What Happened?

[BeFree]

Bush knew. And bushco could have stopped it.

Which leads to: Why didn't they stop it?

Which leads to: If bushco knew, and they didn't stop it, then maybe they had a hand in it?

Fairly logical avenue of thought, don't you think?

[spooked911]

1. Of course. It is basic logic.

But good luck convincing the OCTers here of that.

[BeFree]

4. heh

Just trying to help them to do a bit of critical thinking.

[LARED]

2. You think Bush knew what?

[BeFree]

3. August 6 Daily Briefing

Did you forget?

Jeb Bush, in Fla, declared an emergency just days before 9/11.

George Tenet was running around with his "hair on fire"

Russia and Israel both warned Bushco.

Air defenses against hijacked jets was the setup in Italy when Bush visited there a month or two earlier.
-----------------------------

To recognize the alternative view, which may or may not be yours, Lared, it is thus?: "We don't know nothing and we never even imagined nothing (smirk)"?

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

8. Violation of rule #7? Click this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=277126&mesg_id=277126

[SDuderstadt]

9. How many rules do you think you're...

violating, dude?

[LARED]

6. You, of course, avoided my question nt

[BeFree]

7. Oh

Bush knew that the CIA warned him that OSB/AQ was going to use airplanes in an attack on the US. This occurred at the August 6 daily briefing. I thought you knew that? The NY Times ran a story with the headline 'Bush Knew', detailing what, and when the CIA told him.

[LARED]

13. So in your mind

a warning that attacks were planned in the US using airplanes, is the same as knowing when, where, and how the attacks were going to take place.

[BeFree]

16. heh

Ya know what your reply makes me think of?

Am thinking we need a new LARED'S type of rule. A rule that says anyone who stands by the following belief: "We don't know nothing and we never even imagined nothing (smirk)" should just be ignored?

No-planers have their rule, what about a "We never knew nothing" rule?
What do you think?
------------------

To reply directly to your "...a warning that attacks were planned in the US using airplanes, is the same as knowing when, where, and how the attacks were going to take place."

Ummm, that is exactly what we have our intelligence agencies for. But the lead up to 9/11 was that the intelligence agency people in the field relayed information upstairs but upstairs people (who are part of bushco) ignored that information. Had they not ignored the info and instead put in on the front-burner (Told Cheney) 9/11 would have been stopped.

IOW: had the info been used as intelligence agencies were supposed to use it
whoever did 9/11 would have been stopped.

Pretty simple really.

[BeFree]

17. I'd edit the above... but times up

The edit would not have had Cheney's name in there in the place it was.
Instead it would have read that they did tell Cheney, but since he was the head of counter-Terror he made sure the information from the field did not get into the right hands and therefore 9/11 was not stopped.

[LARED]

58. That's a great story except for one thing

There is no evidence there was a purposeful mishandling of information. Nice try.

[defendandprotect]

128. Russia was so concerned about Bush's "Operation Ignore" they went to United Nations ....

Security Council -- and after looking at the info United Nations Security Council

sent their own reps to White House and our intelligence agencies to warn them - -

this was AUGUST!!

[noise]

12. Al qaeda operatives were in the US planning an attack n/t

[LARED]

14. Please provide evidence for that statement. nt

[BeFree]

30. Huh?

There have been at least 10 posts here detailing the intelligence about AQ members being in the US and that the FBI/CIA didn't quite work together very well to make sure they were arrested.

The theory goes that the insiders who wanted 9/11 to happen were instrumental in keeping the AQ members free.

Proof of all this was the bushco's moaning after 9/11 about how the FBI/CIA didn't work together pre 9/11.

Did you really not read any of the posts here detailing all that?
Don't tell me you pick and choose your information here.

[SDuderstadt]

31. No, dude...

YOU'RE the one who picks and chooses your information here to support your silly speculation.

It's really hysterical watching you pull your usual 1 + 2 = 4 bullshit, then accuse others of confirmation bias. It's even funnier watching you try to lecture people on critical thinking.

[BeFree]

34. Rule #7 Violation? Click this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=277126&mesg_id=277126

[SDuderstadt]

35. I just did attack your argument...

dude. Duh.

[Flatulo]

10. Quick quiz... how many different terror warnings were being received per

day in the summer of 2001?

[noise]

11. Al Qaeda was named responsible

for the '98 embassy bombings, the failed Millennium plot and the USS Cole attack. Surely dire al Qaeda warnings would have stood out. And the White House conduct didn't take place in vacuum. The CIA, FBI and NSA all failed to follow standard procedure. We don't know why they failed because over eight years later many of the records are still classified.

[Flatulo]

15. Well, that's a good point. But I have never been able to ascertain

what the signal-to-noise level was in that timeframe. At one time I heard that there were as many as 10,000 warnings that summer, but I can't find the source.

No doubt there were system wide failures, either due to flaws in the process of information exchange, or more sinister causes.

But the OP is about Bush 'knowing', and by implication, failing to do anything. What I would like to know is how many other crdible warnings were being received in the summer of '01, and what Bush should have personally done to prevent the attacks.

[rschop]

133. RE: What did President Bush know and when did he know it?

According to Bob Woodward in State of Denial, George Tenet, CIA Director, Cofer Black CIA CTC head and Richard Blee Head of the CIA Bin Laden unit called an extremely urgent meeting at the White House with Rice and Clarke, on July 10, 2001, and told them the al Qaeda terrorists were planning a horrific attack on the US that would kill thousands. Rice told Blee, Black and Tenet to give the same information to AJ Ashcroft, who was also in charge of the FBI, and Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld which they did a week later, on or about July 17, 2001.

But Tenet was also told on August 23, 2001 that Moussaoui had been arrested when the MPLS FBI thought he was an al Qaeda terrorist trying to get training on a B747, and that long time al Qaeda terrorists Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were discovered inside of the US, and he, the CIA and the FBI HQ knew they were here only in order to take part in this horrific al Qaeda attack he, the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001.

So when he flew down to Crawford Texas on August 24, 2001 for a 6 hour meeting with the President, what did he tell the President? We don't know since this meeting and what was said was kept secret from the American people. And why was Tenet so afraid of the 9/11 Commission asking him what did he tell the President, that he lied to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004 and told the 9/11 Commission he had not talked to President Bush at all in August 2001, when we now know he knew about the 9/11 attack, knew about Moussaoui, and even knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in this attack.

Concealing this meeting and lying about talking to the President in August is prima fascia evidence of conscious of guilt and of evidence that he indeed did tell the President about Moussaoui and Mihdhar and Hazmi.

See my Journal for the complete details on all of this, including the actual government source documents with the exact page numbers where all of this information is found. See my post #36, and #84, posted in February that also has additional details about this.

[sabbat hunter]

18. Bush was given a report

Al qaeda determined to attack within the US on or about August 7th.

Now did Bush even bother reading that report (seems like he probably didn't)
Did that report give exact dates of when an attack would occur, as far as I know it did not give specific dates.

So did * really know? Probably not. and the rest of your questions are moot.

* was guilty of incompetance for not reading the report and ramping up security ahead of time. But was he directly or indirectly involved? I do not believe so, the preponderance of the evidence points to such.

[BeFree]

19. So

You are saying that after the meeting in Italy where they raised the threat of an airplane attack on the world leaders, and with the VP in charge of terror, and the report from the CIA that had real grounds to raise the alarm of the use of airplanes on an attack in the US, that Bush had no clue?

That he didn't know that OBL/AQ was set to launch an attack on the US at any time? Really? Is that really what you believe?

[BeFree]

20. A follow up

Since the CIA did have a clue, and did warn the president, and Cheney was in charge of terror and he was surely told the same thing as Bush, yet did nothing, proves Cheney was actively working to keep the information bottled up.

But some of it leaked out anyway, otherwise the CIA would have never warned the puppet.

So Cheney failed somewhat at keeping it all suppressed. He must have been sweating bullets on 9/10 wondering if the beans would spill and stop it all together?

[sabbat hunter]

23. do you believe that

the CIA knew specifically that on 911 Al qaeda would attack? any proof that they knew that AlQaeda would attack specifically on 911 or that anyone in the government knew there would be an attack on 911?

[sabbat hunter]

22. I believe that

Bush was clueless throughout his presidency.

The CIA may have had an inkling that Al Qaeda wanted to attack the US, but they had no clue on when this would happen.

[BeFree]

24. The denial is deep

"The CIA may have had an inkling" An inkling?

The CIA knew an attack was imminent. Did they know the date? Somebody did. But Cheney was working his ass off to keep that underwraps.

I guess, if you really believe that the CIA just had an "inkling", and you can ignore the prior warnings from Israel and Russia, the stock market moves on the airlines and the way bush just sat there as the attack happened, and Cheney was in the bunker at the whitehouse and rummy was unavailable, then you really must trust that bushco would never do such a thing? I ask because the evidence clearly points the other way.

Which is the difference between us... I do believe they could have LIHOP, at the least.

[sabbat hunter]

25. do you have any proof

That someone within the US government knew the exact date of the 911 attacks in advance?

[BeFree]

41. There are good reasons to think so

Bush was in Florida and sits there like nothing is happening. He knows America is under attack, but he doesn't move. It's as if he knows he is in no danger.

Sept 11, IIRC, was International Peace Day.

The report from the people studying the votes in the 2000 election was due to come out on Sept. 12.

Coincidence or by design?

[SDuderstadt]

42. Y'know, you're really fucking brilliant, BeFree...

Why don't you do some basic fact-checking before you post absolute bullshit? The NORC Report was released the week of November 12th, 2001. You can't even get basic facts straight, not that you care or anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_election_recount

[BeFree]

43. heh

You're right. That means it was printed and ready to go on the 11th, and bushco knew it. Thanks for the confirmation.

The fucking bastards that stole the election also allowed the events of 9/11 to happen. What is a surprise is that your venom is directed at me making a slight mistake yet bushco is allowed to slide? IOW, save your venom for a real enemy, why don't you?

[SDuderstadt]

44. Dude...

how does being released two months after 9/11 in any way prove it was "ready to go on 9/11"? this is just more of your dishonest reframing, dude.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Dude...

you're an enemy of facts and reason and you hate being called on it. Why don't you bother to do some basic fact-checking before you spew misinformation amd make stupid claims?

[BeFree]

46. No, I'm right

The report was due out on Sept, 12. It was of course put off until Nov. 12.
The mistake I made in the post was the 11, and changed it on edit to 12. And the careful reader will see I did it beofre you posted your venom.

But, your venom did have an effect in that I went right past your Nov. instead of Sept. dating.

Now, you'll say prove it... that it was Sept. 12 the report was due. Well, fuck that. It was. That's one reason I believe they set the date for MIHOP when they did.

However, if you care to wager, the wager would be: the loser leaves this forum. I will win that wager, dude. Go ahead, make my day.

[SDuderstadt]

47. Prove it, dude....

You saying something doesn't make it so.

"Well, fuck that. It was."

This is just more of your bullshit, dude.

[Make7]

48. ROTFLMAO! ( n/t )

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/23/weekinreview/23BERK.html

[BeFree]

54. Crickets?

I hear crickets.

[Make7]

55. I'm still laughing too hard to properly respond. ( n/t )

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

61. why don't you go first?

You wrote, "The report from the people studying the votes in the 2000 election was due to come out on Sept. 12." You repeated that claim. According to your evidence, that claim is wrong.

It would have been cheap and easy for you to admit that you were a little off on the details, and then we could move on to substance.

[BeFree]

62. How far off?

2 days or 2 months?

The fact is that the report, as described by 2 different independent sources that I linked to from 8 years ago, verify the fact that it was delayed by the events of 9/11.

[OnTheOtherHand]

70. and if you had stuck to facts, I would have had your back

Even if you had corrected your facts, without animus, I would have had your back. Facts are good things, no matter what Reagan said about them. There was really no good reason -- at least, as far as I can see based on what you've posted so far -- for you to insist that the report would have been released on September 12, and to try to make it into some showdown at high midnight.

[BeFree]

72. Yeah well

I make mistakes. Like this one, usually minor. Sometimes big. I ain't perfect.

Like it has been said, the report was ready months before. An April release would have been better for all of us, eh?

[SDuderstadt]

76. The report was not ready by April, dude.

We know that from NORC. If your claim about Bush staging 9/11 "MIHOP" to scuttle or upstage NORC.'s report were true, then you'd be able to provide evidence that "Bushco" initially planned the attacks for April, then had to move the date back until the fall. Of course, you'd also have to explain how they could have possibly pulled off "4/11/01" with only a couple months to plan it.

The really frustrating thing about trying to reason with you is that, no matter what evidence anyone presents that shows how clearly wrong you are, you simply reframe it so it isn't even recognizable, then laughingly claim it proves your claim, no matter how starkly it contradicts other "evidence" you also assert proves your claim. Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here and absolutely are an embarrassment to liberalism.

Again, when can we expect you to honor the wager and depart, dude?

[OnTheOtherHand]

81. I don't think it would have mattered much

Add me to the number of people who are waiting for you to explain how you think the NORC report ever could have led to Bush's removal from office.

[Make7]

83. Rule Violation? Click this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=277126&mesg_id=277126

[BeFree]

49. Durn, No wager?

Here is what I have:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12623-2001Nov11_2.html

""Various technical problems delayed the study, including the difficulty county officials had in separating the disputed ballots into undervotes and overvotes. The events of Sept. 11 set back publication further because news organizations were devoting all their resources to coverage of the terrorist attacks and subsequent events.""

[BeFree]

50. Another link

http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=249

The Media Consortium was ready to publish their results the week after Sept. 11, but they postponed publication in order to avoid raising questions about Bush's legitimacy at a moment when the nation truly needed to unite.

[SDuderstadt]

52. Dude....

do you see how that actually disproves your claim????

[SDuderstadt]

51. Which means you would have LOST the wager, dude...

do you see that?

[BeFree]

53. What wager

You didn't wager. And I showed you two reports confirming.
Durn. I wished you had wagered.

[greyl]

56. He accepted the wager with "Prove it, dude..."

Those pathetic posts of yours keep adding up.

[BeFree]

63. Really?

He accepted it? And I proved via 2 sources - from 8 years ago - that I was not making it up.

So, if he accepted the wager, what will he do?

[SDuderstadt]

65. Yeah, really, BeFree...

and, as I show in another post, your own evidence disproves your claim. When will you be departing?

[Make7]

57. Shorter BeFree: Sept. 12 occurs the week after Sept. 11. ( n/t )

[SDuderstadt]

64. I KNEW this would be over your head and I would have to...

explain it to you. I also knew you'd try to weasel out of the wager, after I accepted by saying "prove it". But, then again, we know you struggle with nuance and subtlety.

The irony is that you don't see that the evidence you've provided here means you've lost the wager. Let me walk you through it.

Your various claims have now evolved into the Bush administration knew the NORC/Consortium report was to be published on or about 9/11-12, so they staged the attacks on 9/11 to drown out the impact of publication. Yet, the very evidence you cite states that publication was FURTHER delayed by the events of 9/11. Notice that word "further"? What do you think that means, dude?

I know you won't be able to figure it out, so let me explain it to you. The consortium engaged NORC to do the study in late 2000. Since we know the consortium could have not engaged NORC prior to there actually being a problem, that means it would have happened sometime after 11/4/00 and before 12/31/00. NORC initially targeted the results for release within just a few months so, let's say around March or April of 2001. But they ran into unexpected difficulties with the ballots, so the release was pushed back until the fall of 2001. Hence, that why your evidence talks about a FURTHER delay by the 9/11 attacks. Do you see why that disproves your claim? Probably not, so let me make it very simple for you.

First, if, as you claim, "Bushco" timed the attacks to diminish the impact of the report, are you saying the attacks were initially planned for March or April of 2001 when the report was initially expected to be released? Since Bush did not take office until 1/20/01, how could something as complicated as the attacks been carried out in such a short time? Did the "perps" breathe a sigh of relief when NORC pushed the release back and say, "Hey, we now have until the fall to stage the atacks"?

Secondly, unless you're claiming "Bushco" had someone inside NORC, why would they have had reason to believe the impact of the report would need to be blunted by staging "4/01/01" or the actual attacks of 9/01/01? In fact, in further proof your claim is stupid, the report actually concluded that the recount scenario Gore was pursuing (recount within targeted counties) would have resulted in a net gain of votes for Bush. So, if, as you imply, "Bushco" already knew the outcome of the report, why would they have done anything to upstage a report that basically supported Bush? Let me add one thing here...in my view, Gore was the clear winner, as he would have gained more votes than Bush in 4 out of 6 scenarios examined, including a statewide recount that counted both undervotes/undervotes. However, Gore, in an effort to be overly principled, rejected that in favor of a more limited recount that, unknown to Gore, actually favored Bush. In the end it didn't make any difference because the SCOTUS essentially stole the election for Bush by preventing any recount whatsoever.

Third, even your own evidence shows that NORC/consortium, decided to FURTHER delay release so that the legitimacy of the CIC would not be in doubt, rightly or wrongly, in order to deal with aftermath of the attacks more effectively. So, if anything, the delay KEPT the release from being ignored by 9/11 by pushing it back two months. Your problem is you can't figure out which way the causality flows. But it's clear from your evidence that NORC/Consortium again FURTHER delayed the release of a report that had already been previously delayed by nearly half a year. So, rather than "Bushco" timing the attacks to coincide with the delayed release of the report, it's clear that it was the other way around, with NORC once more delaying release of the report BECAUSE of the attacks.

Again, this is why you're not taken seriously here, dude. So, I expect you to keep your end of the wager. When can we expect your departure?

[BeFree]

66. heh

Talk about "struggle with nuance and subtlety"...!!

Yeah, the report was ready and waiting to be published and was scheduled to be published around the week of......

Bushco knew this. Like you say the report was ready a long time before, but was somehow delayed, as you stated: "...planned for March or April of 2001 when the report was initially expected to be released? " So why did they hold off for @ 5 months? Why?

I know this is hard for you to accept, but bushco had it's fingers in anyone's business. They were running phone taps, remember?

Now, just imagine that 9/11 had never happened and the report had come out in April of 2001. Bush would have probably been impeached, imo.

What do you think would have happened had the report been released in April?

[SDuderstadt]

67. As I suspected, you're just dishonestly reframing this...

so you can renege on keeping your end of the wager, dude.

Your own evidence tells you why the report was initially delayed, dude. Did you bother to read what you provided? More importantly, if you're now claiming that the incoming "Bushco" administration wielded enough power to delay the issuance of the report, why couldn't "Bushco" just compel NORC to issue a report favorable to Bush? As it was and as I have already explained, the report already showed that Bush would have won under the recount scenario Gore was petitioning for. So, why would Bush want the report delayed?

More importantly, your claim that Bush would've been impeached if the report had been released in April (which it could not have been because it wasn't ready) is the most spectacularly stupid thing you have said in a long list of stupid things. Why would the GOP- controlled House of Representatives have impeached the guy the wanted in the WH? Do you even understand how impeachment works?

I have never encountered anyone more ignorant of the way our system of government works, with the possible exception of someone who claimed that the SCOTUS had never ruled on whether the 2nd amendment was "constitutional" (I'm sure I'll have to explain that to you also, dude). In the meantime, I expect you to keep the wager, especially since you were the one who stupidly extended it. When can we expect your departure?

[BeFree]

68. Really?

You asked: "So, why would Bush want the report delayed?" Unfucking believable.

[SDuderstadt]

69. Dude...

the report confirmed that Bush would have won under the scenario Gore was petitioning for. Please explain why Bush would want to delay something that worked in his favor. Do you really expect us to believe that Bush would've planned 9/11 to delay and/or diminish the impact of something that worked in his favor? Your own evidence disproves your claim. Do you see that?

Again, when can we expect your departure?

[BeFree]

71. Again?

You really think the report was in Bush's favor? Unbelievable.

Dude, Gore won the election. It was stolen. If you have evidence that it wasn't stolen, be free to post it.

[SDuderstadt]

73. Dude...do you bother to read the posts...

before you respond to them? I said that a number of different recount scenarios were examined and that Gore would have had a net gain in most of them. I also said that the SCOTUS effectively stole the election by foreclosing the possibility of any recount, irrespective of what recounting method was used.

I ALSO said the recount method Gore petitioned for, which was a recount of (I think both overvotes and undervotes) in SELECTIVE counties which would have wound up with a net gain of votes for Bush and, thus, the election, since Florida would have given him the required number of electoral votes needed. So, tell me something, dude. Why would Bush have planned 9/11 "MIHOP" to scuttle or bury the report when the report showed him winning under the recount method Gore was requesting?

Again, this is just more of your dishonest reframing, dude. So, you made a wager, I accepted and you have lost that wager. When can we expect your departure so we can look forward to a more civil discourse without your dishonest reframing?

[BeFree]

75. Heh

The report laid out clearly that Gore did win the election had the votes been counted according to state law.

Y'know, I can see how someone could argue that 9/11 might have happened just the way some here say it did. I don't agree, obviously.

But to suggest that bush was not worried that the truth about the stolection be widely reported is a stretch. He knew it could take him out of the office he stole.

And it probably would have. Especially were it released in April.
Besides, we all agree that 9/11 saved bush's ass?

[SDuderstadt]

77. How would it have "taken him out of office", dude?

You keep omitting any explanation for that.

When can we expect your departure?

[BeFree]

78. Talk about stupid fucking questions

There's two right there.

9/11 saved bush's ass.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. Would you mind answering it?

How exactly do you see Bush being removed from office after the report?

As much as I hate to say it, Bush was legally president. He shouldn't have been, I agree 100%. But he was certified by Florida as the winner of Florida's electoral votes, and when the electoral college met, Florida's certified delegates cast their votes for George W. Bush. With a majority of electoral votes, George W. Bush became the 43rd president of the United States.

Are you familiar with oddities like the Electoral College in American politics?

[BeFree]

125. Heh

I reread this thread just now and I gotta say that the defense of bush stealing the 2000 election offered up in this thread, on DU, still, after all the shit that has gone down, is quite disconcerting.

[SDuderstadt]

126. "the defense of bush stealing the 2000 election "

Point to a single person "defending" it, dude.

Another stupid post from you.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Two "stupid fucking questions" which you...

apparently cannot answer. Again, how would the NORC report have "taken Bush out of office", with or without 911?

When can we expect your departure?

[SDuderstadt]

82. Hey, BeFree!

I believe I speak for a number of people here who'd love to hear you explain precisely how the NORC report would have "taken Bush out of office". Actually, I just get vicarious thrills witnessing you parade your ignorance of American politics and government around. If it weren't for you embarrassing liberalism, it might actually be funny.

When can we expect your departure as you pledged in your wager? Actually, I think I'll spare you further embarrassment by not asking you to compare and contrast the "protest" and "contest" periods in FL, seeing as how you're an expert on FL election law and all. Maybe Gore made a mistake by not having you flown to Tallahassee in 2000.

[defendandprotect]

129. Why would you need an exact date ... ??? Bush was running "Operation Ignore" ... he did NOTHING!!

Forget about an "exact" date --

Would you have ignored the tons of info coming re an attack --

INCLUDING from the CIA -- "Bin Laden planning an IMMINENT attack on US" --

if you didn't have an exact date??

Or would you have begun to respond?

[zappaman]

131. "Operation Ignore"?

Did some documents outlining "Operation Ignore" get released?
I must have missed that...

[noise]

27. We have CIA emails admitting that al Qaeda operatives

they knew were in the country would likely be involved in the next al Qaeda attack (associates of Bin Attash=al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi). We have the CIA obstructing a criminal investigation (USS Cole). We have Alec Station officials ordering FBI agents to withhold information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar from the FBI.

What would it take for you to question the CIA? This isn't conspiracy. While in some cases the term conspiracy theorist has validity (i.e. when people confuse speculation with truth) in other cases this term is used as an authoritarian defense intended to stifle dissent.

[rschop]

84. Noise is right!

Noise is right.

The CIA and FBI HQ found out that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22, 2001 when CIA officer Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi were told on this date by FBI agent Margaret Gillespie, who worked at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that these terrorists were inside of the US.

On August 23, 2001 the CIA Bin Laden unit issued a worldwide alert for both Mihdhar and Hazmi, an alert that immediately went to very top of the CIA and FBI HQ. Because of email from Tom Wilshire in July 2001 warning that Mihdhar would be found of the next big al Qaeda attack, the CIA knew immediately when they found out these terrorists were inside of the US that these terrorists were inside of the US only in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans. But both the CIA and FBI HQ keep this information that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even though they knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 with Walid Bin Attash actually planning the Cole bombing.

When the FBI Cole bombing investigators accidently found out that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US on August 28, 2001, agents at FBI HQ, FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi and her boss Rod Middleton, told the Cole bombing investigators that they would not be allowed to investigate Mihdhar and Hazmi because they were not permitted to have access to the NSA cable describing the travel of Mihdhar and Hazmi to the Kuala Lumpur meeting without written approval from the NSA.

But what Corsi and Middleton failed to tell the Cole bombing investigators is that the NSA had already given Corsi written permission to pass this NSA cable onto the Cole bombing investigators on August 27, 2001, the day before. According to the DOJ IG report, information very few people in the US are even aware of, the NSA had already approved a request to allow FBI Dina Corsi to give this information to the “FBI agents on the Cole bombing in New York” on August 27, 2001, the day before Corsi and Middleton told the FBI Cole bombing investigators they could not have this information.

Incredibly on August 22, 2001 according to the DOJ IG report, Corsi indicates to the DOJ IG investigators that she already knew that the CIA had been hiding the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, from the FBI Cole bombing investigators. This photograph connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the actual planning of the Cole bombing with bin Attash at this meeting and meant that the FBI Cole bombing investigators should have been given the go ahead to immediately investigative and search for both Mihdhar and Hazmi.

When the supervisor of the FBI Cole bombing investigators, FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, asked Corsi on August 28, 2001 to get a ruling from the FBI NSLU, the FBI legal unit, to see if they agreed that he could not start any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi, since he did not see any connection between the NSA information and a FISA warrant, Corsi told Bongardt on August 29, 2001 that the NSLU attorney Sherry Sabol had ruled that he and his team could have no part in any investigation of Mihdhar or Hazmi.

But the 9/11 Commission report on page 538, Footnote 81 says that the NLSU attorney, Sherry Sabol told Corsi on August 28, 2001 that Bongardt could take part in any investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi since the NSA information had no connection to any FISA warrant, and furthermore if Corsi was still confused, Corsi herself could go to the NSA and get written permission to transfer this information to Bongardt, unaware that she had already been given this approval two days earlier.

At the September 20, 2002 public hearings by the Joint Inquiry investigation of 9/11 Bongardt said that he was told by Corsi that if one piece of paper was ever found at the FBI with his name and Mihdhar’s name his carrier was through at the FBI.

The CIA using groups and agents at the FBI that they had subjugated shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, afraid that if Bongardt and his team continued his investigation of Mihdhar and then found out that bin Attash had also been at the Kuala Lumpur meeting with both Mihdhar and Hazmi, many people at both the CIA and FBI HQ would have gone to prison for years for having kept this information secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, criminally obstructing this investigation into the murder of 17 US sailors.

On August 30 2001 the CIA sent over to FBI HQ the photograph of Walid Bin Attash taken at the Kuala Lumpur meeting and indicated it should be sent to Rod, Rod Middleton Corsi’s boss. This was the photographic proof that Bongardt had been looking for that had been deliberately kept secret from him and his team by the CIA.

In spite of this new information that proved that Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in the planning of the Cole bombing at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, Middleton and Corsi continued to keep this photograph a secret from Bongardt and his team of Cole bombing investigators.

This action by Corsi and Middleton, to shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi when there was over whelming proof that connected both to the planning of the Cole bombing ultimately and directly lead to the horrific deaths of 3000 innocent people on 9/11.

[William Seger]

21. That's a good example of something

... but it ain't logic. Here's a quick test for valid logic, which apparently you aren't aware of: Logical inference is considered to be "valid" if the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises; which is to say, if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. If that condition is not met -- if the conclusion could be false even if the premises are true -- then you've got a logical fallacy somewhere, whether or not you can put your finger on it and give its common name. Then, for a valid logical inference to also be "sound," the premises must actually be true. If there is reason to doubt the premises, then there is reason to doubt the conclusion, even if the logic is valid.

What you are doing is unbridled speculation, which can be useful for forming speculative hypotheses, but if that's all you do -- if you don't then go on to test your hypothesis against all the known facts and rigorously attempt to weed out poor, illogical hypotheses -- then no, that's not a "fairly logical avenue of thought." It's just a recipe for self-delusion.

[BeFree]

26. Heh

So, are you saying: Bush didn't know anything. So bushco couldn't have stopped it?

They knew. The evidence that they knew is preponderant. If you have any evidence -- real, concrete evidence that they didn't know, produce it. And Condi Rice saying "no one could imagine" is not evidence.

Maybe you could get your evidence from the secret meetings that bushco had with the 9/11 commission? I would suggest that without that testimony you don't have a case, yet you have decided to stake your belief without it?

Why is it still a secret? Why even hang around here rattling when you have no evidence to present that exonerates bushco? WHY?

All you have is flimsy belief. Admit it.

[OnTheOtherHand]

28. what a strange question

So, are you saying: Bush didn't know anything. So bushco couldn't have stopped it?

The answer, obviously, is no, Seger is not saying that.

Why ask the question?

[eomer]

59. Yours is a good example of (intentionally?) applying the wrong protocol.

Your approach would be valid in the context of a scientific study. In the context of a criminal investigation or prosecution it is absolutely not the protocol that applies. The guilt of a defendant does not have to be established to a level such that all other possibilities are shown to be impossible, to be logically excluded. The standard for proving guilt is clearly something different than that. I'm sure you knew that.

I guess you envision, in place of a jury panel of our peers, a panel of scientists who would examine a step-by-step mathematical proof that must establish guilt using only logical constructs that go beyond the "reasonable doubt" standard (or whatever the actual standard is in a particular case) and instead must only establish things that are logically infallible. That is not how it works (of course).

[wildbilln864]

118. Bravo eomer! nt

[defendandprotect]

29. MIHOP . . .

give the overwhelming presence of endless intelligence from about every nation

on the planet -- including the Russians who went to the UN Security Council because

they were so concerned about Bush/US "Operation Ignroe" -- and finally the UN Security

Council sending their representatives to the White House and to our intelligence

agencies with the info in AUGUST .... of course it's MIHOP.

Add in NORAD being AWOL -- and how could anyone think otherwise!!???

[vincent_vega_lives]

32. tick...tick...tick...

Its only been some 2,68,531,200 seconds since the 9-11-01 attacks. Any second now...

[f11killerbeing]

33. nawh

He didnt know

[rschop]

36. The big question is what did President Bush know prior to 9/11?

The big question is what did President Bush know prior to 9/11, did he know enough to stop this attack or not?

And what did the CIA know and what did they tell President Bush?

The CIA knew on January 4, 2001 that Walid Bin Attash, mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been positively identified by the CIA/FBI joint source in photos the CIA had taken of him at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting that took place between January 5-8, 2000. At this time, both the CIA and FBI HQ knew that Bin Attash had already been identified by the FBI Cole bombing investigators as one of the masterminds of the Cole bombing.

Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi had also already been identified in photos also taken of them at the same meeting. A NSA cable given to the CIA in December 1999, from a phone call connected to people who took part in the east Africa bombings and to the al Qaeda terrorist organization, had stated that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to this important al Qaeda planning meeting. This connected both Mihdhar and Hazmi to the al Qaeda terrorists, to the east Africa bombings and even to the planning of the Cole bombing.

By the summer of 2001 the CIA knew a huge al Qaeda attack was just about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans.

On June 12, 2001, according to the 9/11 Commission report, the CIA found out that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was directing this al Qaeda terrorist attack the CIA was already aware of. The CIA learned that KSM was sending many terrorists into the US to link up with other terrorists who were already in the US in order to take part in this attack.

The CIA had already been told in 1995 about an al Qaeda operation called the Bojinka plot and the plan found on Abdul Harkim Murad's computer that described an al Qaeda attack that was to take place inside of the US. This plan was known to be one of the later phases of the Bojinka plot. Abdel Harkim Murad had been working on the Bojinka plot with Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed when a fire in the apartment they were using to construct bombs alerted the Philippine police to this terrorist scheme. The later phase of the Bojinka plot described hijacking many airliners in the US and crashing these into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the Capital buildings along with other US landmark buildings.

Since the CIA had already known that KSM had helped finance the original plot on the WTC Towers, and knew he was Ramzi Yousef’s uncle, when Yousef had carried out the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center Towers, and even knew that Yousef was found in an al Qaeda safe house when he was arrested, they would have known that this upcoming al Qaeda attack would involve hijacked aircraft targeting the WTC Towers, the US Capitol building and the Pentagon.

The FBI had already told the CIA in that later half of August 2001, that they had the INS arrest what looked like an al Qaeda terrorist on August 16, 2001, Zacarias Moussaoui, that he had in his possession two four inch folding knives, and that Moussaoui said he was in a big hurry to get his B747 training completed by August 22, 2001. The FBI had already suspected that Moussaoui wanted to be part of a aircraft hijacking team that was to target the World Trade Center Towers with hijacked aircraft.


On July 5 2001, according to the DOJ IG report, Tom Wilshire, the CIA Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit who had been moved over to be Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit in mid-May 2001, sent email back to his CTC managers, mangers that included Richard Blee head of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Cofer Black head of the CIA CTC Center and George Tenet, indicating that he felt that the people who were at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting, Khalid al-Mihdhar, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Salem al-Hazmi, the al Qaeda terrorists on AA 77 that hit the Pentagon, were connected to the massive warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that the CIA had been receiving since April 2001. SEE the DOJ IG report, July 5, 2001.

In July 13, 2001 email back to his CTC mangers, Wilshire requested permission to transfer the information he had on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the people who had attended this meeting planning the Cole bombing, to the FBI. See DE 939, “Substitution for the testimony of John”, aka Tom Wilshire, entered into the Moussaoui trial on March 11, 2006, http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /. He did not receive any reply to his request, but this request since it was so sensitive would have had to have been approved or rejected by Blee, Black and Tenet. This meant that his request had been blocked by the top manager at the CIA.

In his July 23, 2001, email located in the same document, on the same site, Wilshire stated that Khalid al-Mihdhar and by association Nawaf al-Hazmi were going to take part on the next big al Qaeda operation. He also asked why no one had responded to his July 13, 2001 request to transfer the Kuala Lumpur information to the FBI Cole bombing investigators. See “Substitution for the testimony of John” July 23, 2001. Again top CIA mangers did not even reply to his request, indicating again that his request was denied, even while at the same time the very CIA mangers who had denied his request, Blee, Black, and Tenet were describing to Rice and Clarke in the White House on July 10, 2001, and later to Rumsfeld and Ashcroft on July 17, 2001, a huge al Qaeda attack inside of the US that was just about to take place that would kill thousands of Americans.

In July 2001 when the top CIA managers, Blee, Black and Tenet, were aware that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US, they had forbidden Tom Wilshire at least twice from turning over the information on the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting to the FBI criminal investigators on the Cole bombing, information that would have prevented that attacks on 9/11.

On August 22, 2001, less than one month after Wilshire sent his email to his CTC CIA managers indicating that Mihdhar would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda attack, both Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi were told by FBI IOS Agent Margaret Gillespie, a FBI agent at the CIA Bin Laden unit, that Mihdhar and Hazmi were found by the INS to be inside of the US. Both Wilshire and Corsi knew immediately that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US only in order to take part in the massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans that the CIA had already been warned about.

On August 23, Gillespie had the CIA Bin Laden unit issue a worldwide alert for several al Qaeda terrorists connected with the Cole bombing including Mihdhar and Hazmi, an alert that clearly went right to the top of the CIA hierarchy, including Richard Blee, Cofer Black and George Tenet. Not only did they and 50-60 other people at the CIA, according to the CIA IG report, and many agents managers at the FBI now know that Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US but they all knew they terrorists were in the US in order to take part in a massive al Qaeda terrorist attack that would kill thousands of Americans.

On August 24, 2001 George Tenet flew down to Crawford Texas to have a 6 hour meeting with President Bush, a meeting he deliberately denied attending in order to keep it secret when he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004. At the time of this meeting Tenet knew that both Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US in order to take part in a aircraft hijacking that would target the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the Congress and knew that that would use 4 inch knives a weapons to take over these aircraft and even knew that attack would come shortly after September 4, 2001 when the Congress returned from their 6 week recess.

But according to information given to the New Times, and Judith Miller, the CIA knew by around July 4, 2001, from a phone conversation between two al Qaeda terrorists that the al Qaeda terrorists had been very disappointed in the lack of response to the bombing of the USS Cole. The reply by another terrorist was that next attack was going to be so big the US was going to be forced to respond, a response that had to be an attack on Afghanistan where the al Qaeda terrorists had their headquarters. To make this attack successful, the US was going to have to enlist the help of the Northern Alliance, and their leader Ahmad Shah Masoud. When Masoud was assassinated by al Qaeda on September 9, 2001, to blunt any help the Northern Alliance could give to the Americans, the CIA would have known this huge attack on the World Trade Center Towers was just days away.

[rschop]

123. K&R

[defendandprotect]

37. Agree ... and look what was gained -- 2 million innocent Muslims murdered . ..

occupation of Iraq 5 years now?

20 or more bases in Iraq -- plus a Taj Mahal of a US Embassy --

In Afghanistan, two new excalations and heroin crop at new peaks!!

And who did that work for?

[BeFree]

38. Yep

Follow the money. Lots of people have gotten very rich since 9/11. And they are not our friends.

[BeFree]

39. Here is a link with an answer?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=280741&mesg_id=281007

So everyone here agrees that bush was warned and should have acted?
Since he didn't act against the coming action, he is in many ways responsible for the action?

So the only question is: how responsible was he? Maybe the answer is in the hidden testimony he and cheney gave to the 9/11 commission?

If only we could read that testimony. Why are they hiding it?

[SDuderstadt]

40. Dude...

you can't read President Clinton or VP Gore's testimony either. Does that mean the 9/11 Commission is hiding theirs also???

[Ohio Joe]

74. No, not very logical

"Bush knew."

He knew they were planning a hijacking. I am unaware of any evidence he knew exactly when or that they were going to use the planes as they did.

"And bushco could have stopped it."

This does not follow, what it should be is - bushco could have attempted to stop it - They did have about 70 investigations going but they also should have stepped up airline security.

"Which leads to: Why didn't they stop it?" Again, no, should be - Why did they not attempt to stop it - Well, they did have about 70 investigations going. Hard to deny that is an attempt... not enough of one but an attempt none the less.

Which makes:

"Which leads to: If bushco knew, and they didn't stop it, then maybe they had a hand in it?"

Complete non-sense. Even if it was able to follow in a logical manner, the statement is still false, it makes no more sense then - BeFree knew there would be a murder last week, BeFree didn't stop it, then maybe BeFree had a hand in it? - meaning, it makes no logical sense.

[rschop]

85. Maybe you can explain when the CIA and FBI HQ knew Mihdhar and Hazmi. were inside of the US and knew

Maybe you can explain why when the CIA and FBI HQ knew that Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were inside of the US on August 22,2001, and they knew these were long time al Qaeda terrorists who were connected to both the east Africa bombings and the Cole bombing and even knew they were inside of the US to take part in another massive al Qaeda attack that would kill thousands of Americans, why did the CIA and FBI HQ shut down the investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi by the FBI Cole bombing investigators, the only group that could have found them quickly.

And in fact why did the CIA and FBI HQ shut down all investigations of all al Qaeda terrorists who were known to be in the US when they knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place and knew by their actions to shut down these investigations this would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans?

Maybe you can explain that!

[Ohio Joe]

86. Well...

First off, what has any of that to do with the bad logic of the OP?

As to your demands for me to explain your screed, since I do not know if your statements are either true or false, I see no need for me to go do a bunch of research for you. Perhaps if you had not been so demanding and offered proof of all of your claims I might have been willing to go down whatever path it is your trying to lead me but... Sorry, I don't just jump to peoples demands.

[rschop]

87. re:I do not know if your statements are either true or false?

See Post #84, it is all in the DOJ IG report, pages 290-315. Also see the evidence entered into the Moussaoui trial, in particular DE# 939.

The documents are from the Zacarias Moussaoui evidence web site maintained by the US Federal Courts, which is the official US government web site for the Moussaoui trial located at:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exh... /

DE #939 is the Substitution for the Testimony of John, aka Tom Wilshire, the Deputy Chief of the Bin Laden unit, who had been moved over to the ITOS unit as liaison to FBI manager Michael Rolince in mid-May 2001 just after the CIA received the official request from FBI Agent and lead investigation on the Cole bombing, Ali Soufan, for any information the CIA had on Walid bin Attash or a al Qaeda planning meeting in Kuala Lumpur in January a 2000

DE # 469 is the EC to start investigation for Mihdhar and Hazmi FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi wrote up that accidentally went to FBI Agent Steve Bongardt on August 28, 2001

DE #448 is the NSA release approved by the NSA on August 27, 2001 and sent to Dina Corsi on August 28, 2001.


DE #939 says that Tom Wilshire sent email back to his CIA CTC managers on July 23, 2001 and says that Mihdhar will be found at the next big al Qaeda operation (CIA speak for al Qaeda attack).

It goes on to say that on August 22, 2001 Margret Gillespie, aka Mary, a FBI IOS agent working at the CIA Bin Laden unit, finds out from the INS that both Mihdhar and Hazmi are inside of the US, and takes this information to CIA officer, former Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, Tom Wilshire and FBI HQ Agent Dina Corsi, at the Bin Laden unit of the FBI. Both Wilshire and Corsi keep this information as a complete secret from the FBI Cole bombing investigators, even though they both know that Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing, had been at the Kuala Lumpur al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000 actually planning the Cole bombing with Mihdhar and Hazmi.

[Ohio Joe]

89. And which part of that...

Proves:

"And in fact why did the CIA and FBI HQ shut down all investigations of all al Qaeda terrorists who were known to be in the US when they knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place and knew by their actions to shut down these investigations this would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans?"

[rschop]

90. re: And which part of that...

Proves:

"And in fact why did the CIA and FBI HQ shut down all investigations of all al Qaeda terrorists who were known to be in the US when they knew a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place and knew by their actions to shut down these investigations this would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans?"

Go back and read Post #84.

Let's see if you can figure it out from that post? Lets see if you can connect the dots?

It is all there!

[Ohio Joe]

91. ahh, dot connecting

and no proof that ALL investigations were shut down.

[rschop]

92. re: and no proof that ALL investigations were shut down.

Say what?

Wilshire and Corsi shut down Bongardt's investigtaion of Mihdhar and Hazmi, Maltbie and Frasca shut down FBI Agent Harry Samit's investigation of Moussaoui.

There were almost 3000 people murdered because these investigations were shutdown!

These were ALL of the FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists known at that time to be inside of the US.

[Ohio Joe]

94. Incorrect

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html

Look at page two.

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related"

So... your statement shows ONE investigation was stalled but not that ALL investigations were shut down or even that any were shut down. Are we at the point yet where you will tell me what any of this has to do with the faulty logic of the OP?

[BeFree]

95. Heh

70 full field investigations? And all were ignored? I ask 'all ignored' because nothing was done to stop the attacks from happening.

Here's info about four off the top of me head:

The one Az agent sent a report that flight training was going on: Mishandled.
Crowley's report: Mishandled
Moussouai(sp): Computer not allowed to be searched: Mishandled
An informant's report from LA: Mishandled

It would be interesting to see what happened with the other 66 investigations, eh?

Have this sneaking suspicion that the other 66 were likewise: Mishandled.

They knew.

[Ohio Joe]

96. Well duh

That does not change your poor logic in the OP.

[BeFree]

97. Poor logic

Really, the only poor logic I recognize is in trying to have a discussion with you.

They knew the attack was coming. Since they did nothing to stop it, it follows that they probably had a hand in making it happen. Accomplices, at the very least. MIHOP, probably.

[Ohio Joe]

98. Yes, you never recognize anything outside your fantasy

I'll repeat:

"Bush knew."

He knew they were planning a hijacking. I am unaware of any evidence he knew exactly when or that they were going to use the planes as they did.

"And bushco could have stopped it."

This does not follow, what it should be is - bushco could have attempted to stop it - They did have about 70 investigations going but they also should have stepped up airline security.

"Which leads to: Why didn't they stop it?" Again, no, should be - Why did they not attempt to stop it - Well, they did have about 70 investigations going. Hard to deny that is an attempt... not enough of one but an attempt none the less.

Which makes:

"Which leads to: If bushco knew, and they didn't stop it, then maybe they had a hand in it?"

Complete non-sense. Even if it was able to follow in a logical manner, the statement is still false, it makes no more sense then - BeFree knew there would be a murder last week, BeFree didn't stop it, then maybe BeFree had a hand in it? - meaning, it makes no logical sense.

[BeFree]

99. Your problem is

You conflate field agents with bushco.

The field agents were not working with bushco, they were doing their jobs.
But....
Bushco was working against the field agents.

Left up to the field agents, the attacks would have been stopped.

[Ohio Joe]

100. No, that is incorrect

and of course you do not address what I said but yet again try to evade. Lets try taking it one step at a time.

Bush knew.

That he was warned of an up coming attack is beyond dispute, I am aware of no one that disputes that fact. You take this to mean he was aware of every last facet of the attacks, there is zero evidence of that. There is no evidence he knew when, where or that the planes were to be used in a suicide bid. Can you come up with any evidence he knew the when, where or how?

[BeFree]

101. Heh

My job is not to protect or make excuses for bush. My job is to destroy him.

He knew. The CIA told him. The FBI told him. The facts were there. He chose to not do anything. He is an accomplice and may have even made it happen so that he could usurp power and make him and his friends billions of ill-begotten profits. And they did.

End of story. Let a trial begin. Let us have some justice.

[Ohio Joe]

102. ahhh, the old fall back position "YOUR A BUSH SUPPORTED!"

You have no facts for your fantasy so you insinuate I'm a bush supporter. It is still a big old stinking pile of bullshit. See, where we really differ is not in wanting bush put away for his crimes. It is that I want him put away for real ones that can be proven and you want to pursue a fantasy. I would submit that it is the CT'ers that are protecting bush by keeping the crazy label on his crimes.

I also notice that you still do not address that there is no evidence he knew anything beyond a hijacking was being planned. Yet... your ready for the trial. You know what you would get in your trial? A very fast acquittal and bush walking away on everything because you have zero evidence of your claims.

[BeFree]

103. No

Again: you are saying that I said something about you. I did not. I only expressed where I am coming from and why I take the stand I do.

If you feel that you and I are not on the same track, that is up to you. It doesn't matter.

But yes, I am ready for a trial. Let the evidence be presented and I will accept the verdict.

[Ohio Joe]

104. Present your evidence then

Show bush knew when, where and how.

[BeFree]

105. Like I said

It is illogical to try to discuss this with you.

But just for a grin, I'll show you the 9/11 commission's secret bush and cheney testimony as soon as they let me. For some reason, they won't let me.

What Happened?

[Ohio Joe]

106. Your evidence is hidden in the 9/11 commission testimony... bwahahahaha

You really think he walked in there and admitted everything and they agreed to keep it secret? Even now that bush is out of power they are still keeping it secret? Is there anyone but you not involved in your cover up fantasy?

It is nice though that you have admitted you can't prove your case. Want to take it a step further and admit that it is a bad idea to trial without evidence or do you stand by going to trial?

[BeFree]

107. Haha

The fact is the testimony is being kept from us.
Even now that bush is out of power they are still keeping it secret.
It is a secret.

Despite protestations to the contrary, they are keeping secrets from us.
It is being covered up.
That is no fantasy.

[Ohio Joe]

108. Yes and they are all in on it

:crazy:

[BeFree]

109. Lets try it this way, Joe

If you or I were driving a car and we caused an accident, either by incompetence or neglect, and the accident resulted in a death, we would be charged with manslaughter at the least.

Let the trial begin.

[Ohio Joe]

110. Apples and oranges

As poor an analogy as your logic. The correct analogy is that BeFree knows there will be car accidents tonight, BeFree does not do enough to prevent the accident and someone dies. Should BeFree be charged with manslaughter? No, first you have to prove BeFree was behind the wheel or that BeFree knew exactly when, where and how the accident was going to happen.

Now... If BeFree tortures some of the survivors and admits it and then kills a bunch of the bystanders... Those are crimes that can be prosecuted and proven... As long as a bunch of crazies do not muddle things by claiming BeFree knew the when, where and how without evidence. As long as a bunch of crazies do not muddle things by claiming there was no car and that it was really mini-nukes that killed the guy or that there were bombs in the car. You know... bullshit there is no evidence of?

Distraction works for the rich... for those in power... for the easily duped. Why go after crap you have no evidence for and cannot prove when real crimes are right in front of you? Crimes that put the perps away permanently. Why add to the distraction?

[BeFree]

111. wow

Now that is torturing logic. Way to go, Joe.

It's almost as if you are claiming that we are keeping bush from being prosecuted for his crimes.

It's obvious that my questioning is in some strange way torturing you to say stuff that is off-the-wall, so I will stop for now and let you be free.

My apologies, Joe. Didn't mean to do that.

[Ohio Joe]

112. Off the wall? No, you evade again

Respond to nothing and claim to "be just asking questions", ignoring the answers, ignoring the fact that you have zero evidence of your claims and distracting from the REAL issues.

[SDuderstadt]

122. So, is Clinton and Gore's testimony being...

"covered up"; too, dude?

[SDuderstadt]

121. Dude...

this has been explained to you before. Neither Clinton nor Gore testified in open hearing either. Do you really believe that we should just let al Qaeda read about executive level decision-making and anti-terrorism strategy? Use your head, dude.

Beyond that, do you really think there was no one on the 9/11 Commission interested in the truth? Your naivete embarrases liberalism, dude...

[SDuderstadt]

120. Dude...

you don't have nearly enough "evidence" for an indictment, let alone a trial. You are indirectly accusing AG Holder and the DOJ of misfeasance. Don't you think there are innumerable people who'd love to throw the book at Bush (torture, invasion of Iraq), myself included, but your silly LIHOP and MIHOP delusions are just that delusions. When you can prove that Bush knew THE attack was coming (specific enough information to stop it) versus AN attack was coming (not specific enough info to effectively stop it), you might have something, rather than to continue to embarrass liberalism with your nonsense.

Your goofy allegations continue to fall short of satisfying the evidentiary tests that would be necessary to warrant a trial. Please quit embarrassing liberalism, dude. In the meantime, you lost a wager in which you pledged to abandon this forum. When can we expect your departure, dude? Are you reneging?

[SDuderstadt]

119. Then why aren't the field agents coming forward and...

asserting "Bushco stopped them", dude?

[rschop]

113. re:The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations

Your post:

"The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Laden-related"

Maybe you can site one case, just a single case, of where an FBI criminal investigation of an al-Qaeda terrorist found to be inside of the US and connected to the attacks on 9/11 was not shut down, please site "just one case".

Also, list who was the al Qaeda terrorist under investigation, and the FBI agent in charge of this investigation of this terrorist. I don't think you can because it appears that this number of 70 investigations is just pure CIA bullshit.

This is also completely irrelevant. The fact remains that the CIA and FBI HQ knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and even knew they were going to take part in a massive al Qaeda attack and then did just the opposite of what you would think a normal person would do. They not only hid this information from FBI Agent Steve Bongardt and his FBI Cole bombing investigators, even though they knew Mihdhar and Hazmi had taken part in planning the Cole bombing, they shut down FBI Agent Steve Bongardt's investigation of Mihdhar when he and his team of experienced investigators accidentally found out that long time al Qaeda terrorists Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US and knew they were here in order to take part in another horrific al Qaeda terrorists attack.

Had his investigation not been shut down, Bongardt and his team could have found Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to have prevented the attack on 9/11.

FBI HQ also blocked the investigation of Moussaoui by FBI Agent Harry Samit when Samit thought Moussaoui was an al Qaeda terrorist who wanted to learn how to fly a B747 in order to take part in a aircraft hijacking that would target the World Trade Center Towers. FBI HQ supervisors Maltbie and Frasca blocked Samit from even requesting a FISA search warrant for Moussaoui's duffle bag. When Samit was finally given permission to request a FISA search warrant, only after the Pentagon had been attacked on 9/11, he found the Western Union receipt for $14,000 from Ramzi bin al-Sheibh, traced bin al-Sheibh to three of his roommates Mohammed Atta, Ziad Jarrah, and Marwin al-Shiehi, three of the pilots on 9/11, and to a phone number of the al Qaeda pay master in the UAE that was connected though phone calls to most of the al Qaeda terrorists who took part in the attack on 9/11.

It is clear that these al Qaeda terrorists who were inside of the US were all connected to the attacks on 9/11 and if these investigations had gone forward they had a very high probability of preventing these attacks. It is also clear that both the CIA and FBI HQ had not only used criminal means to block these investigations but in at least the case of Mihdhar and Hazmi knew that shutting down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi would make it impossible for him and his team to prevent the horrific al Qaeda attack the CIA and FBI HQ had been warned about since April 2001 and knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were going to take part in.

What has this got to do with this op?

On August 23, 2001 Margret Gillespie forced the CIA Bin Laden unit to issue a worldwide alert for both Mihdhar and Hazmi, that went right to the very top of the CIA, to the State Department and the FBI HQ. This alert went right to Richard Blee, Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit, his boss Cofer Black and the George Tenet Director of the CIA. These high level CIA managers already knew from Wilshire's email on July 5, and July 23, 2001 that not only were the people at the Kuala Lumpur meeting connected to the warnings of a huge al Qaeda attack that was about to take place inside of the US, but to Khalid al-Mihdhar in particular, who it was noted would be found at the location of the next big al Qaeda operation.

But Blee, Black, and Tenet had inexplicably turned Tom Wilshire's request down twice on July 13, 2001 and July 23, 2001 to turn the information over to the FBI Cole bombing investigators on the Kuala Lumpur meeting and the fact that Mihdhar and Hazmi had been at that meeting planning the Cole bombing with Walid Bin Attash, the mastermind of the Cole bombing.

After finding out about Moussaoui on August 23, 2001 and also the fact Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US preparing to take part in a horrific al Qaeda terrorist attack, Tenet flies down to Crawford Texas for an urgent 6 hour meeting with President Bush on August 24, 2001.

Bush already knows from his August 6, PDB papers that people working for the al Qaeda terrorists had been caught surveying buildings in lower Manhattan consistent with a aircraft hijacking. Bush also knew from his Attorney General John Ashcroft, who stop flying commercail aircarft on July 26, 2001, just after Tenet, and Black had breifed him on a massive al Qaeda atack about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans. This information must have been so specific that Ashcroft did not want to be on any commerical airliner when there was any chance it could be hijacked.

The big question is what did Tenet tell Bush on August 24, 2001. If he told him nothing on August 24 and on August 31, 2001 when he met Bush in Washington DC why did Tenet out and out lie about these meetings when he gave testimony to the 9/11 Commission on April 14, 2004, and why did the White House not immediately correct his lies to the 9/11 Commission and the American people.

What was Director of the CIA George Tenet trying so desperately to hide with his now obvious lies to the 9/11 Commission?

Does this indicate what is called consciousness of guilt, and a much deeper level of involvement in allowing the attacks on 9/11 to take place?

[BeFree]

114. Very good, rschop

Your narrative shows a distinct pattern of obstruction.

If it were me, however, I'd leave out the Ashcroft flights because there is some question as to that actually happening.

I most liked this sentence:
"Had his investigation not been shut down, Bongardt and his team could have found Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to have prevented the attack on 9/11."

If only the field agents had been recognized and their reports allowed to move up the chain, then maybe none of this would have ever happened. It saddens me to realize that just one decision, gone the other way, would have changed history. As it was, the "luck" was all on the side of the foreigners. And we got screwed.

Let the trails begin.

[rschop]

115. re: If it were me, however, I'd leave out the Ashcroft flights because there is some question as to

Shutting down these FBI criminal investigations of al Qaeda terrorists found inside of the US was intentional and deliberate by the CIA and FBI HQ!

From your post:

"If it were me, however, I'd leave out the Ashcroft flights because there is some question as to that actually happening."

Here is the complete story on John Ashcroft;

Ashcroft quit flying commercial flights for AJ business just after Tenet and Black told him in a meeting on July 17, 2001 that the US was just about to be attacked by al Qaeda terrorists and this attack would result in mass American casualties.

9/11 Commission Hearings on April 14, 2004:


BEN-VENISTE: ...At some point in the spring or summer of 2001, around the time of this heightened threat alert, you apparently began to use a private chartered jet plane, changing from your use of commercial aircraft on grounds, our staff is informed, of an FBI threat assessment. And, indeed, as you told us, on September 11th itself you were on a chartered jet at the time of the attack.

Can you supply the details, sir, regarding the threat which caused you to change from commercial to private leased jet?

ASHCROFT: ...Let me indicate to you that I never ceased to use commercial aircraft for my personal travel.

But he clearly put out a press statement that said he would fly only on private aircraft for the remained of his term, for AJ business after the main stream news media found he was no longer flying commercial aircraft due to an "unspecified threat assessment by the FBI".

But what the American people and the two rows of families that had lost their relatives on 9/11 that sat right behind Ashcroft at this hearing wanted to hear was, what was the unspecified FBI threat that Ashcroft had received and had been reported by CBS news and that had made Ashcroft so terrified of an aircraft hijacking that he immediately stopped in the latter part of July 2001 from flying on commercial aircraft inside of the US.

They did not want to hear some weasel worded excuse that he really was not afraid to fly on US aircraft. And why hadn't he warned the American people of this "unspecified threat assessment by the FBI" so they could stay safe also?

We now know that on July 10, 2001 George Tenet and Cofer Black briefed Rice and Clarke in the White House and told them a massive al Qaeda attacks was about to take place inside of the US, that would kill thousands of Americans. This was reported by Bob Woodward in his book, “State of Denial”. Rice not only brushed off this news but then asked Tenet and Black to brief AG Ashcroft and Secretary of the Defense, Rumsfeld, apparently unable or more likely unwilling to do anything about this huge al Qaeda threat herself, which they did a week later. This would have been on or about July 17, 2001.

So now we know that Ashcroft quits flying on US commercial aircraft right after getting this horrific briefing from the top managers at the CIA on this massive al Qaeda terrorist threat.

But even more telling is that in over 8 ½ years no one has ever come forward to tell the American people exactly what was this “unspecified threat from the FBI" that the press release from Ashcroft’s office had described. The dots are starting to come together.

But this cover up gets worst!

The question was asked by no other then Richard Ben Venista. And he clearly knew that Ashcroft had not answered the question that all American wanted an answer for. What was this unspecified threat from the FBI when just 6 weeks later al Qaeda terrorists hijacked 4 aircraft and killed almost 3000 Americans? Could these two events be linked somehow?

We now know that it was Ben Venista who was at the an official 9/11 Commission meeting with Tenet, and Zelikow where Tenet described the July 10, 2001 meeting with Rice and Clarke and the meetings with Ashcroft and Rumsfeld a week later. And it was Ben Venista who also knew this information on these meetings had been deliberately “left out” of the 9/11 Commission report when this report was published in June of 2004.

So it is now also clear Ben Venista knew why Ashcroft quit flying on US commercial aircraft when he asked this question at the April 14, 2004, public 9/11 Commission hearings, and even knew that Ashcroft was misleading and evasive in his answer.

Even when he knew Ashcroft had not answered the real question, he never followed up and said, "John we, the 9/11 Commissioners and the Americans people want to know:

"What was that unspecified threat from the FBI that was so horrific that you started taking only private aircraft on AG business in late July?"

It wasn’t that Ashcroft was actually lying, it was he was misdirecting his answer to a question that had not even been asked;

Did you fly only on private aircraft in the summer of 2001?

And it is now also clear that the flights Ashcroft took on commercial aircraft were for vacations with his wife, flights he would never have been allowed to have taken on private aircraft at taxpayers’ expense, and on flights that were in large part outside of the US.

But then it gets even worse, yes indeed, far worse!.

John Ashcroft was the Attorney General of the United States, in charge of the Justice Department that also was over the FBI. If he knew that a huge al Qaeda attack was about to take place inside of the US that would kill thousands of Americans why did he not order the FBI to find these terrorists before they carried out any terrorist attack?

It turns that that at the time Ashcroft was told of this massive al Qaeda attack inside of the US, even his own people at the FBI were already aware that very dangerous al Qaeda terrorists were already inside of the US. One of his key employees, Tom Wilshire, had been moved over from Deputy Chief of the CIA Bin Laden unit to be liaison to Michael Rolince, the head of the ITOS unit. This is the unit it turns out we now know controlled all FBI criminal investigations in the world.

Tom Wilshire already knew on July 17, 2001 when Ashcroft was told about the al Qaeda attack on the US, that a very dangerous long time al Qaeda terrorist, Nawaf al-Hazmi, had already entered the US, and knew his travel companion, Khalid al-Mihdhar, had a multi-entry visa for the US that specified New York City as his destination.

Wilshire even knew as did much of the CIA that Mihdhar and Hazmi had attended a al Qaeda planning meeting with Walid Bin Attash, actually planning the Cole bombing. In fact this information was known by FBI HQ Agent Diana Corsi, and CIA officer Clark Shannon when they attended a meeting Wilshire set in New York City with the FBI Cole bombing investigators, on June 11, 2001. It now appears they all had been instructed, most likely by the CIA and Tom Wilshire, to keep this information secret from the FBI Cole bombing criminal investigators at this meeting.

Wilshire and Corsi, now famous in contemporary literature, had to be aware that their actions in shutting down the only investigation, the investigation on Mihdhar and Hazmi by FBI Agent Steve Bongardt, that could have found both Mihdhar and Hazmi in time to prevent the al Qaeda attack the FBI HQ and CIA knew they were going to part in, would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Since Wilshire had been denied many times by upper level CIA managers from providing this information to the FBI Cole investigators, the very information that could have prevented these attacks, and many people at the FBI HQ also knew that FBI Agent Corsi was criminally blocking the investigation of Mihdhar by Bongardt, it is clear that the conspiracy that had allowed the attacks on 9/11 to take placed went well beyond either Corsi and Wilshire and included almost all of the top management at the CIA, many of the middle managers at the FBI, and even directors of the FBI.

Even John Ashcroft’s own director of the FBI, Louis Freeh, had been aware, as well as almost all of the top management of the CIA and FBI, that Mihdhar and Hazmi had attended an important al Qaeda planning meeting in January 2000, and then all had intentionally refused to give this information to FBI Agent Ali Soufan in November 2000 when he was asked by this agent in official requests, committing what we all now know were in fact criminal acts.

This information and these dots that have been connected not only confirms this but indicates that the top managers of the FBI and CIA, including AJ Ashcroft and even some of the 9/11 Commissioners were actually in on the agreement "NOT to tell the truth", when they all had actually been sworn to tell the truth the, whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[BeFree]

117. Here's what our Cofer fellow has been up to

Blackwater Vice Chairman, Cofer Black, former Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center from 1999-2002, again appears at the center of controversial CIA programs to assassinate, kidnap, and torture targeted figures. See, THE CIA OFFICER WHO OVERSAW TORTURE: Cofer Black , December 23, 2007, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/337

After Black’s CIA retirement in May, 2002, he was appointed with Ambassadorial rank and diplomatic immunity to head the State Department’s counter-terrorism programs. Immediately upon the US occupation, Blackwater was given the primary contract for DOS security in Iraq. The NC-based company was then handed a no-bid contract to manage the Predator program in 2004. Black became Vice-Chairman of Blackwater International several months later.

Black was an early advocate for using drones to carry out targeted killings. He was in charge of CIA/CTC on February 4, 2002, when the armed Predator carried out its first lethal mission. That strike killed several Afghanis thought at the time to be Al-Qaeda figures, but allegations about the identities of the victims were disputed, and they may have been innocent villagers scavenging the remains of a battle field near Zawar Kili. (Boston Globe 02/15/2002)

[Ohio Joe]

116. Moussaoui

I don't know who ran the investigation, I suppose I could try and look it up if you need me to.

So, let me see if I understand. They knew a hijacking was coming. Check, I think we all agree on that point. They did not know exactly when or where or that they would be suicide attacks.

As far as blocking and shutting down investigation, as best I recall that is not exactly the case. Information was not allowed to be shared across criminal and terrorist related agent. As well, the CIA and FBI did not play nicely together... on anything. Were the rules stupid? Definitely. Was the whole "not sharing of information" thing stupid? Again definitely and in this case I might even say these things are criminal. Does it indicate "inside job"? No, it indicates a lot of ass covering because they were not doing their jobs right.

[rschop]

88. What did Bush know about the attacks on 9/11?

See post #36

[angelicwoman]

93. Maybe they allowed it to happen

Two possibilities exist: They participated or they allowed it to occur.

[zappaman]

124. Now that's good logic

Yes, there were only 2 possibilities.
Just 2 possibiities.
No way there was more than 2 possibilities.
Just now way.

[defendandprotect]

127. Real question is ... "How could they not have known....?" --

Almost every nation warned us for months and months while Bush conducted an

"Operation Ignore" -- Russians were so concerned about it they went to the United Nations

Security Council -- and in AUGUST the UN Security Council sent their own representatives to

the White House and to our intelligence agencies to warn them all again!!

Agree with you --

[PufPuf23]

130. There unprobable and questionably documented events leading up to,

during and post 9-11 events.

Anyone who does not see this is a tool or has not been paying attention.

The USA has enemies, foreign and domestic. This is a fact of life.

Most good people defended the USA with competence and bravery.

Others did not.

[defendandprotect]

132. Could you restate this ... I'm not clear on what you are saying -- thanks!

Just to be clear on my side -- UN has called US a "terrorist nation" and I agree.

Not clear on your position.

[PufPuf23]

134. IMO the 9-11 Commission Report is faulty, diplomatically speaking

The USA has a history of sponsoring and direct action in terror.

I did not realize the UN has called the USA a terrorist nation (unfortunately, I would agree). Do you have a citation?

I am anti-war. Ben Franklin: "There is no good war and there is no bad peace".

[defendandprotect]

135. Re the United Nations --

no, I don't have a link to the reference --

Thanks for the reply -- we keep talking about "America" these days without realizing

how much the rw has changed what "America" really is right now!!

[SDuderstadt]

136. "No, I don't have a link for the reference" is...

D&Pspeak for "I made it up, like I usually do".