004, 06:56 PM

L, did you fall and land on your head?
Do you read what you post before you post it?
Did you lose a bet?
I told you before, you have to take all the little pills in the bottles, but not all at once.

hcap

04-28-2004, 07:35 AM

White House spokesman Scott McClellan insists the plan still calls for Mr. Bush and Cheney to appear together before the panel. McClellan rejects suggestions that they're appearing together to "get the story straight."

Trying to head off criticism of Thursday's unusual side-by-side appearance, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Tuesday that he expects Bush rather than Cheney to handle most of the questions.

http://www.rense.com/1.imagesF/abbot.JPG

Bowling for dollars

http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/images/cheney-grab.jpg

hcap

04-28-2004, 07:37 AM

from http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout5.php&id=1619&blz=1

Public Pressure Forces Judge to Open 9/11 Whistleblower Hearing -- A Victory for Accountability and Transparency - News and Commentary by Kyle F. Hence

2004-04-27 | Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds could soon become the thorniest of thorns in the side of the most secretive administration in American history. Whether she does or not depends on whether or not the American public will stand up and challenge the Department of Justice’s attempt to quash the truth, avoid accountability and bury the facts behind lies, double speak and the National Security trump card.

The first victory in this effort occurred yesterday when the U.S. District Court proceedings previously ‘sealad’ (closed to the public and press) were forced open after members of the public and press confronted the court and then U.S. Marshals directly challenging the unjustified and undocumented order for official secrecy regarding the Edmonds case that morning. The hearing in the courtroom of Bush appointed Judge Reggie Walton was scheduled to be closed but in an apparent bow to vocal objections brought by a former CIA agent, a foreign print journalist, the author of this account and Edmonds’ lawyer, the Judge elected to open the doors and allow public and press scrutiny of the proceedings.

Upon hearing the news, former Bush I official, Catherine Austin Fitts, who helped orchestrate a grass-roots lobbying campaign, with the 9/11 Visibility Project, in support of Sibel Edmonds, said that this was a case in which citizen and press demands for transparency won out over the strong arm of the Department of Justice and the Court’s effort to keep all hidden behind closed doors. "It’s a great victory. Don’t underestimate your power," said Fitts. Edmonds is the latest in a string of FBI whistleblowers, including Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright, who have come forward before and since 9/11 with damning evidence and allegations which taken together show a disturbing pattern of spiked and compromised investigations and investigative or intelligence assignments of the most junior or incompetent of agents to the most important of charges.