Question for those who believe in Mihop...

[mikelewis]

I believe that someone other than UBL was responsible for 9/11. I believe the government not only knew about the plot, but were instrumental in it's design and orchestrating the barriers to a successful defense against the attack. My question is concerning George Bush.

If he and his cronies were the ones who planned and orchestrated the attacks, why wasn't there a clear connection created linking Iraq to the attacks? It has been reported that immediately after the attack, he ordered the intelligence services to "find a link to Iraq". If he was the one responsible, wouldn't that link have been established at the time of attack?

Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing, I believe that the Murray building bombing was designed to trigger a war between the united States and Iraq. The reports concerning the links to the Iraqi Nationals involvement, though clearly false, give the impression that someone wanted Clinton to blame Iraq and then invade. The same thing occurs in the Cole Bombing. The Christian Science Monitor wrote an article linking the Cole to Iraq, though again, the link is weak and was never publicized as credible. These two events raise different issues and I am not really trying to side-track the issue. These two issues are presented to show that some intelligence perspectives viewed Iraq as a possibility for these attacks. Whether or not the information was inteded to trigger a war with Iraq is irrelevant to this question. I would like some input on these 2 attacks and ideas why someone would want to pin the wrap on Iraq.

If Bush was involved in the planning for 9/11, why wasn't there proof of Iraqi involvement? This, in no way, absolves him from the conspiracy charge, I'm only trying to find out who planned it and why.

Again, this question is for the Mihop crowd.

[Blackthorn]

1. Well...

creating a link like that, that would stand up to international scrutiny would be next to impossible. It would take a whole new conspiracy to make it happen. It's not like you can just forge some documents and present them to the world. They tried that, and it failed.

Furthermore, the argument that Saddam attacked us is nowhere near as strong as the terrorist/Al-Qaeda story. It makes zero sense for Saddam to do anything like that to the US. They needed to find a patsy that was at least plausible.

I tend to believe the PNAC group made it happen to the extent they planned and financed it, but had no actual hands on involvement. And people like Bush would never have been let in on it. This is secret-handshake, Masonic, Illuminati type stuff, and only a select few, at least a couple in the WH, knew about it. This also makes it difficult to plan all these contingecies beforehand, since not everyone knows, and those who do cannot let on they know anything.

Interesting idead though, one I hadn't considered before.

[spooked911]

9. Yes, I think you're right. I've expanded on this more in my post below.

And welcome to DU!

[The Magistrate]

10. Are You Sure Of Your Creed, Mr. Blackthorne?

Id there really anything beyond the power of the Masons and Illuminati...?

"The mind wobbles...."

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

2. I have thought of this as well. What sticks in my craw is Bush's

confrontation with Richard Clarke. Pressuring Clarke to find a connection behind 9/11 and Iraq. Although the Neocons did try to plant dubious information afterwards, ie the meeting with Atta and an Iraqi Intelligence officer in Prague.

[DulceDecorum]

3. Richard Clarke

hangs out with the same crowd.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/mar03/127586.asp

Richard Clarke. Former head of NSC Counterterrorism, in a feature article on Emerson in Brown Alumni Magazine (November-December 2002), said, "'I think of Steve as the Paul Revere of terrorism… credits Emerson with repeatedly warning of Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the United States. He adds that he would attend Emerson's speeches whenever possible because 'we'd always learn things we weren't hearing from the FBI or CIA, things which almost always proved to be true.'"

Extra!, July/August 1995
The "Experts" Speak:Some of the most cited anti-terrorism sources--and their “credentials”
Steve Emerson: Emerson is a journalist (late of U.S. News &World Report and CNN) noted for his anonymous U.S. and Israeli intelligence sources (Extra!, 10-11/92, 11-12/93). These sources led him to announce, in the wake of the World Trade Center explosion, that the “bomber or bombers may be from one of the former Yugoslav republics.” (CNN, 3/2/93) That embarrassing error did not teach him caution: When the Murrah federal building was bombed, he immediately began insisting that all signs pointed to Muslim extremists. There’s more than a little bigotry in Emerson’s obsession with Muslim terrorists. To him, the fact that many people were killed in the Oklahoma City bombing was evidence that Arabs were responsible: “This was done with the intent to inflict as many casualties as possible. That is a Middle Eastern trait.” (CBS News, 4/19/95)
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1321

Good cop, bad cop is the name of the game.
Saddam done it.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1175

"A few top Defense officials think Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh was an Iraqi agent," U.S. News & World Report's Paul Bedard wrote in his "Washington Whispers" column (10/29/01). "The theory stems from a never-before-reported allegation that McVeigh had allegedly collected Iraqi telephone numbers."
Insight magazine writer Kenneth Timmerman (4/15/02) took this a step further: "Sources tell Insight that the phone numbers apparently were contained in a sealed manila envelope that was turned over to the FBI unopened by the Oklahoma state troopers who arrested McVeigh. The FBI logged in the evidence as 'manila envelope with content,' but never disclosed what was inside."
In fact, that envelope and its contents--mostly right-wing propaganda--were discussed at length in court testimony and in the press (e.g., New York Times, 4/29/97). Until the "sources" or "top Defense officials" can produce a piece of paper with Iraqi phone numbers on it, written in McVeigh’s distinct penmanship, this is nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumor.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1115

[AZCat]

4. Here's an interesting article about Clarke and Emerson

I found this while googling...

Newsweek:How Clarke 'Outsourced' Terror Intel
The former counterterrorism chief tapped a private researcher to develop intelligence on Al Qaeda. The disclosure sheds new light on White House frustrations with the FBI
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball
Newsweek
Updated: 4:08 p.m. ET March 31, 2004

March 31 - As White House counterterror czar, Richard Clarke was so frustrated by the FBI’s inability to identify Islamic radicals within the United States that he turned for help to a freelance terrorism researcher whose work was deeply resented by top bureau officials.

Clarke’s secret work with private researcher Steven Emerson is among a number of revealing disclosures in the ex-White House aide’s new book, “Against All Enemies," that has been all but obscured by the furor over the author’s politically charged allegations against President George W. Bush.

As recounted by Clarke in his book, and confirmed by documents provided to NEWSWEEK, Emerson and his former associate Rita Katz regularly provided the White House with a stream of information about possible Al Qaeda activity inside the United States that appears to have been largely unknown to the FBI prior to the September 11 terror attacks.

In confidential memos and briefings that were sometimes conducted on a near weekly basis, Emerson and Katz furnished Clarke and his staff with the names of Islamic radical Web sites, the identities of possible terrorist front groups and the phone numbers and addresses of possible terror suspects—data they were unable to get from elsewhere in the government.
</snip>


Interesting, but I don't know yet what to make of it.

Edit: Fixed link.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

5. The FBI had information but they were surpressing it.

Ask Colleen Rowley and Robert Wright.......

[DulceDecorum]

6. RE: his former associate Rita Katz

“Within days” of his first request in late 1999, Clarke writes, Emerson provided him “with a long list of Web sites sitting on servers in the United States.” Clarke then passed along the list to the Justice Department and FBI. But officials there balked at using it and complained at the time about “how difficult it was prosecute ‘free speech’ cases.”
As described by Emerson and Katz, who later split with her former boss and now runs her own privately funded group called the SITE (Search for International Terrorist Entities) Institute, the relationship with Clarke blossomed into a much more extensive one that included regular briefings at both the Clinton and Bush White Houses.
The memos they wrote for Clarke also covered more than Web sites. One, dated Dec. 28, 1999, was especially noteworthy. It traced links between two Saudi dissidents in London, apparent associates in the United States and Osama bin Laden’s network. A look at those links “reveals that bin Laden’s international terrorist infrastructure operates across the U.S.—not only in New York and Texas, but also Colorado, Washington, D.C., Virginia, Missouri and probably elsewhere,” according to a copy of the memo provided to NEWSWEEK by Emerson.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4639986

The Heritage Education Trust and the Safa Foundation, two Virginia-based charities under investigation for possible terrorism links, are demanding that Rita Katz, CBS and its correspondent Bob Simon pay $80 million in damages for slander and libel. In addition, Mar-Jac poultry also sued the same defendants for unspecified damages in the district court in Gainesville, Ga., blaming CBS for not correcting what it calls "libelous errors" and Katz for claiming that the 50-year-old company was laundering money for terrorist groups like al Qaeda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
<snip>
Moreover, Luque believes Katz has a personal interest in making the claims, noting that "60 Minutes" featured her book and that she is a paid consultant for a law firm that has filed a $1 trillion lawsuit on behalf of families of the victims of the September 11 attacks.
The firm, Motley-Rice, did not return calls seeking comments.
Several sources privy to the investigations said Katz was indeed paid for her work.
Two of those sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Katz had exaggerated her role in the Virginia investigation, drawn some reckless conclusions and lost the trust of some investigators from the FBI and Justice Department.
Katz used to work for terrorism investigator and ex-journalist Steven Emerson, who has warned for years about the terrorist links of Islamic charities in this country. After a dispute, Katz left and set up the SITE institute last year. Since then, she has been quoted in the press as a terrorism expert.
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.06.13/news15.html


BOISE, Idaho -- Four Islamic religious edicts blessing suicide attacks emerged as key evidence this past week in the terrorism trial of Saudi graduate student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen.
<snip>
He faces two counts of conspiracy to support terrorism, one of conspiracy to support a terrorist organization (the Palestinian group Hamas), and 11 counts of making false statements and visa fraud by claiming to be a full-time student while concealing his computer-consulting work with at least one Islamic organization.
The case is a landmark test of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act's provisions outlawing "material support" of terrorism. It also is unique for its focus on the alleged use of the Internet to "recruit and finance" terrorism, according to federal authorities.
Al-Hussayen, 34, was completing a graduate degree in computer science at the University of Idaho when arrested in February 2003.

Endorsing suicide attacks
Jurors sat riveted Thursday as government witness Rita Katz, an Iraqi Jew and a terrorism expert, slowly read the fatwas issued by radical Islamic clerics. Katz founded Search for Terrorist Entities Institute, an investigative group based in Washington, D.C.
<snip>
On the witness stand, Katz read other fatwa passages calling for the murder of "children and women of the infidels" as part of a jihad (holy war) against Christians and Jews. Some endorsed killing Muslims if they are among "infidels" when an attack occurs.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/middleeastreports/hiel/s_194369.html

Her own visa problems
An unexpected twist came in anti-terrorism activist and author Rita Katz' testimony this afternoon - it turns out she apparently had visa problems herself, involving unauthorized employment when she was a new immigrant to the United States in 1997.
Seven of the 15 charges Sami Al-Hussayen faces are for visa fraud, involving activities outside schoolwork while in the country on a student visa. Katz is a witness for the prosecution, and also served as a paid consultant to prosecutors in their investigation of Al-Hussayen.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/boise/blog.asp?postID=17005

[AZCat]

29. Do you know the current status of the lawsuit?

I looked around for an update on the lawsuit filed against Katz and "60 Minutes" but didn't find anything. Do you know of any more recent news?

[spooked911]

7. Good question. I have thought about this as well. It's a complicated

question that we can only try to guess at. Your points are well taken.

I don't think Bush personally set-up 9/11, I think he was more of a tool. He may still only have had a limited understanding of the whole 9/11 job, and probably wants it that way.

First, there was some weak connection set up with Iraq and Al Qaeda, particularly the infamous (supposed) meeting in Prague with Atta and the Iraqi agents.

I think the anthrax attacks were designed more for inciting an Iraq invasion-- they almost certainly came from the defense dept, and they likely were setting up something to frame Iraq.

But I think 9/11 was mostly a CIA job designed originally to spur an Afghanistan invasion. The CIA had been grooming Al Qaeda for a while and had already set-up the Bojinka legend. One possibility is that initially, Al Qaeda was used to spur an eventual Afghanistan invasion for controlling the opium supply as well as for the oil pipeline. But the oil fields north of Afghanistan turned out not to be as rich as planned, but the intelligence work had already been laid for an Al Qaeda attack. Invading Iraq came about when the Bush admin realized Afgahnistan was not so useful and the richest oilfields were in Iraq.

Thus, the bottom line is that you are right. The Bush administration can't have planned 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, otherwise they would have set-up more of a link with Iraq. Therefore they probably had little to do with planning 9/11, but knew the 9/11 attacks were in the works already and used them as they were set-up, because they knew they could get away with making the switch to Iraq since Arabs were involved.

The anthrax attacks were likely an add-on to strengthen the Iraq connection (and to intimidate Democrats and the media). Anthrax was fixed in people's minds with Iraq from the first gulf war.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

8. What Is Your Answer, Mr. Lewis?

Exactly who do you believe planned the thing?

No need to be kittenish, Sir. Be bold, and step up and say it like a man....

"Enquiring minds want to know."

[mikelewis]

12. Don't know, I do know who it wasn't

Not in a million years could you convince me that UBL had the ability to orchestrate these attacks. Too many things went in his favor, way too many things. I am trying to find an answer for that in this thread. You can believe what you like, as I stated in my post, this question is for those who believe in MIHOP theory and you don't appear to fit in this catagory. I would appreciate it if you wouldn't instigate an arguement in this thread.

Thank you

[The Magistrate]

13. Oh, My, My Dear, Dear Fellow

That is simply precious....

You have no evidence to back your belief what occured was beyond the reach of a smallish group of practiced conspirators; you have, at bottom, little more than a failure of imagination, and certain predispositions in your outlook on the world, to rear your elaborate structures upon. That is grossly insufficient for the purpose....

"The bleatin' o' the kid excites the Tiger."

[mikelewis]

14. Yeah, you're right...

I guess it's not worth posting here any longer. You have beaten me. Farewell.

[The Magistrate]

15. Given Your Ascription Of The Thing To President Clinton's Administration

Now removed above, doubtless you will find numerous other venues more welcoming....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[DulceDecorum]

16. OK, that is TWO people you have just kicked off this forum

First you haze Blackthorne for being a newbie
and then you go after mikelewis who you have previously issued a death threat to.
And you cap it off by issuing another death threat.

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

Something need to be done about your continued presence here.
When this become you own private hunting ground?

[Bolo Boffin]

17. Is that something to be handled by the moderators, Dulce?

Instead of complaining about it, hit the alert button.

If Mike Lewis tried to implicate the Clinton Administration in 9/11, then it needs to be examined why he would post that on a Democratic website. Don't you agree?

[DulceDecorum]

18. Thanks for explaining why

mikelewis was forced to leave but someone who is NOT a mod.
Now explain the hazing of Blackthorn
and the savaging of Last Lemming.

[demodewd]

19. DD

The best thing to do is ignore him DD.

[DulceDecorum]

44. Thanks

:grouphug:

[The Magistrate]

20. Mr. Lewis, My Dear

Does not seem to be gone, as consulting his personal profile at the time of typing this would indicate. Your dudgeon would seem to be misplaced, therefore.

On the other hand, it seems fair enough to ask: do you consider that President Clinton's administration might be implicated in the planning of the attacks of September 2001? You seem eager to defend someone who did consider that a reasonable possibility....

"Kill one, warn one hundred."

[DulceDecorum]

21. This thread is called Question for those who believe in Mihop...

but now the subject has turned to
the Clinton Administration
and DulceDecorum.

I truly believe that
this is a particularly good time to review some of the Rules
of the Democratic Underground.


WHO IS WELCOME ON DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND, AND WHO IS NOT
People who repeatedly and willfully break the rules, or who generally engage in rude, antisocial behavior, will be banned. It doesn't matter if you are a progressive or a long-term member of this board.


PERSONAL ATTACKS, CIVILITY, AND RESPECT
Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other members of this discussion board.

If you are going to disagree with someone, please stick to the message rather than the messenger. For example, if someone posts factually incorrect information, it is appropriate to say, "your facts are wrong," but it is not appropriate to say "you are a liar."

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, troll, conservative, Republican, or FReeper. Do not try to come up with cute ways of skirting around the spirit of this rule. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post so the moderators can deal with it. Unfortunately, it has become all too common for members of this message board to label anyone with a slightly different point of view as a disruptor. We disapprove of this behavior because its intent is to stifle discussion, enforce a particular "party line," and pre-emptively label a particular point of view as inappropriate or unwelcome. This makes thoughtful and open debate virtually impossible.


DISRUPTION AND INAPPROPRIATE POSTINGS
Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone.

Stay on topic. Don't jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue.

Now,
I do hope that these rules will be respected.
By ALL.
Even if you have no respect for your fellow members of the Democratic Underground, you should damn well have some respect for Skinner.
And if you don't,
then
HIT THE ROAD, JACK.

And now, people,
let's see if we can manage to salvage this discussion.

[Blackthorn]

22. ...

Thanks Spooked.

"Id there really anything beyond the power of the Masons and Illuminati...?"

I'd suggest the ability to make billions of people believe the same story might be just our their range, you know, just a little. It's one thing to "create" a convincing case, it's another to remove all evidence that points against it.

[The Magistrate]

24. It Is Good To Know, Sir

That you see some limitation, at least, to the powers of the "Hidden Hand"....

"The greatest of follies is passionate belief in the palpably untrue. It is the chief occupation of mankind."

[DulceDecorum]

26. Please be aware of the following:

- The 9-11 Forum, like all of DU's forums, is dedicated to a peaceful and respectful discussion. Do not engage in personal attacks or ad-hominem commentary. The heart of this is DU's rules for civility. Follow this.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x31263

[The Magistrate]

23. Actually, Mr. Decorum

You have attempted to turn the thing to a discussion of me. You seem to have some problems with my presence on this forum, and to take what opportunities may present themselves to protest against it. In these attempts, you accuse me of a variety of things, such as death threats against forum members, and generally, it would seem, of being mean and cruel; doubtless you imagine me heartlessly gorging on live puppies between bouts of savaging helpless kittens and defenceless believers in such arcana as drone aircraft, demolition charges planted in the World Trade Center, and the like. The principal effect of this effort of your's is to provide me a good deal of amusement, and would be a matter of some regret to me were you to stop doing it.

This is, fellow, a public forum, and any member may comment on any discussion in it, in any way that is within the boundaries of civil discourse. If the initiator of this particular discussion made some statement, that is fair game for anyone else to comment on, and his look-out alone if it was a statement damaging to the view that he is a person of left and progressive views. It is hard for me to view the offering of President Clinton's having planned the attacks of September 2001 as a reasonable possibility for us to consider here as anything but damaging to that view.

Once the Sage wrote: "The King has his executioner, but you are not that man. If you try and be him, it would be like trying to cut wood like a master carpenter. If you try and cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand."

[DulceDecorum]

25. The thread is called: Question for those who believe in MIHOP

DISRUPTION AND INAPPROPRIATE POSTINGS
Do not post messages that advocate harm or death to anyone, threaten the livelihood of anyone, or otherwise harass anyone.

Stay on topic. Don't jump into an unrelated discussion and introduce a barely-relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue.

[The Magistrate]

27. Please Explain To Me, Mr. Decorum

How a comment on a suggestion by the initiator of a discussion is a "barely relevant tangent"?

For that matter, please explain to me how you quoting forum rules at me is not your introducing "a barely relevant tangent in order to bring up your pet issue"? This is not, after all, the first time you have interrupted a discussion to attempt my chastizement; even the accusation of my threatening death to forum members is something you have broken into other discussions to peddle before. If there has ever been a discussion entitled "Death Threats By the Magistrate", or something similar, it has escaped my notice....

"Those whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad."

[DulceDecorum]

28. Question for those who believe in Mihop...

mikelewis said:
I believe that someone other than UBL was responsible for 9/11. I believe the government not only knew about the plot, but were instrumental in it's design and orchestrating the barriers to a successful defense against the attack. My question is concerning George Bush.

If he and his cronies were the ones who planned and orchestrated the attacks, why wasn't there a clear connection created linking Iraq to the attacks? It has been reported that immediately after the attack, he ordered the intelligence services to "find a link to Iraq". If he was the one responsible, wouldn't that link have been established at the time of attack?

Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing, I believe that the Murray building bombing was designed to trigger a war between the united States and Iraq. The reports concerning the links to the Iraqi Nationals involvement, though clearly false, give the impression that someone wanted Clinton to blame Iraq and then invade. The same thing occurs in the Cole Bombing. The Christian Science Monitor wrote an article linking the Cole to Iraq, though again, the link is weak and was never publicized as credible. These two events raise different issues and I am not really trying to side-track the issue. These two issues are presented to show that some intelligence perspectives viewed Iraq as a possibility for these attacks. Whether or not the information was inteded to trigger a war with Iraq is irrelevant to this question. I would like some input on these 2 attacks and ideas why someone would want to pin the wrap on Iraq.

If Bush was involved in the planning for 9/11, why wasn't there proof of Iraqi involvement? This, in no way, absolves him from the conspiracy charge, I'm only trying to find out who planned it and why.

Again, this question is for the Mihop crowd.

[The Magistrate]

30. So, Mr. Decorum

Why are you interrupting the discussion to complain of my making death threats against forum members, and similar accusations...?

"Children make the best opponents at Scrabble, as they are both easy to beat and fun to cheat."

[DulceDecorum]

32. What are we trying to discuss here?

MIHOP or something else?

[The Magistrate]

33. You, Mr. Decorum, Seem Bent On Chastizing Me

Though what you hope to gain by it is beyond me.

Why do feel that is a profitable thing to do?

[DulceDecorum]

35. The topic has shifted woefully off of the original point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=30909&mesg_id=31751&page=

[The Magistrate]

37. For Which We Largely Have You To Thank, Mr. Decorum

You seem to think you can do what you accuse me of attempting; perhaps it is your own desires you see reflected back at you in others...?

"It's such a lovely day. I'm glad I spent it with you."

[DulceDecorum]

40. Look at the Oklahoma City Bombing,

I believe that the Murray building bombing was designed to trigger a war between the united States and Iraq. The reports concerning the links to the Iraqi Nationals involvement, though clearly false, give the impression that someone wanted Clinton to blame Iraq and then invade. The same thing occurs in the Cole Bombing. The Christian Science Monitor wrote an article linking the Cole to Iraq, though again, the link is weak and was never publicized as credible. These two events raise different issues and I am not really trying to side-track the issue. These two issues are presented to show that some intelligence perspectives viewed Iraq as a possibility for these attacks. Whether or not the information was inteded to trigger a war with Iraq is irrelevant to this question. I would like some input on these 2 attacks and ideas why someone would want to pin the wrap on Iraq.

If Bush was involved in the planning for 9/11, why wasn't there proof of Iraqi involvement? This, in no way, absolves him from the conspiracy charge, I'm only trying to find out who planned it and why.

[vincent_vega_lives]

49. Go easy

By the content of his/her posts I would guess that DD has some problems dealing with quite a few things.

I find her posts completely unreadable, and have stopped bothering.

[DulceDecorum]

31. BOLOboffin

The post you refer to has been deleted.
Therefore it is impossible for anyone who did not see
it to know what it said.
Or what it did NOT say.
But you brought up an interesting point
and one which gets to the very heart of the matter.

If indeed mikelewis DID say
that the Clinton Administration was complicit, and I do say IF
then WHAT are we to do about that statement?

You wish to attack HIM.
You wish to know why he would DARE to post that on a Democratic website.

I only wish him to present whatever FACTS he has
that cause him to arrive at that conclusion.
And I will deal with every single fact presented,
as they are presented.
No knee jerk reaction.
Just cold calm reason.
And research.

Bill Clinton is NOT God.
But he made a darn good President
and he is probably going to be the LAST PROPERLY ELECTED PRESIDENT
in the history of the United States.

Honest research consists of examining the possibilities
ALL THE POSSIBILITIES
and ruling out the ones that fail to tally or track back.
Anything less smacks of despotism.
And the GOP.

All the great despotisms of the past — I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble — recognized that the families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the people".
http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire021501.shtml

Truth suppression consists of barking and growling
so as to intimidate those who hold a different worldview.
Truth suppression consists of guilt by association,
and a complete REFUSAL to confront the FACTS.
Whatever they might be.

[The Magistrate]

34. Mr. Lewis, Dear

Has already admitted he has no evidence behind any of his assertions and speculations, in several comments. He merely "wonders aloud," which is one of the best ways of getting an idea into circulation with a minimum of fingerprints.

The statement made in the removed piece of his was doubtless seen by a number of people, and your response to it here intruiges me strangely. What evidence do you suppose there could be for a claim that the attacls of September 2001 were planned by President Clinton?

"Cool blue reason comes into your world...."

[DulceDecorum]

36. I am not going to discuss the content of a deleted post.

This thread is NOT about the Clintons.
If you want to discuss the Clintons, start your own thread.
This thread is about MIHOP.

[The Magistrate]

38. Judging By Your Comments, Mr. Decorum

You seem to think it is about me....

"However your day's gone, Jack, you're a pleasure to conversate with."

[DulceDecorum]

39. MIHOP

This thread is about MIHOP.

mikelewis says:
I believe that someone other than UBL was responsible for 9/11. I believe the government not only knew about the plot, but were instrumental in it's design and orchestrating the barriers to a successful defense against the attack. My question is concerning George Bush.

If he and his cronies were the ones who planned and orchestrated the attacks, why wasn't there a clear connection created linking Iraq to the attacks? It has been reported that immediately after the attack, he ordered the intelligence services to "find a link to Iraq". If he was the one responsible, wouldn't that link have been established at the time of attack?

[Bolo Boffin]

45. He actually raises a good point, but misuses it.

If Bush wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, and planned the 9/11 attack to provide that excuse, why didn't he and his cronies do a better job of tying Saddam to the attack?

A better job? Heck, why didn't the planners of 9/11 even try to tie Saddam to the attack? Because there was absolutely no evidence of such a tie. 9/11 provided an opportunity for Bush to go ahead and do what he wanted (after, of course, going into Afghanistan), but if 9/11 was planned to provide that excuse, why could they pull off double helix shaped charges and controlled demolition and aerial ballets, but not get one scrap of paper with Saddam's signature into Mohammed Atta's rental car?

In fact, the way that the 19 hijackers all seemed to come from Saudi Arabia, doesn't it make more sense that the planners of 9/11 wanted it to look like that Saudi Arabia was behind this attack?

But Bush and the Saudi ruling families are buddies. America helps prop up their rule over Saudi Arabia - who would want to make it look like the Saudis had attacked the US? Who would want to drive a wedge between the United States and the Saudi ruling family, weakening their grip over the country and Islam's most holy sites?

Could it be Islamic fundamentalists led by a certain millionaire caveman?

[The Magistrate]

46. Your Mistake Here, Mr. Boffin

Is that you seem to labor under the illusion that there are any other actors in this world but the evil minions of the current regime, or perhaps the previous regime, in Washington. But is it not a well known fact that no one other than these, no one anywhere, has any desires, or any capacity to act in furtherance of their desires? How, after all, could mere Moslems, mere Arabs, actually do anything on their own, without at least the guidance or the assistance of wealthy white men from the United States? The thing is preposterous on its face, Sir....

"Don't overestimate the decency of the human race."

[DulceDecorum]

47. Osama pooped his bed?

Osama bin laden is Son Number 17 -or so- out of about 50 children. His father was careful to divide up his assets among ALL of his offspring
and even though Osama appears to basically have been the product of a one-night-stand, Osama too, was included in his father's portfolio.

Osama's paw was one BIG MacDaddy.
Osama bin Laden inherited more money from his paw
than John John did from the entire Bouvier-Kennedy-Onassis clan.
Mind you,
in Saudi Arabia Osama's paw is only "comfortable."

Osama's income, as far as we have been able to determine, is still very much tied up in Saudi Arabia. If Osama tries to overthrow the people who set his paw up for life, then Osama gets to sleep with the sandfishes. Now Osama is not THAT big a fool.
How do we know?
Because he did not graduate from Yale and then go on to graduate from Harvard business School, unlike some people we can name who have been throughly trounced and publicly humiliated by pretzels.
Nah.
It takes more than Mr. Salty to whoop Osama's ass.
Osama is smart. Smart enough to keep all his funds where BushCo cannot get them
and smart enough to persuade Bush to empty the entire US Treasury
to finance a game of hide-and-seek.

BushCo was stupid enough to mess with Saudi Arabia.
He bit the hand that fed him oil.
Washington DC challenged Mecca to a duel.
The score is as follows:
Saudi Arabia: Plus $248.5 billion with a $51.5 billion surplus.
http://www.us-saudi-business.org/Saudi%20Arabia%20Releases%202005%20Budget.html
United States: Minus $364 billion with a $521 billion deficit.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/budget.html
Now which of those two, pooped the bed?

[Lithos]

42. Dulce

As you have noticed, Mr. Magistrate often uses quotations at the end of his paragraphs. These are in no way personal threats. In fact, he has used the quotation above numerous times in both public and private correspondence with myself. I've never felt threatened.

In this case it is an old Chinese proverb whose meaning does not imply a death threat against you or anyone else on the board, but carries a different meaning which is an admonishment that consistency and integrity are virtues.

here is a link to an explanation of the proverb.

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/636/2003-12-14/[e-mail]

[DulceDecorum]

43. Thanks

Later, thanks to his achievements, Yin was appointed head of another prefecture, a place where the local people lived in constant fear of the thugs and hooligans who had taken over. Soon after taking up his new position, Yin Wonggui looked into the matter and learned that the most powerful tyrant was Xu Zhongsun. He savagely oppressed the local people, who hated him as much as they feared him. But because he had a wide circle of very influential relations, the former heads of the prefecture dared not offend him. Yin Wonggui, however, was determined to see justice done. After careful investigation of Xu Zhongsun's crimes, Yin had him arrested and executed in public. This frightened all the other bullies and evil people. After that, they had to abide by the law and the region was peaceful.
From Yin Wonggui's making an example of the gang leader Xu came the idiom, Cheng yi jing bai: Punish one, warn one hundred.

I can hardly wait for that to come true....

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. Oh my that is GREAT!

"Something need to be done about your continued presence here.
When this become you own private hunting ground?" :eyes:

God I love this board.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

41. Means Motive Opportunity

Military-Industrial Complex Speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[TrustingDog]

48. Afghanistan was attacked for Poppies, not terrorists.

the Taliban cut down production dramatically if not entirely, during their rule. Production is now back up and drug lord Poppy Bush and the CIA are happy once again.

[uhhuh]

51. because the"war on terror"

Would essentially be over if Saddam was the boogeyman. We would rush headlong into the quagmire we have since wandered into, and after he was gone, there would be no other need to be constantly afraid.

They had to have a rogue, wandering, unreachable threat that they hoped could be loosely tied to Iraq and other nasties in order to justify a constant state of war.

They tried really, really hard to make the Saddam connection, but it kept falling apart. That's why Osama HAS to stay free. There has to be the ability to keep the fear to "terrorists" to justify the imperial expansion of the american empire.