MP: US Knew About 9/11 Before Attack!!!!

[veracity]

This morning's Guardian has the story:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1036591,00.html

The PNAC connection to the war on Iraq - the years of pushing for this war and the US motives for the war are finally hitting the papers in the UK. But NOT in the US. Americans still think this is a war on Osama and other terrorist. Thank you, American media.

The PNAC connection has been known...and on the Internet for a long, long time. Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Kristol and the gang are proud of their war goals... they've posted them on their website for all to see.

The truth has been out, but Americans prefer to be blindly led. Sad and ominous. I think we're doomed.. unless we scream in unison.

http://tvnewslies.org/html/pnac.html

[jenm]

1. monstrous and monstrously offensive

The adminstration would like us to think that it is
mostrously offensive to seriously consider these matters.
And normal decent society would like to agree with them.
Britney definitely agrees, she's on board, yup.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. You have to really love the US answer to Meacher...

<snip>
The US government last night expressed abhorrence at Mr Meacher's views. An embassy spokesman in London said: "Mr Meacher's fantastic allegations - especially his assertion that the US government knowingly stood by while terrorists killed some 3,000 innocents in New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia - would be monstrous, and monstrously offensive, if they came from someone serious or credible.
<snip>

I guess that should lead us to believe that anyone who criticizes PNAC or the Bush Junta is obviously not serious or credible. The neocons are slowly being hoisted by their collective pitard.

[TomNickell]

3. You misquote the good former minister....

The quote is:

"He adds: "Given this, it is not surprising that some have seen the US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already been well planned in advance." "

As I read the story, Mr. Meacham as saying reasonable things: The US administration is using 9/11 as a pretext for world domination. And some people are suspicious that efforts to prevent the attacks were not as vigorous as they might have been.

That is entirely -not- the same thing as asserting that US intelligence services (and Bush) had detailed information about 9/11 and made a deliberate decision to let the attacks proceed.

-That- assertion just sets up a Straw Man for Mr Rove to knock down.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

5. Did you actually read Meacher's article?

Here are a couple of juicy quotes for you to ignore:

First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of whom was arrested.

<SNIP>

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

<SNIP>

Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

You know, I would ask whether you had bothered to actually find out what Meacher said BEFORE you continued your anti-"Conspiracy Theory" campaign in this thread, but I already know the anwser.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. So many questions unanswered, so little willingness to help answer them

one must excuse those to which the allegations that the administration stood by seem...well... not so fantastic.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

6. BBC Radio interview with Meacher

from this morning's "Today" program (about 6 minutes, although he doesn't really say much more than is in the piece)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/runningorder/ram/today3_us_20030906.ram

(you need Realplayer to listen)

[ZenLefty]

7. Hi veracity

When posting in LBN, please use the article's actual title for the subject of your post.

"Meacher sparks fury over claims on September 11 and Iraq war"

Thanks.

ZenLefty
DU Moderator